Sexual ethics

IvoryBlackBishop

I haven't found anything akin to an "one-size fits all" view, howevr here are some of the aggregate views and "wisdom of the crowd" on the subject.

1. Many, whether coming from a 'religious' or simply a cultural perspective, would argue that something akin to a mature marriage or relationship is better than simply "hooking up" as a lifestyle pursuit (from every purely mature or practical perspective, I'd argue that it is; as a simple example, if a maried or dating couple had sex 3 times a week, that would be over 150 times a year, and they could get to know and trust each other and explore more personal preferences, 'kinks', fantasies and so on - while a person who only sleeps with people for 1 night, would have to be able to find 150 partners a year, every year for the rest of their life, as well as their being a lack of trust or healthy personal boundaries in sleeping with a stranger, unplanned pregnancy risks, and so on).

Much as from a cultural perspective with or without specifically invoking "religion" most would find that monogamy is superior to polygamy or 3rd world marital practices (often associated with ills such as lack of legal rights for women, child marriages, and things of that nature).

At the same time, "hooking up" is something of an adolescent rite of passage for young men and women (ideally with the notion that they will eventually 'mature' into a serious, adult relationship), and the other extreme, such as advocating strict virginity or abstinence until marriage would come across as 19th century Victorian puritanism.

(This would most likely be perceived as the case when applied to 'men' as opposed to women, however in practice, it's something of a myth regardless, as most wants in a 1st world country are higher mental wants, and not purely 'physical or sexual' ones to begin with, or again then polygamy would be more 'beneficial' when it comes to producing children, with monogamy itself being a manifestation of 'higher mental wants', and pursuit of better quality marriages, relationships, and so forth at the expense of simply having as much 'sex' or making as many 'children' as possible - to some extent or degree this is just common sense, and people 'know this', but more or less take it for granted, whether one invokes culture, or even something 'religious', such as the Bible and St. Paul's assertion that not all men or people should necessarily marry or have children).

--

Likewise, other conflicting views on the topic exist - for example, if one were to pursue "hooking up" as a lifestyle choice, many would object to this, claiming that it is "using" each other, or often more specifically a woman.

However as the converse to the above, some might argue that advocating such as view is also archaic, misogynist, anti-feminst, and so on and so forth, since it effectivley treats a woman like a child, or implies that as a legally consenting adult, she cannot nor or should not be able to decide who she has sex with; the same argument could be used regards of the sex or gender discussed, however generally it comes up more often in the specific context of women;

(Aguments in the context of pornography or sexually-oriented entertainment such as strip clubs or exotic dancing would generally follow a similar vein).

Nobeernolife

Much as from a cultural perspective with or without specifically invoking "religion" most would find that monogamy is superior to polygamy or 3rd world marital practices (often associated with ills such as lack of legal rights for women, child marriages, and things of that nature). — IvoryBlackBishop

Monogamy is preferrable to polygamy, because it promotes a stable society. Polygamy by definition leaves society with a lot of incels, which mean aggression and instabiliy, which is not something you want. (Unless you want a warrior society bent bent on external aggression, in which case large amounts of incels are desirable.)
The "llegal rights for women" and "child marriage" issues are related to modern, enlightened values like equality in front of the law.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Nobeernolife

lol, incels.

Actually, from what I've heard historically, is that in some ancient societies, "low status" males were made into eunuchs and forced to serve in the king's harem.

As far as your other posts, from what I've seen, meritocratic ideals for men and women have existed in some for or another in a diverse variety of societies, as well today, varying by a complex multitude of circumstances, such as socio-economic, familial, legal, personal, intellectual, and so on.

(I believe that Plato is considered a classical example of the meritocratic ideal, much as how women in different positions of influence, intelligence, and so forth, ideally above and beyond the 'bare minmum' standards of whatever societies they are a part of, which aren't and never were that 'high' on average regardless of male or female, women such as Marie Curie or Joan of Arc being exemplars and not the "average" woman of their day and age necessarily, much as is the same today, such as in regards to a woman lawyer of some signfiicant reknown, education, familiar circumstances and whatnot, nor similar circumstances in regards to "average" males versus more culturally exemplar examples of past or present.)

I'd have to read up on more history with an emphasis on women, however I'm inclined to harken back to women such as Marie Curie, or others, such as Greek women philosophers of some reknown, as well as the idealization of women in the incarnations of 'goddess',

god must be atheist

Has anyone ever heard of contraception, introspection, full suspension, and resurrection?

I have enjoyed both a promiscuous and a monogamous lifestyle, and I have to tell you: the monogamous is boring but safe and life is easier; the promiscuous is frought with adversity, instability, and money troubles, but it's infintely more exciting and enjoyable.

Yeah, you can find a partner whom you can trust and get to know, and while I don't condone hooking up for myself (I won't interfere with the choice by others for themselves), a serial monogamy is WAAAY preferable to a single long-term relationship. In serial, you can date as long as you find your partner exciting and vice versa. In marriage, in most of them, there is no sex to speak of after the fifth year. It is not exciting, you get so fucking incredibly bored with her or him, that you cringe even when they touch you or you touch them. And of course you fantasize about thy neighbour's ass.

For those who still can afford a choice, I suggest you go out and sow your wild oats, (without producing a baby, fer crying out loud), then when old age sets in and the cart of life gets too heavy to be pulled just by one person, then hook up with a contemporary of your age group, and waltz to the grave hand-in-hand.

god must be atheist

From societal perspective, monogamy is preferred, for it promotes stability. Of course andriarchies are stable too, when the ruling male has a stable of wifes and concubines. That's a form of polygamy.

From a personal perspective, monogamy, monoandry, is preferred if your goal is to nurture your offspring with any degree of certainty to maturity.

From a personal perspective, polygamy or philandering, is preferred because you have a chance to produce offspring which has a chance to propagate your genes (the basic idea behind procreation).

From a personal perspective, polyandry and slutting around is preferred, because your offspring, if begotten to a wide variety of males, will have a diversity in DNA which alone provides a better survival chance for the propagation of the mother's DNA, which is the basic idea behind procreation.

Tzeentch

↪IvoryBlackBishop

Could you perhaps elaborate further on what it is you'd like to discuss? Because it is not immediately apparent to me how this discussion involves ethics.

Frank Apisa

Yeah, like GMBA, I was VERY promiscuous as a young man. Had a ball. Loved the life style...and would not change any of the memories.

But now I've been with Nancy for 38 years. We met on a blind date set up by a friend. Haven't been apart since...and I would not change any of the memories I have of this monogamous relationship.

ASIDE: We've been together, as I mentioned, for 38 years...and have never married. We've both just felt that no governmental agency or church need be involved in our relationship.

IvoryBlackBishop

For what it's also worth, there were some historical queens who had male concubines:

http://historytothepublic.org/empress-wu-and-her-male-concubines-concubinus/

IvoryBlackBishop

↪god must be atheist

I'm not sure I totally buy into that one as a universal, but then again every serious take on marriage or monogamy as an ideal, even including Biblical ones (in which marital problems and conflicts are a recurring theme) is that it would require a lot of work and sacrifice, with many marriages or relationships not being part of the ideal, and of course presently and historically it also served and serves a pragmatic purpose, not solely a "Romantic" one (which seems more of a notion from Rousseau than anything within the realm of legal philosophy or even religion, such as quasi-deterministic themes of 'love at first sight' and whatnot).

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Tzeentch

The main ethics would be the notion of 'hooking up', especially as a lifestyle goal, even if one doesn't specifically invoke 'religion', generally monogamy is viewed as better ideal, and one which isn't rife with potential sensationalist media controversies which make rounds on the media as of late. (The cultural and legal philosophies surrounding monogamy as an ideal in 1st world countries as opposed to polygamy or 'hooking' up).

One that on, arguments will tend to either take the vein of it being 'using' one or the other person (generally the woman), or the other extreme, in which such an attitude is archaic, anti-intellectual and anti-feminist, and treating a woman (or men) like a helpless child who as a consenting adult can't or shouldn't choose who she has sex with.

Nobeernolife

From societal perspective, monogamy is preferred, for it promotes stability. Of course andriarchies are stable too, when the ruling male has a stable of wifes and concubines. That's a form of polygamy. — god must be atheist

The natural birthrate being roughly 50/50, that by definition leaves a number of male incels, unless you limit the polygamy to the ruler only. And as I pointed out, male incels are source of aggression and instability i a society. You don´t want large amount of testosterone sloshing around, if you want stability.

From a personal perspective, polygamy or philandering, is preferred because you have a chance to produce offspring which has a chance to propagate your genes (the basic idea behind procreation). — god must be atheist

Sure, that the personal perspective. Obviously, you are male. We can´t escape our biolo

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Frank Apisa

I 'hooked up' a lot when I was younger, but honestly my attitude and worldview on it was that it was more of an adolescents insecurity than anything else.

As of right now, I would honestly prefer playing a video game than trying to 'pick up' a woman at a strip club.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Nobeernolife

Even then, as per the higher mental wants notion, I don't totally buy that, I honestly believe any male who "has" to be a virgin is a pretty rare phenomenon, and that in the case of 'incels' it's some type of mania or mental disturbance (e.x. such as thinking he's entitled to marry Hollywood actresses instead of a more 'ordinary' girl' or whatnot).

As far as history goes, I can't say for certain, but supposedly many notable intellectuals such as Adam Smith or Einstein never married, but obviously applied themselves to creative or higher-level mental achievements, and weren't known to be malcontents or female celebrity stalkers akin to the "incels". (The same is also true of women like Emily Dickenson).

Again, assuming everything was purely "sexual" or "physical" then I'd venture there would have been no sciences or innovations whatsoever, given how much "time" that would have taken away from more important tasks, such as making 10 babies with 10 different partners, and so on.

China obviously outdoes America and Europe in terms of physical procreation, however most of US wouldn't want to lower the intellectual level to that of a "3rd world country" simply for the sake of "more children", "larger families" and so on.

Nobeernolife

Even then, as per the higher mental wants notion, I don't totally buy that, I honestly believe any male who "has" to be a virgin is a pretty rare phenomenon, and that in the case of 'incels' it's some type of mania or mental disturbance (e.x. such as thinking he's entitled to marry Hollywood actresses instead of a more 'ordinary' girl' or whatnot). — IvoryBlackBishop

No. It is simply demographics. If the more powerful males all appropriate several females, that leaves a large number of incels in the population by definition. That does not mean they are all virgins (after all, there will always be prostituion), and that does not mean they all react the same. But on average, a surplus of unanswered male sex drive in society is not a good thing, unless the society is at war.

There really is no disagreement about this amont sociologists. I am not stating something original here. (Rather something pretty obvious, once look at society instead of just your personal life.)

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Nobeernolife

As far as history and other aspects are concerned (such as Maslov's hierarchy of needs), what your saying may be a trend, but obvious isn't everything, given that in today's society, higher mental wants take precedent over purely "physical" ones.

Much as for a sociologist to even elect to become a sociologist to begin with, they are taking time in pursuit of those 'higher mental goals' away from time which could be spent fathering more children (such as the philosophy of something akin to a fundamentalist Mormon compound might be).

For that matter, not every man or woman has the same 'sex drive' (e.x. I've heard of plenty of couples who simply 'got tired' of having sex but stayed married or together, without some overt need to have sex every day, in some cases the complaints were even reversed, in which the wife or woman complained of the man's low sex drive).

IvoryBlackBishop

↪god must be atheist

On this one, as far as getting tired of the other person goes, can you elaborate more? Is it something purely 'physical', such as a desire to have sex with more women or 'newer' women, or is it related to personality, characteristics, getting along or having common interests, or things of that nature?

god must be atheist

↪Frank Apisa

Good for you! I've been with my beautiful girl for four years now, but then again, I've grown old. It's good to warm my bones beside the fire.

god must be atheist

On this one, as far as getting tired of the other person goes, can you elaborate more? Is it something purely 'physical', such as a desire to have sex with more women or 'newer' women, or is it related to personality, characteristics, getting along or having common interests, or things of that nature? — IvoryBlackBishop

I think, all of the above.

Of course, what you don't know, does not hurt you. People who got married at seventeen and lived a lifetime together, will never miss the taste for change.

A bit like indoor cats. They are EXTREMELY happy and satisfied with life. They love life. Until... one day they get to go outside. The sights, the smells, the sounds, will drive them scared... then they come in and ponder about that... and the next time they venture out, they are hooked for life on the outside.

Nobeernolife

For that matter, not every man or woman has the same 'sex drive' — IvoryBlackBishop

I did say that I was speaking about society a large. Of course there are large individual differences.
Are you saying that you think there is no basic difference between male and female sexuality?

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Nobeernolife

If we use Robert Wright's book on evolutionary psychology as the metric, the main difference is that men's sex drive tends to be geared toward 'more partners', while women's tends to be oriented to the specific things she receives from one or more partner (e.x. stability or support in one partner, or romance and excitement in another, assuming she can't get it in both at the same time).

As far as how "sex" drive might be defined beyond that, you're free to give your thoughts.

god must be atheist

The natural birthrate being roughly 50/50, that by definition leaves a number of male incels, unless you limit the polygamy to the ruler only. And as I pointed out, male incels are source of aggression and instability i a society. You don´t want large amount of testosterone sloshing around, if you want stability. — Nobeernolife

Homosexuality. That takes care of 15% of the overflow of testosterone. Natural homosexuality.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪god must be atheist

I'm not sure it's totally reducible to that, though a pragmatic aspect in marriage and relationships isn't deniable.

As far as other takes on it, such as a purely biological take, for example, I'm not totally sure if there could be any meaningful difference in one partner or another other than the most minute (given that one's physical organs can't even tell a hand from a vagina, lol). Unless the issue was some marital or relational conflict in which the couple stopped having regular sex with one another.

Nobeernolife

Homosexuality. That takes care of 15% of the overflow of testosterone. Natural homosexuality. — god must be atheist

That is around 3% naturally, so not much of a solution, I am afraid.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Nobeernolife

In practice, it's a subjective decision and innate. As per thinkers in regards to the subject such as spectrum's which people lie on rather than arbitrary dichotomies, and of course there is no evidence that the innate things which might manifest themselves in homosexual activity 'inherently' or necessarily exist in any one or specific person more than any other, and on or a their own subjective judgments or discretions upon which said identifications are made to begin with, nor the theories and practices about or in regards to what 'supposedly is, and the practical realties upon which the actual makings of said subjective judgments or decisions are predicated upon to begin with, thankfully there being nothing remotely akin to an 'exact science' on it to begin with, regardless of how minutiae of scientific or other datus might be used by one or another person to immediately and confirmationally biasedly infer one of many possible conclusions on or as to said subjects' matters to begins which.

Nobeernolife

In practice, it's a subjective decision and innate. — IvoryBlackBishop

In what practise? You are talking about jail? In a normal situation, absolutely not. Sex drive is biological, it is survival of our (any any other) ambisexual species. XY needs to combine with XX to produce the next generation.... it is a fact, as un-PC as that might be regarded today.

Tzeentch

The main ethics would be the notion of 'hooking up', especially as a lifestyle goal, even if one doesn't specifically invoke 'religion', generally monogamy is viewed as better ideal, and one which isn't rife with potential sensationalist media controversies which make rounds on the media as of late. (The cultural and legal philosophies surrounding monogamy as an ideal in 1st world countries as opposed to polygamy or 'hooking' up).

One that on, arguments will tend to either take the vein of it being 'using' one or the other person (generally the woman), or the other extreme, in which such an attitude is archaic, anti-intellectual and anti-feminist, and treating a woman (or men) like a helpless child who as a consenting adult can't or shouldn't choose who she has sex with. — IvoryBlackBishop

As long as we're speaking of two consenting adults, I don't think it can be said that "one person is using the other," since both are using each other. That is, after all, what they consented to.
Consenting adults can do a lot of things to each other that may be considered foolish, unproductive, etc., but I find it hard to imagine anything they can do to each other that is unethical, (assuming there are no other parties involved).

Things become different when one side is consenting with different expectations and the other side is aware of this. I.e. person A consents to sex with the expectation of a relationship, but person B wants nothing to do with them afterwards.

If person B was aware of person A's expectations beforehand, we're looking at a situation in which a person is willfully hurting another to fulfill their selfish desires and we're getting into the realm of unethical behavior.

Whether 'hook-up culture' is particularly helpful to the individual or society as a whole is a different question altogether, not necessarily connected to ethics, in my opinion. (but worth discussing)

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Nobeernolife

I fail to see what you're referring to.

On the biological level, the impulses or impetuses have their roots there, I thought this was common sense to anyone who didn't somehow skip Kindergarden level biology to begin with.

But in practice, the actual selection of partners, preferential activities, and what "traits" said things are based on and so forth, is one's subjective judgment, based on a myriad of factors.

And from a purely biological perspective, it doesn't seem that the body, nor the "reptile" brain can even distinguish between a person's right hand and an actual vagina.

So again, this falls back on the monogamy argument, and how most relationship desires aren't reducible solely to the biological or purely 'physical', but are predicated on higher mental wants and institutions which make a 1st world country or civilization possible.

(For example, using birth control or "not cheating" on your spouse or partner, would be conscious mental or intentional efforts or goals which may ironically run contrary to the purely 'biological' ones, given that couples may still want to 'have sex' even when they're using birth control and the primary goal is physical intimacy rather than 'survival and procreation', or may decide not to cheat or have an affair, even though the "sex drive" does not distinguish between a man or woman one is married to, or physically attractive stranger, rather the mind does).

Nobeernolife

So again, this falls back on the monogamy argument, and how most relationship desires aren't reducible solely to the biological or purely 'physical', but are predicated on higher mental wants and institutions which make a 1st world country or civilization possible.

(For example, using birth control or "not cheating" on your spouse or partner, would be conscious mental or intentional efforts or goals which may ironically run contrary to the purely 'biological' ones, given that couples may still want to 'have sex' even when they're using birth control and the primary goal is physical intimacy rather than 'survival and procreation', or may decide not to cheat or have an affair, even though the "sex drive" does not distinguish between a man or woman one is married to, or physically attractive stranger, rather the mind does). — IvoryBlackBishop

I did not say that there not all sorts of psychological overlays, which is given since we are complex mammals. But none of this would exist without the sex drive being there in the first place, which is the basis for it all, and which is purely biological.
And by the way, as you correctly say, a lot of this self-oriented behaviour like using birth control etc. runs counter to the biological basis, and will lead to the self-elimination of the more complex societies, as we stop to reproduce.

Like Oswald Spengler said: "When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard 'having children' as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning point (for a civilization) has come."

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Nobeernolife

I did not say that there not all sorts of psychological overlays, which is given since we are complex mammals. But none of this would exist without the sex drive being there in the first place, which is the basis for it all, and which is purely biological.

And by the way, as you correctly say, a lot of this self-oriented behaviour like using birth control etc. runs counter to the biological basis, and will lead to the self-elimination of the more complex societies, as we stop to reproduce.
[/quote]

Then your ideal living situation should be a fundamentalist Mormon compound in which 1st world luxuries such as... literacy, are a rare find, and grown men having 10 kids each with their ten 14-year old wives, were they were engaged to at the age of 10, should be your ideal of "civilization" and progress.

So when you're ready to more there, be sure to write us back.

And no, the reality is that an extremist view such as that "no one should have children" would be a ridiculous absurdism (e.x. the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement).

But as far as I'm ware of, every society, ancient and modern has had debates and nuances about who and when people should have children, or the notion that some people possibly should have children, while others should not (even the Bible if you want to reference that, such as St. Paul's epistles).

Likewise, some form or measure of population control, or preventing some notion of "irresponsible" procreative activity has also been a hallmark of every civilization, ancient or modern (this pragmatic notion is likely part of the purpose which ancient, Iron Age laws such as "death penalty for adultery" likely served, as well as "low" status men who would probably be "incels" in today's world, being made in to eunuchs and forced to serve in the king or the queen's harem, rather than allowed to "exist" and subsist on anime porn addiction like they are today.

---

Basically, if the premise of your idea is that "civilization" is measured by sheer numbers or rates of procreation, sans any other legal, moral, cultural, or philosophical notions, to me that seems to be a bad overall measure of a "civilization" and as well as it's "existence" or cessation thereof could or should be measured.

Nobeernolife

Then your ideal living situation should be a fundamentalist Mormon compound in which 1st world luxuries such as... literacy, are a rare find, and grown men having 10 kids each with their ten 14-year old wives, were they were engaged to at the age of 10, should be your ideal of "civilization" and progress.
(snip)
Basically, if the premise of your idea is that "civilization" is measured by sheer numbers or rates of procreation, sans any other legal, moral, cultural, or philosophical notions, to me that seems to be a bad overall measure of a "civilization" and as well as it's "existence" or cessation thereof could or should be measured. — IvoryBlackBishop

I said nothing of the sort. Why do you put words in my mouth, like Kathy Newman in her famous "so you are saying...." interview with Jordan Petersen?
I simply pointed out the biological foundation of our sex drive. And that society depends on people having children... ideally 2.1 per couple. And that couples (i.e. monogamy) are a better choice to organize society than polygamy. I did not claim that there is no individual variety and room to accomodate that.
But at the current birthrates of e.g. 1.3 (Italy) and 1.5 (Japan), compared to what, 8 in Africa, just random examples, it is easy to see how Oswald Spengler is right. Human life span is about 80 years, depending on how we recreate society changes very rapidly indeed.

There is not need to get hysterial and make up exaggerated misquotes.

IvoryBlackBishop

↪Nobeernolife

I said nothing of the sort. Why do you put words in my mouth, like Kathy Newman in her famous "so you are saying...." interview with Jordan Petersen?

I simply pointed out the biological foundation of our sex drive. And that society depends on people having children... ideally 2.1 per couple. And that couples (i.e. monogamy) are a better choice to organize society than polygamy. I did not claim that there is no individual variety and room to accomodate that.
But at the current birthrates of e.g. 1.3 (Italy) and 1.5 (Japan), compared to what, 8 in Africa, just random examples

What are the living conditions in Africa (I'm assuming sub-Saharan parts of Africa where polygamy and child marriage are practices); why would you want to emulate that? This isn't just about "race" is it?

Part of the reason of 'higher birth' rates is consequential, due to higher rates of infant morality (presumably, even in animals, this trend seems to be ingrained, with species that have relatively short livespans, such as hamsters, having "more offspring" than mammals such as elephants).

As far as how you measure the 'longetivity' of any civilization, aside from some reduction based on aggregate 'birth rates', I'd like you to elaborate more.

(For one, "Africa" isn't and historically hasn't been all one homogenized whole, with different cultures and civilizations; so how is this not purely about "race", prey tell?)

And in practice, what does aggregate population amount to if it isn't predicated on actual living conditions or civilizational hallmarks? (In sciences, for example, how much of the accomplishments within those fields would be attributable to "average population" demographics, or even to "low-level" employees in some industry with a "science" related job title, as opposed to a very rare Newton or an Einstein?

(For example, "China" has been around science the ancient times, however modern "China" as a nation is usually considered quite fundamentally different than "Ming Dynsasty" China, for example, taking the overall culture into account, not solely an averaging of population).

Sexual ethics

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions