/lit/ - Literature

>>16422050
>depravity
Morally loaded term. Start with the presumption that there's no such thing as sexual depravity and you'll be able to establish the proper grounds for a solid argument against it. Surreptitiously assuming from the outset that sexual depravity is a thing that exists is a surefire way to net you a fallible and narrow argument. I'll give you a few leads:
>Relationships are complex and a lack of conscious moderation of sexuality might lead to unexamined and consequently detrimental relationships
>The cultural embrace of promiscuity leads to an "Emperor's new clothes" scenario, where people jump to lose their virginity for the sake of social status without regard for what it would otherwise entail
>In a culture new to promiscuity, where unexamined relationships run rampant, a personal dedication to chastity is a surefire way to net yourself lasting relationships
>Chastity is aesthetically appreciable if you can convince people it's a high status thing. There's no reason why promiscuity should be the be-all end-all norm of sexuality aside from cultural inertia. Make chastity great again, or something like that
None of these make good arguments for why chastity should be an enforcible social norm, however. If you're looking for a reason to angrily moralize people, you're out of luck. While you can make the argument to people, you've got little grounds on which to moralize them for doing what they do if they know the risk of what they're doing. Only in the case that you give people a fair warning and they still insist on going through with what they do have you the right to go "I told you so".