Kant argued that mutuality in sex, in marriage, makes it all right. As to consent, if you visit a friend, do not you usually ask permission for entry/use first, in some way or another?

I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women. — darthbarracuda

Either that or it's the cause of the continued existence of the species. Non-humans also engage in heterosexuality, despite having no idea what patriarchy means.

And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties - the buyer and the seller. Invariably the buyer is the man, the seller is the woman. — darthbarracuda

And so in progressive Marxist countries do they grab women by the hair and drag them into the cave and have their way with them or is the idea that consent must precede my probing your body and impregnating you a capitalist idiosyncrasy?

We do not typically ask for consent for other activities - I do not ask for consent to sit across from you, for example. I do not ask for consent when I approach a cashier to check out from the grocery store — darthbarracuda

And yet I do ask for consent before I walk into your house, drive your car, remove your earrings from your ear, or play with your tongue, So we've now established that some things require consent and others don't. Typically we require consent when we seek to use something that belongs to someone else, which would include anything from your ballpoint pen to your vagina.

So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important? It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. — darthbarracuda

Your sex life isn't like mine I guess.

Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the woman (to do things to her body, to use her body as a mean for his own climax, to satisfy some urge that is inherently questionable). — darthbarracuda

So women don't enjoy sex? Interesting.

My perspective on consent in sex is this: if you feel the need to ask for consent, then there is something questionable about what you wish to do (to the other person). "Kinks" are so often not about satisfying the other person but instead are about whether or not the other person will allow you to do something to them. — darthbarracuda

Asking for consent doesn't take the form of "Pardon me ma'am but would you like a good rogering," but it takes the form of all communication, which is partly verbal, partly not. That is, I can know I lack consent without being told "Stop! You lack consent." Your view on "kinks" strikes me as silly, as if you can't have two people with the same preferences who both wholly consent, even should you find their shared preferences odd.

"I respect you as a person, so I ask you for consent so that I can treat you not as a person but as an object." Yet this is clearly contradictory, you cannot ask a person to suspend their dignity and still claim to respect them as a person. — darthbarracuda

Did you grow up in a nunnery where they taught you sex was dirty?

[a] And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties- [c] the buyer and the seller. Invariably the buyer is the man, the seller is the woman. The woman is the object, the man is the subject. — darthbarracuda

Okay...so where exactly does this massive inference from [a] to [c] about human relations and sexual practices come from?

The woman is the object, the man is the subject. — darthbarracuda

Well, sure, if you deny women agency by inferring that women aren't just as capable of facilitating and enjoying their own sexual encounters as men are.

The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda

*ahem* Perhaps what's needed is more experience in healthy, hetrosexual practices, rather than repudiating them? This would also give a fuller sense of partnership and equality between the sexes.

In fact, the notion of sexual consent itself brings with it certain revealing assumptions. We do not typically ask for consent for other activities - I do not ask for consent to sit across from you, for example. I do not ask for consent when I approach a cashier to check out from the grocery store. — darthbarracuda

So...some things require consent and others do not? How exactly is this revealing beyond our collective interest in basic respect for human dignity and bodily autonomy?

So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important? — darthbarracuda

Basic respect for human dignity and bodily autonomy.

sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the woman — darthbarracuda

This is a really sad, slightly impoverished view of sex and female autonomy that I urge you to reconsider. Consent is about preventing the potential of violation, objectification and manipulation. You're essentiallizing the corruption of a potentially beautiful relationship between willing adults. It's the quintessential pessimist's move, to suggest that the potential for corruption makes the whole activity "inherently" bad or meaningless.

Yet this is clearly contradictory, you cannot ask a person to suspend their dignity and still claim to respect them as a person. — darthbarracuda

Okay, here's a question. Is an autonomous sexual partner who enjoys sexual liasons with men, feels empowered and sees absolutely nothing wrong with her choices "suspend[ing her] dignity"? Certainly, it seems to me that, if anything, you're suspending her dignity by projecting your negative remarks onto her.

"I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women..."

Agreed. Just like homosexuality is inherently related to the patriarchal subordination of men.

Just like homosexuality is inherently related to the patriarchal subordination of men. — gloaming

And the matriarchal subordination of women.

We do not typically ask for consent for other activities - I do not ask for consent to sit across from you, for example. — darthbarracuda

You definitely should, though. Maybe it's just my weird obsession with personal space - for example, I think manspreading is completely acceptable because no one in public transport has an inherent right to sit next to me.

However, as Michael pointed out, communicating consent is not always verbal. Cashiers consent to doing their job by being employed, which includes interactions with customers. Similarly, me not placing a bag on the seat opposite to me on bus signals that the seat is free, while on other contexts a verbal consent might be very much in place, such as on private property or in a restaurant.

However, as Michael pointed out, communicating consent is not always verbal. — BlueBanana

You mean as Hanover pointed out?

Oh, right yeah.

Forgive the side question, but... are you intentionally trying to bait Agu, or is it merely accidental? :lol: I mean, this thread is like waving a picnic basket in front of a large, hungry bear. I’m getting out of here while I can, and watching from a safe distance! :nerd:

The viewpoints you expressed are "not even wrong" but I will join the sensible mob in excoriating your post.

I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women. And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties - the buyer and the seller. — darthbarracuda

Heterosexuality = patriarchal subordination is a plank in the platform of constructionism. The equivalence supposes that natural processes operating over many, many millions of years have nothing to do with us. The hateful feminists who spout this nonsense think heterosexuality is a plot hatched in the halls of wicked patriarchal capitalist, imperialist, sexist, racist males.

The woman gives, the man takes. The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda

More biological blindness. I have overheard women having orgasms with male partners on a number of occasions. So we know that competent men can bring their partners to orgasm--maybe not in 5 minutes.

So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important?

Sex is a biological, personal, and social act. People obtain consent for the same reason that "consent" of a sort is involved in inviting someone to dinner, inviting someone to dance, inviting someone to kill a couple bottles of good wine, go for a walk in the woods, or go swimming together. Pleasurable activities are best when people are enthusiastically engaged. Consenting allows both partners to set up the situation for the best possible results.

It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. — darthbarracuda

What you are describing is really bad sex. Rape maybe. It reminds me of feminists in the 1970s who claimed "An erection is tantamount to rape." Talk about having hangups.

My perspective on consent in sex is this: if you feel the need to ask for consent, then there is something questionable about what you wish to do (to the other person). — darthbarracuda

I guess if I invite you to dinner you would assume I am planning on poisoning you. If I ask you to go for a walk in the woods, I must be planning on murdering you there.

Now, darthbarracuda dear, you know damn well that your denatured feminist sexual advisors consider sex without consent to be rape. So if you don't ask it's rape and if you do ask it must be some disgusting filthy humiliating sex, like maybe a three way with the Kentucky Derby winner. Hey, Justify is a very nice horse -- Triple Crown winner. Are your credentials as good as his?

Bataille has argued that the erotic is inherently about defilement. — darthbarracuda

You talking about Georges Bataille 1897–1962? The intellectual, pornographer, qualified-librarian, attempted founder of a secret society devoted to human sacrifice--that one? Are you sure you read him correctly? The one who said "This is not to say when two people “rut like animals” they are not being erotic, but that such apparently bestial abandon is significant because of what it means for the minds of the people involved." That one?

the woman has perfect, clean beauty that is defiled by the man. — darthbarracuda

unadulterated retro bullshit.

Hmmm, a very interesting discussion! Thanks for triggering some hearty guffaws Bitter Crank! My spirits have lifted! :smile:

I've been married for over 20 years. I vaguely remember what sex feels like....if i didn't need my appendage to urinate i'd happily have the ruddy thing prepared for the guillotine! During my 'teens, twenties, thirties, and even forties it governed like a tyrant, a sworn enemy of reason and good sense. It could have led me to becoming a homicide statistic. It's reign of terror is over!

"It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the woman (to do things to her body, to use her body as a mean for his own climax, to satisfy some urge that is inherently questionable)."

Hmmm, I agree with quite a bit of what you say, but you also jump to conclusions and miss a lot of nuance. The issue of consent is actually quite simple. We ask for consent because it takes two to tango. The rules of sex are that it is intercourse with consent of both parties. If it is without consent it would be rape. Rape is a kind of sex frowned upon because sex against the will of one party is a very painful humiliating and unpleasant affair for one of the parties. So basically we require consent. I do not think it has anything to do with teh capitalust system. Sex is not 'inherently wrong', sex without consent is inherently wrong, much the same as violence is inerently wrong.

During the sex act you indeed use the other person for your pleasure, I agree with that. However the beauty of it is that the other uses you for that very same purpose. It is the mutual objectification that makes it moral. If objectification is merely one sided, yes than you have a point, but it is not. The point of it is, at least for me, that the other consents to the defilement, the base urges and what have you, but also has the right to use you in likewise manner.... and you even like it when he/she does... So yes, sex is most intimately bound up with consent, because otherwise the objectfication is just base and nother else than structural dominance in the worst form.

The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda

Often it is the other way around, from my experience.

Should I have felt used?

Is what you wrote just your experience, or what survey are you referring to?

The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda


Often it is the other way around, from my experience. — raza

Awww, now some of the men are going to feel inadequate. :joke:

:grin: Lol. Probably more the result of hormones than the appendage, one would think. The sex hormones in both (all?) genders have many effects but simply one basic goal: reproduction. Whether that upends one’s life, causes conflicting feelings and acne, or puts one in jail, is of no concern to the hormones. They do their job, and because they do we are here today to discuss them!

I think of sex and its attendant desires not entirely different from food, eating, and hunger, just on a species level. Food to keep the individual going, sex to keep the species going. With both intrinsic punishments and rewards for certain choices and actions.

, sex to keep the species going — 0 thru 9

im sure it mostly for the sake of pleasure...

I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women. And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties - the buyer and the seller. — darthbarracuda

what an insane thought

The woman is the object, the man is the subject. The man "scores" a home run. The woman gives, the man takes. The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda

Personally, I think that society promotes the idea that "The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does" and it is a bummer for the woman. There are very, VERY, few males that in a relationship are willing to take the time to allow a woman to orgasm. Maybe it is a force of nature with the male stimulation, as I think I remember Eddie Murphy saying "In jail man, we get hard when the wind blows" which may in fact be a physical response for a male and part of the misunderstanding.

As a woman, for me? The mental stimulation leads to a clearing of my mind which is the time when my body engages and there is a degree of allowance in MY own mind. I am allowed to not need to think, removing the need to protect my most intimate part of my mind, which allows my body to follow. In giving up the need to lead, it is giving up control, making myself vulnerable, naked to the person I am trusting my inner self with and then a true orgasm can occur but there is no guarantee.

So to say "that a woman never does" is almost correct for me as I can count how many times in my life that I have truly achieved orgasm. As a man, can you count how many times you have achieved orgasm?

And since we are on the subject: Is it necessary for a man to ejaculate to have an orgasm? Or do men have other forms of orgasm?

the important thing of course is comunication between partners, even in bed.

Obviously the only answer is for you to practice strict celibacy, because, according to what you say, sex is nothing but a violation of the female.

Between people of the same sex, doesn't it then become mutual violation, with each partner being both violator and violated?

No, it sounds like you should stick with celibacy.

Michael Ossipoff

, sex to keep the species going
— 0 thru 9
im sure it mostly for the sake of pleasure... — Aleksander Kvam

Oh, definitely! Agreed. But from our point of view. The pleasure is so large that it usually obscures the possible future outcomes. But from the hormone’s point of view (so to speak), evolutionarily speaking, it is merely what gets the job done. Which species will have more individuals, and thus be more likely to survive? The one with the pleasurable sex, or the one with “meh”?

It is a strange and almost incomprehensible thought to think about the potential child, the possible person, while making love. That possibility is dwarfed by the present with which one has their... erm... hands full. But look at a person, any person. The murky, forgotten act of conception that brought them into the world is dwarfed by their being, by their presence.

Which species will have more individuals, and thus be more likely to survive? The one with the pleasurable sex, or the one with “meh”? — 0 thru 9

shouldnt it be; the one with a condom or the one without?

I think I must be missing the point...

So to say "that a woman never does" is almost correct for me as I can count how many times in my life that I have truly achieved orgasm. As a man, can you count how many times you have achieved orgasm?

And since we are on the subject: Is it necessary for a man to ejaculate to have an orgasm? Or do men have other forms of orgasm? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Since the definition of the male orgasm is to ejaculate, yes. However, if men take the time, the intense pleasure leading up to ejaculation can be extended and repeated a number of times. The vernacular term is "edging" -- one approaches, then backs away from ejaculation. In sex therapy it's called "sensate focus".

How does one interrupt what seems like inevitable ejaculation? With a sharp, quick squeeze of the head of the penis. The Body Electric school in Oakland, CA has instructional materials on the subject. They also have live! programs for gay and straight men and women.

You didn't say how low your orgasm count was. You don't have anything against you masturbating, do you? There's that relevant old joke, "How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, practice, practice." Women have a right to orgasm (it was a subsection of the failed Equal Rights Amendment, a few decades back. "Women can have as many orgasms as they like.") The subsection was added to quell the likelihood of female rioting: sexually satisfied women are much less likely to riot in the streets.

You certainly don't have to depend on someone else providing you with orgasms.

This is real philosophy, not self help--just in case anybody was wondering.

"sexually satisfied women are much less likely to riot in the streets."

pussy riot! hehe, sorry couldnt help myself. :)

Heterosexuality = patriarchal subordination is a plank in the platform of constructionism. The equivalence supposes that natural processes operating over many, many millions of years have nothing to do with us. The hateful feminists who spout this nonsense think heterosexuality is a plot hatched in the halls of wicked patriarchal capitalist, imperialist, sexist, racist males. — Bitter Crank

No, I don't think this is true. I mean, there are hateful feminists, no doubt about that. But I don't think most are that hateful. And I don't think patriarchy is some scheme conjured up by the powers-that-be, behind closed doors in shadowy rooms with poor lighting.

Oppression of women is not merely sociological but biological. All you people saying heterosexuality is "just" how the human species perpetuates itself are ignoring the details of what heterosexuality entails: how the chief alpha male of the apes gets a harem of females, how many males of species rape females to procreate, how historically women have been chattel of men and were traded and used not as people but as property, etc.

It's naive and ahistorical to think we can look on heterosexual relationships without any of this historical baggage. I never said that heterosexuality just is oppression by the patriarchy; I said that heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal oppression. That doesn't mean there can't be some heterosexual relationships that are healthy and good.

But then there's also some who have tried to undermine my credibility by declaring that what I see to be common elements of heterosexual relationships, or just sexual relationships in general, is idiosyncratic. Well, you can say that, but why not give examples of what a healthy sexual relationship looks like?

Look, I am still relatively young, I do not have all this experience that older folk here may have. I also happen to have a low libido that makes me basically asexual. I have never had sex nor do I particularly have the need or desire to. I believe I see sex in a different way than most people do and this may be influenced by my lack of sex drive. Sex seems clumsy, awkward and particularly unsanitary. But it also seems, to me, to be very unsettling at times. This is especially apparent in pornography. Now you may say that pornography is fiction and not indicative of real sex - yet if this is true, then why do people watch porn? Why is porn so popular?

It is as if, during the act of sex, morality sort of goes out the window. Morality is suspended, at least partly. To me, it seems like if people did not have sex drives, sex would seem strange and even wrong.

And yet I do ask for consent before I walk into your house, drive your car, remove your earrings from your ear, or play with your tongue, So we've now established that some things require consent and others don't. Typically we require consent when we seek to use something that belongs to someone else, which would include anything from your ballpoint pen to your vagina. — Hanover

There is a new culture surrounding sex that puts consent as the sine qua non of acceptable sex. I have been told by the authorities that "consent is sexy" (does that imply that if it weren't sexy, it wouldn't matter....?). Yet just because someone consents to something doesn't mean it's okay. Someone can consent to having all their money stolen at gunpoint - that is not true consent, that is coerced consent.

And so in sex, consent can be washed up in coercion. A woman, for instance, may feel pressured to consent to avoid a sour relationship with a man. She may consent because she feels compelled to by the culture she was raised in. A man may consent because he feels to do otherwise would be an indication of not being a man (in our culture, it seems as though men must want sex - or they are not a man).

My point is that just because someone consents does not mean it is genuine. And just because someone has a preference for something (such as a kink) does not mean this preference can't be criticized. Preferences don't just appear out of the blue. There's a background from where they develop. This is why, for example, I'm critical of BDSM.

"is as if, during the act of sex, morality sort of goes out the window"
really? whats wrong with sex?

I also happen to have a low libido that makes me basically asexual. I have never had sex nor do I particularly have the need or desire to. I believe I see sex in a different way than most people do and this may be influenced by my lack of sex drive. Sex seems clumsy, awkward and particularly unsanitary. But it also seems, to me, to be very unsettling at times. — darthbarracuda

Then I think you’re projecting. Of course there are cases where women (and men) consent but aren’t enthusiastic, but why do you think that this is the norm such that sex in general is a case of men oppressing women?

She may consent because she feels compelled to by the culture she was raised in. A man may consent because he feels to do otherwise would be an indication of not being a man (in our culture, it seems as though men must want sex - or they are not a man). — darthbarracuda

Then the issue isn’t sex but social attitudes towards sex.

as I said earlier. comunication is the key. honesty and fairness ect.
nobody HAS to have sex. but still happens very naturally, obviouslly for the pleasure and closeness with their partner.
searched for "benefits of sex"

Here's what a healthy sex life can do for you.

Helps Keep Your Immune System Humming. ...
Boosts Your Libido. ...
Improves Women's Bladder Control. ...
Lowers Your Blood Pressure. ...
Counts as Exercise. ...
Lowers Heart Attack Risk. ...
Lessens Pain. ...
May Make Prostate Cancer Less Likely.