Analysis Of Raja Halwani’s Idea Of Casual Sex
I do not agree with Halwani’s point, having casual sex does mean that you are using one another, one person who has the intensions to just hook up is like using him/her for your own good and not carrying about the other persons feelings. Let’s say that you go to a bar, but the intention is just to pick out the hottest girl at the bar you want to have casual sexual relationship with. First of all, picking a girl from any bar is just like if you are asking yourself what is your opportunity cost between this girl and the other. Meaning that why you decided to pick this one girl than over the other, if the one you picked didn’t want to come home with you then your opportunity cost will be your second choice or in this case your “back up”. If neither of the two girls worked then at this case you would just choose anyone if your desire is strong to get laid even if she isn’t really attractive.
It isn’t ethical to pick a girl or guy from out of a box then decide to trash it the next day and then start the process again. A person can consider having some type of emotional feelings toward you because he/she is accepting you as a whole and that can lead to a potential relationship that they’ve been wanting. What needs to be kept in mind from a virtuous perspective is that sex is not merely pleasurable. The neuroscience surrounding sex clearly points to sexual contact possessing a strong effect on the mind and mentality, not only in the present, but extending significantly into future. This isn't necessarily something that must in all circumstances veto casual sexual contact, but is at the very least something to consider beforehand. While one's intent may be good, they should be aware that this intent may be undermined by the neurochemical effects of sex.
Another reason Halwani is wrong is that sex is a special thing or a bond between two people. It brings two people closer and is a way to express love for one another, casual sex without meaning is like having loveless sex. People do argue that they do love the person in a way but not like a relationship which in the end is belittling the word love. When words like love lose its strong meaning, just as the word dies, so do the morals with it. In the bible of exodus 22:16, “if a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife”. The person who might feel inclined to take the advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a settlement, if her parents consented and if they did not consent that their daughter should wed her seducer, in this case he was grateful to give her the full settlement which could have been demanded had she been still a virgin. Sin has a price and that price isn’t always immediate death, even under the law, but sometimes results in a lifetime of consequences.
By having everyone pay a lifelong price such sin was strongly discouraged. Young men would not be quick to seduce young women for a year’s worth of free labor and not having the freedom to divorce her if things turn out poorly. A young woman would not want to be publicly humiliated as a whore and be unable to divorce her husband because of a foolish attachment she made in her youth.
In conclusion, Halwani is incorrect and casual sex is using the other person.
