There's a difference between being sexual, and being lustful.
lust (lst)
n.
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
2.
a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.
b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.
3. Obsolete Pleasure; relish.
intr.v. lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts
To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual.
I just really, really, really dislike sluts, over-sexualised media, and filth like that. The mentality that one must "live life RIGHT NOW", and thus go on, get drunk/'stoned', and have casual sex just for the orgasm, ignoring the relationship-building part (Chemicals released during orgasm. Google it.). Remember when your parents only gave you ice-cream on special occations? It's similar. It tastes wonderful, but having it often will just make it meh. It'll loose it's value. While I won't follow the western thinking that sex is absurdly important, it has it's uses. If you want an orgasm, and don't have someone you love (Note: Love. Not the teenage "I love you. I also love my cat." love, but actual "I can see us dying together from old age." love.), masturbate. Don't go to a party and screw someone because s/he looks good.
However, I will say that I don't look down on
whores prostitutes, or, well, not as a proffesion. Although I would never befriend one, the fact that they're doing it for money instead of orgasm makes it better. It's the difference between an assassin and a murderer. One's doing a job, for financial gain, the other's doing it for emotional gain.
Yes, my argument is weak, and doesn't really have a point. That's why it's called morals. If there was a good, solid argument, it wouldn't be morals. It'd be reasonable.
And, no, I'm a heretic. If I wasn't, I'd be a priest.