[mycologos]

I don't think strenholme is saying that those casual relationships are morally wrong, but that they're only facsimiles of the connection found in a deep and long relationship (especially one formed when young), and that pursuing facsimiles maybe brings you close enough to the original that you keep pursuing, but not close enough to ever approximate the original, and if what you miss is the original, then this is not a path to satisfaction.

[graemep]

Interesting point, but surely the reasoning that they are "only facsimiles of the connection found in a deep and long relationship" is a major argument for regarding them as morally wrong?

If you believe you have a moral duty to be the best person you can then passing up that opportunity in favour of the facsimiles is morally wrong.

[mycologos]

> If you believe you have a moral duty to be the best person you can then passing up that opportunity in favour of the facsimiles is morally wrong

Maybe a better statement would be that casual connections only offer facsimiles of the depth of a deep and long relationship, because the sheer accumulation of time and experiences with another person cannot be replaced quickly. However, you can also say that a deep and long relationship only offers a facsimile of the breadth of many shorter relationships, as one person can only offer so many things. If you change your passionate pursuit every decade, finding a partner with the same one each time might make that pursuit more fruitful. It's not how I personally feel, but "best person" is subjective like that.

[nathan_compton]

I don't think this follows unless you think there is something particularly special about sexual relations per se. I'm monogamous but I don't see why people should avoid casual sex.