What the heck is bourgeoisie sexual morality anyway?

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Since I became interested in Marxism I have heard two completely contradictory definitions of bourgeoisie sexual morality. The former is a selfish form of decadent hedonism where one individual (usually rich older men) exploits everyone and everything else. The latter is a hypocritical prudishness born out of reactionary Puritanism.

Which one of these two should Marxists oppose? If we oppose the former then we should advocate sexual relations that are austere and mutually beneficial. On the other hand, if we oppose the latter we should see sex as freeing and allow anything goes even if it is exploitive.

Furthermore, no matter which side we take as Marxists we will be allying with some kind of reaction. If we oppose decadence then we are agreeing with the Religious Right. On the other hand, if we support sexual "freedom" are we not paving the way for exploitation? I mean a boss who has "consensual" sex with his secretary could argue that he simply engaging in the freedom to cheat on his wife with this woman even though he has more power than either of the other two.

Finally, what about sexual norms that change over time. For example, homosexuality used to be condemned across the Left as a reactionary bourgeoisie sexual morality lifestyle caused by capitalism and many thought that it would go away after the revolution. Now, however, most Marxists have come to acknowledge that homosexuality is perfectly fine and even support gay liberation. (As for myself I am young enough that I never had a problem with gays and lesbians.)

This is so confusing. Please help.

[jullia]

I have a bit the same problem as you. My conclusion is bourgeoisie is an empty word with negative conotation use for everything you dislike.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Bourgeois morality is chiefly concerned with the preservation of the family as the way in which the proletariat is biologically (and to a large extent socially) reproduced. This of course includes phenomena like mistresses, prostitution etc.

Socialists fight against capitalism, and the end of capitalism would mean the end of family. In the meantime, policing what kind of sex people have is nothing but obnoxious priggish moralism. We fight for the state to get out of bedrooms.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Bourgeois morality is chiefly concerned with the preservation of the family as the way in which the proletariat is biologically (and to a large extent socially) reproduced. This of course includes phenomena like mistresses, prostitution etc.

Socialists fight against capitalism, and the end of capitalism would mean the end of family. In the meantime, policing what kind of sex people have is nothing but obnoxious priggish moralism. We fight for the state to get out of bedrooms.

My problem with that explanation is that it does not take into account the disproportionate power between two individuals. I am going to assume that you would not be opposed to the state intervention in such cases as rape. However, not all cases of "consensual" sex are completely consensual. For example, what about a 13 year old girl sleeps with her 35 year old teacher. On one hand they might really love each other, but is she really mature enough to make that decision? Furthermore, there might be something in the back of her mind that her teacher will lower her grade if she no longer has sex with him. Even in cases that are "legal" are still not "fair" by any stretch of the imagination. For example, a wealthy older white man asks his young black cleaning lady to have sex and implies that he will fire her if she does not. She does not really want to have sex with him, but she is forced to because of her economic needs. Is it "obnoxious priggish moralism" for Marxists to be opposed to these and similar situations?

[Fourth Internationalist]

However, not all cases of "consensual" sex are completely consensual. For example, what about a 13 year old girl sleeps with her 35 year old teacher. On one hand they might really love each other, but is she really mature enough to make that decision? Furthermore, there might be something in the back of her mind that her teacher will lower her grade if she no longer has sex with him.

I would say it depends on the individual if they are mature enough to make that decision for themselves. I would say there are 30 year-olds at the moment who are no less mentally mature than some 13 year-olds. I know when I was 13 (I am 16 now) I would have been overjoyed at the idea of a sexual relationship, even if it was someone older than I was. I think that if people didn't have to keep these "bad" relationships a secret from other people, then there would not be so much that one partner would be able to do to the other because the other one has more power or something like that. Of course, this and more occurs in all relationships. But I don't think targeting one type of relationship (one with an age difference) about this problem in capitalist society through capitalists' laws will help, especially when society enables it to be widespread by forcing such relationships into secrecy and by creating the factors that lead to power differences in relationships. Further, with your example I think then clearly the problem here is merely the fact that it is a hidden relationship between a teacher and a student in the context of school rather than a mere age difference in a relationship.


Even in cases that are "legal" are still not "fair" by any stretch of the imagination. For example, a wealthy older white man asks his young black cleaning lady to have sex and implies that he will fire her if she does not. She does not really want to have sex with him, but she is forced to because of her economic needs. Is it "obnoxious priggish moralism" for Marxists to be opposed to these and similar situations?

Well, good thing that communists don't hold "legal" standards above all else! (This case is a clear case of rape to me, and nothing 870 says I think would at all imply this is at all okay to occur.)

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

But I don't think targeting one type of relationship (one with an age difference) about this problem in capitalist society through capitalists' laws will help, especially when society enables it to be widespread by forcing such relationships into secrecy and by creating the factors that lead to power differences in relationships. Further, with your example I think then clearly the problem here is merely the fact that it is a hidden relationship between a teacher and a student in the context of school rather than a mere age difference in a relationship.



Well, good thing that communists don't hold "legal" standards above all else! (This case is a clear case of rape to me, and nothing 870 says I think would at all imply this is at all okay to occur.)

Even if the teacher/student or equivalent relationship was in the open there would be disproportionate power at work because of differences in age, gender, etc. As for the employer/maid example it is technically not rape, because the sex is not nonconsensual. In other words she is officially consenting to it and he is not forcing himself on her. I know that there are different power dynamics because of capitalism and this will all be sorted out after the revolution, but in the here and now it is still a big problem. I never implied that 870 supported this for any other form of sexual exploitation, but his/her naïve and reductionist views on "get the state out of the bedroom" under the current capitalist system and everything will be fine unwittingly encourages sexual exploitation.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Even if the teacher/student or equivalent relationship was in the open there would be disproportionate power at work because of differences in age, gender, etc.

What exactly would be a result of these power differences? Could the results of these differences not occur in another relationship where the partners are of a similar age, or the genders switched (or are the same)? And, if these differences in power due to those factors were wiped away as a result of communism, would you be okay with such relationships with huge age differences?

The fact that there could be differences in power in a relationship does not mean one type of relationship that contains a possible cause for power differences should be disallowed. Any combination of gender, age, economic status, etc. could make a relationship less ideal than it should be in terms of equality between each of the partners. Targeting age difference within capitalism and ignoring any other factors is just not the way to go. In targeting age differences, there has to be an age of consent. That means a 15 year old and 18 year old cannot have sex without "rape" occurring, but a 60 year old man or woman can have sex with a 16 year old boy or girl and it is okay. It's just too complicated to say "At this age, you cannot consent, but once you reach here, you can consent!" I think if rape or abuse occurs in a relationship, it can be proven with a myriad of other evidence instead of an age difference. That's what happens with similar-aged relationships.


As for the employer/maid example it is technically not rape, because the sex is not nonconsensual. In other words she is officially consenting to it and he is not forcing himself on her. I know that there are different power dynamics because of capitalism and this will all be sorted out after the revolution, but in the here and now it is still a big problem.

She is only consenting in words, but not truly because he is threatening her with firing her, which could get her into an unimaginable but all too possible situation. It's rape. If he had a gun and she said yes, thereby giving consent through words, it is still rape. Saying yes under any sort of threat is not consent.


I never implied that 870 supported this for any other form of sexual exploitation, but his/her naïve and reductionist views on "get the state out of the bedroom" under the current capitalist system and everything will be fine unwittingly encourages sexual exploitation.

He can explain what he means by his words, but I read it as he wants the state out of the bedroom between "people having sex." He is referring to consensual sex by that phrase. I know when I think of "people having sex" that it is consensual. People don't generally refer to rape, sexual abuse, etc. by the general phrase of "people having sex."

[Redistribute the Rep]

In targeting age differences, there has to be an age of consent. That means a 15 year old and 18 year old cannot have sex without "rape" occurring, but a 60 year old man or woman can have sex with a 16 year old boy or girl and it is okay. It's just too complicated to say "At this age, you cannot consent, but once you reach here, you can consent!"

Where I'm from, the age of consent is 16 but a 15 year old can have sex with an 18 year old. The laws are written such that someone under the age of consent can legally have sex with someone within 3-4(can't remember) years of their age even if it's over 16.

Laws can easily include nuance like this, so this is a pretty weak argument.

EDIT: why does my post have a weird smiley in the title that I did not consent to? I don't know how to get rid of it

[RedWorker]

Socialists fight against capitalism, and the end of capitalism would mean the end of family.

It means the end of economic dependence of any individual on each other (such as of the wife on the husband, and of the child on the parents), and thus the end of forcible association and its replacement by free association of any individual with another. While your statement would be correct when the family is understood as merely the economic relationship, it leads people into confusion. However, I do not rule out the possibility of other changes in the family in communist society, but rather merely state that it is not a fundamental aspect, in the same way that the status of personal goods may change under communist society but it is not a fundamental aspect like the status of the means of production.

Translation: Technically correct when understood in a certain way, but stop making people think communism is a dystopian nightmare where everyone is forcibly removed from others.

"What will be the influence of communist society on the family? It will transform the relations between the sexes into a purely private matter which concerns only the persons involved and into which society has no occasion to intervene. It can do this since it does away with private property and educates children on a communal basis, and in this way removes the two bases of traditional marriage – the dependence rooted in private property, of the women on the man, and of the children on the parents." - F. Engels

[G4b3n]

I have a bit the same problem with you. My conclusion is bourgeoisie is an empty word with negative conotation use for everything you dislike.

Well, it does have a specific meaning and useful position in political terminology. But sadly it has been used that way ever since all the whining and crying in the First International started.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Where I'm from, the age of consent is 16 but a 15 year old can have sex with an 18 year old. The laws are written such that someone under the age of consent can legally have sex with someone within 3-4(can't remember) years of their age even if it's over 16.

Laws can easily include nuance like this, so this is a pretty weak argument.

EDIT: why does my post have a weird smiley in the title that I did not consent to? I don't know how to get rid of it

Say the number is 4 years. If the only way that society could say rape occurred between a thirteen year old and an eighteen year old is because of an age difference due to the absence of any real abuse or rape, then that is sad. It's a five year age difference and both have the ability to have sex. Thus, I do not see any problem. Perhaps then the number should be increased then. Okay, then how about a thirteen year old and a nineteen year old? Where do we stop increasing? Then at that point, why one day is it rape and the next it isn't?

Let us say there is a fifteen year old and a 35 year-old. That fifteen year old is less than a year shy of the age at which they can consent. In fact, it could be a week before they turn sixteen and they still can't consent to sex with the 35 year old. They need to wait a week before it isn't "rape." The idea that one day it is rape and the next it isn't is clearly and utterly wrong.

Simply put, an occurrence of sex should be determined to be rape just like how it is shown to be rape for two people of the same age.

[RedWorker]

There is no, simply no evidence, that the age of consent leads to less rape in any way. In the same way that there is an abundant amount of evidence which points to the opposite. In Spain, a 60 year old could have sex with a 13 year old until very recently and it was legal. Then it was changed, but there is no documentation of the 'mass permanent rape' which was finally, after decades of epic parliamentary struggles by right-wing politicians involved in massive corruption cases, put a stop to by this stupid law change.

A reply made to this point was: "But by the same principle, should rape laws be removed if they do not prevent rape?" Firstly, rape is inherently something which has to be put a stop to, while an 'adult' having sex with 'children' is only inherently wrong under a moralist framework, and in fact only ought to be have an intervention by society in the cases in which this relationship involves coercion or exploitation. Secondly, rape laws obviously prevent rape. Despite massive argumentation by moralists, they have been unable to produce one iota of evidence that the age of consent ever helped to stop one rape, or results in more 'justice'.

Now these moralists, and the ad-hominem fallacies that they love, will probably engage into - wild and simply off-base - speculation about the sexuality of people who have not been brainwashed by this - utterly dumb, useless, self-contradictory and nonsensical - curious element of bourgeois society which even the so-called most ardent revolutionists have fallen prey to. Let alone the fact that these moralists have absolutely no knowledge, in any way, of the sexuality of any individual they harass in this forum, and certainly have not one idea about mine. But certain individuals I've spoken to would have it that I spy on toddlers at night while thinking sweet things. Unfortunately for all the CSI watchers in RevLeft, I must disprove this myth.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

In targeting age differences, there has to be an age of consent. That means a 15 year old and 18 year old cannot have sex without "rape" occurring, but a 60 year old man or woman can have sex with a 16 year old boy or girl and it is okay. It's just too complicated to say "At this age, you cannot consent, but once you reach here, you can consent!"

Most laws in these days are based on probability. There are 13 years olds that are mature for sex and 30 year olds who are not. The fact of the matter is that 16 or 15 or 17 or whatever is judged as the age when probably the majority of people are probably mature enough to have sex. I doubt that anyone here would argue that someone who is really young say 7 can really consent to sex. However, determining when an individual is mature enough to have sex is difficult. Do you test each person individually to determine when the time is right? I doubt anyone would support that proposal. So the best solution is to choose a reasonable age such as 16. Yes it is arbitrary and reductionist, but it is the simplest solution to a very complicated question.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

A reply made to this point was: "But by the same principle, should rape laws be removed if they do not prevent rape?" Firstly, rape is inherently something which has to be put a stop to, while an 'adult' having sex with 'children' is only inherently wrong under a moralist framework, and in fact only ought to be have an intervention by society in the cases in which this relationship involves coercion or exploitation. Secondly, rape laws obviously prevent rape. Despite massive argumentation by moralists, they have been unable to produce one iota of evidence that the age of consent ever helped to stop one rape, or results in more 'justice'.

Now these moralists, and the ad-hominem fallacies that they love, will probably engage into - wild and simply off-base - speculation about the sexuality of people who have not been brainwashed by this - utterly dumb, useless, self-contradictory and nonsensical - curious element of bourgeois society which even the so-called most ardent revolutionists fell prey to. Let alone the fact that these moralists have absolutely no knowledge, in any way, of the sexuality of any individual they harass in this forum, and certainly not me.

I hate to break it to you, but everyone is a moralist with their own moral framework. In Ancient Rome it was deemed acceptable if not praiseworthy to rape the women that were captured in a military campaign. That was their moral framework. Almost everyone in the present would be horrified and disgusted by these practices. This is our moral framework. I am a moralist and guess what so are you. As far as harassment, I do not know your sexual orientation nor do I care. I have no problem with what consenting adults do in their bedroom. I just started this thread in order to better understand bourgeoisie morality.

[RedWorker]

That was their moral framework. Almost everyone in the present would be horrified and disgusted by these practices. This is our moral framework. I am a moralist and guess what so are you.

While I may very well make use of ethical analyses, I do not force my particular opinions on other people's actions when these actions are not involved on harming others, and therefore am not a moralist by the definition that is commonly used 'round these parts. Whether I am a moralist by any other definition would be irrelevant as I was not using the word with this meaning.

I advocate that laws are made from rational standpoints that aim to prevent harm that can be objectively measured. Bourgeois-moral principles should not be included in the elaboration of such laws.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

My problem with that explanation is that it does not take into account the disproportionate power between two individuals. I am going to assume that you would not be opposed to the state intervention in such cases as rape. However, not all cases of "consensual" sex are completely consensual. For example, what about a 13 year old girl sleeps with her 35 year old teacher. On one hand they might really love each other, but is she really mature enough to make that decision? Furthermore, there might be something in the back of her mind that her teacher will lower her grade if she no longer has sex with him. Even in cases that are "legal" are still not "fair" by any stretch of the imagination. For example, a wealthy older white man asks his young black cleaning lady to have sex and implies that he will fire her if she does not. She does not really want to have sex with him, but she is forced to because of her economic needs. Is it "obnoxious priggish moralism" for Marxists to be opposed to these and similar situations?

Opposing laws against rape in general (there is, of course, quite a bit to oppose in American rape laws disproportionately targeted at black people or Iranian 'sodomy rape' laws) would be useless posturing. At the same time, socialists should not cheer on the bourgeois state and its police apparatus (or worse, become complicit in all sorts of ridiculous, reactionary "tough on crime" campaigns) but point out the inadequacies of the bourgeois justice system.

Concerning consensual sex (and yes, when people say 'the state out of bedrooms', they are referring to consensual sex), yeah, class society complicates matters. But that's unavoidable; as socialists, we know these questions will be resolved, not by individual people being puritanical flawless angels, but by the change in the economic basis of society, so that power over other humans becomes impossible. In the meantime, it is up to the concrete people involved to negotiate these matters between themselves, without the loving interference of the bourgeois state (and its less common relative, the 'socialist' sexual inquisition).

In particular, no one seems to take this position to its logical conclusion: that different-sex sex should be agitated against. And that's partly because, with all due respect, a lot of "socialists" who are concerned with how other people fuck are dyed-in-the-wool homophobes.

And discussing age of consent laws is against forum rules, just a heads-up.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

I advocate that laws are made from rational standpoints that aim to prevent harm that can be objectively measured. Bourgeois-moral principles should not be included in the elaboration of such laws.

All laws are from "rational standpoints" of that period. In 500 BCE that rational standpoint was "I had a bigger army and I can do whatever I want." In 1200 CE it was "My Holy Book says that I can lord it over my wife and I can kill homosexuals." The question is now twofold:

1. What should be the principles under the current capitalist system?

2. What should it be in the future communist state?

[RedWorker]

And discussing age of consent laws is against forum rules, just a heads-up.

I am not aware of this rule, and would like confirmation from the RevLeft administration. Where is there a full listing of these rules?

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

Opposing laws against rape in general (there is, of course, quite a bit to oppose in American rape laws disproportionately targeted at black people or Iranian 'sodomy rape' laws) would be useless posturing. At the same time, socialists should not cheer on the bourgeois state and its police apparatus (or worse, become complicit in all sorts of ridiculous, reactionary "tough on crime" campaigns) but point out the inadequacies of the bourgeois justice system.

Concerning consensual sex (and yes, when people say 'the state out of bedrooms', they are referring to consensual sex), yeah, class society complicates matters. But that's unavoidable; as socialists, we know these questions will be resolved, not by individual people being puritanical flawless angels, but by the change in the economic basis of society, so that power over other humans becomes impossible. In the meantime, it is up to the concrete people involved to negotiate these matters between themselves, without the loving interference of the bourgeois state (and its less common relative, the 'socialist' sexual inquisition).

In particular, no one seems to take this position to its logical conclusion: that different-sex sex should be agitated against. And that's partly because, with all due respect, a lot of "socialists" who are concerned with how other people fuck are dyed-in-the-wool homophobes.

And discussing age of consent laws is against forum rules, just a heads-up.

A couple of things. I personally have no problem what consenting adults (or their equivalents) do in the bedroom. As such, I have no problem with gays, lesbians, or even polygamy. The accusation of homophobia is a red herring. I was simply pointing out during the current capitalist system there are power relations at work here. I started this thread to better understand how we as Marxists should better understand bourgeoisie morality right now and in a socialist future.

Yes I do support rape laws. I do not care if the rapist is black, white, yellow, or purple. If they are guilty they should be punished.

Finally, sorry about bringing up age of consent laws. I am new here and did not know that was not allowed. I will not mention it again. As an aside, it should be noted I did not advocate anything illegal here and instead criticized pedophilia.

[Zoroaster]

2. What should it be in the future communist state?

A "communist state" is a contradiction. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, the opposite of what a society with a state is.

[STALINwasntSTALLIN]

A "communist state" is a contradiction. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society, the opposite of what a society with a state is.

Fine, a communist society, a communist utopia, a communist future. Whatever. Are you going to answer the question or get into stupid fights over semantics?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am not aware of this rule, and would like confirmation from the RevLeft administration. Where is there a full listing of these rules?

" Due to the provisions of current law, both in the United States of America (where RevLeft's servers exist) and internationally, any posts and/or threads that advocate the breaking or abolition of age of consent laws under the current capitalist order, or sexual activity with a minor in violation of those laws, will result in the post or thread in question being deleted and the poster(s) facing administrative action, decided by the admins, up to and including permanent banning. Theorizing about the question of age-of-consent laws in a hypothetical post-capitalist society, or discussion about the theoretical and philosophical basis of those laws, is acceptable as long as it stays within those boundaries. " (http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=general#faq_faqforumrules)

In practice, this is generally interpreted as a blanket ban on discussions about age of consent laws. In any case, a lot of RevLeft users are demonstrably not mature enough to discuss these things.


A couple of things. I personally have no problem what consenting adults (or their equivalents) do in the bedroom. As such, I have no problem with gays, lesbians, or even polygamy. The accusation of homophobia is a red herring.

I wasn't talking about you, personally, but these discussions don't take place in a vacuum. And the socialist and "socialist" groups that insist on judging private social relations tend to be quite homophobic, from Chairman Bob and his RCPUSA to the WRP and its innumerable splinters, including WL/SEP.


Yes I do support rape laws. I do not care if the rapist is black, white, yellow, or purple. If they are guilty they should be punished.

Again, these laws don't exist in isolation from class society. Were there black rapists in Jim Crow-era Alabama? Sure. Should socialists have opposed their punishment? Only to the extent that we oppose the death penalty as an instrument of the bourgeois state. At the same time, these laws were used to find guilty and kill a lot of quite innocent black people, and that is something socialists did and should have opposed. Likewise various sham 'sodomy rape' charges that are used to execute people for consensual gay sex.

It's probably emotionally satisfying to take an abstract position in favour of whatever rape law is on the books, but it's hardly materialist.

[Zoroaster]

Fine, a communist society, a communist utopia, a communist future. Whatever. Are you going to answer the question or get into stupid fights over semantics?

Well, I certainly hope not. I'm just saying that if someone considers themself a communist and defines it as a statist society, they don't know what they're talking about, that's all.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Say the number is 4 years. If the only way that society could say rape occurred between a thirteen year old and an eighteen year old is because of an age difference due to the absence of any real abuse or rape, then that is sad. It's a five year age difference and both have the ability to have sex. Thus, I do not see any problem. Perhaps then the number should be increased then. Okay, then how about a thirteen year old and a nineteen year old? Where do we stop increasing? Then at that point, why one day is it rape and the next it isn't?

Let us say there is a fifteen year old and a 35 year-old. That fifteen year old is less than a year shy of the age at which they can consent. In fact, it could be a week before they turn sixteen and they still can't consent to sex with the 35 year old. They need to wait a week before it isn't "rape." The idea that one day it is rape and the next it isn't is clearly and utterly wrong.

Simply put, an occurrence of sex should be determined to be rape just like how it is shown to be rape for two people of the same age.

This is a continuum fallacy, otherwise known as the "line-drawing" fallacy. We can make vague statements differentiating two groups (of age and underage) without having a precise line between the two, much like how bald and hairy are distinct groups, despite the fact that there's no exact number of hairs that differentiates a bald person from a hairy person.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

[Redistribute the Rep]

Despite massive argumentation by moralists, they have been unable to produce one iota of evidence that the age of consent ever helped to stop one rape, or results in more 'justice'.

Again, don't mind the inappropriate smiley I don't why it's there.

My significant other was taken advantage of by an older relative, and had the statute of limitations not run out, would have tried to prosecute her. She has taken advantage of other young people since then and has now been arrested, but these might have been prevented if she was caught earlier. Really, you should consider moving the goalposts beyond "one iota of evidence," it just makes your argument too flimsy


Now these moralists, and the ad-hominem fallacies that they love, will probably engage into - wild and simply off-base - speculation about the sexuality of people who have not been brainwashed by this - utterly dumb, useless, self-contradictory and nonsensical - curious element of bourgeois society which even the so-called most ardent revolutionists have fallen prey to.

Do you feel any sense of cognitive dissonance in criticizing others for the use of ad-hominem fallacies while simultaneously calling them "brainwashed" and "moralists"?

[Invader Zim]

There is no such thing. The term is merely a vaguely leftwing sounding phrase designed to show 'right on' and ideologically pure disapproval. It doesn't mean anything. This, incidentally, is a rule which can be applied to anything applied to the present day which has the prefix of 'bourgeois'. Thus 'bourgeois morality', 'bourgeois sensitivity', 'bourgeois history', ad infinitum are all just terms to mask the individual's ideological and theoretical insecurity. Either that or the individual is incredibly pompus and can and should be ignored as a matter of course.

[Fourth Internationalist]

This is a continuum fallacy, otherwise known as the "line-drawing" fallacy. We can make vague statements differentiating two groups (of age and underage) without having a precise line between the two, much like how bald and hairy are distinct groups, despite the fact that there's no exact number of hairs that differentiates a bald person from a hairy person.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

There is a difference between a continuum fallacy and treating a continuum as a continuum. I cannot say much more that I would like to say because the issue is not allowed to be discussed.