Sexual Morality

[Kuro Morfos]

Personally, I believe pretty much all sex related morality is bullshit. I don't beleive that things are wrong just because they are, there has to be a reason. Sure, some sex acts such as pedophilia and rape are definately wrong, as there are victims involved. But what about other acts that victimize people, why are those less wrong? And what about supposedly wrong acts that don't hurt anybody? I don't get morality in general. What do you all think?

[apathy maybe]

I think that most people on this site would agree that morality is bullshit; especially sexual morality. Some even argue that paedophilia is not wrong when the child wants it (search for a couple of threads on the subject).

Morals like all rules are flawed because they are strict, and often have to be broken.

I think that so long as an act does not cause hurt or pain then it is probably all right.

[Kuro Morfos]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 9 2006, 06:49 AM
I think that most people on this site would agree that morality is bullshit; especially sexual morality. Some even argue that paedophilia is not wrong when the child wants it (search for a couple of threads on the subject).

Morals like all rules are flawed because they are strict, and often have to be broken.

I think that so long as an act does not cause hurt or pain then it is probably all right.
Its good to know that some people feel the way I do, but most seem to not live in America. In my country, sex is extremely taboo and if I were to say out loud that Americans overreact to pedophilia, I would get beaten up. I know pedophilia is wrong and would never commit such an act, but many acts are wrong. We don't react to beating children, how is that any less wrong? Both are wrong, neither should be totally taboo that you can't mention it amongst other people. Its truely rediculous. And those who try to justify pedophilia are acting rebellious, but there is still a reason to oppose it. Most just hate it because they were told to, not that they think it hurts children. Thats why I think many on this forum question whether it is wrong or not. However I can say, it does screw up children.

About other types of puritanism: Prostitution is not evil, nor is stripping or homosexuality. Polygomy is not evil either.

[RevSouth]

I think it, sexual morality, is only suitable to some levels. Even if people do overreact to pedophilia, it and certain other things that as Kuro said, victimize people, are wrong. On pedophilia, young children (preteen and below) are in no position to make a choice if they want to sexually fool around with an adult. It can be a scarring event, and really mess up the kid later. Children just aren't mature enough to make some kinds of decisions.

[Kuro Morfos]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 07:05 AM
I think it, sexual morality, is only suitable to some levels. Even if people do overreact to pedophilia, it and certain other things that as Kuro said, victimize people, are wrong. On pedophilia, young children (preteen and below) are in no position to make a choice if they want to sexually fool around with an adult. It can be a scarring event, and really mess up the kid later. Children just aren't mature enough to make some kinds of decisions.
Yeah, I think and know so too. Children are not mature enough to make decisions, allthough I do think that 14-16 year olds are. Before anybody assumes that I am a hebophiliac predator, lets all recognized that I am only 18 years old. I myself also lack many aspects of maturity that people my age normally have. I am probably not psychologically ready to have sex myself. Of course, I'm smart enough to make that decision. I generally don't react to sex the way other people do, although I wouldn't justify a lot of things certain sickos (pedophiles, rapists, seducers) do since it is still wrong (since it hurts others). However, I think that anything that hurts another person or society is wrong. It shouldn't matter whether or not it is sexual, all that matters is the damage.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Morality is a pile of shit, that goes double for sexual morality. If we are against something there should be a reason, other than "it is sick" or "it is wrong." Child-molestation is wrong pedophillia is slightly more complicated, but there is a link between the two that the media over-represents.

As far as I am concerned anything consentual and non-harmful goes. I think people are often sexually active before 14, I know I started moving around the bases a couple of years before then...

Society determines the general view of "what is old enough" and this is shit. Puberty kicks in before 14 and so does sexual desire. As soon as I could get it up I was focussed on getting it in, and many children, even those that are just apporaching teenage years are the same. We are sexual animals and that is the way it is. Of course abuse is wrong, and can lead to major problems, but then again bacwards and repressive attitudes towards sex arew wrong and also problematic.

Sex is sex, it is not to be placed on some holy plateau and the sooner we all realise this the better.

As fr other morality, surely we can think of better things than outdated pseudo-religious moralism to guide our actions?

[The Feral Underclass]

People keep argueing against morality but continue using words like "wrong". The term "to do something wrong" is a moral judgment. When you say to someone "that's wrong" you are automatically saying that there is a [moral] standard in which you judge situations.

In order to be amoralist one has to get out of the habit of judging things as right and wrong, otherwise you continue setting moral standards.

Nothing is wrong and nothing is right.

[Little brother]

pedophilia. This is something i find fair difficult to comprehend too. I mean. If both parties want it then why is it wrong? I got into an arguement with a police officer when he was giving a talk about the age to give consent, he said you can't consent for sex til you are 16. So i piped up and said But i thought sex was a why of expressing how you felt about someone, you only need to be in touch with your feelings to do that, it has nothing to do with age. So he told me is was stupid and to sit down, was i surprised at such a reply? no.
So i have mates whose girlfriends are 15 and they're 16 and 17. Honestly i like my women to be older but i'm totally cool with them having younger girls. So this cop asked around to who had a b/f or g/f and if they were sexually active. A few people got up. I was included. so he asked how old our 'companion' was. He then blantantly said to any that had a b/f or g/f under 16 a pedophile.
Whats with this? people who are 16,15,14 and maybe even 13 can make they're own decisions when it relates to having sex.
As long as both parties say yes, there is no pressure involved then it should be fine... right?

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Little [email protected] 9 2006, 11:06 PM
So i have mates whose girlfriends are 15 and they're 16 and 17. Honestly i like my women to be older but i'm totally cool with them having younger girls. So this cop asked around to who had a b/f or g/f and if they were sexually active. A few people got up. I was included. so he asked how old our 'companion' was. He then blantantly said to any that had a b/f or g/f under 16 a pedophile.
Whats with this? people who are 16,15,14 and maybe even 13 can make they're own decisions when it relates to having sex.
As long as both parties say yes, there is no pressure involved then it should be fine... right?
hmmmm that copper was an idiot. for one, pedophilia relates specifically to prepubescent children. i could be wrong but i'm assuming that their girlfriends weren't prepubescent. also, nsw (which is where you're at i think) is one of the more conservative states in australia - in places like act if you're over 10 it's ok as long as your partner isn't any more than 2 years older than you.

of course, when it comes to anal sex it's a completely different picture.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 9 2006, 10:13 AM
In order to be amoralist one has to get out of the habit of judging things as right and wrong, otherwise you continue setting moral standards.

Nothing is wrong and nothing is right.
No, they are moral standards if they are supposed to be self supporting and no justification is seen as necessary...

Wrong is similar to incorrect, 2+2=5 is wrong, and I am not getting moralistic towards math. Of course on less definite ground there needs to be justification, and I would say that muder is wrong; but only because I can support the view in terms of sustainability, happiness, self-interest, public interest etc.

Something cannot just be wrong, but it can be wrong because..

[Year: 1]

People should fuck whomever they want as long as the other person consents and are at least 13 years old.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Year: [email protected] 9 2006, 06:51 PM
People should fuck whomever they want as long as the other person consents and are at least 13 years old.
Why should they be 13 at least? I was becoming sexually active before this age, and several members of my peer group were having full blown intercourse before this age.

[Noah]

Why should they be 13 at least? I was becoming sexually active before this age, and several members of my peer group were having full blown intercourse before this age.

I know two girls who had sex at thirteen, with boys their same age and got pregnant. The reasons for this is because they didn't have any education on what to do when it happened.

Sexual intercourse should begin after there is the awareness of how to have safe sex and what to do just incase people get pregnant...

I think these facilities need to have more availability and also schools need to teach sex at age twelve or basically as soon as the pupil goes into high school because generally that when people begin to have sex in England.

Of course, it shouldn't be made 'illegal' because regardless of whether people have a condom / 'sexual awareness' , they'll have sex if they want to so in realising this there has to be as much support, condoms and so on available for anyone who wants to have sex.

Sexual morality, makes no sense. Basically if people want to have sex, it's consensual and no one is being hurt in them doing so. As for religion and it's moral views to sex well, the Holy Books have their ways .. :rolleyes:

[EwokUtopia]

Well there are still things that are wrong pertaining to sexuality. For instance, controlling a person through sex is not a good thing, and this happens much more than we would like to think. It is against my beliefs of what is right and what is wrong to make a person fall in love with you so you can exploit their body. If two people want to have fun sex with no commitment, thats cool, and I would do the same if the oppurtunities were right, but to make a person fall in love with you so you can merely have sex with them is wrong. It is also wrong to have sex with a person without using protection if you knowingly have STD's and do not tell them about it. Again, this happens far more often than we would like to think. I have sexual morality, if it can be called as such, but it is not determined by the rules of some 80 year old virgin in a pointy hat or whatnot. Its called common sense. Sexploitation is wrong, and I would hope that we can all agree on that.

Once again, if two people have random hookup sex in the streets, that is not wrong, as long as neither of them is using the other with thoughts only for themselves. Sexual immorality and sexual selfishness are the same things in my books (though the word immorality has a bad tone to it, and I should like to find a better synonym). Sex should not be a selfish act, that is left for masturbation (which is by no means wrong, as there are no victims, and without a victim, there can be no ill deed).

[Hegemonicretribution]

Noah I agree that education about sex should take place earlier, but it should begin at about the age of 3 or 4 at the latest, when awareness of the outside word starts to emerge.

this was a consensus of sorts in the first pedophillia thread, and the reason why the issue of consent and childhood is so suspect is because we prevent children (by withholding information) from being able to make any real choice.

I am surprised however that by 13 the girls you are referring to honestly were not aware of the risks of sex, but perhaps that is because sexual education takes place from 10 onwards specifically and even earlier in a very general manner in my area of the UK.

EwokUtopia, I appreciate your position, but personally I find that this ellevation of sexual pleasure to the level that occurs is part of the reason people feel exploited by even consentual sex when commitment varies between parties. In our current society one part of a relationship often gets fucked over by the other for these reasons...hell I admit it has happened to me even within the last year, but I suppose that transition towards more open attitudes will inevitable cause conflict whilst sex is still treated in the way that it is.

[FinnMacCool]

There aren't really anything in sex that is wrong. THere are, however, somethings that go along with it that can be wrong. For example, manipulating people, lying etc. etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 03:15 PM
No, they are moral standards if they are supposed to be self supporting and no justification is seen as necessary...
I don't disagree, but most people will say something's wrong in the context of that assertion.


Wrong is similar to incorrect, 2+2=5 is wrong, and I am not getting moralistic towards math.

Something can be logically wrong, as in that maths equation, but we're talking specifically about morals here; the word wrong being used in that context.


Something cannot just be wrong, but it can be wrong because..

Which is a moral statement. Morals being subjective opinion on the actions of human beings.

[YKTMX]

I certainly see myself as a moral person - that is, there are standards I live my life by and I expect to see other people reach these standards. I see my morals as arising from my human consciousness, not an external governing force like God or nature. Morals are not absolutes however. You have to consider personal morality in relation to your particular situation. For instance, I would consider non-violence morally preferrable, but under certain circumstances violence is moral.

Similarly, in sexuality, people are free as consenting adults (over 16) to do as they please. However, I doubt it would be a moral action to tell Southern Africans to have unprotected, promiscious sex, because this would have deleterious affect on Africans and African society.

[Craig]

Here's my two cents:

For a person to be capable of consent, they need to be fully aware of the consequences and under no coercion. It is difficult for me to identify a situation where sex between an adult and a child meets the criteria for consent.

As leftists, we know that wage-slavery is an inherently exploitative institution. We recognize that if the workers were aware of the true nature of their servitude, and if they were free from the coercive forces of capitalism, they would never voluntarily enter into such an unequal relationship with their employer. The relationship itself is exploitative down to it's very core. Consent is not possible. We should also consider the reality that the power differential between adult and child is so great that trully consensual sex is not possible, for the same reasons.

It becomes even more confusing when you realize that arbitrary ages and classification are meaningless. When exactly does a person become an adult? When do they cease being a child? Why does a child become more capable of giving his/her consent on their 18th birthday than they were the previous day? Same goes for a 16 year old, and even a 6 year old. Any line you draw will be meaningless.

My personal opinion is that an adult (however you define one) should just avoid the whole problem. Why risk damaging a developing human being just to satisfy your own personal fetish? There is no real shortage of more appropriate sexual partners.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2006, 11:11 AM
I don't disagree, but most people will say something's wrong in the context of that assertion.


That is true, but all I can do is set my own boundaries.


Something can be logically wrong, as in that maths equation, but we're talking specifically about morals here; the word wrong being used in that context.
By rejecting morals, I also reject "wrong" being used in that sense. I meant logically wrong when I used the word. This s hw I personally see something as being wrong, if it isn't logically wrong then it isn't wrong.


Which is a moral statement. Morals being subjective opinion on the actions of human beings.
Only if I was unable to provide an argument for it,which I claim that I would be able to.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

To assert that paedophilia is wrong and then deny sexual morality is a glaring contradiction, surely? Also, I warn those who take the nihilist view that there can be no moral truth, you are thinking of morals in the "Thou Shalt Not" sense of the word. Religious morality is cast in iron, and I would agree that morals are not like that by their nature. However, raping an infant and saving a life are not morally equal, clearly, and therefore morality does exist on some level. Thank you.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

To assert that paedophilia is wrong and then deny sexual morality is a glaring contradiction, surely? Also, I warn those who take the nihilist view that there can be no moral truth, you are thinking of morals in the "Thou Shalt Not" sense of the word. Religious morality is cast in iron, and I would agree that morals are not like that by their nature. However, raping an infant and saving a life are not morally equal, clearly, and therefore morality does exist on some level. Thank you.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

To assert that paedophilia is wrong and then deny sexual morality is a glaring contradiction, surely? Also, I warn those who take the nihilist view that there can be no moral truth, you are thinking of morals in the "Thou Shalt Not" sense of the word. Religious morality is cast in iron, and I would agree that morals are not like that by their nature. However, raping an infant and saving a life are not morally equal, clearly, and therefore morality does exist on some level. Thank you.

-Alex

[LSD]

To assert that paedophilia is wrong and then deny sexual morality is a glaring contradiction, surely?

As Hegemonic pointed out, though, it depends on how one means the word "wrong".

"Wrong" used alone can mean "morally wrong", but it can also be short-hand for undesirably or rationaly inconsistant.

Pedophilia may be "morally" wrong to you, hell if might even be morally wrong to me; but our personal morals are irrelevent. After all, to many people in the world today, homosexuality is "morally wrong". That doesn't mean that we should support homophobia, however.

All that should matter to us is rational anlysis and the objective interests of society and her members.

Pedophilia, by its nature, nescessitates the harming of a member of society and therefore society has a dury to prevent it.

See? No "morals" nescessary! :)


However, raping an infant and saving a life are not morally equal, clearly

It depends on one's "morals". I can certainly imagine a moral system in which those two acts are parallel and because of that it is facetious to assert the eixstance of a universal morality; or, even more ridiculously, to assert that subjective morality should play a role in public policy.

[LSD]

To assert that paedophilia is wrong and then deny sexual morality is a glaring contradiction, surely?

As Hegemonic pointed out, though, it depends on how one means the word "wrong".

"Wrong" used alone can mean "morally wrong", but it can also be short-hand for undesirably or rationaly inconsistant.

Pedophilia may be "morally" wrong to you, hell if might even be morally wrong to me; but our personal morals are irrelevent. After all, to many people in the world today, homosexuality is "morally wrong". That doesn't mean that we should support homophobia, however.

All that should matter to us is rational anlysis and the objective interests of society and her members.

Pedophilia, by its nature, nescessitates the harming of a member of society and therefore society has a dury to prevent it.

See? No "morals" nescessary! :)


However, raping an infant and saving a life are not morally equal, clearly

It depends on one's "morals". I can certainly imagine a moral system in which those two acts are parallel and because of that it is facetious to assert the eixstance of a universal morality; or, even more ridiculously, to assert that subjective morality should play a role in public policy.

[LSD]

To assert that paedophilia is wrong and then deny sexual morality is a glaring contradiction, surely?

As Hegemonic pointed out, though, it depends on how one means the word "wrong".

"Wrong" used alone can mean "morally wrong", but it can also be short-hand for undesirably or rationaly inconsistant.

Pedophilia may be "morally" wrong to you, hell if might even be morally wrong to me; but our personal morals are irrelevent. After all, to many people in the world today, homosexuality is "morally wrong". That doesn't mean that we should support homophobia, however.

All that should matter to us is rational anlysis and the objective interests of society and her members.

Pedophilia, by its nature, nescessitates the harming of a member of society and therefore society has a dury to prevent it.

See? No "morals" nescessary! :)


However, raping an infant and saving a life are not morally equal, clearly

It depends on one's "morals". I can certainly imagine a moral system in which those two acts are parallel and because of that it is facetious to assert the eixstance of a universal morality; or, even more ridiculously, to assert that subjective morality should play a role in public policy.

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:36 PM
It depends on one's "morals". I can certainly imagine a moral system in which those two acts are parallel and because of that it is facetious to assert the eixstance of a universal morality; or, even more ridiculously, to assert that subjective morality should play a role in public policy.
Indeed it does depend on one's morals. You honestly can fathom a society that morally equates child brutalization with saving a life?

I'd like to see you cite something in history to back up the claim that such a moral code is possible.

Why even argue such a ridiculous position?

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:36 PM
It depends on one's "morals". I can certainly imagine a moral system in which those two acts are parallel and because of that it is facetious to assert the eixstance of a universal morality; or, even more ridiculously, to assert that subjective morality should play a role in public policy.
Indeed it does depend on one's morals. You honestly can fathom a society that morally equates child brutalization with saving a life?

I'd like to see you cite something in history to back up the claim that such a moral code is possible.

Why even argue such a ridiculous position?

[Craig]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 08:36 PM
It depends on one's "morals". I can certainly imagine a moral system in which those two acts are parallel and because of that it is facetious to assert the eixstance of a universal morality; or, even more ridiculously, to assert that subjective morality should play a role in public policy.
Indeed it does depend on one's morals. You honestly can fathom a society that morally equates child brutalization with saving a life?

I'd like to see you cite something in history to back up the claim that such a moral code is possible.

Why even argue such a ridiculous position?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

LSD - Thank you for your point. :) I hadn't read the earlier post by Hegemonic, I didn't realize that he (I assume he) meant rationally wrong as opposed to morally wrong. Apologies.

I can also see your point about universal morality, but it isn't facetious. Fallacious, perhaps, but I cannot see that it is facetious.


I can accept as well that you arrived rationally at your conclusion that paedophilia is wrong, but I fail to see how this is different from a moral, personally. I perhaps have my defintions muddled, but I think of myself as having a morality based on rationality.

I personally cannot imagine a society that equally applauds paedophilia as it does life saving, but since you apparrently can, I suppose your point does stand. :o

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

LSD - Thank you for your point. :) I hadn't read the earlier post by Hegemonic, I didn't realize that he (I assume he) meant rationally wrong as opposed to morally wrong. Apologies.

I can also see your point about universal morality, but it isn't facetious. Fallacious, perhaps, but I cannot see that it is facetious.


I can accept as well that you arrived rationally at your conclusion that paedophilia is wrong, but I fail to see how this is different from a moral, personally. I perhaps have my defintions muddled, but I think of myself as having a morality based on rationality.

I personally cannot imagine a society that equally applauds paedophilia as it does life saving, but since you apparrently can, I suppose your point does stand. :o

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

LSD - Thank you for your point. :) I hadn't read the earlier post by Hegemonic, I didn't realize that he (I assume he) meant rationally wrong as opposed to morally wrong. Apologies.

I can also see your point about universal morality, but it isn't facetious. Fallacious, perhaps, but I cannot see that it is facetious.


I can accept as well that you arrived rationally at your conclusion that paedophilia is wrong, but I fail to see how this is different from a moral, personally. I perhaps have my defintions muddled, but I think of myself as having a morality based on rationality.

I personally cannot imagine a society that equally applauds paedophilia as it does life saving, but since you apparrently can, I suppose your point does stand. :o

-Alex