Great, a more circular reasoning could not be possible :PIt's just no big deal. Obviously it's no big deal to me, and no big deal to others as well. As for the rest, it should be no big deal for them, too. — Sapientia
LOL!My wife? What wife? :D
And what six pack? :(
Nah, people on the street should enjoy my hypothetical six pack, too. Some probably did in the past when I actually had one and when it was on show in public. — Sapientia
Sure, that is sometimes possible.I was hoping we could avoid that quibble. I was speaking in a looser sense of not knowing enough about a situation to make a good judgement. — Sapientia
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.Dude I quoted you directly in the other thread and it's there for anyone to read. Here it is again: — VagabondSpectre
As if I said it was.Being born with the potential to learn mathematics is not the same as being born with mathematical ideas in your head. — VagabondSpectre
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.What if they want a mate that they are attracted to, so they are trying to make themselves attractive. — VagabondSpectre
No.Should they be happy with whichever man/woman their parents/priest indicates they should marry? — VagabondSpectre
Because we're not animals. Next question please.I'm talking about sex, not love. Why do people have to only deal in love and not in sex? — VagabondSpectre
No, because this isn't an economic exchange. It involves who they are as persons directly (including their bodies and minds), in a way a business deal doesn't. A business deal doesn't involve lying close to that person and putting your penis in them. Nope. It just doesn't.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? — VagabondSpectre
Read what I said above, and stop strawmanning and being stupid please.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? — VagabondSpectre
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? :sForgive me, but I'm having a hard time wondering who is harmed during an actual transaction for 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... — VagabondSpectre
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.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"... — VagabondSpectre
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 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
Because we're not animals. Next question please. — Agustino
Read what I said above, and stop strawmanning and being stupid please. — Agustino
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
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
It says desire for the transcendent (which does INCLUDE God, but it obviously is much larger than the concept of God).That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God)
Stop being pedantic please. — VagabondSpectre
Yes, quite possibly.Would you marry someone you found visually repulsive because you like who they are? — VagabondSpectre
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.we ARE animals. We evolved here on Earth right along side all the others... — VagabondSpectre
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.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 — VagabondSpectre
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."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!" — VagabondSpectre
Ah, sometimes they can escape! So they're not like dogs, because dogs can never escape RIGHT?! Really, you're making yourself appear stupid.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 escape . — VagabondSpectre
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.Were you even aware of the existence of feral children before I brought them up? — VagabondSpectre
It says desire for the transcendent (which does INCLUDE God, but it obviously is much larger than the concept of God). — Agustino
Yes, quite possibly. — Agustino
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
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
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
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
Do they? Show me a dog starting to become a human. :sDogs never escape? :-} — VagabondSpectre
Read some Aristotelian philosophy and you may be able to understand what it means.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? — VagabondSpectre
Okay, go do that then.I would rather study L Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics" to be honest... — VagabondSpectre
They absolutely do have to do with your personhood, because sexual acts are INTIMATE, and involve close bodily and emotional contact.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". — VagabondSpectre
Yes, and I answered you why. Read it and study what it means: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). — VagabondSpectre
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? :s — Agustino
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.so whether or not you're physically attracted to someone is not a consideration whatsoever as a potential marriage partner? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, anything beyond the physical includes the superstitious. Animals don't have superstitions, yet another difference.Read as: anything vaguely superstitious = a baby's desire for god. Humans are superstitious, QED babies desire god right? — VagabondSpectre
Read some Aristotelian philosophy and you may be able to understand what it means. — Agustino
They absolutely do have to do with your personhood, because sexual acts are INTIMATE, and involve close bodily and emotional contact. — Agustino
Yes, and I answered you why. Read it and study what it means: — Agustino
Do they? Show me a dog starting to become a human. :s — Agustino
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
Yes, anything beyond the physical includes the superstitious. Animals don't have superstitions, yet another difference. — Agustino
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...
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.Or, you could have clear ideas and communicate them effectively... There's always that option! — VagabondSpectre
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).What if sex need not involve intimate emotion? — VagabondSpectre
Fundamentally a person is someone bestowed with both will and intellect, such that the intellect can guide the will in the choices that it makes - but personhood refers to the constituent elements that belong to the human person, namely body, emotions, feelings, mind and spirit.What's your definition of personhood? — VagabondSpectre
So how come some feral children can learn languages eh? Why don't you teach your dog a language too?!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? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, in relatively simple activities, but try teaching a dog or a cat to paint, to speak, etc.I've seen dogs and cats be trained to use the toilet, does that mean that they have some innate human ideas too? — VagabondSpectre
First, attractive would involve what I personally consider attractive about her, which may be different than what society does, so others may not necessarily consider her attractive as well.Why would you be more interested in an attractive female at the outset?
You low down hedonist dog you! — VagabondSpectre
Acting out of fear and taking some sort of action against something identified as a possible threat isn't being superstitious.How do you know animals aren't superstitious?
I think that dogs who growl at mailmen are behaving superstitiously... — VagabondSpectre
Well, sure if that's your thing, no problem doing it at a NUDIST BEACH. But there would be a problem if you did that in the middle of the street. It's not indecent to be nude at a nudist beach, but it is indecent to be nude on the street.There are nudist beaches here in Sydney, and I have swum at some of them, and i find nothing at all offensive about seeing naked human bodies, and i feel no shame about appearing naked myself. — John
I think this is not right. There is a political agenda to it which is driven by all sorts of postmodern and neo-progressive movements that Serena has always been a part of. Part of their agenda is to eliminate standards and hierarchies of beauty and truth, including in-so-far as they pertain to the pregnant female body.I don't agree with your allegation of there being a "political agenda", though, with the "Serena' image. At least no more than there is a political agenda to every aspect of media, simply by virtue of the fact that we are political beings. — John
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
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
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
So how come some feral children can learn languages eh? Why don't you teach your dog a language too?! — Agustino
Yes, in relatively simple activities, but try teaching a dog or a cat to paint, to speak, etc. — Agustino
Acting out of fear and taking some sort of action against something identified as a possible threat isn't being superstitious. — Agustino
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.me: "What does "actualize our potential for communion mean?".
you: "Go read Aristotle".
me: "Lol". — VagabondSpectre
Yes indeed, but it always comes with SOME emotional packaging.Not all sex comes with the same emotional packaging. — VagabondSpectre
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?!Sometimes both parties are just looking for a certain kind of physical contact. — VagabondSpectre
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.But what exactly does "emotional contact" mean with reference to sex? — VagabondSpectre
Would you not then feel another emotion instead of love while fucking them?!I could hug someone and feel emotional love and I could fuck someone and feel none at all; — VagabondSpectre
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.just because there is physical (sexual) contact does not mean that emotions are necessarily involved... — VagabondSpectre
No, not quite. I've already given you my portrayal of my argument very clearly, and I've pointed you to it several times already. You've made no effort to read it properly: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? — VagabondSpectre
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.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? :s — Agustino
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.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. — VagabondSpectre
Nothing, inherently. But sex can be misused.What's inherently bad about sex again? — VagabondSpectre
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.(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) — VagabondSpectre
No it doesn't. Just because they're born with a certain potential doesn't mean they can always actualise it. Mentally retarded people cannot actualise a lot of human potentials.feral children sometimes cannot learn many aspects of normal human behavior, which indicates that they're not born with innate knowledge/ideas. — VagabondSpectre
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.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". — VagabondSpectre
No, I wouldn't qualify this as superstition."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... — VagabondSpectre
They fear God because they have an experience of the transcendent.People fear god (who is unidentified) by assuming all kinds of nonsense about the nature of reality and our relationship to it. — VagabondSpectre
>:O >:O >:O Man this guy!! I've already answered that question about 4 times for fuck's sake!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? — VagabondSpectre
Where exactly have I alluded to that? :s >:OYou alluded that you don't know what kind of sex I've had, the answer is many different kinds. — VagabondSpectre
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 :sI'm not trying to be rude in asking this, but have you ever had sex? — VagabondSpectre
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
Yes indeed, but it always comes with SOME emotional packaging. — Agustino
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
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
Would you not then feel another emotion instead of love while fucking them?! — Agustino
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
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
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
Nothing, inherently. But sex can be misused. — Agustino
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
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
No, I wouldn't qualify this as superstition. — Agustino
They fear God because they have an experience of the transcendent. — Agustino
Man this guy!! I've already answered that question about 4 times for fuck's sake! — Agustino
Where exactly have I alluded to that — Agustino
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
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
Personally I wouldn't do that, not because I would feel ashamed or offended by it, but I just see absolutely no point to go to a nudist beach - as in I'd have zero reason to go. — Agustino
I think most people have quite a capacity to handle those terms, but it seems you don't.The problem Aug, is that you're using terms which are ambiguous and in some senses unrelated to my inquiries. — VagabondSpectre
Wrong, that is just a specific instance of actualising and it's absolutely not the definition of the term."don't actualize" means "do/does not" — VagabondSpectre
Again, this is just wrong (you will see later why)."potential" we can forget about because it's redundant in the sense that the ability to do/not do — VagabondSpectre
I think that's quite specific. What's unclear and vague about it?"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). — VagabondSpectre
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.So, casual sex is bad because the participants don't "get out of the prison of their own selves and relate to each-other". — VagabondSpectre
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.What do you mean by "relate to each other"? — VagabondSpectre
A lack of emotional contact during sex is impossible. Being unaware of the presence of one emotion or another isn't to say that they don't exist. Making efforts to block them out (glory holes, not knowing who you're having sex with, etc.) doesn't mean that they aren't still there.Why though Aug, why is "a lack of emotional contact" during sex such a harmful thing? — VagabondSpectre
I made none of the inferences you suggest I made here.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? — VagabondSpectre
Of course I will object to it because it's false. You're talking of something that is a performative contradiction."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). — VagabondSpectre
>:O 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.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. — VagabondSpectre
Yeah, so? :sAt 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. — VagabondSpectre
Do you wish to discuss the morality of discussing sex, or the conditions under which the sexual act is disrespectful?So, is it that asking for sex from someone who you do not love is inherently disrespectful? — VagabondSpectre
There is no close emotion that renders sex not harmful as such.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... — VagabondSpectre
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?I might feel any number of emotions depending on the circumstances, but are lust and sexual satisfaction/gratification emotions? — VagabondSpectre
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?It employs a simplistic but elegant mechanic of a hole to negotiate an anonymous contract between two willing participants. — VagabondSpectre
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.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 — VagabondSpectre
Well do you want to be a nice and decent person? If so, then yes, you should consider everyone's emotional well being.Why am I morally obligated to be considerate of everyone's emotional well being? — VagabondSpectre
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?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? — VagabondSpectre
This happens automatically. Sex always involves one's whole being.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? — VagabondSpectre
Except that you would be abusing each other.If I'm not actually abusing her (nor she I), how is any damage done to our emotional well-being? — VagabondSpectre
Wait, those two are different aspects, they're not the same.how "emotional well-beings" are necessarily harmed by sex without communion — VagabondSpectre
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?(expensive escorts in the 2000$ a night range have more dignity than you can afford XD) — VagabondSpectre
They are. They are doing a lot of harm to themselves, their partners, and their future spouses.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). — VagabondSpectre
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.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. — VagabondSpectre
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.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! — VagabondSpectre
I never said this. Nor did I say the previous. I meant desire for transcendent from the very beginning in that discussion as I've already proven.or potential for communion becomes emotional contact, which then becomes "close emotion". — VagabondSpectre
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.So in other words, children have just as much "potential for indecency" as they have "potential for decency"? — VagabondSpectre
Because without these potentials, they could not develop in the directions that they do in the first place.(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"). — VagabondSpectre
No, not at all. It is the experience of sin that threatened them with eternal damnation.Is it the experience of the transcendent that threatened them with eternal damnation? (as a religious youth, that's why I feared God). — VagabondSpectre
No, although desire for anything beyond the material can involve superstition. Superstition would certainly be a sign of such a desire.Do you at least assent to my re-framing "desire for anything beyond the material" as being sufficiently described by "superstition"? — VagabondSpectre
No, I've never had casual sex for that matter, but that certainly doesn't suggest that I wouldn't know what casual sex involves, or what feelings would be aroused, or what the effects of casual sex would be. Certainly I know what would happen and how I would feel if I were to put my hand in the fire, even though I've never done this. Our imaginations allow us to construct experiences based on feelings and emotions that we have already experienced through other, different experiences. For example, before I had sex the first time, I knew what the feelings of say orgasm would be like from masturbation, so I wasn't that surprised by the feeling. I also knew what the feeling of love and attraction were from things like having kissed my girlfriend, and from the intimate time I had spent with her. It would be absolutely silly to suggest that someone must have casual sex in order to know what casual sex is like - just as silly as suggesting that you have to put your hand in the fire to know what fire is like.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... — VagabondSpectre
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? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, but I think this is a problem for you. From the amount of time you spend talking about men on these forums, it seems that you are at least obsessed about men, and I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them. I gather this especially from the stories you tell, and how you assume that other men on these boards are interested in you, combined with your generally low opinion and regard for men etc. So what if you dress this way on purpose to attract their attention and feel superior by refusing whatever you perceive to be their advances?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 — TimeLine
I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them — Agustino
Why do you think that?I think you are morally trying to compete with me. — TimeLine
How is it my projection? This is what I noticed from your own stories, and I said it may be a possibility.You are using the very assumptions that draw conclusions that only express your own projection on the subject — TimeLine
Does it seem to you like I said she can't be virtuous if she wears a bikini in the right circumstances? :sa woman can be virtuous and still wear a bikini. — TimeLine
Does it seem to you like I said she can't be virtuous if she wears a bikini in the right circumstances? :s — Agustino
No, I actually didn't, I said however that this may be possible, precisely because I don't know you well enough to say for certain. Hence why I said:You made it out that I seek to dominate men, am obsessed over them, when I said that I have yet to sleep with anyone. — TimeLine
This would not be moral, if that's the case. — Agustino
To be obsessed about men does not entail that you sleep with them, have sex with them, etc. As far as this works, it would be a psychological thing, seen from the fact that you return over and over again to discussing men, in quite weird ways, such as keep repeating what an ideal man is, how you spend your time with people who don't really deserve it, etc. Why do you do that? That's called obsessing over something, because I can assure you that most members here don't want to read how you're so great that you shouldn't be spending time with whoever, etc. Neither is it useful for the kinds of discussions that go on here.How does that even work? — TimeLine
I agree.Being friendly is not being provocative, the point I was attempting to convey was that men often think what is not there. — TimeLine
No, I actually didn't, I said however that this may be possible, precisely because I don't know you well enough to say for certain. — Agustino
From the amount of time you spend talking about men on these forums, it seems that you are at least obsessed about men, and I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them. — Agustino
That's the latest time I noticed it, because we usually don't participate in the same threads but I've seen this repeated several times before, and I think other people would have noticed the same. Why do you keep talking about what you consider an ideal man, how you're waiting for you King Solomon, how you don't like to spend your time with people that you do spend your time with because you only tolerate them, etc. :s that's all very strange behaviour, which is exactly why I'm picking on you. Do you see anyone else obsess over such issues? :sponder why I feel like I spend most of my time in the company of people I merely tolerate when it could be spent with you.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.