To illustrate that they are (or can be) both harmful in-themselves, without even bringing the question of consent into play. — Agustino

Juxtaposing sex and cannibalism does not actually demonstrate that sex is inherently harmful, it just rhetorically (via sophistry) compares the two and indicates a moral equivalence. That might not be that you were trying to say, but that's how you have said it.

I asked a question first. Since you say that love is JUST the chemical reaction visible in the body, the onus is on you to prove this, since a priori, it is at least logically possible, especially given our experience, that love involves a lot more than this — Agustino

Do you really think I'm about to accept the burden of proving that god did not design love?

I figure you ought to prove the inverse if you want to base your own objective morality upon it...

Okay here's where I wanted to bring you. You've now said that this contains no actual evidence. Furthermore you've said that the "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Please remember these two statements. I want you to take the questions below and provide me clear and direct answers - no evasiveness, no mocking, no nothing of that sort. Failure to do this will indicate that you're not interested to continue this conversation on a rational basis.

• What is this "rational soul" that you claim is not proven or scientific? — Agustino

According to you, it's what human beings are formed of, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive).

• What do you mean by scientific or proven in relation to the "rational soul"? Keep in mind that these words have different standards - a different standard of proof is required to show there is a tree outside your garden, compared to showing that atoms exist. — Agustino

Something scientific is something that is falsifiable. Since we do not yet understand enough about human psychology there's no way to test if the "rational soul" description is false or innaccurate

• Do you hold that only what is scientifically proven is worthy of belief? — Agustino

No but I hold that obscure and unsubstantiated beliefs are worthy of scrutiny before belief.

• Do we mean by a "good" doctor a doctor who performs his function well, either in healing the ailments of the body/mind or in keeping the body/mind healthy or what do we mean? (telling me this question is irrelevant or somehow avoiding to answer it will count towards failure and evasiveness). — Agustino

What do we mean by a good doctor? Sure, someone good at healing....

• Do you think you can dismiss a long philosophical tradition without even understanding its positions by just waving your hand and calling it bullshit? Something you don't understand isn't necessarily bullshit, and you have to, as of yet, show evidence that you do at minimum understand it. This is precisely the mistake Dawkins commits with Aquinas in his God Delusion. — Agustino

I think the following: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Since you've not provided evidence for your long traditional philosophy, I can dismiss it without evidence...

Now that I've answered your questions, please answer just a single one of my own:

What makes casual sex inherently immoral/harmful?

This is perfect. :D

Saying both are inherently harmful isn't comparing them. — Agustino

Saying "agreeing to have casual sex with someone is like agreeing to eat someone alive" is comparing them.

Why bother making the juxtaposition if not to suggest some kind of equivalence between these two things?

In terms of JUST sexuality yes. But this is not a problem. Since having sex with them doesn't involve just sexuality, it involves other virtues as well, such as justice and charity. So while in terms of sexuality there is no immorality provided that the non-consensual sex is with your wife, there would be immorality in terms of justice and charity. And since justice and charity are both more important than sexuality in terms of morals, then having non-consensual sex with your wife is immoral overall.

Really you're clearly not very well read, because Aristotelians through history have dealt multiple times with this objection that you bring up and you somehow think I never thought of :s — Agustino

So it's not the harm done to your wife that makes raping her immoral, it's that it's not "just" and "charitable"?

What in your virtue ethics makes it unjust (hint: does it have to do with consent?), and what does charity have to do with it?

You're equivocating between two different senses of consent. — Agustino

What two different senses? I don't see the distinction.

That may be true if sex were like having a haircut. But it's not. You said "it's more invasive" ;) — Agustino

Ah, but coal mining is "more invasive" ;) therefore paying a coal miner to work your mine-shaft is immoral just like paying a prostitute to work your meat-shaft.

Invasive =/= harm/immoral though, remember?

In scenario A you present one action, in scenario B you present two actions which are unrelated. That makes it impossible to compare directly. — Agustino

I'm taking this response to mean that you're unable to explain why non-consensual sex is worse than casual and consensual sex. "because consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of certain actions"

How am I restricting your freedom? Since when is morality a restriction of freedom? Do you think your freedom is restricted for example because you can't eat other people? Do you think your freedom is restricted because you and others have property rights? No - actually your freedom is increased in these manners. — Agustino

My freedom would be restricted if i didn't have the right to have sex with consenting adults, not increased...

This is your assumption. You have yet to prove this, and let me tell you - science ain't gonna help you, because this is a METAPHYSICAL assumption. — Agustino

You mean your metaphysical assumption that love is more than it's physical description? I know, science ain't gonna help you there.

Fun fact though, claiming god designed love is just as provable as claiming that the invisible flying spaghetti monster excreted it out of it's invisible spaghetti anus...

Yes, now you actually bring up something valid - took you a long time guessing and stabbing in the dark to put your hand on something that may be problematic. Not all Aristotelians would agree with me here, but basically here's my argument: Human beings are formed of a rational soul, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive) souls (ALERT: these are Aristotelian terms with clear definitions to which people who understand the definitions would agree, please don't cry about God) but adds to them the capacity for will and intellect (personhood). Granting that what differentiates human beings from animals is superior and greater (will & intellect), it follows that if it's necessary to sacrifice a telos that belongs to the animal and vegetative parts of the soul in order to achieve a telos that belongs to the human part of the soul then such is moral. Under this reasoning, if it's necessary to sacrifice reproduction, to achieve intimacy, then this would be moral, since (sexual) reproduction belongs to the animal part of the soul, while intimacy belongs to the uniquely human part of the soul. Another reason why promiscuity isn't immoral in animals, for them the telos is just reproduction, so they're not doing anything immoral, for promiscuity is something that hurts the uniquely human telos of intimacy. That's also why you're immoral if you have promiscuous sex aimed at reproduction - but it would be a lot less immoral than if you were to just have promiscuous sex while frustrating both intimacy and reproduction. — Agustino

You realize that all this can be brushed aside with no effort because it contains no actual evidence?

The assumption that humans have a "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Dividing this unproven soul into the "animal" and "vegetative" is an unsubstantiated extension of just assuming "rational souls" exist in the first place (regardless of how vague I might object the terms to be). Then comes the arbitrary moral value assumption that says the "vegetative" is more morally valuable than the "animal". And finally comes the assumption that the telelogical hierarchy of necessary ends of these realities constitutes a sound basis for objective moral reasoning. This is just bullshit predicated on bullshit...

You clearly don't understand. No it doesn't have to do with the intrinsic morality of the underlying action, but it DOES have to do with the morality of the human interaction that is presupposed by the underlying action. So even if the underlying action were moral, you can still commit some wrongs through the interaction (by for example imposing your will by force on another).

These are Aristotelian distinctions, which you don't seem to be capable to make even though you've read Aristotle (or so you claim). For example, there is talk of X being wrong in-so-far as it is considered in itself - this wouldn't include consent in the case of sex for example. But there is also talk of whether or not X is wrong (tout court), which would include other considerations apart from just the underlying action in and of itself. — Agustino

I don't think you understood my point here. I'm well aware that imposing your will on other people by force is immoral, but by your logic marriage in an of itself is not immoral, and so forcing someone to eat cabbage would be imposing your will on them and therefore immoral, and also forcing someone to marry you would be imposing your will on them, and therefore immoral, But my question is "why is forcing someone to marry you worse than forcing someone to eat cabbage?" Your system of moral reasoning doesn't seem like it can readily answer that question (unless you want to just whip out random virtue based arguments when and where it suits your moral intuition, which I'm happy to address). Just to be clear, what I'm hoping to get you to agree to is that the morality or immorality of some actions can depend entirely on the consent of the parties involved (such as in the case of receiving flyers, digging holes on property, being fed cabbage, marriage, and sex).

If you could also be so kind or have an answer for the above and want to move on, please explain to me what it is that makes X action wrong/immoral?(casual sex in and of itself, tout court). What are those other considerations you allude to? This is what I've been trying to get at the entire time...

It's questionable whether there even is such a drive as seeking pleasure for its own sake. Furthermore, "pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology" is very questionable. — Agustino

Then actually question them...

Pleasure from eating is in fact fundamental to human biology and psychology. It's an evolution endowed drive that incentivizes us to nourish ourselves. Just like how pleasure attached to orgasms incentivizes us to procreate. Just like how having fun with a partner (especially while having an orgasm) while filled with their scent/pheromones, the sight/mental imagery imagery of them, the sound of their voice (etc...), can cause a lasting psychological/emotional and pleasurable association between you and these things to be formed (love).

Any questions?

Because I don't undertake an action that frustrates those ends. I'm staying in my natural state - not marrying, and not reproducing - in other words not doing anything. I'm not taking any action which frustrates those ends. Not doing anything doesn't count as doing something that frustrates it. I don't die if I don't have sex, so there's nothing frustrated about my being or about my sexuality (as I've shown before). — Agustino

I'm pretty sure that not procreating is frustrating toward the end of procreation... Are you saying that procreation is not one of your necessary teleological ends?

I never claimed consensual sex is morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism. You're strawmanning again and this is becoming very painful to discuss because of your ignorance of what I'm actually saying. — Agustino

What's even more painful is when you crow about straw-men and then go on to voice the exact argument that you claimed was a straw-man, sometimes in the very next sentence.

Consent doesn't matter when it comes to the morality of sex because it's the underlying harm of the action that matters. If someone asked you to kill them or to eat them alive, you wouldn't oblige them would you?

When I say "why is consensual casual sex harmful" and you say "because consent has nothing to do with it; think of someone who consents to be eaten alive", you're not answering the question I'm asking which is "what is harmful about casual sex". I have to always say "consensual" because previously you argued that casual sex was harmful on the basis of loss of dignity/personal value (which is subjective) and which can be easily rebuked with the addition of consent (i.e: the moral right of an individual to devalue/denigrate themselves if that's what makes them happy).

So I'm expecting an argument that contains reasoning as to what makes sex inherently harmful, and all you give me are juxtapositions between sex and suicide and sex and cannibalism (as you rant about the irrelevance of consent).

Can you at least see why every time you say "that would be like agreeing to eat someone alive" It seems like the rhetorical point you're making is that sex and cannibalism are both in some similar category of inherently immoral actions (some degree of moral equivalence)?

And as always, please enjoy this hypothetical musical scene from your moral paradise (or a variation not too far off):

It is not mutually consensual casual sex between two single adults that I find immoral, but this very assumption, this notion that it is reasonable to approach a woman to 'find out' which is enough to expose your intent and the very point I am attempting to convey. The intent that compels you to 'find out' whether a woman is sexually available is a flaw in your perception of women and this intention verifies who you are as a person. So, what happens to the woman who you approach and who is not sexually available? Who gives a shit, right? Abandon, and then next? Next what exactly? Your intention in approaching the woman to find out if she is available for casual sex is immoral; that is sexual objectification. Morality is about what is going on in your mind and the decisions that you make and the perceptions that you believe, and not about them agreeing to it or not. — TimeLine

By this logic it's never moral to ever approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a romantic relationship because that sexually objectifies her and what not.

How do people ever get into a relationship in this world? Is only the woman allowed to make the first move? Does she need to wear a sign that says "interested in a relationship" around her neck?

What?

Why do you continuously put me into the same category as Aug? I do not think you are morally depraved neither do I have a problem with sex outside of marriage, but having meaningless sex without love is, to me, degrading to my personhood. I actually believe in genuine love and I have yet to encounter someone who can see 'me' rather than my body and I refuse to share my body for a fleeting moment of sexual gratification. — TimeLine

That's all well and great for you. But I don't think having casual sex is actually degrading to my person-hood, or the person-hood of the women i have sex with, nor do they think that.

Your own personal sensitivity toward the act of sex is your own personal sentiment, not some objective truth about the way the world is for everyone who engages in casual sex.

You refuse to have casual sex, congratulations. The rest of the world keeps turning...

If perhaps you think that no man should ever "approach" any woman because you're personally not interested, then you should rethink the idea of whether or not society ought to operate around your personal standards of decency and offense taking.

If you're utterly not interested, then keep guarding yourself and life will go on (although if you wear revealing dresses at bars, some men are probably going to approach you (which is not some grave moral infraction), and some might even over-step and invade your personal space or harass you (which is wrong). My advice is to not go to such bars and clubs. (or places where sexual fraternization is the main attraction).

The reason why I'm comparing you to Aug's position is because essentially you're both using your own prudishness to moralize against what I believe are basic and uncontroversial moral beliefs (like it's o.k to ask a woman out on a date, or it's o.k for a woman to wear a pretty dress to encourage men to ask them out on dates) (the former you disagree with, the latter Aug disagrees with).

Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"? — VagabondSpectre


I see, but then you say:

" She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies." — VagabondSpectre


No objectification of women there, right? — TimeLine

You think being honest about whether or not I'm attracted to certain female bodies is harmful to them?

Even when they're intentionally and explicitly posed in a sexually provocative manner? this is the effect tat pinup models are actually going for you know...

"Sexual objectification" isn't the same as whatever "devaluation of person-hood" is. I don't suddenly forget that sexy women are people too because I talk about their body as if I'm attracted to it...

This is you once again trying to use your personal sex-negative feelings as a moral hatchet against me like I'm some corrupt and immoral villain...

I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them). — VagabondSpectre


Urg, yeah ok. — TimeLine

What do you mean "Urg, yeah ok."...

Are you suggesting that this isn't how casual sex works? Are you expressing disbelief?

The experience of a genuinely loving relationship where I am respected and admired and likewise that I respect and admire my partner elongates that pleasurable sensation beyond the bedroom, and it establishes meaning to our existence in a mutually shared capacity that in doing so motivates us to become better people. — TimeLine

I don't care about elongating the pleasure of admiration and respect beyond the bedroom. Nor do I need admiration and respect to "establish meaning to my existence", nor do I find "motivating myself to become a better person" to be morally obligatory.

It is not only casual sex that I have a problem with; many couples - including those that are married - are in it for convenience, dependence or tradition rather than for love and so it is an empty bind that results in the same meaninglessness as casual sex and one will never find themselves feeling pleasure neither ever progressing. But unlike, say, masturbation (which I don't think is immoral but without pornography, but please let's not get into that), there are a number of practical concerns that render casual sex problematic, the epidemiological is clear for one. — TimeLine

This is you trying to tell other people what to do for their own good because you think you know better and what will make them happy.

I'm not persuaded.

The problem can thus also become practical ethics as well as morality. This is what you are refusing to discuss because you are trying to defend yourself from Aug who is coming at you with his pitchfork and torch; set that aside, we are talking rational ethics. — TimeLine

Strictly speaking, your notion that approaching a woman to find out if she's interested in sex is immoral because if she's not interested then she and society yata yata yata are harmed is like saying that it's immoral to make eye contact with any other human being because they might have some sensitivity that renders eye contract a traumatic experience for them.

It's like you want to wrap everyone and everything in bubble wrap because you cannot bare to risk the discomfort of being approached by a man who is interested in a sexual relationship.

Those aren't rational ethics. It's nowhere near a broadly accepted premise that a man merely approaching a woman is immoral or unacceptable (and therefore useful as a social ethic) and even if it was all our marriages and relationships would probably need to be arranged for us by some central authority.

No. I never suggested that, you assume that because you are failing to see the philosophical problem at hand. We need to ascertain whether there is any intrinsic meaning in our sexual relations with one another - which we have come to agree as meaning formed by mutual affection and love that becomes instrumental to the pleasures that bring value to sexual activity and to our own identity or personhood - and as such, what lacks intrinsic meaning is the disvalue due to the lack of this mutual affection and love. — TimeLine

I don't care about meaning. I simply said that emotional intimacy can be pleasurable. I didn't mean to give you the impression that some sort of "meaning" based argument would actually be persuasive...

You're concerned with intrinsic meaning and value and integrity and dignity and person-hood and all that stuff, but I outright disagree that any of it is relevant concerning the harm-based morality of casual sex or approaching women in bars.

You feel that personhood is devalued through casual sex or approaching women in bars, great, whatever personhood means to you and however you feel it is affected is your own personal and emotion feeling about the world. It isn't a measurable or universally shared position and so I utterly refuse to pretend like moral arguments can be sensically founded upon them. To reiterate, I do not share your subjective opinion that we should derive "meaning" from sex, or that casual sex necessarily affects self-esteem or personhood or dignity or integrity or self-value or any of that nonsense.

I hold that casual sex is not necessarily harmful, nor is approaching women in bars necessarily harmful (or unethical/unreasonable), and you're not going to convince me it is harmful merely by appealing to your own emotional sentiment towards it with concepts like "personhood".

As I once said to Aug, what the fuck does personhood even mean?

The source of pleasure in our sexual activity becomes the key to permissibility and so, if as stated above it has intrinsic meaning over or above the source of pleasure, likewise should the source of pleasure outweigh the intrinsic meaning, the person or the other' value is reduced below the desire to attain an orgasm. It is not to say that it will certainly lead to acts of rape or harm of another neither does it require absolute prohibition, but sociopaths can also be non-violent and we are talking morality here. The very source of our abhorrence of non-consensual acts of sexual activity. — TimeLine

I find rape to be abhorrent because the harm and trauma that non-consensual sex causes is terrifying, not because I value value intimacy above orgasms (which right now I don't).

So to reiterate your argument: If the pleasure that someone gets from intimacy outweighs the pleasure (and meaning?) that they get from the intimacy of sex, they are therefore devaluing the other person?

How does that logically follow? What does the pleasure I get from an orgasm have to do with how I value other people, or the pleasure I may or may not get from "meaningful sex"?

It may appear logical to believe that casual sex is justifiable and rape is completely abhorrent, but there is certainly an inconsistency when trying to argue philosophically why acts such as rape wherein no principles - value, meaning - binds the act itself together is any different to casual sex which also lacks this binding principles. — TimeLine

It's about necessary harm (or the reasonable expectation of harm). The reason why we can say rape is abhorrent but casual sex is not is because casual and consensual sex is by definition not considered to be significantly harmful by the participants, whereas for the case of rape actual emotional/psychological/physical harm is inflicted (and violation of consent is universally inflicted).

If you base your moral system on some kind of objective meaning or purpose, it makes more sense as to why you think casual sex is morally not so different from rape (or will somehow lead to an increased prevalence of rape). But most people (and secular society) bases it's moral framework not around objective meaning, but on (almost universally) shared desires for freedom and freedom from harm. That's why comparing casual sex to rape is a false moral equivalence if we're talking about morality designed to preserve human health and happiness as opposed to morality designed to preserve some hierarchy of objective "meaning-related" values (like: love must be put above orgasms).

No the analogy absolutely can't be drawn that way. The analogy compares the logic of the situation, NOT the gravity of the offences. Only someone like you can fail to see this. The analogy points that the underlying logic is the same. In the case of giving them cyanide, their consent doesn't make that action moral. Neither does their consent make the action of sex moral. Now, what the fuck does any of this have to do with which action is worse? :s Are you that incapable of comprehending what you read?! — Agustino

By comparing the two situations you're mplying that "sex" is harmful on some level of comparison to which "handing out cyanide" is harmful. By saying that "the underlying logic is the same", you're necessarily drawing some sort of comparison between the harm of cyanide and the harm of sex, where since both actions are in some way inherently harmful, to do either of them constitutes a moral infraction. Keep in mind this does not demonstrate how or why sex is harmful, it just compares it to giving out suicide as part of your rhetorical appeals.

Read what I wrote above before peddling this stupid strawman for the 1000s time — Agustino

The problem is that I actually read everything you wrote... Remember when you were screaming about how consent has nothing to do with the morality pertaining to sex? (who am i kidding, of course you don't! ill quote it for you):

"Right motherducker, and did I say anything different?! The immorality has nothing to do with the underlying activity (whether this is SEX or EATING DINNER), but rather with the infringement of their freedom. And in both cases, there is the SAME infringement of freedom."

"Right, so we can conclude that having dinner with me is not immoral. Now you stopped looking at the question of consent, and looked at the underlying activity. Do the same for sex. Stop looking at consent. It has NOTHING to do with it.

"If two willing participants negotiate an anonymous contract whereby one will eat the other one alive, and they both give their consent, have they done nothing wrong? Again, this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd. If I force you to have dinner with me, that's as wrong as if I force you to have sex with me from the point of view of consent. But clearly, we take me forcing you to have sex with me as a much more serious offence than if I were to force you to have dinner with me. Why is that?""

Unfortunately you have failed to communicate a sensical position in regards to consent and sex. Very clearly you don't think consent has to do with the morality of sex, and so by that logic having non-consensual sex with someone must be the same as having consensual sex with them (plus some arbitrary violation of consent like being force fed cabbage).

This is no red herring or strawman Aug, this is the messy underside of your poorly formed moral ideas. If I were you I would recant...

No, you haven't breached my consent, you've violated my property and a few other rights, not my consent. — Agustino

If you have a no flyers sign and tell me not to dig a hole in your yard, but I send you flyers and dig a hole in your yard, I've breached your consent. Care to re-read or re-respond to my point now that this common sense issue has been cleared up for you? Here it is again:

"If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property.

If you want flyers though, and give me consent to send them to you, then the same action (sending flyers) becomes beneficial to you as opposed to harmful (consent changes the moral nature of the underlying action as it applies to individuals). If you're trying to install an in-ground pool, and you consent for me to dig the hole for it, then I'm actually doing something morally praiseworthy.

You cannot necessarily separate consent from the morality of certain actions and behaviors."

No, if by like you mean a comparison of the gravity of the two offences. However, if by like you mean that they share the same logical structure, sure. — Agustino

The logical structure you're trying to say they share is that both sex and handing out cyanide are harmful; that's the comparison you're making. You're saying that consent doesn't matter because it's the immorality/harm of the underlying action that matters and then assuming that sex is harmful/immoral by comparing it to handing out suicide.

I could make a similar comparison. Having consensual sex with someone is like giving them a consensual hair-cut. Both actions are not immoral because consent is involved and there is no necessary harm in the underlying actions...

Because you cannot have a tattoo without injury the body, but you can work at McDonald's without injury. — Agustino

You honestly think tattoo's constitute injury? (Sad).

I've got some news that you might find surprising: people can have casual sex without injury or tears.

But my point here is that the risk of harm doesn't make something inherently immoral, epecially in light of whether or not individuals are willing to accept that level of risk via consent (there are exceptions, but this holds true for things like driving, sky-diving, haircuts, and casual sex).

No, consent is only breached when you actively force someone to do themselves against their will. If I do something that doesn't match what someone else wants me to do, that's absolutely not breaking their consent. Breaking their consent is forcing THEM to do something they don't want to do, typically through the use of force. You have a bit more studying to do. — Agustino

Situation A: Rape: sex against someone's will is forced upon them (immoral due to breach of freedom, and immoral due to harm caused by sex)

The above is how you would describe "the logical structure" of the immorality of rape, correct?

Situation B: Consensual sex happens + cabbage is force fed to them: food against someone's will is forced upon them (immoral due to the breach of freedom, and immoral due to harm caused by sex).

Is the above the correct "logical structure"?

If so, can you explain why rape has the same moral gravitas as consensual sex + a minor infraction against someone's consent? (remember, because consent has nothing to do with the morality of an underlying action)...

We only need to enforce it culturally, not legally - that would be a good thing, it would save a lot of people from suffering and pain. Certainly better than allowing you to enforce your idiocy culturally. — Agustino

I'm not the one trying to enforce anything, I'm trying to escape your attempts to restrict my freedom via your crappy moral suppositions.

I never said people have to have casual sex, I only said that you have no business morally judging what goes on in my bedchamber between me and other consenting adults.

That doesn't mean they're not objectively harmful. Someone may not perceive cannibalism as harmful. So what? Does that tell me cannibalism is not harmful? This is a very stupid objection that people don't all agree. Who gives a fuck what they say? I don't. I just care about the truth. — Agustino

Here you are again, comparing sex directly to cannibalism as if there is some moral equivalency.

The way your mind works is terrifying.

If you care about the truth then make an actual argument as to why casual sex is objectively harmful instead of just telling me it's like suicide and cannibalism in logical structure...

No, that's actually not true. If my behaviour was directed towards successfully impregnating a female I'd donate my sperm to a sperm bank and impregnate thousands of females. Clearly I'm not very keen to do that. Their idea that everything we do is directed toward impregnating a female is extremely naive and short-sighted, and disregards the human component (as opposed to the animal) of our being. — Agustino

I said "much of your psychology" not everything you do...


You're not actually trying to deny the genetic impact on your emotions/psychology are you?

That it also has an evolutionary role, there's no doubt about it, but to assume that the evolutionary role is everything about it, that's naive. There's a lot more reasons why I want to bond for life with a female, some of which have little to do with offspring. — Agustino

What other reasons?

To be happy? (nope, because that's hedonism or something)

Because god told you to (and because obeying god makes you happy)? (DING DING DING!)

There is no doubt that love has chemical effects that are detectible in the body - but to go from that and say that that's all what love is, that's the height of idiocy, excuse my words. That's called jumping to conclusions to say the least. — Agustino

Heaven forbid a conclusion should get jumped in the magnanimous Augustino's presence...

Love is in fact a chemical cocktail. It's not a metaphysical or transcendent "force", it's a physical state of mind, and it was created and refined by evolution, not by god or some objective meaning of life.

Love means more than "a chemical cocktail" from within the human condition, but I have to point this out to prevent you from appealing to love itself as some kind of metaphysical or sacred foundation for "objective/teleological moral appeals". In other words, the existence of love doesn't demand that we orient the entirety of our moral frameworks around it. In other words, just because people have sex without being married or in love doesn't mean that some purpose of life or proper way of living has been subverted. To argue this is the case is merely to presume that love and marriage are our starting moral values instead of using reason to show why they are valuable as moral ends.

For the most part yes, but it depends. So long as it doesn't frustrate the other purpose of sex (intimacy) I'd have no issue with some forms of contraception. — Agustino

Why are you allowed to frustrate one of the two necessary ends of sex?

Is there some kind of "satisfy at least one teleological end of an action and you're not immoral" rule?

I'd say that makes no sense according to your logic. If you're frustrating EITHER end you're doing yourself harm (by your logic).

Are you an idiot or what's the matter with you? How can sex be an expression of your love for them when you rape them? Can you please explain this? — Agustino

I don't know, but since "consent has nothing to do with the morality of the underlying action", and because "I value them as a person, want to be intimate, reproduce, and express my love for them through the act of sex" (let's assume that I even marry her at a shotgun wedding, which also isn't immoral because "consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action"), then how could this instance of rape possibly be immoral? (Well, by your logic since she would not be returning my love, she would technically be harming me as I raped her because she doesn't value me and thinks of me merely as a body/tool.)

Remember, consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of sexual acts!

BEST MORAL POSITION 2017!!!!!

No, there is no logical connection between something being acceptable and not being immoral, so you're drawing this link based on empty air. — Agustino

I mean, you're the one who stated that cannibalism is always immoral but acceptable in some cases. I'm the one who is suggesting that it is moral (or not immoral to be specific) in some cases, such as in the case of survival necessity.

I don't actually subscribe to the idea that some actions are in and of themselves immoral. I think that depends on intentions, circumstances, and in some ways outcomes.

Under your moral framework you can just define certain actions as inherently immoral (without showing why they are necessarily immoral) and then just keep referring back to that assumption/premise whenever you are questioned.

Yes, happiness does involve pleasure, however to affirm idiotically as you have that someone will be happy because they experience pleasure is stupid beyond measure. — Agustino

Here's what I originally said Aug: "Pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology. The drive to seek pleasure is just as fundamental as the drive to avoid pain and to stay alive. For some people, the pleasure of food is a part of what makes life worth living, and so pleasure from eating very well can be a necessary and intentional end for a given individual.... I could still object on the basis that evolution endowed us with pleasure attached to sex and eating because happiness is an essential end of human existence, and therefore we actually eat (and fuck) to be happy.".

This doesn't imply that anyone who experiences any amount of pleasure will therefore be happy, it alludes to a relationship between pain, pleasure, and happiness.

Calling me an idiot while blatantly misinterpreting what I've said is stupid within measure (ironically, it measures in the "idiot" range).

No, since you're not actively doing something to frustrate the ends of your sexuality. — Agustino

How does not getting married and not reproducing NOT frustrate "the necessary teleological ends of sex and your own sexuality/biology" (per your definition)?

Yes that is immoral. You can do whatever you want with your penis, that doesn't mean it's good.

The rest of your post is blabber, red herrings and strawmen so I won't bother. When you have something more significant to say, you can let me know. — Agustino

Stop saying that consensual sex is in any way morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism, and stop suggesting that consent has nothing to do with the "underlying morality of actions" (especially with reference to sex).

"I ain't never what said near nothin of that you scare-crow type person you!!!! Stop scaring my crows!!!! All I is what sayin - that sex is bad, you should feel bad, and always remember that consent gots nothin to do whatsoever with the moralities of sexual relations!!!".

As is customary, please enjoy the following musical number as as satirical interlude in this most riveting of debates!!!!

Can't say I disagree with any of that.

In this humble discussion Aug and I have been having, "casual sex" and sometimes "meaningless sex" is just short hand for "sex outside of the loving marriage bed".

What year is that pinup from BTW? I thought back then they had good christian morals... She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies.

Well I've already been through my tom-cat days, and compared to some of my friends from child-hood I've led a somewhat conservative sexual life-style (they actually went out every single weekend for hook-ups with different women each night, whereas I tended to maintain "friends with benefits" relationships more commonly).

Accidents are a part of life though, and I've learned a lot from my experiences; I don't regret them

I don't regret not currently being married (in fact I think that if I had gotten married, since I've changed so much since then (in ways I like) that I would probably be drowning in a regretful marriage and wind up in divorce court. I actually plan to seek a long term partner later in life if by then I haven't decided I'm utterly incapable of living happily in a committed marriage, but until then I prefer to focus on myself and my own happiness rather than to bring a partner on board.

Almost forgot the obligatory music video. This one should be educational for both of you!

Well once I was drunk and a very sexually aggressive chick took advantage of me. That's the only sex I actually regret, and while I hold myself only partially accountable, I've still learned a lesson and been able to move on. (it hasn't spoiled sex for me entirely). There was also the broken condom affair, but I learned a lesson there too...

Sometimes casual sex can be harmful, but if you practice safe sex and have some standards then the reward can be well worth the risk, like many things in life. (para-sailing, swimming, hiking, etc...)

If you crashed you car, would you regret having driven that day? Probably. Would you never drive again? Would you say driving is immoral?

because in his mind he thought girl at bar means she is sexually available as you are continuously reiterating. — TimeLine

Not quite. I keep reiterating that if a woman is dressed sexually and at a bar then it is reasonable and appropriate to think that sex might have something to do with what she is looking for.

I'm saying its reasonable to approach a woman in order to find out, NOT that it's moral to assume she is ready and willing...

By merely approaching you with the intention of finding out if you're interested in interacting with him, is he sexually objectifying you? (if you think so, then I would have to say that's life).

So why is sex for pleasure less satisfying then sex with an actual romantic lover? That is a problem in sexual ethics, there is no slippery slope but clearly you are unable to ascertain why because I see nothing but your usual desire to get a kick out of annoying religious people (and by the way, nothing like Aug considering I do not write 10,000 words of random nonsense and I am not religious).

You would need to substantiate how sex devoid of meaning - meaning of which can only be employed between a reciprocal sexual and emotional intimacy - is ethically justifiable because the absence of meaning purports that the act of sexual intercourse is solely the attainment of this orgasm. As such, having sexual intercourse with an animal for instance could become justifiable. I understand the dilemma to this paradox because consent should render the lack of emotions justifiable, but two people having meaningless sex is no different to one person having meaningless sex; it is without meaning. — TimeLine

Sex is less pleasurable with a casual partner because in addition to the orgasm you get the emotional feeling of love (additional pleasure).

The slippery slope I referred to was that you're suggesting people having casual sex will soon lead to rape. Make a strong argument as to why this will happen or the description of "slippery slope fallacy" applies perfectly.

So, you might feel like I'm here only to troll or to annoy, but believe it or not I have views of my own and when people, like you and Aug, suggest that I'm an immoral sinner or that the casual sex I engage in leads to rape, I'll happily write thousands and thousands of words until one of us is persuaded to the other-side or becomes fed up and goes away.

Just because I do something only for an orgasm doesn't make it inherently immoral. The burden of proof is not on me to justify why casual sex is not immoral. I can just allude that it does no necessary harm, and so a harm-based moral framework will not condemn it. What you have to explain is why casual sex is immoral, and "leads to rape" or "because the absence of meaning purports that the act of sexual intercourse is solely the attainment of this orgasm" aren't sufficient or sensical reasons.

In addition to this, as mentioned, there are psychosocial impacts to a culture of promiscuity as well as epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent should be to ascertain reasons why women begin to treat themselves as objects. You should take responsibility for how you act, not succumb to how others act, otherwise what is the point of your existence? — TimeLine

It's not my duty to wonder why some women do what some women do. Why don't some women take responsibility for how they act instead of suggesting that I'm causing them to act that way by engaging in promiscuous casual sex with other women????

As for integrity, it is all semantics. I am of the position that meaning is founded in our responsibility to become an autonomous moral agent, that my existence and being itself is determined by my principles of morality where my motives are concerned. To be autonomous and reason and think independent from that type of blind following of ones own desires. Integrity is to say that I hold esteem and value to these principles because it provides meaning to my existence. — TimeLine

I still don't understand why this means casual sex is immoral...

You say:

I don't devalue person-hoods by approaching women in bars. — VagabondSpectre


And then:

Give me a break, I just wanted to get laid, and I've had plenty of satisfied and unoffended customers. — VagabondSpectre


:-|

Customers, eh?

"Lacks acknowledgement of the person"... Give me a break and explain what you mean by this... Please... — VagabondSpectre


Perhaps you can first define what you mean when you label women as 'customers'? — TimeLine

I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them).

Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"?

The "satisfied" part actually indicates that I do treat them as if they are a person.

You've tacitly blamed me for the prevalence of rape, the promiscuous sexuality of women in western culture, and now you're expecting me to somehow answer for my grave insult of referring to sexual partners as "satisfied and unoffended customers" as if you've got a moral hatchet raised above my head....

Give me a break...

There is no equating of casual sex with suicide and cannibalism up there. A comparison, illustrating how consent is irrelevant to the immorality of the underlying activity, doesn't mean a comparison between the gravity of two different underlying activities. You're really having a hard time aren't you? — Agustino

O.k, to be fair you compared sex and cannibalism to denying intimacy sex to one's spouse (which is somehow equally disturbing), although you do later go on to compare casual sex with suicide as follows: "If someone says I wanna buy this pill and kill myself with it, it's wrong to sell them the pill. WHY? According to your stupid logic, which you don't even agree with, this shouldn't be wrong, because they've given their consent! (think of your stupid tattoo example)
"

The analogy that can be drawn is "if someone wants to have consensual sex with you, it's wrong to have sex with them in the same way (or by some degree of comparison) that giving them cyanide to kill themselves is wrong.

I do find it kind of amusing that you will make sure to clarify that you've not actually said something although you actually agree with it in principle.

No, stop right there. I wasn't trying to argue that. Seems like you have reading comprehension issues. I was illustrating that breaking of consent is one moral issue (which happens both in rape and in forced feeding) and the underlying action - feeding and sex - are another set of moral issues. — Agustino

Whether or not sex is consensual is a main determiner of whether or not an individual deems that sex to be traumatic or harmful. "The inherent (im)morality of casual sex" is directly tied to the issue of consent.

By your logic someone who has enjoyable and casual sex but then force fed cabbage has been equally harmed as someone who has been raped but then not force fed cabbage, right?

Because according to you breaking consent is different than the morality of sex. So someone who is raped has their consent breached (one unit of consent-harm) and is harmed by the casual and consensual sex (one unit of sex-harm). So the person who gets raped likewise has (one unit of-consent harm) and (one-unit of sex harm).

Consent and sex are two separate and entirely unrelated moral issues, so this makes sense right?

A comparison of how traumatic each are is irrelevant since I never compared them in the first place in terms of their gravity. I've only said that the breaking of consent is the same, and equally wrong in both. The reasons why one of them is more wrong than the other is because on top of breaking consent is added fornication. — Agustino

The main problem with this approach is that the same actions can be considered harmful by some, and not harmful by others, and furthermore when something is undesired (sex for instance) then experiencing it is made traumatic and harmful fairly explicitly by the lack of consent itself, not the necessary nature of the act (or sex act).

If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property.

If you want flyers though, and give me consent to send them to you, then the same action (sending flyers) becomes beneficial to you as opposed to harmful (consent changes the moral nature of the underlying action as it applies to individuals). If you're trying to install an in-ground pool, and you consent for me to dig the hole for it, then I'm actually doing something morally praiseworthy.

You cannot necessarily separate consent from the morality of certain actions and behaviors.

Right, so if someone consents that the invasive action of eating them alive be done on them, then it's right to eat them alive? :s If not, then why the fuck not? Clearly NOT because of consent, so stop citing consent like an idiot. — Agustino

So if you have sex with someone who consents to have sex, you would be doing something immoral to them like if you were to eat someone alive who consents to be eaten alive?

(I want to say "here's you comparing sex with cannibalism", but first I'll have you agree to the above sentence so that there will no longer be any doubt)

No, because they objectively burn and harm the skin of your body. — Agustino

But, MacDonald's workers often burn their hands on the hot equipment, so I guess that makes MacDonald's work immoral, even though they consent.

Obviously the pain of tattoos is not significant enough for people to care about, so why is a moral issue?

Don't give me this bullshit nonsense. Consent means that their will is broken. The additional trauma of it cannot have anything to do just with their will, cause their will is broken in forced eating too. It's the same will that is broken. In terms of consent, the same harm is done. So the additional harm can only come from a different source, not from the breaking of consent. — Agustino

It's this kind of confused thinking that will get you to say that rape is the same as casual sex combined with leaving sooner than your partner wants you to (i.e, after sex).

Sex is had in both cases and consent is breached in both cases. Right?

I never said I'm destined for divorce :s - really is your reading comprehension that bad? — Agustino

I think when you explained that "freedom to stay married" is like "the freedom of a slave to escape", I cannot be blamed for reading in-between the lines despite your constant protesting that you yourself are not at risk.

"whiny beta male" - that concept doesn't translate to me, sorry to tell you. — Agustino

Yes, and the gent doth protest to much me thinks...

This isn't a matter of ego-centrism at all, it's just a fact. If you think you're never harmed by the decisions of others then you're absolutely deluded, let me tell you that. We are harmed by the decisions of other people, including with regards to sexuality. And it isn't only one way that I'm harmed. If these dangerous misconceptions (some of which you're also peddling) spread through society, then we'll live in a far worse place than otherwise. — Agustino

The private decisions of other people to engage in consensual sexual acts behind closed doors do not tangibly affect you (this encapsulates your ego-centrism). Peddling the idea that you and society are harmed when your warped morals pertaining to sex are breached behind closed doors is a very dangerous idea because if enough people really believed it they would probably go around enforcing it, just like your bible says to do.

No it's absolutely not ego-centric. Ego-centric is something that I derive pleasure from, something that is selfish. There's no question of selfishness here, because what you call "my sense of entitlement and harm" is nothing but a natural human reaction, which you have perhaps repressed in your own self. Respecting yourself isn't the same as selfishness. You're really having a hard time tonight — Agustino

But if your future wife is out there having consensual sex right now, she's harming you. If you could magically communicate with her, you would probably tell her how badly she has emotionally injured you. That's selfish by my standards...

Right, it's not as harmful as non-consensual sex, that doesn't mean it isn't harmful. — Agustino

Oh, but the morality of an underlying action has nothing to do with consent RIGHT?

If you're willing to admit you previously described the relationship between consent and sex incorrectly, maybe we can begin to start climbing back out of this rabbit hole you've dragged us into...

No it's absolutely not a highly relevant aspect of dinner or sex morality. It's a highly relevant aspect of the morality of interacting with others, regardless of what kind of interaction you have with them. Again, seems like you have no clue what you're talking about. You fail to see a very simple distinction.

If consent is what makes an underlying activity moral or immoral, then why the FUCK is eating someone alive not moral if they give you their consent huh? Stop pretending you don't understand this simple analogy. There is much more to morality than your consent. And this is proven to anyone reading this, beyond any reasonable doubt. Consent alone cannot describe the morality of underlying activities, but rather the morality of interactions with people, regardless of the nature of those interactions. But the underlying activities are also relevant to determine the moral relevance of the entire situation.

And no, trying to separate consent from sexual morality is absolutely fine. I DO separate consent from the morality of cannibalism, why shouldn't I do the same for sex, and all other activities? :s These things must be judged separately. — Agustino

So I never actually said that consent is always the only consideration that must be made when determining "the underlying immorality of an action", but it was you who kept saying that consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action. I think that the inaccuracy of that is by now proven to anyone reading this.

Cannibalism isn't always immoral by the way, if consuming the dead is the only means of survival, then it's not immoral at the very least.

Sex isn't always harmful or immoral, and comparing it to murder and cannibalism is misleading because cannibalism and killing are almost always harmful and immoral, while in many many situations casual sex is not at all harmful.

"Maybe someone will regret sex" is not a necessary harm, nor is "I view promiscuous people as having less dignity" a necessary harm.

You still need to demonstrate why casual sex is necessarily harmful; that's the central crux of your entire position.

The latter. And no, without masturbation you won't necessarily become stressed and sexually frustrated. It's something that comes with practice, given that we live in a very promiscuous and hyper-sexualised culture. You actually feel much better in many regards without masturbation.

Just strictly sexually, masturbation is probably the worst sin. But overall it's preferable to fornication because fornication isn't just a sexual sin, but also a sin against charity and justice. So yes, if people cannot be chaste, they should definitely resort to masturbation rather than another activity. — Agustino

So "not reproducing" and not "getting married" is immoral? Or is it just immoral to touch yourself for pleasure because you're misusing the necessary teleological ends of your penis?

(it's my penis and I'll do with it what I want to thanks)

Yes, I think you should, but I have no idea how exactly you'd "disrespect" it... — Agustino

What if you were conceived on the counter of a truck stop bathroom? Should you revere the truck stop bathroom countertop or the entire truck stop? Does that also include revering the employees? (does that include the employees who were working there at the time or any subsequent employee to ever have worked there?).

Since you're on about some sacredness of the "whole being" and all that, we need to be clear and specific about these things I think.

Quite the contrary, I think it's you who is completely on the move back, projecting onto me your own ideas and your own worldview, which I do not share. — Agustino

"Fails to actualize potential for communion" becomes "disrespects person hood" "disconsidering of the emotional well-being of the other" which becomes "invasive to whole being" which becomes "close to your conception" which becomes "something to revere" which becomes "problematic if misused" et cetra, et cetra.

"Consent has nothing at all to do with moral issues pertaining to sex" becomes "Of course consent has to do with the morality of human interaction (including sex)" which then reverts back to "of course the issue of consent is different from the immorality of sex".

A quick recap: My position is that consensual and casual sex between two adults isn't necessarily harmful, and previously it was that the mere intention to be sexually appealing as indecency is not a sound or useful foundation for determining social moral norms. These views have not changed at all, and what we've been doing is going through layers of your attempts to actually justify your contrary views (such as by insisting that casual sex is abuse, and using all kinds of descriptions as to why (i.e: harmful to integrity, lowers value as person, disrespects person-hood, invasive to whole being, something to be revered, harmful to future spouses, disconsiderative of emotional well-being, contributes to rising divorce and the collapse of society, teleological misuse of necessary ends compared to accidental ends (see Aristotle XD), et cetra, et cetra.)).

the reason why you've had to thrust so many varied reasons as to why casual sex is inherently immoral is because I've criticized each one at length and explained that the types of "harm" that you describe all have to do with your subjective sensibilities (things like integrity, personhood, emotional-well being (you presume everyone's emotional well being is harmed by casual sex), value as a person, reverence of a sacred act, and the value of adhering to teleological necessity (see: your argument on the harm of masturbation) and therefore are not perceived by everyone in the same way and are often not considered to be harmful at all (for example, many people disagree that casual sex is damaging to their emotional well-being, or that the loss of "dignity" is actually harmful), OR, that the societal harm you allege is the fault of promiscuity and casual sex is not directly or only correlated (via causation) with casual sex alone, but instead with a host of other factors which must be addressed before assertions like "promiscuity is the main cause of the rise in divorce rates" can be made with confidence.

Why is casual sex necessarily harmful?

That's the question I'm hoping you can answer. I never needed convincing that casual sex MIGHT be harmful (in a given instance), but I'm still hoping that you can convince me why casual sex is necessarily harmful in each and every instance. "Might lead to increased societal divorce rates" isn't a necessary harm, and even if there was a necessary causative relationship divorce isn't always harmful, and humans should not be morally obligated to get married or to stay married unless we're somehow morally obligated to perpetuate human society in that specific manner, which we're not.

I never said sex is inherently harmful. Invasive =/ harmful.

Yes, sex with your spouse is inherently good. Why? Because it is a relationship of love, where you give infinite commitment to each other, the kind of commitment that two human beings deserve to share in. — Agustino

You said casual sex is necessarily harmful/immoral, because they're using eachother like tools, personhood, disconsidering, yata yata yata....

So if it's not "invasiveness" that's inherently harmful about casual sex, what is it then?

Also, does this mean that divorce is always immoral because it means you've been having sex without infinite love and commitment?

Your question is bullshit. Rephrase it like "Why is sex an OK thing to do to your spouse and not an OK thing to do to a consenting non-spouse?" - well it's the way you value them ultimately. To one of them you have dedicated yourself to care for her unto eternity, and to the other, you're not dedicated to her at all, just want to use her body. That's wrong. — Agustino

But she knows that, and she just wants me to use her body, and she just wants to use my body, and I know that, and we're O.K with that, because we want to have fun, not dedicate ourselves to each-other forever...

So why is it still wrong? Why is it inherently wrong to use the body of a consenting adult? (just like the paid coal miner who has coal dust invade their lungs and harm them, consent is relevant.)

I've actually read all those books. — Agustino

So you do realize that much of your psychology and emotional behavior is geared directly toward you successfully impregnating a female? (including for instance, why you wear clothes that you think look nice (INDECENT!))

Your instinctive desire to bond for life with a female is the result of a particular evolutionary strategy where you ensure the spread of your own genetics by putting in work and effort along-side a partner in the rearing of the children that your biological sexual urges caused you to create together. "Love" is actually a chemical cocktail designed to cement a long term attraction between two individuals which have been intimate, which subsequently causes them to stick together and cooperate in the rearing of the children.

The so called "necessary teleological ends of sex" are themselves accidents of evolution.

Why then do you pretend that biological imperatives such as "have sex, impregnate a woman, and fall in love" should be the basis for moral arguments like "It's our moral duty to get married, have kids, and stay together". Who or what does your morality serve? Evolution?

Are you not traveling while you're joyriding silly boy? — Agustino

Not if I'm going in circles, therefore it would be immoral right?

Nope, this is the wrong conclusion. If you ate JUST for pleasure, in other words, if you purposefully frustrated the end of eating (nutrition) then it would be immoral. That's like chewing food but not swallowing it, and instead spitting it out. Yes, doing that would be immoral precisely because it would frustrate the end of eating. — Agustino

So I take it you think the use of contraceptives is immoral because it frustrates the "necessary end" of sex?

Yes, actually the necessary end of a dildo IS sexual pleasure. And if I were to use the dildo to moralise against you, by perhaps waving it in your face, that would be immoral. — Agustino

Dildos are themselves inherently immoral though because their existence frustrates the necessary ends of sex right?

What makes you think God can be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error. — Agustino

What makes you think God cannot be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error.

What does being necessary to remain alive have to do with the natural teleology in question? Clearly you haven't read Aristotle very well AT ALL. And no, you can't make an assumption which you then proceed to negate. — Agustino

I think the burden of proof is on you to show why an individual needs to procreate and find long term intimate monogamy in order to be healthy. Your teleological ends argument is stupid because nobody cares what you think are the necessary and accidental ends of given objects and behaviors, and nobody thinks they're morally obligated to adhere to those "necessary ends" even if they assented to your teleological framework.

You're currently celibate with no children. You're being immoral right?

The longer you wait to get married, the more you frustrate your own teleological ends...

Who says they're not required for happiness? You? I disagree. — Agustino

Now you want to tell me what is required for my own happiness?

That doesn't mean it's not immoral, it just means it's acceptable in some circumstances because it's a lesser evil. Much like masturbation is for many people. — Agustino

If it's acceptable than it's not immoral. Cannibalizing the dead out of necessity for survival is not immoral; forgiveness is not required. Things aren't immoral because they're inherently immoral, (I mean you can believe and say they are but that's not a convincing argument) they're immoral for specific reasons under any moral framework that is actually reason-based (as opposed to arbitrarily and absolute platitudes).

No, not consent. But rather things like are you married to her (read, are you devoted to her for all eternity)? Do you care for her as a person? Do you value her for who she is as a human being? Is sex an expression of your love for her, or a selfish means of using her body to achieve pleasure for yourself? — Agustino

There you go again, suggesting that consent doesn't matter in regards to the morality of sex...

So I guess if you love someone, value them for who they are as a human being, care for them as a person, and want to use sex as an expression of your love for them, then raping them is not immoral. Because consent is not relevant to the morality of sex, remember?

Same for casual sex. It seems you enjoy your double standards. — Agustino

But we do allow people to have casual sex, because we don't live in the nightmarish puritanical and authoritarian theocracy that you want us all to live in.

So you think it's a double standard that we intervene in the lives of suicidal people but do not intervene in the lives of consenting adults who have casual sex?

You're explicitly comparing casual sex to suicide (again) as if there's some degree of moral equivalence... I can only imagine the whirlwind of emotion and dissonance that's unfolding inside your brain right now...

And will the person in question be charged with just theft or more? And why? — Agustino

They'll be charged with desecration of a human body too (because offensive to the family and is generally against the consent of the deceased). If it was in someone's will to be cremated and baked into cookies, and then to be eaten by someone, and the family wanted that to happen, there's not much the law could do to prevent them from doing so (where the lawyers at?).

Right, so the activity is inherently immoral, such that it requires forgiveness even in those limit cases you quote. I agree ;) — Agustino

Actually, it's not immoral such that emotional forgiveness is to be expected.. I'm glad we can agree ;)

Sorry to tell you, being insane aren't grounds for arrest. Try again please. — Agustino

Actually they are sufficient grounds. You can commit an insane person to a mental asylum and if the doctors think they're a danger to themselves or others then they will be kept there.

Why don't we arrest you for being rude and disrespectful? Well, because we don't always punish immoralities legally. That doesn't change the fact they are immoral though. — Agustino

Actually it's because what people find to be rude and disrespectful can be entirely subjective, such that it would be impossible to find one universally agreeable set of very specific standards. If we let one individual decide what constitutes rudeness and disrespect then everyone with different sensibilities and standards would become a criminal overnight. If we decided democratically on rigid and specifc (and petty) standards like not wearing hats indoors or wearing a flattering dress then a massive chunk of the population would still be made into a criminal purely because they do not share the same standards of decency and respectability that other people share.

There currently are many laws which are based around matters of rudeness and respect/decency though, and they're passable because they're almost universally agreed upon and they at least try to base themselves in tangible freedom/harm based moral reasoning (nudity laws, spitting laws, harassment laws, and more).

You want to be the person to tell everyone else how to behave I reckon... You know all the correct behaviors and how to live while most of the people around you are like mewling infants who don't know how to not burn their hands on hot stove elements...

You would make a great and terrible tyrant...

So people are also capable of insulting each other without harming one another right? — Agustino

Why yes! Tis true!

You can insult me repeatedly but you're not actually harming me (in fact I find them quite amusing).

It all has to do with emotional robustness you see. Since I don't base my self-esteem or self-worth by how you feel about me or what you say about me, I have nothing to lose!

In a similar fashion, experienced and consenting adults are able to have pleasurable casual sex and not come to tears about it afterward...

Why? Just because pleasure is associated with eating? That is not sufficient to qualify it as a fundamental end of eating. Just because most people choose food they enjoy eating? Again, that's irrelevant. — Agustino

Pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology. The drive to seek pleasure is just as fundamental as the drive to avoid pain and to stay alive. For some people, the pleasure of food is a part of what makes life worth living, and so pleasure from eating very well can be a necessary and intentional end for a given individual.

First you have not illustrated that it's a nightmare. Second of all, it has zero to do with sexual repression, and the fact that you say that really tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Repressing sexuality is very different than simply expressing it in the circumstances when it is appropriate. You're just throwing this word around, and it seems you have no clue what it means at all. So please, have a look at what Freud for example wrote about repression. Repression isn't simply being a celibate. A celibate doesn't repress their sexuality generally, but rather they sublimate it, which is very very different. You have very little knowledge of this, perhaps because of your stunted development due to your overindulgence in sex. — Agustino

:D

The gentlemen definitely doth protest too much me thinks...

So your vision of a moral world is a nightmare to me because it means that I'm not allowed to masturbate (those darn noahide laws!), hot women are thrown in jail for being too hot (that's kinda hot though), and sex outside of the marriage bed would likewise get me thrown in jail. You will say that you don't think society should actually legally sanction me for breaching your personal moral taboos, but you do insist that Im a hell-bound sinner and that if I was moral I would behave just like you do.

Now, if you can work it out to where society saves money by incarcerating me in the same prison as all the hot women, then I would be quite O.K with that...

First you tried to send me to Aristotle and now you're sending me to Freud? Oh my... IT'S SUBLIMATION NOT REPRESSION DAMMIT! THERE'S A DIFFERENCE! *begins fapping furiously and angrily*"

No it's absolutely laughable how you think you could object that way, and it just illustrates your complete ignorance of the matters at hand. You're conflating pleasure and happiness. The two are not the same. The drug addict may feel pleasure, but we wouldn't call him happy. — Agustino

We've been over this before Aug: pleasure/pain contributes to happiness/unhappiness.

I'm not conflating pleasure and happiness by suggesting that people can use pleasures like sex and eating in order to achieve a state of happiness....

Sex is an act between people. It cannot be separated for the significance of others and reduced to a pleasure motivation. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You didn't catch my bit about glory holes?

If you want to argue that there's always some emotion during sex, that's fine and I'm not a psychologist who knows better, but very evidently some sexual encounters can be less emotional than others where sexual satisfaction is the goal for both parties rather than intimate or emotional connection.

So I ask again, what's so wrong about that?

In his mind, he took away my humanity, everything that I am and turned me into a disposable object and I was not allowed to get upset about that. — TimeLine

If someone stares at you and invades your personal space, then they're in the wrong. Merely approaching you and speaking to you however isn't something I would expect you to be upset about.

As far as him remarking "what!?", are you sure that he stripped you of your humanity in his mind?

Perhaps he was just surprised that you were repulsed/put off by him because he lacks self-awareness? (this isn't really a point of interest though)

Casual sex is symptomatic of a carelessness to ones own integrity and there is no value to it other than obtaining an orgasm or a fleeting sense of pleasure, ultimately targeted by those that have built a disjunctive against reciprocal significance of love or affection. They become nothing but a body that reduces the intimacy to nothing more than a mere transaction. The dilemma here is two-fold; the impact at a macro-level as mentioned below notwithstanding the psychological and epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent, but if we reduce the significance of sex to become devoid of meaning, it enables a permissibility of many acts of sexual deviation including non-consensual. Such intimacy must be reciprocal both sexually and emotionally to establish meaning. — TimeLine

"Careless to one's integrity" is just as meaningless to me as half the crap Aug as been writing...

Obtaining orgasms are sometimes the only value that people want out of sex, what's so wrong about that?

You employ a slippery-slope argument and suggest that sex for pleasure (as opposed to love?) will eventually lead to non-consensual sex (rape), which seems like a rather negative and presumptive view of things. Sex for pleasure is less satisfying than sex with an actual romantic lover, sure, but making casual sex out to be inherently harmful (especially along vague and subjective lines like "integrity") is just unsubstantiated prudishness.

This is not about right or wrong on a case-by-case basis and sexual objectification is not emotional, we are talking about what is going on in your mind; what is in question is your interpretation of the types of women that exist under these particular settings. This is an objectionable point of view because it brazenly assumes and overall contributes to imagined constructs that devalues personhood. It lacks the acknowledgement of the person and such assumptions form social pressures that contribute - just as marketing and mainstream media do - to a number of psychological problems where men and women become obsessed with their appearances, getting plastic surgery or drawing on eyebrows to perfect themselves, for what exactly? You're loose moral contributes to something much greater. — TimeLine

I don't devalue person-hoods by approaching women in bars. I think you actually are devaluing their person-hood by assuming that they're so emotionally fragile that If I approach them and interact with them with any sexual motive that they're going to necessarily take offense and be harmed.

And now you're suggesting that me having some sexual interest in women in appropriate settings like bars and nightclubs is what leads to the oppressive image based over-sexualization of western culture?

Give me a break, I just wanted to get laid, and I've had plenty of satisfied and unoffended customers.

"Lacks acknowledgement of the person"... Give me a break and explain what you mean by this... Please...

I'm quite sure people don't drink because it's pleasurable (or they're thirsty), but rather because they're going to die if they don't. Obviously the same doesn't hold with regards to sexuality. — Agustino

People do drink for pleasure, that's why they pay extra money for all kinds of flavored and carbonated beverages. This is common sense Aug...

Where have I done that? Stop straw-manning please. I know that you don't really have arguments against me, because I read through your post and it's mostly blabber and completely off the point, but still you should have the decency not to be intellectually dishonest. Certainly you should read the passage you quoted again: — Agustino

The ordering of my quotations got a bit messed up, but surely you didn't forget making that comparison:

"Furthermore, if sex always involves one's whole being (as a person), is it right and loving to deny your beloved sexual fulfillment, by denying them intimacy, for example? Or do you mean to argue that you simply do not care about the actual needs of the other, but only what they say, such that if they were to tell you that their need is to be eaten alive, you would proceed to give them a hand with it?"

There you go.

I'm not strawmanning you at all Aug, you've said all this shit on your own...

Right motherducker, and did I say anything different?! The immorality has nothing to do with the underlying activity (whether this is SEX or EATING DINNER), but rather with the infringement of their freedom. And in both cases, there is the SAME infringement of freedom. — Agustino

When you stated that consent has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity you made it pretty clear that you weren't talking about freedom (which is related to consent). you were trying to argue that sex is inherently more harmful than forced feeding as a part of your argument that casual sex is inherently harmful, but it doesn't apply because non-consensual sex is more traumatic than non-consensual food consumption, but non-consensual food-consumption is also more traumatic than consensual sex, which is possibly not traumatic at all

You asked me "why is forced sex worse than forced eating if consent doesn't exist in both cases?" (expecting the answer "because sex is inherently more harmful") What you fail to grasp is that it's the non-consensual aspect of sex itself that makes it so much more traumatic. You kept ranting that consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action, but clearly when it comes to matters of personal freedom, it does.

If you still don't grasp this basic reality, answer this question: Why is sex between consenting adults not considered to be worse than kidnapping or forced feeding?

and until now you were saying that the prostitute does a service just like the McDonald worker - no difference!! Can you see how that was a piece of crap that you're contradicting yourself now? So now you finally admit that sex is different from other activities. It's more invasive. Maybe I should start like you. But why? Why is it more invasive?! Ahhhh is it because it has to do with their personhood, and involves their whole being [CITATION NEEDED], just like I told you before eh? — Agustino

The service that the prostitute does is more invasive on their body, but then, arguably the work a coal miner does is more or just as invasive on their body than even prostitution might be for a woman.
The important thing is that the person consent to the invasive action to be done upon them. In the case of sex, a lot of the time the invasive actions are welcomed as desirable and pleasurable (keep in mind that sex has a different impact when when sex is unwelcome/non consensual). A prostitute who might not actually want to have sex but does so anyway is exchanging money/goods for a service in the same type of transaction that a coal miner or a Macdonald's worker is. We can say that the MacDonald's work is less invasive (and that's why they tend to get paid less), but we could also say that coal mining is more invasive (and that's why they tend to get paid more).

The coal dust that enters the lungs of the miner might be there forever and cause them to die a slow painful death. You could make comparisons about STD's and sex but health problems probably come from coal mining much more reliably than from sex work. But maybe now you might begin to understand that goods and services exist on a market where the price of something is determined by how much people want or need a particular good and service, and the difficulty/sacrifices people must undertake produce them.

Bullshit. Forcing you to do something against your will is immoral, regardless of what I force you to do against your will. But - there can be additional immoralities that have to do with the underlying activity that I force you into, and those immoralities have to do with the activity in question and its nature, not with disrespecting your will. — Agustino

Again, when sex is done against someone's will, it tends to be severely traumatic, that's why consent has a lot to do with the morality/impact/potential harm of sex. consensual sex between adults does not tend to be traumatic, it tends to be enjoyable.

Nope. Giving someone a tattoo is immoral in both cases. However, when you force them, there are two immoralities - the immorality of forcing them against their will, and the immorality of harming their body. The latter one is the only one that has to do with the activity of giving them a tattoo in and of itself. The other one has to do with respecting their will. — Agustino

Why are tattoo's harmful to the body? Did god say so?

That is immoral not because of the underlying sexual activity (which is moral, you're having sex with your wife), but because you force her to do something against her will. If you forced her to have dinner with you in the same manner, that would be equally immoral. — Agustino

Just to be clear, is it that you are married to her which makes the sex not immoral or that there is "communion" or whatever. In other words, if they were not married but still in love and all that, would the sex still not be immoral?

You have answered, FINALLY - that having sex is more "invasive" than having dinner. So you perceived my point, even though you're being a little snitch and trying to hide this, that there is something in the underlying activity, beyond consent, that makes one worse than the other. Consent is broken in both cases.

If someone says I wanna buy this pill and kill myself with it, it's wrong to sell them the pill. WHY? According to your stupid logic, which you don't even agree with, this shouldn't be wrong, because they've given their consent! (think of your stupid tattoo example) — Agustino

There you go again, comparing sex to suicide...

And now tattos are matters of life and death too...

Sex is invasive, but whether or not it's "harmful" depends almost entirely on the will and disposition of the participants (unless an STD or an unwanted pregnancy is involved). People have invasive things done to them all the time but they don;t consider it harmful, they consider it pleasurable (and verily, we cannot point to necessary and substantial bodily or psychological harm,). People enjoy sex and they enjoy tattoos and while there is some risk of harm we don't forbid people to pursue happiness on the basis that they might harm themselves (not unless we treat them like children, like some authoritarian overlord).

This is why people can have mutually enjoyable sex all the time and afterward might be more happy and less stressed - because consensual invasiveness isn't necessarily harmful.

At this point you will just refer back to your original assumption (begging the question) god said sex is bad so it's bad.

So Vagabond, does God randomly decide what actions please Him and what actions displease Him? Or does He have some rationality in so deciding? I feel that you think God is some sort of idiot who would make you do what's actually bad and harmful for you. — Agustino

Well, actually, stupid people randomly decide what pleases and displeases "Him". The stupid people who either think they know "god" or pretend to speak on it's behalf sometimes try to use reason, but the assortment of centuries old moral positions found in religions contain so many stupid and retarded moral arguments that we're better off starting from godless scratch.

Irrelevant. — Agustino

Irrelevant to what? The tears of baby Jesus?

Yes, because quite honestly, you're just using this as an excuse to think of yourself as moral, when you should be thinking the opposite. It's a problem that you don't consider other people. — Agustino

I do consider other people, I just don't consider them to be children in need of righteous guidance or constant emotional coddling. That and I don't have a warped and negative (and anticipatory) view of casual sex.

It means the same shit you were saying when you said sex is more invasive than having dinner :s Really, you're feigned ignorance is pathetic. — Agustino

So "whole being" means that "sex is more invasive than food consumption"?

Why did you say "whole being" instead of "sex is invasive and invasiveness is harmful" then?

But now I get to ask: When you have sex with your wife, it's invasive (and therefore harmful by that logic), right?

Yes, a scientific foundation is exactly what you lack, that's why you can't even distinguish properly between different aspects of morality. — Agustino

Are you saying that you have a scientific moral framework?

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all year...

I don't care if they're virgins, but I do care if they're decent people who strive to be moral. Someone who goes out every weekend to shag a different person is highly immoral, and definitely not decent, so yes, I wouldn't be interested in them. If someone had sex because they had a boyfriend or something, then that's understandable to a certain degree (though obviously still immoral).

And yes, of course sexual immorality affects me - as well as everyone else in society, including children and couples. That's why divorce rates are through the roof and people can't even have a fucking family anymore. So many children growing up with a single parent or worse. — Agustino

So 'promiscuity causes divorce' is your best and only argument that's actually based in the material world (other than your insistence that casual sex is always and necessarily harmful). At least it's something...

But it's not the only factor that leads to divorce, and making sex outside of marriage illegal (per the noahide laws and your own morality) might actually cause more harm than the amount of harmful divorces which are caused by sex outside of marriage in the first place. It's also important to note that not all divorces are bad, because sometimes it brings an end to abusive and dysfunctional relationships. You can blame sluts for the collapse of western society all you like but your argument as to how that happens is chained lunacy (because you think divorce is all the fault of immoral sex fault and that will destroy the nuclear family and therefore the culture/children and therefore your religion and therefore the economy and therefore the nation?)

And in short, yes you're emotionally affected. Got it...

Yes, and so should men. They should strive to do that, they may fail, but that's not that bad if they're at least trying. But many, especially amongst men, don't even give a fuck, and that's very immoral, and a serious problem. — Agustino

Naa, it's not immoral, and since we've already established that you shouldstop feigning pathetic ignorance and assent to my constant appeals to god and tradition and outright question begging.

I'm ego-centric? >:O >:O

Says the guy who likes shagging random people because it "feels good", and who isn't concerned about their emotional being, because, well that's too much to ask of him, they should take care of themselves! >:O >:O Give me a break! — Agustino

You're the guy who moans that he is destined for divorce. Like a slave who is "free to escape", you're free to try and fail at marriage.

You fear you will fail at marriage because you view everyone else as a greedy promiscuous slut who won't be able to resist cheating on you or to invest in life long monogamy the way god intended...

When a woman has sex, "harm is done to her future spouse", (that's you). Your future wife is out there getting fucked, possibly as we speak. Maybe she will even get pregnant (will she get an abortion and not tell you I wonder?) .

How familiar are you with the term "cuck"? (Don't answer that). It comes from cuckhold (which means your wife got impregnated by another man), but over the last three years it has come to be used as a broad pejorative that gets wielded against conservative men who basically protest too much (like a liberal, kinda). There's a few different political senses of the term, but a broad and main one essentially describes over-confident person who is in reality a whiny beta male whose insecurities (such as the inability to sexually satisfy their wife) winds up forcing them to make liberal compromises (such as letting another man sexually gratify their wife (ouch!)). It's used mainly because it bothers people with insecurity severely.

I brought up what I view to be your ego centrism because you have made it abundantly clear that the personal and private decisions of other free and consenting adults bothers you to the extent you consider yourself harmed by them. You will of course go out of your way to make it clear that you're not worried about yourself (you're an alpha, that's a given), but the way go on and lament how all the other men will be enslaved to divorce makes it seem like that's how you really feel about your own future. The way you describe sex as harmful to one's future spouse must mean you yourself are being harmed by your future wife (if she isn't a virgin) before you've even met her. This has a bit of the "protests too much" angle, and so you should be aware that voicing many of your points in many mainstream political circles would be met with the "cuck" retort.

I'm not calling you a cuck though, I don't want to pretend to get at the roots of whatever makes you feel entitled/harmed when it comes to how, when, and why other people engage in sex. But I am pointing out that your sense of entitlement and harm regarding the private actions of other people is ego-centric and seems like a psychological insecurity.

No, that's not what I'm saying. — Agustino

When you just pull terms out of your ass like "dignity" and stake your movable goal post into the ground you cannot blame me for making sensical comparisons like the fact that an illegal alien who works for less than you sacrifices their dignity in doing so.

Why is that different from the sacrificed dignity of the prostitute? Is it a different kind of dignity?

Does baby Jesus not weep?

Have you run out of arguments?

Oh really? I didn't know we had a special term for it. You surely had to bold it and make it obvious. So what if it's rape? :s Why the hell does it matter that we call it rape and not fjhsdhdas? Breaking someone's consent is immoral - on top of that is added the immorality of the sexual act (fornication) and therefore we assign it a special place of immorality, and call it rape. — Agustino

Because you repeated and capitalized nonsense about how consent has nothing to do with the morality of sex. Clearly that's not the case because non-consensual sex is deemed by society to be harmful/illegal/immoral, while consensual sex is not considered to be illegal/harmful/immoral in the same way. Your point about how the morality of sex has to do with the nature of the act is either some ad hoc misguided nonsense you haphazardly excreted on the spot or it stems from some kind of god based absolute "X is wrong because X is wrong" nonsense...

Which is it?

No, it's not. Consent is part of respecting your will, which is different from dinner morality and sex morality. It is also a part of morality, but a different aspect of it. — Agustino

Normally I would ridicule this by suggesting that it resembles something a mentally deficient child would produce, but since that won't help you understand, let me try a different approach:

"sex morality" and "dinner morality" are short hand for referencing "moral issues pertaining to sex and sexual interaction" and "moral issues pertaining to dining with other people". In both cases "respecting the will" of the participants is a highly relevant issue in many respects, and so trying to separate out consent from "sex morality" sounds absolutely ridiculous and as if you're totally unfamiliar with how your own ideas actually sound.

I see you've run out of arguments, and into speculation. — Agustino

So which is it. Is sex bad because you fear divorce or is sex bad because baby Jesus weeps. Take your pick and the arguments will keep flowing.

But I cannot treat sewage without substance, you've got to provide that.

Immorality doesn't only harm you in the afterlife, but in this life also. — Agustino

Are you answering the question with a "yes" or are you just running away?

No it's not. It's not an inherent end of sex. That's exactly why masturbation is wrong. — Agustino

Without masturbation you will become stressed and sexually frustrated unless you have a partner who is adequately available for sex.

Let's clarify though: masturbation is bad because it's pleasurable or because it's not intimacy or reproduction oriented?

Ehmm, yes it does actually mean we need to treat it with reverence and respect. — Agustino

What about the bed upon which your parents fucked in order to conceive you, must we treat that with reverence and respect?

What if you were the result of invitro-fertilization, must you treat the petri dish with reverence and respect?

Why does "close to our conception" or whatever actually mean such that we need to revere it? You keep making conclusions which don't appear to follow from any combination of the available and presumptive premises you've offered.

Intimacy is one thing that can only be achieved, to that same extent, via the sexual act. That's why it counts as an end of sex. Sure, you can be intimate by sharing food - but that's not as intimate as having sex. Why? Because sex is fucking more invasive, you yourself said it just a few moments ago! It's kind of pathetic how you pretend to forget what you have said, and shift from contradiction to contradiction because you want to run away from the truth.

And no, I'm not talking of "essential characteristics", but rather essential ends. — Agustino

It's because you have an internally contradictory view of sex (warped) that causes you to A, not understand my own moral framework, and B, to jump back and forth (cognitive dissionance?) between random, varied, and inexorably contradictory positions as you try to avoid the many problems I've pointed out.

For example, you tried to argue that the morality of sex has nothing to do with consent (as if sex is an invasive procedure that is inherently harmful in and of itself), but then you went on to state that sex is not inherently immoral (and therefore not invasive/harmful?) so long as it's with your spouse. (to me this indicates some arbitrary specific standard around which you presently dance)

Why is the harmful invasiveness of sex an O.K thing to do to your spouse but not an O.K thing to do to a consenting non-spouse? If your wife asked you to eat her alive, you wouldn't give her a hand would you? (protip: that last question is a red-herring)

No, because the same degree of fun achieved with sex can be achieved via other means. So that "fun" isn't essential to define sex. It's not the same as reproduction and intimacy. I told you to read Aristotle, and you should, because then you'd actually understand what essential means, and how it opposes accidental. Accidental doesn't mean that there isn't a connection between two things, but rather that that connection does not belong to the essence of the activity. — Agustino

Sorry that I'm not ready to submit to your dogmatic appeal to an ancient teleological framework as you try to weave it in to some kind of twisted purpose or "end" based moral platform. I have my own way of classifying, describing and understanding concepts and objects, and frankly I think it quite naive a position for you to expect me to assent to an assertion like "the purpose of sex is intimacy and reproduction, therefore subverting these purposes is immoral"...

You should read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, and if you have time "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" by the late great Christopher Hitchens.

(Spoiler alert: I've already read Aristotle but I missed the nonsensical bit that actually determined "necessary/essential ends/characteristics" to be the basis for moral oughts.

You do realize how many crazy things we can conclude using your reasoning? "The necessary end of bicycles is travel, therefore joyriding is immoral!", or, "The necessary end of eating food is nutrition, therefore eating for pleasure is immoral!", or "the necessary end of living is dying, therefore living for pleasure is immoral!", or "the necessary end of eyesight is awareness, therefore looking at art for pleasure is immoral! or "the necessary end of rest is to convalesce, therefore resting for pleasure is immoral!", or "the necessary end of listening to music is pleasure, therefore listening to gospel/hymns for religious enlightenment immoral!". Need I go on?

The necessary end of a chair is to be sat upon, therefore using it to jam a door closed is immoral!

The necessary end of a dildo is to be inserted into vaginas/rectums, therefore using it to moralize and condemn free agents is immoral!

O.k I'm done...

The end of eating is providing nutrition for your body. It's NOT pleasure. Pleasure is an accidental feature of eating. Likewise for sex. And it has ZERO to do with whether something is required for living or not. — Agustino

According to you masturbation is immoral because sex has essential ends of intimacy and reproduction, while pleasure is only accidental (sad). By that logic eating food for pleasure (choosing a dish for taste over nutrition) is immoral. Right?

The freedom of people is only part of morality. We're talking about the intrinsic morality of certain actions now, so stop bringing in the freedom of the people. The freedom isn't negated because action X is immoral. They're still free to engage in it, but that doesn't change the fact that it is immoral. — Agustino

This is exactly what I've been saying about your moral framework; it's based on some continuous appeal to the intrinsic/inherent/innate immorality of something, in this case sex, and while I constantly ask why sex in the marriage bed is not immoral while sex outside of it is, all you need to do is keep referring back to the assumption (restating, over and over and over) that such seX is immoral.

Everytime I talk about weeping baby Jesus, I'm ridiculing/assuming that you get your moral constants from an arbitrary source like God (which seems totally correct given how much you've referred to Christianity as your moral inspiration).

What if God is gay though?

Care to answer the questions? Or do you prefer to run away? — Agustino

O.K
"As we have established, sex is inherently directed towards a unitive end (btw we're talking about sex in-so-far as it relates to persons, so please don't bring up animals), so then if you deny yourself this unitive end by whatever means, is that no different and no worse than chewing food for the taste, and then spitting it out?"

No, because intimacy and reproduction are not required to be healthy and go on living. Although, assuming that you're already well nourished, it's not harmful at all to chew and spit out food for the taste, or to sip and spit out wine at a wine tasting.

"If you refused to eat food anymore, denied the nutritional end of eating, and instead just chewed the food for the taste, and then spit it out, would you be harming yourself?"

Yes you would be harming yourself, because eating food is required to go on living, intimacy and reproduction are not.


"So then Vagabond, don't you think that likewise you'd be harming yourself if you deny the unitive purpose of sex, which as we said is very close to your own being, and doing so regardless of whether or not you experienced some pleasure in the process?"

No, because "has reproduced" or "is in an intimate monogamous relationship" are not required for health or happiness, while "is well nourished" is.

Can you see the difference?

There's no moral equivalence there. I didn't say they're equally wrong. I'm using it to illustrate a point, namely that there is an intrinsic morality of an activity which has ZERO to do with consent. So stop pretending like you don't see it, and answer the questions. It's very simple. You can either answer the question if you have a good answer, which would be able to illustrate that you are right, or you can run away, fleeing from the truth, because you don't have an adequate answer. — Agustino

You're trying to make a comparison between things as if there is intrinsic immorality contained in all of the actions themselves but it just isn't so. You need to bring up such ridiculous and severe examples of immoral behaviors to try and get me to agree to the premise that certain actions are in and of thswemlves immoral rather than defining why certain actions are immoral and in what circumstances based on actual reasons (as opposed to God said so). Cannibalism isn't always immoral, sometimes it's necessary for survival Suicide isn't always immoral, sometimes it's merciful. Even murder isn't always immoral (unless you define it as immoral killing of another, in which case "the killing of another" isn't always immoral).

It's the context, the circumstances, reasons (things like consent) that determine the morality or immorality of a certain behavior, not some ultimate eternal and central authority. (at least, not a morality you can successfully argue is useful or true (i.e: persuasive)).

I'll answer these questions too though:

We don't allow people to take their own lives generally because their reasons for wanting to do so are irrational/temporary/psychologically disturbed. We put a suicidal person in a mental institution generally because we think their reasons for wanting to die are fixable (were they thinking clearly they would want us to help them rather than encourage their suicidal desires). But sometimes, such as in the case of a suffering and dying terminally ill person, we might actually let them kill themselves because it's more merciful (they have good reasons). Wanting to be eaten is not a good enough reason to permit people to kill themselves, so we do them the favor of trying to cure their insanity instead. Wanting to eat someone isn't exactly a crime, but if you steal a body to eat we will arrest you for that, and if you kill someone to eat them we'll definitely arrest you for that too, but if you eat the dead co-pilot because you will otherwise starve, most people would forgive that. If you convince someone to agree to be eaten, we will basically arrest you both on the grounds that you're both insane.

Why don't we arrest two adults who have consensual sex on the grounds that they're abusing and harming one another? Is it because we don't live in Saudi Arabia?

It's because consenting adults are capable of having sex without actually abusing or harming one-another, and so we don't need to be concerned for them on any moral grounds other than that they be free to pursue happiness.

False, as I've explained above. Just like pleasure isn't a valid end of eating, so pleasure isn't a valid end of sex. A valid end of sex is what is essential for sex, what sex is aimed at. It's aimed at reproduction and intimacy, the same way eating is aimed at nutrition. Simple. — Agustino

Food is aimed at pleasure too though. Pleasure from eating is a fundamental end of eating. Even if I were to assent to your intrinsic purpose oriented teleological-moral nightmare of a confused and sexually repressed religious perception of the world, I could still object on the basis that evolution endowed us with pleasure attached to sex and eating because happiness is an essential end of human existence, and therefore we actually eat (and fuck) to be happy.

My claim has just as much gravitas as your shitty "food is for nutrition not pleasure, therefore sex for pleasure is immoral" mental back-flip.

You're not subverting anyone mate, you're just running away now that you don't have answers anymore. — Agustino

Oh, I wouldn't call it running

It is about your choice in the end and there are a number of different possibilities that would suggest why a woman behaves in such a manner. I have not yet had sex with a man but the way that I dress and communicate can often be interpreted as provocative and highly sexual, indeed there have been many men that have become really aggressive towards me from frustration at their inability to get close to me and as a way of trying to make me comply.

You need to be weary of your assumptions and consider a number of factors that requires you to know a person first, understand who they are, where they come from and perhaps you may find that it is your own assumptions that is making you choose to believe what is essentially your desire and your lack of responsibility. Such intimacy without respect for her history, her personhood, her reasons for being their in the first place merely objectifies her into what you want, not who she is. — TimeLine

If a man makes a a pass at a woman and fails he needs to move on or risk committing sexual harassment (same goes for a failed female aggressor)...

Does it surprise you though that if you show up to certain places dressed a certain way that men assume it's O.K to approach you? Are they wrong for not assuming you're not interested or that you might get upset?

This is what I mean by not wanting to have to consider everyone's emotional well-being to the N'th degree. If you're dressed up a certain way and at a certain club I'm going to assume you're an adult capable of handling an adult interaction (a sexual pass). If I were to harass you with obscenity or repetition I would be wrong, but let's say I was cordial (in a night club setting) and you verbally insulted me as a part of your rejection, in this case you would be the bad guy ;).

If you were reading a book in a library there's hardly any room for making a cordial sexual pass (the situation/context renders it clearly inappropriate), so even if I was the nicest guy you would still be in the right to tell me to fuck off.

It all has to do with the circumstances which individuals can use to create a reasonable expectation of whether not a sexual pass would be taken offensively...

That, among a host of other different things. It seems that you're intent on subsuming communion, to emotions, etc. but this is completely false. These are all different and independent reasons. — Agustino

What's the host of other things that makes casual sex "bad"?

To relate to another you must first relate to yourself and to something that transcends you. The act of relating to another isn't a purely physical one, but something that involves your whole being. — Agustino

So like, the transcendent metaphysical third party acts like a conduit for the spiritual energies which pass between the "whole being's" of the participants?

How can I explain to you that I don't comprehend your hippy-intuition style metaphysics?

"To relate to another you must first relate to yourself"? Meaningless... "And to something that transcends you"? Meaningless. "But something that involves your whole being"? Meaningless.

Tell me Vagabond, is it possible that a man wrong himself? Clearly it's not only actions that affect other people that are wrong, we accept this every single day of our lives in the practice of living. A drug addict who injects heroin in his veins is doing something wrong to himself, even if he "consents" to it. His consent doesn't change the wrongness of it, neither does the fact that it doesn't affect other people — Agustino

How and why are you equating sex with "injecting one's self with heroine"? That's an action, not a thought.

Do you wish to discuss the morality of discussing sex, or the conditions under which the sexual act is disrespectful? — Agustino

I want to discuss your reasons for making blanket assertions about the harmful nature/immorality of casual sex. At one point you said that wanting to have casual sex with someone is to disrespect their person-hood. Presumably then asking someone for casual sex is the action which communicates that disrespect, which you would declare to be immoral right?

There is no close emotion that renders sex not harmful as such. — Agustino

Then what renders sex not harmful? The promise to marry them?

Yes, the feeling of lust would be an emotion. So let's start with it. When you lust after something you're not satisfied. How can lusting be good? If you get yourself in the position when you lust for something you are hurting, you have already harmed yourself. How can that be good? Do you enjoy being thirsty? Would you purposefully go around getting yourself thirsty? — Agustino

Humans don't purposefully get thirsty, they just get thirsty. Drinking a cold liquid then becomes inherently pleasurable.

People don't enjoy being thirsty, but they do enjoy drinking. People don't enjoy lust, they enjoy the feeling of satiating that lust.

Would you purposefully go around not satisfying your natural desires?

If two willing participants negotiate an anonymous contract whereby one will eat the other one alive, and they both give their consent, have they done nothing wrong? Again, this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd. If I force you to have dinner with me, that's as wrong as if I force you to have sex with me from the point of view of consent. But clearly, we take me forcing you to have sex with me as a much more serious offence than if I were to force you to have dinner with me. Why is that? — Agustino

Holy shit Aug, you're really gonna equate casual sex with suicide and cannibalism?

What the actual fuck...

We generally don't let people end their lives for no good reason Aug, if you want to talk about the morality of euthanasia we can do that, and subsequently about the morality of consuming dead humans, but these are two separate discussions from the one we're having.

The main reason why "forcing people to have meals they don't want to have" is immoral is actually because you're removing their freedom, not because eating food is an inherently harmful act. If you force feed someone a type of food that disgusts them (me and squash for instance), then we could consider that to be additionally harmful to them (a kind of torture even). Now, if I consent to dine with you, and to clean my plate save for the squash, has any harm been done upon me? (the answer is no)

So when you hold someone captive, there's the immorality of that, and then what you do to them constitutes additional moral infractions above and beyond just imprisoning them. Forcing people to eat foods they don't like is generally less psychologically traumatic than forcing people to have sex that they don't want to have. Because it's more invasive, it's more important to have that consent.

Think about what you're really saying here though ("this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd"). Of course consent has something to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity. If I give a tattoo to someone who wants one, it's not immoral. If I tattoo someone who does not want one, then it's immoral.

If I have consensual sex with my wife, it's not an immoral activity right?

But if I have non-consensual sex with my wife, it's rape.

If I borrow your lawn-mower with your consent, it's not an immoral activity right?

But if I take your lawnmower without your permission, it's theft.

Doing actions upon people who do not want those actions to be done upon them constitute moral infractions against the afflicted party.

Can you honestly not see the relationship between personal rights, consent and force?

I'm guessing that you came to this strange hill because in your mind God decided that certain actions please him and other actions displease him (sex outside of marriage being displeasing), and that's how you view the source and foundation of morality (and so you forgot to consider the whole "treat others as they want to be treated" angle).

It TRIES to mitigate them, however it is not successful. For example, people could still experience feelings of guilt afterwards - among many many other emotions that it's possible to experience, including during the act. — Agustino

And what if both parties go away from the glory hole happy with the exchange? Are you saying that everyone will feel bad about it?

Well do you want to be a nice and decent person? If so, then yes, you should consider everyone's emotional well being. — Agustino

I don't have time to consider everyone's emotional well-being and I refuse to coddle strangers. If I'm going out of my way to benefit someone's emotional well-being then that's morally praiseworthy, but it's enough to not go out of my way to damage the emotional-well being of others.

Why would you assume that? How the hell do you know that she's competent enough to take care of her own emotions from her body language, can you tell me that? How do you know for example that she just didn't have a fight with her boyfriend/husband and is doing something to express her anger towards him, something that she may later regret for example? — Agustino

So, propositioning someone for casual sex is immoral because they might be out for revenge sex which they will regret, or because they might not be mentally/emotionally capable of making decisions for themselves?

I'm asking you specifically why casual sex is necessarily harmful (and therefore immoral), not why there's a chance it might be harmful. By this logic hiring a worker could be immoral because they might not understand the stresses of the job, and therefore might be harmed/regret it.

Adults who have no mental disability must be allowed to make decisions on their own rather than someone making decisions for their own good. If and when bad things happen to people as a result of their un-coerced choices, that's life.

Sex always involves one's whole being. — Agustino

What does "whole being" mean? If I had to guess I would say some emotion-esque nonsense about souls and sin. Am I right?

If you're thinking of saying something like "How do you not know what whole being means? Do you speak english!?" please allow me to rebut in advance: I don't subscribe to/understand/believe in metaphysical bullshit like chakras, third eye's, transcendence, souls, spirits, or the like. Please take this as a request for a somewhat rigid or scientific definition for whatever the fuck it is you mean by "whole being".

Except that you would be abusing each other. — Agustino

You're just begging the question. How would we be abusing each-other? Because casual sex is a sin?

Why not admit that your entire moral premise concerning sex is just one long-winded appeal to sex-negative puritan Christian doctrine?

What does their dignity as people have to do with the amount of money they charge? :s This is a very peculiar thought, so please explain to me. Clearly you're asserting that the amount of money they charge has something to do with the dignity they have. So presumably a prostitute charging very little has little dignity, while one charging a lot has a lot of dignity. So then, by your own argument, a prostitute charging nothing for her services has no dignity, and this seems quite close to what we mean by casual sex. Is this correct? — Agustino

There's no such thing as a prostitute that charges nothing; a person who will have sex with anyone for nothing (effectively having no personal standards) will generally have very little dignity. What's so sacred about dignity though? Does it pertain to the tears of baby Jesus?

Casual sex is different than toll free prostitution. An individual might have casual sex with only one partner, thereby retaining the vast majority of whatever form of dignity it is that gets destroyed by the act of casual sex itself.

Let's step back and think about what you're saying though: an illegal alien who works your garden dirt cheap is losing some kind of dignity in comparison to the citizen who sells their labor for a livable wage. That's a sensical appraisal, but it's not "immoral" for the illegal alien to sacrifice their dignity in a consensual agreement with their employer, they're free to make such an exchange and we have no recourse to judge them for it.

They are. They are doing a lot of harm to themselves, their partners, and their future spouses. — Agustino

You're begging the question again, and I'm not surprised that you should throw in the whole "future spouses are harmed" angle. I bet that the fact that most women are out there having casual sex causes you emotional harm because you feel like there are therefore less virgin women for you to choose from. Do you think that women should be obligated to save themselves in case you wind up being their future spouse? As if you're entitled to a say over how how all women behave (according to your personal feelings about sex) because you have some sort of right to choose them as a marriage partner?

This is just like the whole "freedom to divorce is actually the un-freedom to stay married" bit. If you can find someone who shares your personal standards, marry them. Everyone else is free to live the way they want to live despite your ego-centrism.

Prostitutes can also suffer direct bodily and emotional damage. Most of them have quite a beaten up psyche, which makes life very difficult for them, which is why a lot of prostitutes resort to doing drugs. — Agustino

Not all prostitutes do drugs, not all drug users become prostitutes. Not all prostitutes get injured on the job. Not all prostitutes suffer emotional or psychological damage as the result of sex work. Lot's of things can be potentially harmful, that doesn't make them inherently immoral.

Again, why the hell are you referencing that they are (1) horny, and (2) consenting? We've already established that consent has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the morality of the underlying action. For example, if I force you to have dinner with me, that has nothing to do with the morality of having dinner, it has to do with me respecting your will as an individual. So consent is NOT part of sexual morality, just like it's not part of dinner morality. Consent has to do with respecting the autonomy of other people, and their freedom of choice. Breaking one's consent tells us nothing about the morality of the underlying action over which their consent was broken. And you should explain to me now, why forcing you to have sex with me is worse than forcing you to have dinner with me, and clearly consent ain't gonna help you. — Agustino

Sex without consent is rape.

If you force me to have dinner with you, you're behaving immorally because you've breached my consent (you would be transgressing against me) and have relieved me of my freedom.

Consent is a part of "dinner morality" just as it's a part of "sex morality". Please tell me you realize this...

Your whole notion that certain actions are in and of themselves immoral must not stem from any kind of harm based moral argument but instead from some kind of arbitrary and absolute god morality where actions are inherently immoral because they breach some immutable and objective standard ("god morality").

Baby Jesus weeps...

No, absolutely not. See, this is what I mean when I tell you that you don't understand these terms. That's why your first definitions are wrong. Indecency cannot be positively defined in and of itself, but rather it is always defined with regards to decency, which can be defined in itself. Children have a potential for decency - if they fail to actualise that potential, then they are indecent. — Agustino

Care to define decency then?

(Of course that would be asking too much...)

Because without these potentials, they could not develop in the directions that they do in the first place. — Agustino

So they have the potential for animal behavior built-in. Got it. Indecency is pre-programmed...

No, not at all. It is the experience of sin that threatened them with eternal damnation. — Agustino

Do you honestly think that some god-like force reached out to you and then communicated that if you don't obey it's will it will torture you for eternity in some terrible place of no return?

Is the the loving God you worship?

Now, onto more serious matters. First thing to note is that sex is terribly problematic, and has been terribly problematic for all of human history. So your approach of treating sex as if it was not problematic at all BY DEFAULT is simply ignoring everything that we anthropologically know about man. This is so because sex has to do with the very existence of life itself. It is very close to the source of our being. That is why most cultures and civilisations that have ever existed have had what is known as natural sexual morality. Sex has not been treated like buying a burger from McD's, and there are clearly reasons for this, some of which have been outlined above. — Agustino

"Problematic"? (You really are a true post-modern thinker at this point).

"Sex is problematic because it has to do with the very existence of life itself. It is very close to the source of our being." This is nonsense, and if you could just open your third and fourth chakras, you would naturally acknowledge that this is nonsense because chakras are very close to the source of your being.

More serious matters indeed...

Otherwise it would be absolutely impossible that very diverse civilisations have condemned certain sexual behaviour - such as homosexual sex - but haven't condemned looking at the sky for example. As an example, all major religions of the world condemn homosexual sex, including the Eastern ones like Hinduism and Buddhism. There were civilisations which allowed homosexual sex in certain circumstances, but not in all (Roman, Greek, etc.). What we note from this is that this behaviour has always been problematic and has been regulated by rules, for most of human history. So it is entirely absurd to treat it as if it wasn't problematic, and the burden of proof rested on me to show that it is. That's number one. — Agustino

"Sexual morality" has been diverse throughout human history, and your whole "ancient people tended to do it therefore it's true" rhetoric is sheer and incorrigible stupidity...

Do you think you can pass formalized and sloppy appeals to tradition like so many logs of shit?

No, just because people used to stone homosexuals to death doesn't mean it's necesarily "problematic" (whatever it is that means...

Oh, and please don't give me examples now of some minor tribes, etc. who have lived differently. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the majority of large human civilisations that have existed. — Agustino

Were the Spartans a minor tribe? Their entire civilization was based around militant bands of homosexuals...

Point number 2. Why does one want to have sex? Where is the origin of sexual desire in a human being, and what is it directed towards? Now, one undeniable end of sex is reproduction. I think you will agree at least with that much. Without affirming this end of the sexual act, one is in effect denying themselves, because they're denying the manner and mode in which they themselves entered the world. — Agustino

Biology gets us to have sex by offering up the reward of pleasure, which for us is an undeniable end of sex (i.e: why you masturbate). Just because sex was the original act which caused our inception doesn't mean we need to treat sex like some sacred domain. Sex isn't the monolith and we're not apes jumping and screaming around it...

Another essential end of sex is unitive - do you agree that the sexual act is something that can produce intimacy and closeness between two different people, something that perhaps can only be achieved through the sexual act? If so, then this is something that appears to be unique to sex, unlike "fun", "pleasure" and the like, which can be attributed to a variety of other experiences, and do not seem to be essential to the nature of sex. — Agustino

"Fun/pleasure isn't essential to the nature of sex"... That's very sad, but it's true. "intimacy and (emotional?) closeness" are also not essential to the nature of sex though, nor are they unique to sex. You can feel intimate with and close to someone through verbal interaction alone. Orgasms are a big part of sex but they are also not essential if we're speaking broadly about sex. Really the only essential characteristics of sex are physical contact and or the involvement of sexual organs.

So if we had to define sex, we would define it as that action that occurs between a man and a woman that can lead to either reproduction or intimacy. That's what sex can do, essentially. That's what belongs to its essence as an activity, and isn't an accidental feature, like "fun" and "pleasure" would be. Sure sex can be fun and pleasurable, but that doesn't belong to it as an essence, that's not what identifies it as a separate activity from, say, eating burgers with someone (which is also "fun" and "pleasureable"). — Agustino

Eating burgers with someone can produce feelings of intimacy, and the "fun" aspect of sex isn't accidental (evolution made it that way for a reason).

So, if we had to define sex intelligently, we could say that it is something that can lead to reproduction, or intimacy, or fun/pleasure, or any combination or these things.

We also affirmed before that sex is very close to the origin of life, including your own origin. It is thus very close to your being, and necessarily so. It reminds you of your own making. Therefore sex is something that involves your whole being, and not just your physical body, but your soul too (defined as the form of the body). — Agustino

This is nonsense: "sex is close to your origin, therefore close to your being, so it reminds you of your making, therefore sex involves your whole being, and your soul too".

I'm not even going to bother ridiculing this...

So tell me Vagabond, does good food frustrate the essential ends of the body it is meant to satisfy? So likewise, would good sexual behavior maintain accidental features, like "fun" and "pleasure", while frustrating essential features such as procreation and intimacy? So then, can we call casual sex "good"? — Agustino

You call reproduction and intimacy "essential ends" very clearly because that's what you want. You cannot equate nutritional health with whether or not someone chooses to reproduce or to seek intimacy as intimacy and reproduction are not required for an individual to go on living. You only feel that way because you think reproduction and intimacy have intrinsic moral importance, which is a fairly crappy moral position because it negates the moral freedom of people to choose whether or not to seek intimacy or to reproduce.

Furthermore, if sex always involves one's whole being (as a person), is it right and loving to deny your beloved sexual fulfilment, by denying them intimacy, for example? Or do you mean to argue that you simply do not care about the actual needs of the other, but only what they say, such that if they were to tell you that their need is to be eaten alive, you would proceed to give them a hand with it? — Agustino

Denying your spouse sex entirely is potential grounds for a divorce. I don't understand how that compares to euthanasia (or in this case some kind of suicidal-vore fetish?). These insane moral equivalences you make grow increasingly disturbing...


If you think a spouse should provide 24 hour sex on demand to their partner then you're confused. If you marry someone with the understanding that sex and reproduction will be a part of that marriage, and they change their mind, then you should end the marriage.

As we have established, sex is inherently directed towards a unitive end (btw we're talking about sex in-so-far as it relates to persons, so please don't bring up animals), so then if you deny yourself this unitive end by whatever means, is that no different and no worse than chewing food for the taste, and then spitting it out? If you refused to eat food anymore, denied the nutritional end of eating, and instead just chewed the food for the taste, and then spit it out, would you be harming yourself? So then Vagabond, don't you think that likewise you'd be harming yourself if you deny the unitive purpose of sex, which as we said is very close to your own being, and doing so regardless of whether or not you experienced some pleasure in the process? — Agustino

"We" haven't really established anything Aug, you keep saying random variations of the same vague and sometimes disturbing platitudes and I keep accusing them of being undefined and contradictory to common sense.

Pleasure is just as much a valid end of sex as is reproduction and "unity"...

If you treat another person as a tool for your own pleasure, then have you not neglected their real needs and desires? Have you not objectified them, treated them as undignified, and insulted their personhood? Is a human being no more than a vibrator or a plastic vagina? So if someone were to desire to be like a plastic vagina, would it be good to help them achieve that desire? If someone desired to be a slave, put in chains, would it be good to help them achieve that state? Would you, without hesitation, help them by putting and locking the chains on them, and then sending them off to the corn fields? And if this is how you treat others, then what about your own self? Does this not mean that you consider your own self the same way you consider them, and therefore you harm your own self in the process? — Agustino

You're just assuming that sex is necessarily harmful and then making false moral equivalences between sex and slavery or sex and suicide or sex and cannibalism...

On an unrelated note I've come to realize that I severely enjoy subverting you through music:

X-)

What don't you understand by the expression actualise the potential for communion? You don't understand what a human potential is? Go read Aristotle and find out. Or you don't understand what communion means? It means getting out of the prison of your own self and relating with someone else, something that perhaps you've never done seeing that you're so clueless. — Agustino

The problem Aug, is that you're using terms which are ambiguous and in some senses unrelated to my inquiries.

There's about 20 different ways to interpret "actualize their potential for communion". If I boil it down into it's necessary elements though it just becomes meaningless: "don't actualize" means "do/does not", "potential" we can forget about because it's redundant in the sense that the ability to do/not do something includes the possibility of that thing happening, and finally "communion" now means "getting out of the prison of your own self and relating with someone else" (I'm not satisfied with this BTW, it's just as vague).

So, casual sex is bad because the participants don't "get out of the prison of their own selves and relate to each-other". (feel emotional contact)

What do you mean by "relate to each other"? I'm pretty sure that a good prostitute will be capable of relating to their tricks on some level (what level of "relation" is required for sex to not be harmful?), and I'm also sure that a considerate trick is also capable of relating to and appreciating the services of the prostitute, even though they may have paid for it.

If I go with the intuitive (and un-philosophical) interpretation of what you're trying to say, basically it's that "if there's no meaningful emotional connection during sex, then it's harmful" (I'm sure you will object to this phrasing, which is why I keep asking you to clarify and define your statements).

Why though Aug, why is "a lack of emotional contact" during sex such a harmful thing? (And for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please stop giving me this semantic run-around)

Yes indeed, but it always comes with SOME emotional packaging. — Agustino

What's so important about the "emotional packaging" of sexual contact? Or, why does a lack of a certain kind of emotional contact (what kind?) during sex render it harmful?

So if I think about someone else, I just want to enjoy their body for a night and then not be troubled by them anymore, am I loving? Am I a decent person? Am I doing anything wrong perhaps?! — Agustino

What takes place in the sanctity of your own mind cannot possibly be held against you as wrongful or indecent, it's your actions that affect other people.

At the right club, "I just want to enjoy your body for a night and then I won't trouble you any more" might actually get you invited to a few bed chambers.

If you approached a prostitute and said "I just want to pay to enjoy your body and to not trouble me beyond that", they might say, "That's generally the idea...".

If you approached a school teacher on their lunch break and said "let me use you for sex", then that would probably be indecent (although if you ask the right person you would be surprised). You might be doing sexual harassment, which would be wrong.

So, is it that asking for sex from someone who you do not love is inherently disrespectful? (if that's the case, then why is loveless sex between two consenting and horny adults harmful? They might not be personally disrespected enough to care)

You are greatly puzzling me, it seems that you don't even understand the meaning of basic words. What planet have you been living on until now? Emotional contact - a contact which involves feelings of close emotion excited in both people. — Agustino

Well I ask because "emotional contact" could mean so many different things that your argument which bases "the harm of sex" on "the absence of (a particular kind of?) emotional contact" might become hard to defend if I start postulating all the different kinds of emotional contact that prostitutes and their clients might feel (or two horny party-goers). "Close emotion" is unfortunately just as vague. Is sexual arousal a close emotion? What about gratitude and appreciation for services rendered? Is a feeling of safety a close emotion? Is the desire to please someone else in a sexual manner a close emotion?

What I'm trying to find out is the precise type of "close emotion" that renders sex not harmful, and how or why it achieves this...

Would you not then feel another emotion instead of love while fucking them?! — Agustino

I might feel any number of emotions depending on the circumstances, but are lust and sexual satisfaction/gratification emotions? If not then I suppose sometimes I feel nothing but skin.

When you had sex was there love there? If not what emotion was there?

This is false. You either don't know what is meant by emotions, or you're redefining them in some ad hoc manner. Or you're completely clueless about sex. — Agustino

Consider the glory hole. This is an ancient invention (presumably) which has been employed by many-a-sexual degenerate for the sole purpose of clipping away any possible emotional artifacts which might be caused by the sight of your sexual partner (judgment or shame for instance, which some people feel, but not everyone does). It employs a simplistic but elegant mechanic of a hole to negotiate an anonymous contract between two willing participants. One participant has a penis that they want pleasured, and the other participant wants to pleasure a penis (or be pleasured by one).

The glory hole epitomizes loveless sex, but at the same time it very obviously mitigates any kind of interpersonal emotional exchange/connection that might impact either participant negatively. I'm very curious to see how you can show sex through a glory hole to be harmful on the basis that it lacks emotional contact or on the basis that other people are emotionally harmed by it.

The point is that you're disconsidering the other person (and therefore disconsidering yourself) when you have sex with them in such circumstances. Even the mere fact that you're not concerned with their emotional well-being (which you yourself admit) is a sign of that. — Agustino

"Dis-considering"... *Vagabond takes a deep breath*...

Why am I morally obligated to be considerate of everyone's emotional well being? If I am at a night club, and a woman is dressed a certain way and showing me a certain kind of body language, why can I not assume she is competent enough to take care of her own emotions? If sex is what we both want, why do we need to toss in a bunch of extra emotions and commit to anything beyond a sexual encounter?

If I'm not actually abusing her (nor she I), how is any damage done to our emotional well-being?

As a side note, you should consider the nature of your "emotional well-being" argument. the main problem with it is that you have not clarified any kind of actual harm being caused or how "emotional well-beings" are necessarily harmed by sex without communion, but instead have outlined "a lack of benefit" ("disconsideration"). Your phrasing in this grows continuously more post-modern; "disconsideration of the emotional well being of others" sounds like some sort of anti-free speech argument that would have white-cis-het-males like ourselves quieted on the basis that other people take emotional offense of some kind.

It is entirely different. First the McD's worker isn't sacrificing his body at all. And the prostitute isn't only sacrificing her time. She's also sacrificing her emotional desires, her value as a person, and her dignity. — Agustino

She's only sacrificing her dignity in the eyes of people who view prostitutes as having no dignity. (expensive escorts in the 2000$ a night range have more dignity than you can afford XD). But so what if dignity is sacrificed? A garbage man sacrifices their dignity in the eyes of the banker whose waste they collect right? Personally I have a lot of respect and compassion for prostitutes (strippers too). They're harder working than most humans and they provide a service that not many are willing to provide. Add this to the fact that modern society decided they're criminals and pushed them into a dangerous and shadowy world of organized crime, and so have become a class of humans dispossessed of their right to freedom and happiness purely because a majority of people decided that they're bad because of the sex acts they perform. I know you don't support the criminalization of prostitution, and I commend you on that, but like so many you have this deeply seeded bias that someone who has sex is somehow a sinner (and it warps your perception of sex itself).

A ditch digger or coal miner sacrifices their body in ways that prostitutes and McDonald's workers both do not (they suffer actual bodily harm/damage) along with anyone who gets injured at the work place.

When it comes to "value as a person", performing a sex act shouldn't somehow affect how people value themselves, nor should it necessarily affect how others view that person. If you think someone loses value as a person because they have done sex work, then that's your own sentimental judgment.

Nothing, inherently. But sex can be misused. — Agustino

According to everything I've pieced together so far, a one night stand between two horny and consenting adults is a(n immoral?) misuse of sex. I'm panning for answers to why!

Your basic problem is that it seems that you cannot comprehend facets of human existence and experiences. And nothing I say can save you from the fact that you just seem to lack basic human experiences. — Agustino

I'm trying to get at clear specifics because when you use ambiguous terms you've yet to define (or just keep redefining with other ambiguous terms) it allows you to equivocate endlessly about what it is you're saying. (i.e: desire for god becomes desire for the transcendent, which becomes "anything beyond the material", or potential for communion becomes emotional contact, which then becomes "close emotion". )

Yep, that's exactly what I said, these potentials require the right circumstances and experiences (including being raised in a social environment) to be actualised. — Agustino

So in other words, children have just as much "potential for indecency" as they have "potential for decency"? Wouldn't it make more sense if we understood individuals as "the things they have learned" rather than "the sum of all possible things they could learn"? (Or, why do you think babies have pre-programmed ideas as opposed to creating those ideas from a somewhat blank slate as stimulus accumulates? ("Tabula-rasa").

No, I wouldn't qualify this as superstition. — Agustino

Do you at least assent to my re-framing "desire for anything beyond the material" as being sufficiently described by "superstition"? (If so, then I'll basically begin arguing that while most humans have some degree of superstition, some humans might have so very little that it's not a relevant or quantifiable factor in their psychology).

They fear God because they have an experience of the transcendent. — Agustino

Is it the experience of the transcendent that threatened them with eternal damnation? (as a religious youth, that's why I feared God).

Man this guy!! I've already answered that question about 4 times for fuck's sake! — Agustino

Well......... You kinda just suggested that I lack a basic understanding of human experiences rather than telling me what kind of "close emotion" ought to be present in sex to prevent the "disconsideration of the emotional well-being of the other" from causing harm.

Where exactly have I alluded to that — Agustino

Here:

Was I saying anything about intimate emotion? I said sex involves emotional contact, which is a true fact. I don't know what kind of sex you have had, such that even in the middle of the sex act you feel no emotional contact whatsoever with the other person (and no - this doesn't mean love). — Agustino

(I should point out that in the above you differentiate between "intimate emotion" (you described sex as "INTIMATE") and emotional contact, as if there are some precise meanings behind these terms which very clearly makes them distinct, but you've never bothered to share these precise meanings with me, hence my goose wrangling).

Yes, unfortunately, but that's something that I regret. And I have absolutely no clue how in the world someone can possibly be rude by asking the other person if they've had sex :s — Agustino

Well because casual sex can be largely unemotional, and your argument seems to hinge on the idea that sex without "communion/emotional contact/close emotion" is harmful, I reckon you haven't had much casual sex (my own experience establishes the harmlessness of communionless sex) and I'm bringing this up as a means to show you that the impact of sex may extend beyond your own experiences...

They are clear first of all, and they are communicated effectively given that this is a philosophy forum and not just a casual conversation in a pub. — Agustino

me: "What does "actualize our potential for communion mean?".
you: "Go read Aristotle".
me: "Lol".

Was I saying anything about intimate emotion? I said sex involves emotional contact, which is a true fact. I don't know what kind of sex you have had, such that even in the middle of the sex act you feel no emotional contact whatsoever with the other person (and no - this doesn't mean love). — Agustino

Not all sex comes with the same emotional packaging. Sometimes both parties are just looking for a certain kind of physical contact.

But what exactly does "emotional contact" mean with reference to sex?

I could hug someone and feel emotional love and I could fuck someone and feel none at all; just because there is physical (sexual) contact does not mean that emotions are necessarily involved...

But I still want to understand the argument for your position that exchanging sexual favors is harmful. First you saidbecause it violates personhood, then defined "personhood" as "constituent elements belonging to someone" i.e: body and emotions (and some other junk), and so I guess your actual argument is: "exchanging sexual favors is harmful because physical and emotional contact being used as a tool for gratification is disrespectful to the "personhood" of participants in sexual behavior"

Is that a fair portrayal of your argument?

Buying something at McD's is purely a financial transaction, which does not involve the body, emotions and feelings of someone the way the sex act involves them. Now if you are going to say they do, then I think we're quite clear that you don't know what sex is. — Agustino

In order to acquire money people need to work (sacrificing their body and emotions). The MacDonald's worker is sacrificing their patience to deal with customers and their time and body to do the work in exchange for money. It's not entirely different from a prostitute doing work for a john. The form of gratification is different (sex instead of junk food) and the work involved is different (genitals are involved). So essentially the only major difference is that sex is involved.

What's inherently bad about sex again?

(P.S: you probably should not say because it "violates personhood", because your reasoning for why violating personhood is bad is itself based on the fact that sex is involved, making the reasoning circular)

So how come some feral children can learn languages eh? Why don't you teach your dog a language too?! — Agustino

They don't tend to learn language, especially not verbal language. You're letting my point get away from you though Aug: feral children sometimes cannot learn many aspects of normal human behavior, which indicates that they're not born with innate knowledge/ideas. You can say "why can some children escape their condition" as if it points to some built-in door to enlightenment, but it's simply not so (at least as you originally indicated) Feral children can learn when we manage to discover and capture them and force it upon them, but they're not out there "desiring god and the transcendent" and observing your own notions of "decency". Believing they are is beyond fantasy.

Yes, in relatively simple activities, but try teaching a dog or a cat to paint, to speak, etc. — Agustino

You constantly move the goal posts further and further back... At least in this case you randomly asking why non-human animals cannot perform tasks that only humans are known to perform isn't at all relevant.

Acting out of fear and taking some sort of action against something identified as a possible threat isn't being superstitious. — Agustino

"Identified as a possible threat" is just another way of saying "something unidentified".

Choosing to react to something unidentified in a particular way (fear) because you feel threatened might actually be one of the main drives of superstitious belief...

People fear god (who is unidentified) by assuming all kinds of nonsense about the nature of reality and our relationship to it.

If the dog were smarter I'm sure he would come with all kinds of fancy nonsense to go along with their mail-man hatred...

Back to sex though, please explain what you meant by "emotional contact" and how exactly is someone harmed when they willingly seek out this kind of emotional contact for gratification?

You alluded that you don't know what kind of sex I've had, the answer is many different kinds.

I'm not trying to be rude in asking this, but have you ever had sex?

An excerpt from "The Holy Wars: The Battle for the Soul of the West" page 253:

I entered the bar with trepidation, knowing that a somewhat less than motley assortment of hipsters and new-left degenerates lay in wait, but this was my last night before shipping off to the front, and this was the only place for miles, so I had little choice... When I crossed the threshold it was instantly obvious that all of my presumptions were 100% correct. There were neon color mo-hawked "its" bloating from almost every booth and corner, with hands and mouths interlocked in every possible permutation. On the dance floor there were bearded men in over-tight jeans performing some sort of homoerotic bounce dance while everywhere in-between there were pairs of females who clearly had lesbian sexual interest in one another, with much of it on direct display. "Just go find the bar and get a drink" I thought to myself while instinctively muttering "I'm a soldier..." under my breath. But before I could find the bar some inconsiderate hedonist splashed his queer drink on my fatigues, when suddenly I heard a voice.

"Oh sweety pie! Let me help you with that!". When I looked up and saw her, I immediately noted that she was not wearing any makeup and actually had very clear skin, which surprised me because generally the people in these places have no respect for how they pollute their bodies. She was also covered from head to toe in some kind of uniform, and while she clearly did not wear it to be explicitly sexually appealing, her natural beauty was not greatly dimmed by the overall bagginess of her attire. She even had a beautiful name-tag: "Jessica...". I also took immediate note of how attentive to my needs as a human being that she was, rather than treating me like the beef-cake I'm normally viewed as. Before I knew it I could feel a new sensation welling up inside of me... At first it felt like God's love, but this time it was different. I knew however that this love was in fact a gift from God, and that I had better take this as providence and act immediately.

After swallowing my butterflies and mustering up my proper courage, I finally just said it: "Do you want to actualize our potential for communion with me?". She swooned instantly and completely. The way that she tilted her head and raised one eyebrow was very clearly a display of sexual submission. I took her by the hand and tried to abscond with her from that den of sin, and it was at this moment that I learned of Satan's true dominion over this world. For you see, she was and may be still held psychologically captive at that institution of depravity. She resisted my attempts to free her due to some invisible force that I have yet to gain full knowledge of. I've returned a few times only to see her forced to bring drinks to other men and to attend their needs as a human being as if her heart did not belong to only me. I pray that one day God, in his infinite wisdom, will free her from her bonds and deliver her into my capable and confident arms...

Read some Aristotelian philosophy and you may be able to understand what it means. — Agustino

Or, you could have clear ideas and communicate them effectively... There's always that option!

They absolutely do have to do with your personhood, because sexual acts are INTIMATE, and involve close bodily and emotional contact. — Agustino

What if sex need not involve intimate emotion? What's your definition of personhood?

Yes, and I answered you why. Read it and study what it means: — Agustino

Right, right, because they don't actualize their potential for communion with one-another! How could I have been so forgetful!

Honestly though Aug, explain what all this stuff means or you're going to start sounding really stupid...

Do they? Show me a dog starting to become a human. :s — Agustino

Feral children (and children who were not raised with normal social interactions) do not escape their "condition", the severity of which depends on the severity of their circumstances. They're all permanently affected and only a few have managed to eek out even some modicum of normalcy. They do not acquire verbal language and their social habits are forever changed.

But what you're saying here is that because feral children can learn some new behavior later in life that "innate human ideas" somehow exist, right?

I've seen dogs and cats be trained to use the toilet, does that mean that they have some innate human ideas too?

Nope. Not at all. Physical attraction may play a role in getting me interested in her as a PERSON in the first place, but it would definitely be of no consideration in deciding whether I should marry her or not. — Agustino

Why would you be more interested in an attractive female at the outset?

You low down hedonist dog you!

Yes, anything beyond the physical includes the superstitious. Animals don't have superstitions, yet another difference. — Agustino

How do you know animals aren't superstitious?

I think that dogs who growl at mailmen are behaving superstitiously...

It says desire for the transcendent (which does INCLUDE God, but it obviously is much larger than the concept of God). — Agustino

The transcendent; anything spiritual (what's spiritual?): "anything beyond the physical"...

Read as: anything vaguely superstitious = a baby's desire for god. Humans are superstitious, QED babies desire god right?

Yes, quite possibly. — Agustino

so whether or not you're physically attracted to someone is not a consideration whatsoever in the partnership of marriage?

Sure, but this doesn't mean we're JUST animals. We're also VERY different from other animals. Animals weren't painting in their caves AND burying their dead AND worshipping, etc. ;) Don't make me bring this one up on you again.

Ant colonies don't have a space for altars, where they make sacrifices and such. Maybe only in your dreams they do. — Agustino

Aug, I asked why humans cannot trade sex for sex without "love" needing to be a factor. "We're different from animals" is not a satisfactory answer. The fact that ants don't have altars doesn't mean we cannot trade sex for money in a loveless transaction without some terrible harm being inflicted (other than to your own emotions, for whatever reason).

How does buying something from McDonald's involve your personhood in any real sense of the term? How does making a business deal involve your personhood? Oh it doesn't. Right. Of course then that it is irrelevant if they're using you as tools, because they're not actually using you at all, since your personhood isn't involved. Again, doing business isn't the same as putting a penis in someone. You seem not to be able to get this. — Agustino

What do consensual sexual favors have to do with personhood? Oh, nothing.

If one day a woman should let you put your penis in her don't for a minute think that she's offering up her "person-hood".

You've shown no evidence of having understood what is being told to you to begin with. Evidence that it's time to go back to studying what I wrote. — Agustino

I would rather study L Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics" to be honest...

What the fuck does "Actualize their potential for communion with one-another" mean?

Does it mean anything or is it just nonsense? Did you just make it up?

Ah, sometimes they can escape! So they're not like dogs, because dogs can never escape RIGHT?! Really, you're making yourself appear stupid. — Agustino

Yes, I was totally aware of them. They're still not anywhere near animals, evidenced even by the sole fact that they can sometimes escape that condition. — Agustino

Dogs never escape? :-}

The strangest hills Aug... The strangest hills...

Yeah what the hell does that sentence say? Does it say the desire for God or the desire for the transcendent?! >:O I think you just need some new glasses. — Agustino

That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning. - Augistino

Stop being pedantic please.

That's good, no need to pay special attention to making themselves attractive for that. All they have to do is be themselves. That person should like them for who they are. — Agustino

Would you marry someone you found visually repulsive because you like who they are?

Because we're not animals. Next question please. — Agustino

we ARE animals. We evolved here on Earth right along side all the others...

Read what I said above, and stop strawmanning and being stupid please. — Agustino

This might seem like some fast and loose conversation for you, but I can assure you that anyone who is reading this likely isn't going to fall for your present style of calling me a stupid liar when all I need to do is copy and paste your own quotes to contradict you:

" When the self-serving ends of each are over, their relationship is too, which means they treat each other as TOOLS - not as persons. In casual sex the two participants each want the sexual pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the realtionship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for his/her own selfish ends, and not real people." -Augustino

When your self serving ends are over with a MacDonald's worker, and they with you (making money), the relationship is too, which means that you treat each-other like TOOLS - not as persons (CITATION NEEDED). In casual fast-food, the two participants each want the pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the relationship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for their own selfish ends, and not real people." -Augistino's reflection

Both of them are harmed, because they use one another as tools, they don't respect each other's personhood and VALUE as a person, they fail to actualise their potential for communion with one another, and they fail to uphold their human dignity. Need I go over these same explanations over and over again? — Agustino

"Actualize their potential for communion with one-another" is the kind of phrase I could program a post-modern research paper generator to produce. It's meaningless and you know it Aug... Do you honestly expect me to bend-over backwards and guess what the hell it is you actually mean here? (if you're not just making shit up ad hoc that is...).

In what way do tricks and johns fail to "respect each-other's personhood" in a way that MacDonald's workers and customers do not?

Let me guess: "BECAUSE WHEN THE PENIS ENTERS THE VAGINA IT'S SINFUL AND DISRESPECTFUL!"

Yeah, go back and do a proper study of it. We have very little scientific knowledge of feral children (your own Wiki article says as much), and many of the stories are hoaxes. There's also stories of people who are now living amongst people even though they were feral. So no, clearly NOT like dogs. Go walk the dog, you may be more successful at that, than at peddling BS here. — Agustino

Pedanticer and pedanticer....

Yes we know very little about feral children because they're somewhat rare, and many stories of feral children have been hoaxes. That said, there are numerous well documented cases of feral children who have exhibited extreme degrees of animal behavior and additionally (but not crucial to my point) they have severe difficulties re-adapting to normal human life (sometimes they even escape back to the wild).

Of the bona fide cases of feral children that we do have, there's not much room for study given the amount of therapy and rehabilitative work that feral children require. When and where we find them, we're not about to sequester them for study. And yet, the few well documented cases of feral children we do have provide conclusive proof that if a child gets raised by an animal, they will adopt the behavior of the animal (i.e: they won't learn about god and decency on their own).

Were you even aware of the existence of feral children before I brought them up?

You are a bigger liar than Jeb Bush, as Trump would tell you. It is YOU who idiotically thought I said God, when I had said the divine/transcendent from the very beginning, something that I pointed you to, but it seems you still haven't acknowledged it. Maybe you want me to point it again, how you can't even read what I write properly. — Agustino

Dude I quoted you directly in the other thread and it's there for anyone to read. Here it is again:

That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning. — Agustino

Like Trump you have a knack for contradicting yourself.

No, it is actualising a potential of their mind to do mathematics. If their mind has no such potential in the first place, how come you can teach them mathematics? Why the hell don't you teach mathematics to your dog as well if there's no potential in discussion? — Agustino

Being born with the potential to learn mathematics is not the same as being born with mathematical ideas in your head.

You choose the strangest hills to die on Aug...

what does this have to do with anything? I don't think they should "compensate" with anything, there is no necessity to be sexually attractive in the first place. They should be happy with how they are. — Agustino

What if they want a mate that they are attracted to, so they are trying to make themselves attractive?

Should they be happy with whichever man/woman their parents/priest indicates they should marry?

Love is not a business, sorry to break this one to you. When I pick a woman, I don't do a business deal, tallying up the costs and benefits. That's a very STUPID way to pick a woman. — Agustino

I'm talking about sex, not love. Why do people have to only deal in love and not in sex?

What does mutually gratifying sex have to do with the fact that they're using one another? :s They can absolutely exchange pleasure for pleasure, but that would NOT change the fact that they are using each other. CASUAL SEX IS PROSTITUTION - that's what I say, just as Proudhon said that PROPERTY IS THEFT! — Agustino

Umm, so you're upset that they're "using one other" even though they're both well aware that pleasure is being traded for pleasure? Doesn't usery need to be one-sided or else it's not usery? It's a fair an open exchange?

The reason for that is such a relationship bears a utilitarian modus operandi, where two people engage in sex for self-serving ends. The man who fucks a prostitute exchanges desires the sexual pleasure she can provide, and the prostitute desires his money. When the self-serving ends of each are over, their relationship is too, which means they treat each other as TOOLS - not as persons. In casual sex the two participants each want the sexual pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the realtionship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for his/her own selfish ends, and not real people. That is why casual sex is prostitution, because it bears the logic and modus operandi of prostitution and degrades both of the participants, whether they freely agree to it - like the man and his prostitute do - or not. — Agustino

When you walk into any commercial establishment and exchange money for services, you're treating people like TOOLS? You're making a self-serving exchange for your own ends.... When you buy a sand-which.... So what?

Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time wondering who is harmed during an actual transaction of sex for money. Clearly the woman isn't harmed; she got paid! So is it the main who gets harmed? He loses his hard earned money and afterwards feels emotionally depressed that he must pay women to sexually gratify him? I don't get it, please enlighten me...

Such children do not behave like their animal counterparts, no. However, they do have a decreased function as human beings. — Agustino

Ummmmmmm.......

So running around on all fours, living amongst a pack of dogs, eating sleeping and living like them, is not animal behavior?

The existence of feral children pretty much destroys your notion that humans have some kind of innate set of ideas like "god" and "decency"...

And I'm not sure that if a child gets raised by a pack of dogs he will act like that pack. — Agustino

They're called feral children. They tend to have no language and behave in a manner congruent with their development. In the case of a child growing up with a dog pack, they act like a dog.

Your ideas about pre-existing ideas in human babies is really a mal-formed/naive way to view human psychology.

Like I TRIED to claim? :s — Agustino

Tried and failed to maintain the claim, yes. You ended up trotting it back to some ultra-vague nonsense that dropped the god parameter entirely and settled on anything vaguely superstitious ("in any way beyond the physical"). You elected not to defend it against my subsequent rebuke.

Yes, however those ideas do require other factors in their environment to be actualised. — Agustino

This is nonsense. Babies aren't born with every possible idea in their head and then through different environmental factors have them "actualized".

Teaching someone mathematics isn't "actualizing" the mathematical ideas they already had, it's introducing them to new ideas which previously did not exist in their mind.

Yes. So? — Agustino

You would condemn an ugly woman for wearing makeup, or an ugly man for compensating with his career, right?

Attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral because they (not all the time, but most often) involve the desire to use others (and their traits/bodies) for your own satisfaction. Using other people is failing to treat them with the dignity they deserve as persons, objectifying them, and mistreating their spiritual nature. There's your reason, now go walk the dog. — Agustino

What if the desire to be sexually attractive is to advertise yourself on a market of fair exchange where when two people have sex it's not simply one using the other (or whatever it is you're afraid of?).

What if instead of "using" other people for sex, they "had mutually gratifying sex together" and both enjoyed it?

It's hedonism then? Isn't any sex other than for the purpose of reproduction therefore immoral because both parties are clearly just exploiting each-other's bodies?

But let's take a step back: You're essentially saying that you don't like women who try to be attractive because you think they are disrespecting your spiritual nature (by controlling you?) with their bodies...

Depends why she intends to have good posture. If she intends to have good posture in order to attract other men to her and use their wills/bodies, then yes, that would be immoral. Most often though, women don't have those intentions when having good posture - they just want to be healthy and comfortable.

So yes, sexual attraction is part of life, and I have no problem with it IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES. — Agustino

What are the right circumstances? Do you need a chaperone?

They profited from it financially, but finance is relatively unimportant to other ways in which they have been harmed. — Agustino

What harm do you speak of?

We will always care about it because people are born with a sense of decency, that has to be then overcome through education. — Agustino

Isn't this like when you tried to claim that babies are born with a desire for god?

Babies aren't born with any knowledge about decency; they're born naked and will happily piss, shit, and vomit on you.

If a child gets raised by a pack of dogs, they act like a dog. Do you honestly believe that humans are born with biologically pre-programmed ideas?

I see no attempt in your post so far, so hopefully I expect to see this in some future post. — Agustino

You previously stated that if a women tries to be sexually provocative by showing her ankle then she is behaving immorally...

All you have done is stated that "attempts to be sexually appealing are immoral" but you have not justified why (beyond some insane fear mongering of the collapse of western society that is clearly fueled by your passion for religious conservatism and your hatred of liberalism).

And you wonder why others call you a prude... Sexual attraction is a natural part of human life Aug, get used to it. By your standards any woman who makes sure she has good posture is an immoral whore.

Yes, indecency harms the person who is being indecent. — Agustino

How?

Seems to be that being sexy hasn't harmed Beyonce or Madonna. In fact I think they profited from it.

What harm are you taking about?

So witnessing and passing by potentially infectious penises which swing from side to side isn't dangerous and psychologically harmful for children? :s — Agustino

Infectious penises?



Nobody is flailing their infectious penis around. You have a really wild imagination... If you're really that paranoid, just remember that if someone comes at you with their infectious penis, you are permitted to defend yourself...

Regarding children, generally the mere sight of genitalia isn't likely to confuse them or lead to any increased risk of actual harm. Anything is possible, but the biological differences between genders in and of themselves can be as uncontroversial as learning about elbows, knees and toes.

Exposing a child to a sex act however is something that they won't be able to understand, nor will we be able to adequately explain it. We don't want children thinking or worrying about sex for a host of reasons, foremost among them being their own health. Merely learning the difference between girls and boys however is something that most children naturally wonder about, and teaching them about that difference isn't very risky for parents to do...

I'm trying to ascertain whether this is more of a hypothetical thing or whether you actually go around judging people, and if so, under what circumstances. — Sapientia

As far as I can tell so far, it's to do with the immorality of promiscuity itself, up to and including the way in which it is leading to the destruction of the west through the erosion of traditional Western monogamy.

Staying cool on a hot day requires clothing. Many people believe this idiocy, but actually the body creates an exchange environment located between the body and the clothing. This is one of the primary ways of the body to regulate its own temperature, so clothing actually helps. That's why in the Middle East they go fully clothed for example, even though it's scorching hot. And it does actually feel cooler if you walk like them.

So this is a stupid reason. It would be time to educate him. — Agustino

The man informs you that his robes are at the cleaners. He shrugs and continues walking.

"Would you like to play again?"

Okay, highly unlikely. — Agustino

The man informs you that he doesn't like scratchy fabrics and that he cannot afford silk. He shrugs and continues walking.

"Would you like to play again?"

No. But again we need rules. Rules can't cover ALL cases. If they cover most cases, that's good enough. — Agustino

All I really want is even one well founded and useful rule that is persuasive to me. I mentioned in another thread that you would be hard pressed to draw clear and useful lines when it comes to this subject, and perhaps it's becoming clear as to why.

Why should even the sight of a man's penis be inherently nefarious or immoral? What are the precise grounds upon which we decide to forbid their public display? (and how long before we stop caring and mystifying/immoralizing/obsessing over genitalia as a society due to our steady over-exposure?)

Like someone who grew up in a nudist colony, seeing tits, a vagina, or a penis becomes like seeing an elbow or an ear.

I hesitate to even bring this up because I would rather not pretend that anti-promiscuity social-engineering is a concern of mine, but people who grow up in nudist colonies, so far as i know, are somewhat able to disassociate genitals in and of themselves from other human qualities which arouse them. To such a man, merely seeing a woman naked might not be arousing whatsoever, but if that woman were to show genuine interest him then he might actually begin to be aroused and view her in an explicitly sexual manner. Isn't that somewhat wholesome?

Yes she would be, but (1) I doubt most women would seek to appear sexy just by showing ankles, and (2) a rule cannot cover every possible case, there will be exceptions which bypass the rule, and that's fine. All it needs is to cover most cases. — Agustino

I'm not looking for "rules", I'm probing for the root of your moral condemnation of certain behavior. You're now confirming that indecency = attempt to be sexually provocative.

I've explained to you very specifically for that particular case, and there was no reference to subjective and religious reasons by the way. — Agustino

By defining indecency as an attempt to be sexually provocative (rather than instances of individuals actually being sexually provoked (to avoid the ankle dilemma?)) you have essentially shoved your subjective (and perhaps religious reasons) into this one odd postulate that I will attempt to convince you is flawed.

You still haven't answered my question. What KIND of answer would you expect? Can you give me an example of the kind of answer you would expect? — Agustino

Well, arguments that I might accept would be based on some kind of harm caused by an action that justifies actually forbidding it on a societal level (a "moral" exchange of freedom for security). What I expect are answers like "somehow the human body is inherently sinful (re: God)". Essentially asking you "who decides the standards of decency" is rhetorical; it's designed to make you confront your internal appeals to whichever authority and to see how from a different perspective it might seem arbitrary. I never expected a convincing answer...

That's absolutely false. I haven't seen any women in my town appearing without a top or a bra, but when I was in Saudi a couple of years ago, I've seen PLENTY of women going unchaperoned in their huge ass malls. — Agustino

And yet, women can be essentially arrested for not being chaperoned in public, by law. I'm sure some women get away with it in the malls, but how extensively have you traveled in SA?

Yeah, a very tiny percentage of women. — Agustino

So they're not being indecent or immoral or nefarious by walking around naked then right? Because they're not intending to be sexually provocative, right?

Don't be stupid, I haven't said any of this garbage. Stop strawmanning. — Agustino

Well, let's see: "Why is that man going shirtless? :s Is it because he wants to show his sexy body openly on the street? Then that's immoral and lacks decency."

Maybe it was unintentional, but your use of the terms "because" and "then" seems to indicate argument structure:

P1: attempting to be sexually provocative is immoral
P2: (if) going shirtless is an attempt to be provocative
C1: going shirtless is immoral and lacks decency

How is this a strawman?

The fact you think that some things are indecent are proof enough. Why are sex acts in public indecent? It will be so fun watching you give the same reasons I have given now sweetypie. — Agustino

I know why the politico-sexualization of the pregnant female body sickens you (friggin politics, amiright nudge? nudge?), but what I apparently still don't understand why public displays of nudity are inherently immoral/indecent if not "because of the intent to be sexually provocative". If that's not your position, then please remind me of your reasons.

As far as "public sex acts" go, there's actually some issues which can be raised against it which cannot be easily raised for nudity (in and of itself).

We can both agree that naked butts in public transit seats is a bad idea, but it's possible for a man or woman to stand naked on a public sidewalk and not leave behind any evidence that they were there. Most sex acts that I know of in fact produce a certain amount of fluids, and so in so many cases and situations sex in public would be harmful on the grounds of hygiene alone. But let's talk about sex acts which don't leave behind any humors, and which have the only characteristic of being a display of sexual intimacy. Such an act, (such as "dry sex" on a bus), might be seen as indecent by many, but on these grounds alone we cannot say it's immoral unless we're prepared to say that it becomes moral if the average person doesn't find it to be indecent. The reason why what I would describe as a "sex act" would be immoral for display in public is that witnessing them can be psychologically harmful to children. It's something they're not equipped to understand and I think we can both agree we would rather live in a world with such security for our children rather than the freedom to have sex in public for others.

Basic nudity isn't something children are incapable of understanding though, and as I argued previously someone who grows up with regular exposure to the genitals of the opposite sex (such as in nudist colonies) just winds up losing explicit sexual interest in genitals themselves (in exchange for things like personality). Men like you and I might have a hard time thinking straight if a very attractive woman suddenly exposed herself in our presence, but isn't that our problem and not hers?

I don't think public displays of nudity (from anyone) are inherently indecent...

I would hazard to say that public sex acts are indecent, but I would not include brief kisses (even between men) under the description of a "sex act".

If god didn't describe nudity as shameful in Christianity, might you assent to this position?

Why is that man going shirtless? :s Is it because he wants to show his sexy body openly on the street? Then that's immoral and lacks decency.

Ankle sporting women aren't doing anything that is indecent. — Agustino

Let's say that he wants to stay cool on a hot day, or just that shirtlessness is the most comfortable for him.

Is it still immoral for him to walk around shirtless? If so, why? (because someone else might find it sexy? Because he intends to appear sexy?)

(by your logic, a woman who shows ankle because they want too appear sexy is behaving immorally. You should probably look into correcting your moral reasoning here)

What kind of answer do you expect when you ask this question? — Agustino

Honestly, I expect really terrible answers because I know you base your position here on subjective and personal-religious emotional sensitivities

Asking you what determines the standards of decency isn't some "gotcha" or trick question; you stated that something is indecent, and now I'm asking how you came to that conclusion...

Yes, you could. And then I would explain to you why women showing their ankles isn't an example of lack of decency. I would say that a woman wouldn't show her ankles for any nefarious or immoral reasons - such as provoking sexual desire, showing off, etc. I would say that her showing her ankles in public would not produce any negative social consequences, but on the contrary it may be useful when it's very hot outside for example. — Agustino

I'm attracted to the ankles of women, and some women intentionally excite me in public by displaying their ankles to me in public. That makes ankle display immoral right?

I would ask them why they consider it indecent for a woman to be unchaperoned by a man in public. They will probably tell me that it's either because the woman should be protected at all times because of the danger that exists from a man trying to pick her up, rob her, etc. They may also tell me that a woman who isn't with a man may be provoking for other men and may incite their lust. In the first case I'd suggest that we should use police to protect women such that they are not harassed by men while out in the street. In the second case, I'd ask them if the lust provoked in the men looking at the women is any different if she's with another man. They'd either say yes, or no. If they say yes, then I'd ask them to explain how this is possible, granted that the woman, and not the man is the cause of this lust in the first place. They might try to say that the presence of the man would produce fear in other men, keeping their lust at bay. Then I may say that we should try to produce the same fear by means of the law, not by means of requesting her to be escorted by a man at all times. And so forth.

And by the way, they do walk unchaperoned many times >:O . Saudi and those places are very very hypocritical. — Agustino

The appearance of an unchaperoned (but fully burka-d) female is apparently indecent exposure according to Saudi men. They're attracted to the sight of a lone female and since females know this, for them to appear unchaperoned in public is to intentionally and knowingly provoke sexual desire (let alone to expose their faces).

A woman appearing in Saudi Arabia without a man is like a woman appearing in your town without a top or bra.

The distinct problem here Aug' is that what you deem to be sexually provocative is down to your own subjective and learned sensibilities. Some women would actually like to walk around topless for comfort reasons, but because you find breasts so sexually provocative suddenly their display becomes immoral and nefarious. So far the only actual qualifier you've offered is "intending to be provocative", and if we were to use that as a standard to determine indecency, then make-up of any kind, any decorative hair-styles, any clothing which flatters the human form, (basically any overt aesthetic display by men or women) can be viewed as an attempt to provoke sexual desire (aka, immoral and nefarious). Similarly, any unintentional instance of sexual provocativeness (a woman walking around naked because she likes being naked) therefore is NOT immoral or nefarious (because there's no intent?) Of course not right? It's still immoral because if you're forced to see a nipple then.... Reasons...?

If you grew up in a nudist colony you wouldn't look at a woman's breast and have an instant reaction. In similar fashion you are not affected by the sight of ankles in the same way what a man from the 18th century might have been.

You pretend to have insight about what's moral on this subject but all you're doing is tracing existing taboo lines.

No - it's just an ankle. — Agustino

Where are you getting your decisions about what's appropriate and what's inappropriate?

Why is a shirtless male on the street bad but an ankle sporting women is O.K?

And let me guess - the discomfort is due to my insecurity, even though I have a sexier body than most men. Sure. :-} Typical absurd progressive thinking. — Agustino

No Augustino, I wasn't going to call you ugly (you love to take the chance to bolster your self-image though :/ )... I want to know the actual basis upon which you declare certain things to be inappropriate and others appropriate. I'm not interested in how sexy you are or think you are...

No, I am part of a political movement aimed at sanctioning lack of decency in public. — Agustino

Who decides the standards of decency? Tradition? The bible? You? God?

I could pretend to be a puritan and admonish you for not condemning the indecency of an exposed female ankle. I could accuse you of having a nefarious political agenda and that all I'm doing is sanctioning a lack of decency in public...

In Saudi Arabia it's considered indecent for a women to be unchaperoned by a man, at all times (in public), so what would you say to Saudi Arabia when they accuse you of supporting sexual depravity?

Because Serena is doing this just to show she is PROUD of her pregnant body and isn't ashamed of showing it out in the open for all to see. It's part of a political movement aimed at normalising public displays of intimate matters, as if such things were meant to be put on public display. To me, this is quite sickening. — Agustino

Aren't you a part of a political movement aimed at vilifying public displays of the female form?

You find public displays of the female/pregnant body sickening, but why???

If some women find the male chest to be disgusting, should we forbid any man from appearing shirtless in public?

If some men find public displays of female ankle to be disgusting, should they be forbade showing ankle?

What exactly is the basis of your sentiments toward nudity and sex other than the discomfort you personally feel toward it?

You've somehow managed to say very much and very little...

Did you not watch the third grade Indian child? His experiment may illuminate you.

Quantum particles are not a place (a "where"), they're are things. "The quantum realm" isn't some separate place, it refers to certain (small) distances and scales of measurement of space where fundamental particles (these interesting and distinct things) exhibit observable behaviors. That fundamental particles exhibit different behavior from massive objects should not be taken as some clever rebuke of science.

Anyhooo, I'm not sure how what I've said is religious, but it would be nice if you could redress your point while taking into account my own.

This is the fundamental problem work science. Speculative ideas are just bandied about and people are suppose to unquestioningly accept them because "science"is attached to it. Just a new form of religion. You said that F=ma is applicable every where in the universe and had been and will forever be a force of law. It clearly isn't and never was and never will be, yet you still insist. Why? Because you have it as an example? — Rich

But so far as we know it DOES apply everywhere in the universe, it's just not suitable for describing individual quantum particles.

It clearly still applies to the same massive bodies to which it has always applied, and clearly will continue to do so...

Instead of trying to explain to me quantum physics, because you or no one can't (it is basically Schrodinger's equation + the Heisenberg principle), go back and look at your claims and observe how outright absurd they are, just like any religious belief. The problem with scientists is they v demands c proof from everyone else but themselves, because as all evangelists, they are on a mission. — Rich

I went back and looked at my claims, but I still find them to be reasonable...

Perhaps you could explain to me why you think F=MA will stop being a valid description of the relationship between acceleration, mass, and force at Newtonian scales?

Just because something is not an accurate description of X doesn't mean it's therefore not an accurate description of Y. (because X and Y might be different).

If you want evidence for F=MA, here's some :D

F=MA it's inapplicable at the quantum level and is at best a good approximation for practical purposes at larger levels. If this is example of a law of physics then it demonstrates my point very nicely. — Rich

F=MA was never designed to describe the quantum scale though. Your objection to F=MA would be like an architect telling an astronomer that the standard candle principle doesn't apply to bridge design.

We have very good descriptions of quantum mechanics which we don't expect to suddenly change; even in the quantum world your supposition that there is no consistency is mistakenly founded.

We cannot be certain whether or not a given electron will emit a photon if we prepare it's "spin" in a particular state and then suddenly change it's orientation using a magnetic field. But what we do instead is describe a range of probabilities for given prepared states and given deviations from that prepared state. F=MA doesn't need to apply to the quantum world just as Hiesenberg didn't need his descriptions and calculations of quantum mechanics to apply to the Newtonian world... You're just comparing scientific apples to scientific oranges.

Of course, if you change something things change. No one is suggesting it otherwise. However, exactly what will happen it's totally unpredictable, demonstrating once again that determinism is fluffy myth. I wonder why people hold on so tightly to such an idea with zero evidence supporting it. What we are all doing all the time is choosing yet determinists are so desperate they become Buddhists and start declaring the world as we experience it is all an illusion. And what is creating this illusion (there is no who in the world of robots)? Molecules?? — Rich

Forgive me but it seems like you're very desperate to reject the idea of determinism by whatever means...

As a determinist I hold that the future is not predictable with absolute certainty (for various reasons), and nobody is arguing that we should act like the concept of "choice" is incoherent. What are you so afraid of?

Socrates said it: "All I know is that I know nothing"...

I have no idea what a so-called Law of Physics is (a term that is bandied about with absolutely no definition) and since science is changing all the time and our understanding is changing all the time, there is zero evidence for such godlike claims of such a never changing, omnipresent, spiritual-like presence. But it doesn't stop people from using such concepts hoping no one will notice the lack of concreteness. — Rich

F=MA

The force required to accelerate an object (by a specific amount) is proportional to it's mass, as described by the above equation. (Newton's second law of motion).

We're as certain this will never change as we're certain about anything; It's basically 1+1=2. If you want to suggest that either of these things will stop being true you've got to literally tear up the most fundamental assumptions we've made about the nature of reality.

So that's an example of "a law of physics".

Regarding the "robot" like qualities of humans, the whole of neuroscience will happily disagree with your assertion that "there's no evidence".

If certain parts of your brain are removed or damaged, then you might exhibit somewhat predictable behavioral changes as a result.

We know that something in the going's on of the brain provides the decision making power of human consciousness, and there's mountains of evidence for this.

Determinists don't deny the illusion of choice or the pragmatism of actually making them, they're just not willing to call them "inherently and 100% free".

This appears to be one of the many beliefs upon which determinism is founded. There is no reason to believe this actually is so, especially since everything is constantly changing. In any case, current understanding of quantum physics (probably the closest we can come to a fundamental understanding of nature and this time) pretty much undermines determinism. — Rich

Are you suggesting that we have no reason to believe that the laws of physics are consistent?

(There's ton's of strong evidence for this actually, namely the fact that science keeps working).

What about quantum mechanics actually undermines determinism or supports free will?

You can replace determined will with random will, but "random" does not equate to "free".

In the face of quantum randomness, we might just propose a non-local hidden variable theory and blame that for our actions anyway...

Judge: "Why did you do it?".
Defendant: "The uncertainty in the the "spin" of a quantum particle made me do it."...