The only proper context for sex given its nature is as part of a committed personal relation

Agree or disagree with the statement “the only proper context for sex given its nature is as part of a committed personal relation”.

It is an argument related to sexual morality and nonetheless I strongly disagree to this statement in morality, ethical, and philosophical contexts. There have  been many debates regarding the sexual liberation and the traditional view about sex is that sex without marriage is wrong. This traditional view strongly goes into the statement of nature of sex is a part of committed personal relation ,but it is somehow vague as personal relations are not bound by marriage.

There are many debates over the issues related to sexual morality including sex with multiple partners, teen sex, premarital sex, sex without love, extramarital sex, rape, and homosexuality, but the liberation of sexual morality does not allow or support all these. (Who said so – what academic documentation do you have to support this?)The debate started in 1998 in America as it was forced by the case of President Clinton having an affair with a young intern aged 21 years old. Many conservatives hold the argument of sin in this matter and many hold consent of liberty of having personal relationships (Haidt and Hersh). On one hand, people have been given rights for liberal life and they must be left alone in their personal relationships irrespective of morality and on the other hand, they are talking about the sexual morality in terms of keeping personal relationships out of the societal  limitations. (Who said so – where did you find this – it must be cited?)

I strongly disagree to sexual liberty as a case of having sexual relationships in bisexual human form, but I condemn that personal relationship in terms of sex as a nature. Because, if something is your personal matter does not really mean  that it is not a moral matter, but every relationship in the society must follow the morality too. But some people are of the opinion that sexual relationships are personal matters and they are not open, but if the sexual intimacy is open to public then it is correspondence to moral matter only.(Who said so – need citations?) But I think personal relationships of sex must be moral as not to deceive anyone and not to hurt anyone, but it should be practical and acceptable for everyone. Sexual personal relationships are not meant for pleasure and enjoyment only, but they must accompany self-esteem and enhancement for everyone in society.

People follow normative philosophy for sexuality, humans have been privileged to have their independent personal status and certain moral shifts have been witnessed in modern civilization as homosexuality has been given national status and accepted in society but still many condemn the sexual relationships in such kind. (Who said so – need citations here?)But the sexual morality has been defined by new principles as sexual relationships do not have any intrinsic purposes, sexual relations are subjective, sexual relations are mutual enhancement arrangements for individuals bearing certain rights, sexual relations are consensual, and sexual relations must be free from policies and constraints (Baumrin).

It is true that sexual morality is a natural concern for everyone and the only thinking related to sexual relationships is to bring children into the world. But this is a past philosophy which is much traditional in concern. (Who said so – what academic documentation supports this – it must be cited?)Now, sex is a state of pleasure or physical satisfaction for many individuals as well as it has brought many other sort of sexual natures to world as many types of sexual relationships revealed in the world which are also accepted as physical state. Sex as a private relationship has been inevitable to be the social morality issue, but now people are of the opinion that sexual intimacy must lie beyond the social and morality boundaries of giving birth to children. (Where is this found – it must be cited?)

Unlike many people, I strongly agree that certain sexual arrangements have destroyed the true fabric of life as a result of diversified sexual practices. Non-marital sex is always the concern that lies out of morality as people are deceiving many personal relations and individuals bearing those relationships including pre marital and extramarital affairs having sexual intimacy. (What academic support do you have for this?) I agree that sex in nature is the part of personal committed relationship, but I also argue that these personal relationships or commitments must lie under sexual morality and other forms must be forbidden. These out of the marriage sex intimacy may not only cause certain health issues, but also may cause serious death disease like AIDS. These sorts of immoral sexual relations also failed to bring long-term happiness, but only provide timely sexual pleasure but long-term regret or some serious kind of issues. Need citatons)

Liberal sexual moralists say that sex is a  passion that experiences love and affection and also it may be directed to one person at a time and ignore all other morality and social issues lies within. For those liberals, sex must be allowed for anyone to have love and affection and passionate feelings of being loved, but I strongly condemned these thinking and traditional sexual relationships must be allowed only by law to avoid certain other sexual statuses. According to these liberals, sex can be achieved by anyone whom you feel little love ,but I think sexual relationships must be obtained by those personal commitments that you may show to the whole world as well as to bring out long-term love and affection only (Hand).