Just like pleasure isn't a valid end of eating, so pleasure isn't a valid end of sex. A valid end of sex is what is essential for sex, what sex is aimed at. It's aimed at reproduction and intimacy, the same way eating is aimed at nutrition. Simple. — Agustino
Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? There's nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure, so long as at least one of its essential aims isn't frustrated. And no, this doesn't actually take a massive amount of discipline and will power. The fact you think it does only demonstrates that we live in an age that is excessively promiscuous with regards to sexuality, and where people have been led to think that it's some crazy amount of self-discipline and willpower that is required to abstain from immoral sexual behaviour.In the context of readily available sex, behaviour that is purely devoted to procreation and intimacy would certainly require an impressive amount of discipline and will power. — geospiza
No that's not the aim of sex. I've explained a billion times why not. Nature did not give you sex to satisfy an urge. Rather it gave you an urge to satisfy what? Procreation and intimacy.Sex is aimed at a plurality of ends, but let's be honest: at its most basic the goal of sex is the satisfaction of a biological urge. — geospiza
That's a problem for many people, and it leads to a lot of unhappiness. They should deliberate about it and consider it.Sex is not a rational activity in the sense that people generally do not deliberate about whether or not it is something they want to pursue, but rather they are driven to pursue it, often without reflection. — geospiza
Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? There's nothing wrong with having sex for pleasure, so long as at least one of its essential aims isn't frustrated. And no, this doesn't actually take a massive amount of discipline and will power. The fact you think it does only demonstrates that we live in an age that is excessively promiscuous with regards to sexuality, and where people have been led to think that it's some crazy amount of self-discipline and willpower that is required to abstain from immoral sexual behaviour. — Agustino
No that's not the aim of sex. I've explained a billion times why not. Nature did not give you sex to satisfy an urge. Rather it gave you an urge to satisfy what? Procreation and intimacy. — Agustino
That's a problem for many people, and it leads to a lot of unhappiness. They should deliberate about it and consider it. — Agustino
How is it a hard line? This is absolutely the standard line on sexuality that has been taken by all major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) including most of the philosophers of the past.you are taking such a hard line that you will no doubt perceive me as an adversary. — geospiza
Do things in nature have reasons for happening as they do? For example is there a reason for your heart pumping blood around the body? :sThis embodies an overly simplistic view of nature as a rational agent. — geospiza
I see quite the opposite! Nature is fantastically well organised and developed, quite the opposite of clumsy and inefficient. My gosh, I wonder how you can even claim that Nature is inefficient. Just imagine how every day your body does thousands, if not millions of tasks that are needed for your survival, and it does them perfectly and in harmony most of the time. Sure there are errors, but the errors are the exception, not the rule. Nature is so beautifully organised, that one is moved by merely regarding nature towards worship of the divine.That is not to say that there isn't or couldn't be a rational agent behind nature, but nature itself is rather clumsy and inefficient. — geospiza
I agree, but listen to this. You don't have a natural desire for JUST sex, and if you don't clarify what this desire actually is, and how it relates to different parts of your psyche, you'll never figure out what will fulfil you, and what you actually want. Most people don't even know what they want. So the irrational indulgence of sexuality is just as bad as its irrational repression. The point is that you need to figure out what will satisfy your sexual nature as a human person.However, the basic human desire for sex is non-negotiable, and the denial of our sexuality has led to its own fair share of misery. — geospiza
Do things in nature have reasons for happening as they do? For example is there a reason for your heart pumping blood around the body? — Agustino
I see quite the opposite! Nature is fantastically well organised and developed, quite the opposite of clumsy and inefficient. My gosh, I wonder how you can even claim that Nature is inefficient. Just imagine how every day your body does thousands, if not millions of tasks that are needed for your survival, and it does them perfectly and in harmony most of the time. Sure there are errors, but the errors are the exception, not the rule. Nature is so beautifully organised, that one is moved by merely regarding nature towards worship of the divine. — Agustino
I agree, but listen to this. You don't have a natural desire for JUST sex, and if you don't clarify what this desire actually is, and how it relates to different parts of your psyche, you'll never figure out what will fulfil you, and what you actually want. Most people don't even know what they want. So the irrational indulgence of sexuality is just as bad as its irrational repression. The point is that you need to figure out what will satisfy your sexual nature as a human person. — Agustino
So then at least some things in nature do have reasons for happening?It is uncontroversial that the heart and the vascular system together perform the function of circulating the blood to and from the extremities of the body. — geospiza
This is irrelevant, since the teleological explanation functions as part of the full explanation that can be given for the heart and the vascular system.The reason for this is not as easy to state. — geospiza
The strange thing though is that Nature is a lot more perfect than you imagine it to be. That's what's really surprising. It's not the mistakes of nature, which are so rare in comparison to what it gets right.Nature is complex, sophisticated and, at times, beautiful, but by no means does it perform optimally. Nature is imperfect, as we are imperfect. Nature may reflect the divine, but it is not itself divine. Beware of idolatry in your views of nature. — geospiza
So then at least some things in nature do have reasons for happening? — Agustino
The strange thing though is that Nature is a lot more perfect than you imagine it to be. That's what's really surprising. It's not the mistakes of nature, which are so rare in comparison to what it gets right. — Agustino
:s This is not what I'm saying. I agree with Aristotle's view that all things have 4 causes that are required to fully explain them: material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. Without final cause we cannot explain the wholes that are formed by the parts, and so these teleological explanations are absolutely necessary.I don't understand what you are driving at here. Some things happen for a reason in the sense that they are pre-meditated by a rational agent. Other things happen for a reason in the sense that they perform a function. Still other things happen for a reason in the sense that they are caused. Reasons can be proximate or ultimate, singular or plural. Yes, some [all?] things in nature happen for a reason, but reasons come in many different flavours. — geospiza
What do you mean? Yes there is trial and error in nature. But there is also established procedure.Nature is ingenious, but it proceeds by trial and error. — geospiza
This doesn't mean anything. The mere fact that it's working so well is awe-inspiring. The fact that it gets better, adapts itself, and improves itself - the fact that it can do that in the first place is also awe-inspiring.Nature is wonderful, awe-inspiring and inventive, but it is also an ongoing work in progress. — geospiza
There is no equating of casual sex with suicide and cannibalism up there. A comparison, illustrating how consent is irrelevant to the immorality of the underlying activity, doesn't mean a comparison between the gravity of two different underlying activities. You're really having a hard time aren't you? — Agustino
No, stop right there. I wasn't trying to argue that. Seems like you have reading comprehension issues. I was illustrating that breaking of consent is one moral issue (which happens both in rape and in forced feeding) and the underlying action - feeding and sex - are another set of moral issues. — Agustino
A comparison of how traumatic each are is irrelevant since I never compared them in the first place in terms of their gravity. I've only said that the breaking of consent is the same, and equally wrong in both. The reasons why one of them is more wrong than the other is because on top of breaking consent is added fornication. — Agustino
Right, so if someone consents that the invasive action of eating them alive be done on them, then it's right to eat them alive? :s If not, then why the fuck not? Clearly NOT because of consent, so stop citing consent like an idiot. — Agustino
No, because they objectively burn and harm the skin of your body. — Agustino
Don't give me this bullshit nonsense. Consent means that their will is broken. The additional trauma of it cannot have anything to do just with their will, cause their will is broken in forced eating too. It's the same will that is broken. In terms of consent, the same harm is done. So the additional harm can only come from a different source, not from the breaking of consent. — Agustino
I never said I'm destined for divorce :s - really is your reading comprehension that bad? — Agustino
"whiny beta male" - that concept doesn't translate to me, sorry to tell you. — Agustino
This isn't a matter of ego-centrism at all, it's just a fact. If you think you're never harmed by the decisions of others then you're absolutely deluded, let me tell you that. We are harmed by the decisions of other people, including with regards to sexuality. And it isn't only one way that I'm harmed. If these dangerous misconceptions (some of which you're also peddling) spread through society, then we'll live in a far worse place than otherwise. — Agustino
No it's absolutely not ego-centric. Ego-centric is something that I derive pleasure from, something that is selfish. There's no question of selfishness here, because what you call "my sense of entitlement and harm" is nothing but a natural human reaction, which you have perhaps repressed in your own self. Respecting yourself isn't the same as selfishness. You're really having a hard time tonight — Agustino
Right, it's not as harmful as non-consensual sex, that doesn't mean it isn't harmful. — Agustino
No it's absolutely not a highly relevant aspect of dinner or sex morality. It's a highly relevant aspect of the morality of interacting with others, regardless of what kind of interaction you have with them. Again, seems like you have no clue what you're talking about. You fail to see a very simple distinction.
If consent is what makes an underlying activity moral or immoral, then why the FUCK is eating someone alive not moral if they give you their consent huh? Stop pretending you don't understand this simple analogy. There is much more to morality than your consent. And this is proven to anyone reading this, beyond any reasonable doubt. Consent alone cannot describe the morality of underlying activities, but rather the morality of interactions with people, regardless of the nature of those interactions. But the underlying activities are also relevant to determine the moral relevance of the entire situation.
And no, trying to separate consent from sexual morality is absolutely fine. I DO separate consent from the morality of cannibalism, why shouldn't I do the same for sex, and all other activities? :s These things must be judged separately. — Agustino
The latter. And no, without masturbation you won't necessarily become stressed and sexually frustrated. It's something that comes with practice, given that we live in a very promiscuous and hyper-sexualised culture. You actually feel much better in many regards without masturbation.
Just strictly sexually, masturbation is probably the worst sin. But overall it's preferable to fornication because fornication isn't just a sexual sin, but also a sin against charity and justice. So yes, if people cannot be chaste, they should definitely resort to masturbation rather than another activity. — Agustino
Yes, I think you should, but I have no idea how exactly you'd "disrespect" it... — Agustino
Quite the contrary, I think it's you who is completely on the move back, projecting onto me your own ideas and your own worldview, which I do not share. — Agustino
I never said sex is inherently harmful. Invasive =/ harmful.
Yes, sex with your spouse is inherently good. Why? Because it is a relationship of love, where you give infinite commitment to each other, the kind of commitment that two human beings deserve to share in. — Agustino
Your question is bullshit. Rephrase it like "Why is sex an OK thing to do to your spouse and not an OK thing to do to a consenting non-spouse?" - well it's the way you value them ultimately. To one of them you have dedicated yourself to care for her unto eternity, and to the other, you're not dedicated to her at all, just want to use her body. That's wrong. — Agustino
I've actually read all those books. — Agustino
Are you not traveling while you're joyriding silly boy? — Agustino
Nope, this is the wrong conclusion. If you ate JUST for pleasure, in other words, if you purposefully frustrated the end of eating (nutrition) then it would be immoral. That's like chewing food but not swallowing it, and instead spitting it out. Yes, doing that would be immoral precisely because it would frustrate the end of eating. — Agustino
Yes, actually the necessary end of a dildo IS sexual pleasure. And if I were to use the dildo to moralise against you, by perhaps waving it in your face, that would be immoral. — Agustino
What makes you think God can be "straight" or "gay"? I think you're just committing a category error. — Agustino
What does being necessary to remain alive have to do with the natural teleology in question? Clearly you haven't read Aristotle very well AT ALL. And no, you can't make an assumption which you then proceed to negate. — Agustino
Who says they're not required for happiness? You? I disagree. — Agustino
That doesn't mean it's not immoral, it just means it's acceptable in some circumstances because it's a lesser evil. Much like masturbation is for many people. — Agustino
No, not consent. But rather things like are you married to her (read, are you devoted to her for all eternity)? Do you care for her as a person? Do you value her for who she is as a human being? Is sex an expression of your love for her, or a selfish means of using her body to achieve pleasure for yourself? — Agustino
Same for casual sex. It seems you enjoy your double standards. — Agustino
And will the person in question be charged with just theft or more? And why? — Agustino
Right, so the activity is inherently immoral, such that it requires forgiveness even in those limit cases you quote. I agree ;) — Agustino
Sorry to tell you, being insane aren't grounds for arrest. Try again please. — Agustino
Why don't we arrest you for being rude and disrespectful? Well, because we don't always punish immoralities legally. That doesn't change the fact they are immoral though. — Agustino
So people are also capable of insulting each other without harming one another right? — Agustino
Why? Just because pleasure is associated with eating? That is not sufficient to qualify it as a fundamental end of eating. Just because most people choose food they enjoy eating? Again, that's irrelevant. — Agustino
First you have not illustrated that it's a nightmare. Second of all, it has zero to do with sexual repression, and the fact that you say that really tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Repressing sexuality is very different than simply expressing it in the circumstances when it is appropriate. You're just throwing this word around, and it seems you have no clue what it means at all. So please, have a look at what Freud for example wrote about repression. Repression isn't simply being a celibate. A celibate doesn't repress their sexuality generally, but rather they sublimate it, which is very very different. You have very little knowledge of this, perhaps because of your stunted development due to your overindulgence in sex. — Agustino
No it's absolutely laughable how you think you could object that way, and it just illustrates your complete ignorance of the matters at hand. You're conflating pleasure and happiness. The two are not the same. The drug addict may feel pleasure, but we wouldn't call him happy. — Agustino
because in his mind he thought girl at bar means she is sexually available as you are continuously reiterating. — TimeLine
So why is sex for pleasure less satisfying then sex with an actual romantic lover? That is a problem in sexual ethics, there is no slippery slope but clearly you are unable to ascertain why because I see nothing but your usual desire to get a kick out of annoying religious people (and by the way, nothing like Aug considering I do not write 10,000 words of random nonsense and I am not religious).
You would need to substantiate how sex devoid of meaning - meaning of which can only be employed between a reciprocal sexual and emotional intimacy - is ethically justifiable because the absence of meaning purports that the act of sexual intercourse is solely the attainment of this orgasm. As such, having sexual intercourse with an animal for instance could become justifiable. I understand the dilemma to this paradox because consent should render the lack of emotions justifiable, but two people having meaningless sex is no different to one person having meaningless sex; it is without meaning. — TimeLine
In addition to this, as mentioned, there are psychosocial impacts to a culture of promiscuity as well as epidemiological and your responsibility as a moral agent should be to ascertain reasons why women begin to treat themselves as objects. You should take responsibility for how you act, not succumb to how others act, otherwise what is the point of your existence? — TimeLine
As for integrity, it is all semantics. I am of the position that meaning is founded in our responsibility to become an autonomous moral agent, that my existence and being itself is determined by my principles of morality where my motives are concerned. To be autonomous and reason and think independent from that type of blind following of ones own desires. Integrity is to say that I hold esteem and value to these principles because it provides meaning to my existence. — TimeLine
You say:
I don't devalue person-hoods by approaching women in bars. — VagabondSpectre
And then:
Give me a break, I just wanted to get laid, and I've had plenty of satisfied and unoffended customers. — VagabondSpectre
:-|
Customers, eh?
"Lacks acknowledgement of the person"... Give me a break and explain what you mean by this... Please... — VagabondSpectre
Perhaps you can first define what you mean when you label women as 'customers'? — TimeLine
Without final cause we cannot explain the wholes that are formed by the parts, and so these teleological explanations are absolutely necessary. — Agustino
What do you mean? Yes there is trial and error in nature. But there is also established procedure. — Agustino
This doesn't mean anything. The mere fact that it's working so well is awe-inspiring. The fact that it gets better, adapts itself, and improves itself - the fact that it can do that in the first place is also awe-inspiring. — Agustino
I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them).
Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"?
The "satisfied" part actually indicates that I do treat them as if they are a person.
You've tacitly blamed me for the prevalence of rape, the promiscuous sexuality of women in western culture, and now you're expecting me to somehow answer for my grave insult of referring to sexual partners as "satisfied and unoffended customers" as if you've got a moral hatchet raised above my head.... — VagabondSpectre
If you crashed you car, would you regret having driven that day? Probably. Would you never drive again? Would you say driving is immoral? — VagabondSpectre
She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies. — VagabondSpectre
You didn't catch my bit about glory holes?
If you want to argue that there's always some emotion during sex, that's fine and I'm not a psychologist who knows better, but very evidently some sexual encounters can be less emotional than others where sexual satisfaction is the goal for both parties rather than intimate or emotional connection.
So I ask again, what's so wrong about that? — VagabondSpectre
Other people are involved with glory holes too. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The myth "sex is just about pleasure" is wrong because it's ignorant of how other people are involved in the sexual encounter. — TheWillowOfDarkness
We see it's nothing more than a man thinking he's entitled to try and get what he wants — TheWillowOfDarkness
In some cases, the (dis)interests of women are enough to mean an approach is unethical, even in a bar. — TheWillowOfDarkness
...without consideration of the circumstances or interests of any woman involved. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Did I tell you to assume that? No.Even if we assume there is a singular final cause of everything — geospiza
Tell me, what is the meaning of this Buddhist story? :sI mean part of me is definitely jealous of all the sex you are evidently enjoying. — geospiza
Suppose, Māgandiya, there was a leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. Then his friends and companions, his kinsmen and relatives, would bring a physician to treat him. The physician would make medicine for him, and by means of that medicine the man would be cured of his leprosy and would become well and happy, independent, master of himself, able to go where he likes. Then he might see another leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. What do you think, Māgandiya? Would that man envy that leper for his burning charcoal pit?
Here is a guy who has ruined himself, and has deprived himself of the goodness of marriage - a guy who by his own admission would fail in marriage because he has filled his mind and soul with vicious habits that would stop him from benefiting from marriage. To envy this guy, is like envying the miser who has deprived himself of friendship to acquire gold.in fact I think that if I had gotten married, since I've changed so much since then (in ways I like) that I would probably be drowning in a regretful marriage and wind up in divorce court — VagabondSpectre
False.2. Casual sex is not different (as sex) than sex with the "proper" partner. — Bitter Crank
True.3. Sexual activity bears certain risks, no matter what the intentions of the couple or either individual.*
4. When men and women appear in a bar and behave (dress, actions, speech, etc.) as if they were interested in sex, then their behavior should be taken at face value.** — Bitter Crank
This is again false. Even the Communists, in practice, considered sex outside of marriage immoral.5. Desiring and obtaining abundant sex with willing partners is not abnormal or deviant. It's what healthy people do, unless otherwise occupied — Bitter Crank
Now, desiring and obtaining abundant sex with the person you love and are committed to is absolutely not abnormal, and it is what healthy people do — Agustino
This is again false. Even the Communists, in practice, considered sex outside of marriage immoral.
No the analogy absolutely can't be drawn that way. The analogy compares the logic of the situation, NOT the gravity of the offences. Only someone like you can fail to see this. The analogy points that the underlying logic is the same. In the case of giving them cyanide, their consent doesn't make that action moral. Neither does their consent make the action of sex moral. Now, what the fuck does any of this have to do with which action is worse? :s Are you that incapable of comprehending what you read?!The analogy that can be drawn is "if someone wants to have consensual sex with you, it's wrong to have sex with them in the same way (or by some degree of comparison) that giving them cyanide to kill themselves is wrong. — VagabondSpectre
Read what I wrote above before peddling this stupid strawman for the 1000s timeBy your logic someone who has enjoyable and casual sex but then force fed cabbage has been equally harmed as someone who has been raped but then not force fed cabbage, right? — VagabondSpectre
No, you haven't breached my consent, you've violated my property and a few other rights, not my consent.If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property. — VagabondSpectre
:sSo someone who is raped has their consent breached (one unit of consent-harm) and is harmed by the casual and consensual sex (one unit of sex-harm). So the person who gets raped likewise has (one unit of-consent harm) and (one-unit of sex harm). — VagabondSpectre
No, if by like you mean a comparison of the gravity of the two offences. However, if by like you mean that they share the same logical structure, sure.So if you have sex with someone who consents to have sex, you would be doing something immoral to them like if you were to eat someone alive who consents to be eaten alive? — VagabondSpectre
No, because burning their hands isn't involved in the work, it's something accidental. That's like me somehow getting injured by having sex with my wife - that doesn't mean the sex is immoral, because that's an accident, not something that belongs to the activity in itself.But, MacDonald's workers often burn their hands on the hot equipment, so I guess that makes MacDonald's work immoral, even though they consent. — VagabondSpectre
Because you cannot have a tattoo without injury the body, but you can work at McDonald's without injury.Obviously the pain of tattoos is not significant enough for people to care about, so why is a moral issue? — VagabondSpectre
No, consent is only breached when you actively force someone to do themselves against their will. If I do something that doesn't match what someone else wants me to do, that's absolutely not breaking their consent. Breaking their consent is forcing THEM to do something they don't want to do, typically through the use of force. You have a bit more studying to do.It's this kind of confused thinking that will get you to say that rape is the same as casual sex combined with leaving sooner than your partner wants you to (i.e, after sex).
Sex is had in both cases and consent is breached in both cases. Right? — VagabondSpectre
Oh yes, you can absolutely be blamed for assuming something that's not true. Just because something is the case for society at large is no indication that it is the case for me.I think when you explained that "freedom to stay married" is like "the freedom of a slave to escape", I cannot be blamed for reading in-between the lines despite your constant protesting that you yourself are not at risk. — VagabondSpectre
We only need to enforce it culturally, not legally - that would be a good thing, it would save a lot of people from suffering and pain. Certainly better than allowing you to enforce your idiocy culturally.Peddling the idea that you and society are harmed when your warped morals pertaining to sex are breached behind closed doors is a very dangerous idea because if enough people really believed it they would probably go around enforcing it, just like your bible says to do. — VagabondSpectre
No, that's probably not what I would tell her, because remember that she's harming herself first and foremost. So I would most likely seek to understand her and help her overcome whatever emotional and self-esteem issues are pushing her to do such a thing to herself, and help her become more independent and moral.But if your future wife is out there having consensual sex right now, she's harming you. If you could magically communicate with her, you would probably tell her how badly she has emotionally injured you. That's selfish by my standards... — VagabondSpectre
Because you're harming each other.But she knows that, and she just wants me to use her body, and she just wants to use my body, and I know that, and we're O.K with that, because we want to have fun, not dedicate ourselves to each-other forever...
So why is it still wrong? — VagabondSpectre
That doesn't mean they're not objectively harmful. Someone may not perceive cannibalism as harmful. So what? Does that tell me cannibalism is not harmful? This is a very stupid objection that people don't all agree. Who gives a fuck what they say? I don't. I just care about the truth.are not perceived by everyone in the same way and are often not considered to be harmful at all — VagabondSpectre
No, that's actually not true. If my behaviour was directed towards successfully impregnating a female I'd donate my sperm to a sperm bank and impregnate thousands of females. Clearly I'm not very keen to do that. Their idea that everything we do is directed toward impregnating a female is extremely naive and short-sighted, and disregards the human component (as opposed to the animal) of our being.So you do realize that much of your psychology and emotional behavior is geared directly toward you successfully impregnating a female? (including for instance, why you wear clothes that you think look nice (INDECENT!)) — VagabondSpectre
That it also has an evolutionary role, there's no doubt about it, but to assume that the evolutionary role is everything about it, that's naive. There's a lot more reasons why I want to bond for life with a female, some of which have little to do with offspring.Your instinctive desire to bond for life with a female is the result of a particular evolutionary strategy where you ensure the spread of your own genetics by putting in work and effort along-side a partner in the rearing of the children that your biological sexual urges caused you to create together. — VagabondSpectre
There is no doubt that love has chemical effects that are detectible in the body - but to go from that and say that that's all what love is, that's the height of idiocy, excuse my words. That's called jumping to conclusions to say the least."Love" is actually a chemical cocktail designed to cement a long term attraction between two individuals which have been intimate, which subsequently causes them to stick together and cooperate in the rearing of the children. — VagabondSpectre
My morality serves all ends of the human being, including their biology. But biology isn't the only issue. We're much more than our biology.Why then do you pretend that biological imperatives such as "have sex, impregnate a woman, and fall in love" should be the basis for moral arguments like "It's our moral duty to get married, have kids, and stay together". Who or what does your morality serve? Evolution? — VagabondSpectre
For the most part yes, but it depends. So long as it doesn't frustrate the other purpose of sex (intimacy) I'd have no issue with some forms of contraception.So I take it you think the use of contraceptives is immoral because it frustrates the "necessary end" of sex? — VagabondSpectre
Are you an idiot or what's the matter with you? How can sex be an expression of your love for them when you rape them? Can you please explain this?So I guess if you love someone, value them for who they are as a human being, care for them as a person, and want to use sex as an expression of your love for them, then raping them is not immoral. Because consent is not relevant to the morality of sex, remember? — VagabondSpectre
No, there is no logical connection between something being acceptable and not being immoral, so you're drawing this link based on empty air.If it's acceptable than it's not immoral. — VagabondSpectre
No because I'm not actively doing something that frustrates the ends of sex.You're currently celibate with no children. You're being immoral right? — VagabondSpectre
True, but this doesn't change their purpose.Dildos are themselves inherently immoral though because their existence frustrates the necessary ends of sex right? — VagabondSpectre
Yes, happiness does involve pleasure, however to affirm idiotically as you have that someone will be happy because they experience pleasure is stupid beyond measure.We've been over this before Aug: pleasure/pain contributes to happiness/unhappiness. — VagabondSpectre
No, since you're not actively doing something to frustrate the ends of your sexuality.So "not reproducing" and not "getting married" is immoral? — VagabondSpectre
Yes that is immoral. You can do whatever you want with your penis, that doesn't mean it's good.Or is it just immoral to touch yourself for pleasure because you're misusing the necessary teleological ends of your penis?
(it's my penis and I'll do with it what I want to thanks) — VagabondSpectre
You haven't proven this. I have given reasons for supporting my views, a whole truckload of them if you bother to read through my conversation with Vagabond. However it's getting a bit boring since he has done absolutely zero to refute any of them. He prefers strawmen and red herrings.Different people want and enjoy different things, and to think that there's just one proper and correct sex life is misguided. — Michael
Here is a guy who has ruined himself, and has deprived himself of the goodness of marriage - a guy who by his own admission would fail in marriage because he has filled his mind and soul with vicious habits that would stop him from benefiting from marriage. To envy this guy, is like envying the miser who has deprived himself of friendship to acquire gold.
Here's a guy who, because he can't reach to the grapes anymore, says they're sour, and wants everyone else to forgo the grapes because he has done so. — Agustino
I'm saying its reasonable to approach a woman in order to find out, NOT that it's moral to assume she is ready and willing... — VagabondSpectre
So, you might feel like I'm here only to troll or to annoy, but believe it or not I have views of my own and when people, like you and Aug, suggest that I'm an immoral sinner or that the casual sex I engage in leads to rape, I'll happily write thousands and thousands of words until one of us is persuaded to the other-side or becomes fed up and goes away. — VagabondSpectre
Sex is less pleasurable with a casual partner because in addition to the orgasm you get the emotional feeling of love (additional pleasure). — VagabondSpectre
The slippery slope I referred to was that you're suggesting people having casual sex will soon lead to rape. Make a strong argument as to why this will happen or the description of "slippery slope fallacy" applies perfectly. — VagabondSpectre
Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"? — VagabondSpectre
She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies. — VagabondSpectre
I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them). — VagabondSpectre
Keep quiet with your bullshit. Where have I come with the pitchfork? Did I say that sexual promiscuity, etc. should be illegal or what? Identifying an activity as immoral isn't coming with the pitchfork, as I'm not trying to get him to do anything by force. I'm just discussing with him, and explaining why his behaviour is immoral.This is what you are refusing to discuss because you are trying to defend yourself from Aug who is coming at you with his pitchfork and torch; set that aside, we are talking rational ethics. — TimeLine
Well that's certainly not my fantasy. Do you think I'm lying to you? And no if you were to say that to your exclusive partner it wouldn't be just a white lie, it would be quite problematic because you're being dishonest about your intentions and how you feel about her. And that's actually very serious, you will never be capable to have an intimate relationship with someone if you'll keep up this dishonest behaviour.I envy him because it is a nearly ubiquitous male fantasy to have an endless stream of desirable sex partners. The only good reason I can think of to deny it would be to protect the feelings of an exclusive partner (i.e. a white lie). You're not my exclusive partner, so I'm not going to lie to you. — geospiza
As far as I can see he has utterly failed, that's why he cannot even get married for fuck's sake - he himself admits that he would fail, what more evidence is required to see that he is someone who should be pitied, just like in the Buddhist story, and not someone to be envied. He cannot reach up to the goods that are available to those more moral than him, and so he resorts to drinking away his sorrow in empty pleasure. Personally I don't admire losers.As far as I can tell, Vagabond is reaching more grapes than all of us put together. — geospiza
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.