Lifestyle of casual sex is unethical

I wish to make a strong argument against a lifestyle of casual sex, or a 'promiscuous lifestyle' (I will use the initials PL to refer to it throughout). I do not wish to argue that it infringes anyone's rights, nor that it leads to undesirable social or political consequences. I wish to argue that it is personally unethical to pursue such a lifestyle. My arguments will be enumerated and placed in sections for ease of reference. I will assume heterosexual relations, to avoid complicating prior issues. I also am referring in the main to the uptake of PL by women. SECTION A - THE SIGNS THAT PL IS UNETHICAL (PSYCHOLOGICAL) 1) The signs of emotional damage, such as: Engaging in PL after heartbreak and confusion. Putting up walls to intimacy. Talking about not being able to let your heart show. 2) The signs of having a superficial character, or a false stereotyped persona. The questions 'who are you?' and 'what is good about you' being met with the gesture to the openness and enjoyment of sex; that is, sexual validation by strangers. 3) Sex in PL is too exciting, leading to addiction and craving and associated personality traits: risk-taking and dangerous behaviour; lack of fidelity to a partner and lack of value given to a relationship. For men, sexual addiction means the destructive desire to invade other people; for women, the sexual addiction is related to the self-destructive desire for invasion. SECTION B - REASONS WHY PL IS UNETHICAL (SOCIOLOGICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL) 1) Gender difference is real, and sex is different for men and women. The macho reasons women often claim to have sex are rationalizations, and PL therefore fails to have a narrative of 'liberation'. This is both a social observation and a physical one; see point A3 above. 2) Negotiations for PL take place in coercive atmospheres (clubs etc.) and within cultures of persuasion. This is a problem for the 'choice' that women often claim to make. Descriptions of sex in PL is always wrapped in the language of choice, however in order to make PL work people seek coersion and environments in which they and others are likely to lose restraint and inhibitions. (Coersion may be in small amounts over a period of time: becoming a part of a culture). 3) It's a man's world. Men dominate women and this is ingrained in culture. We should not look to PL environments to look for the liberation of women, but it's opposite. Women can be asked to allow men to use them for sex, and it makes enough sense to women dominated by a male culture to do so, that they do. SECTION C - INTER/PERSONAL REASONS 1) If people love each other, they are identifying with their partner in a significant way; their partner is special to them. If their partner invites others to dominate them and threat them like flesh to be used, it necessary hurts the one that loves that partner, and leaves them in personal despair. 2) It is a problem that loving someone means feeling a deep tragedy, whilst that someone is desperate to avoid feeling the dehumanizing nature of their actions and the cost to themselves and those that love them. 3) It is also problematic that in order to have a steady relationship it must be one in which the person damaged by PL is not loved too much by their partner. Love is therefore kept very small in case trauma from the past causes fear in the present. The PL damaged person does not want to feel special, or to feel special only as a small secret, whilst they court indifferent and limited loving relationships. I hope that on the weight of these points my motion can be passed. I look forward to any debate.