Does Sex Have Limits?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(22-10-2013 11:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 11:06 AM)WimpyPete Wrote:  DLJ, you've got me thinking
...
I'm beginning to like you. You're getting the hang of this place.

Now, we're talking absolutes.

Thanks Smile

Now if I understand what you are saying here correctly I think it applies more to the previous question between the distinction of sex having an intrinsic meaning or not. I was not pushing for one particular view or the other here but only trying to enunciate what people seemed to be saying. The discussion of meaning in sex and the distinction between intrinsic and subjective meaning I think got agreed upon it seemed like, it seemed that people mostly are saying that it has meaning only subjectively.

But in regards to absolutes the issue came up for me when we were talking about limitations to sex. For people's sexual morality they seemed to in general say anything consensual is ok. My question is how do we get this limit of "consensual". The thought I think of people was that non consensual sex is never ok, they seemed to propose that standard as an absolute one, meaning, no one seems to be willing to say that there are some cases where something like rape would be ok. I certainly agree with this but my question is how is this principle upheld without saying it is an absolute? It seems that either we say its an absolute or we say there are cases when it (i.e. rape) is permitted in some cases.

Now maybe I didn't understand what you meant here with these distinctions you've laid out, if not maybe you could tell me how this theory applies to the particular situation with something like rape. Are we or are we not trying to say it is absolutely/always wrong? Let me know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 01:01 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
If we can agree that necrophilia is rape ,and then make rape an absolute, i'll be satisfied.

But to say rape is immoral but necro is not , doesn't sit well with me. if you can use perverted logic to make and excuse for necro than you can make an excuse for rape.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 01:07 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(22-10-2013 01:01 PM)sporehux Wrote:  If we can agree that necrophilia is rape ,and then make rape an absolute, i'll be satisfied.

But to say rape is immoral but necro is not , doesn't sit well with me. if you can use perverted logic to make and excuse for necro than you can make an excuse for rape.

Rape is bad because we feel empathy for the victim.

Necrophilia is more like a victimless crime, since the victim is dead and has no feelings or opinions about it.

It's just really gross and unhealthy.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
22-10-2013, 01:14 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(22-10-2013 12:52 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 11:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm beginning to like you. You're getting the hang of this place.

Now, we're talking absolutes.

Thanks Smile

Now if I understand what you are saying here correctly I think it applies more to the previous question between the distinction of sex having an intrinsic meaning or not. I was not pushing for one particular view or the other here but only trying to enunciate what people seemed to be saying. The discussion of meaning in sex and the distinction between intrinsic and subjective meaning I think got agreed upon it seemed like, it seemed that people mostly are saying that it has meaning only subjectively.

But in regards to absolutes the issue came up for me when we were talking about limitations to sex. For people's sexual morality they seemed to in general say anything consensual is ok. My question is how do we get this limit of "consensual". The thought I think of people was that non consensual sex is never ok, they seemed to propose that standard as an absolute one, meaning, no one seems to be willing to say that there are some cases where something like rape would be ok. I certainly agree with this but my question is how is this principle upheld without saying it is an absolute? It seems that either we say its an absolute or we say there are cases when it (i.e. rape) is permitted in some cases.

Now maybe I didn't understand what you meant here with these distinctions you've laid out, if not maybe you could tell me how this theory applies to the particular situation with something like rape. Are we or are we not trying to say it is absolutely/always wrong? Let me know.

Sorry. My bad.

I had assumed that bit was obvious.

See earlier reference to ... Accessibility / Security Goals.

Rape defies most (not all) current views on personal security, yes?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(22-10-2013 01:07 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 01:01 PM)sporehux Wrote:  If we can agree that necrophilia is rape ,and then make rape an absolute, i'll be satisfied.

But to say rape is immoral but necro is not , doesn't sit well with me. if you can use perverted logic to make and excuse for necro than you can make an excuse for rape.

Rape is bad because we feel empathy for the victim.

Necrophilia is more like a victimless crime, since the victim is dead and has no feelings or opinions about it.

It's just really gross and unhealthy.

There are no absolutes as everything is based on group morality. 1 Humans are a group animal 2 we function better when the group as a whole does well. That is the basis for humanist morality and since it is fluid it does not support absolutes.

Now that being said there are some things that are always true. Right to personal safety is always better for the group as a whole and rape is a violation of that. So rape is as close to an absolute wrong as you can get in this system. Necrophilia however is only wrong or gross in a culture that has the taboo (the health issues not withstanding) It is similar to cannibalism in that way.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
22-10-2013, 02:39 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
Sorry. My bad.

I had assumed that bit was obvious.

See earlier reference to ... Accessibility / Security Goals.

Rape defies most (not all) current views on personal security, yes?
[/quote]

Maybe I didn't understand all of the principles you brought up because you mentioned them in general and I'm not sure how they apply to particulars. Here it seems like you are applying it to rape in particular but it seems like your saying the wrongness of rape is because it defies personal views of security? Could you explain that, or maybe just explain how it is that rape is wrong in your view or whether or not it is always wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 02:46 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(22-10-2013 01:23 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 01:07 PM)Dom Wrote:  

There are no absolutes as everything is based on group morality. 1 Humans are a group animal 2 we function better when the group as a whole does well. That is the basis for humanist morality and since it is fluid it does not support absolutes.

Now that being said there are some things that are always true. Right to personal safety is always better for the group as a whole and rape is a violation of that. So rape is as close to an absolute wrong as you can get in this system. Necrophilia however is only wrong or gross in a culture that has the taboo (the health issues not withstanding) It is similar to cannibalism in that way.

I'm also confused by this because it seems like you are at once saying two things. You say:
"There are no absolutes"
And then:
There are things that are Always true and that right to personal safety is one of those.

So it seems you are simply switching absolutes to "right to personal safety". Now maybe you are speaking of this according to group morality but I don't think this is how we think when we think about rape being wrong. It is the pure fact of the evil done to that person who is raped which is wrong and not the fact that it makes society function worse. The focus isn't the functioning of society in this case but a certain value of human dignity which is being assaulted. Let me know how you would see that way of thinking of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 03:09 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(22-10-2013 02:46 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 01:23 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  There are no absolutes as everything is based on group morality. 1 Humans are a group animal 2 we function better when the group as a whole does well. That is the basis for humanist morality and since it is fluid it does not support absolutes.

Now that being said there are some things that are always true. Right to personal safety is always better for the group as a whole and rape is a violation of that. So rape is as close to an absolute wrong as you can get in this system. Necrophilia however is only wrong or gross in a culture that has the taboo (the health issues not withstanding) It is similar to cannibalism in that way.

I'm also confused by this because it seems like you are at once saying two things. You say:
"There are no absolutes"
And then:
There are things that are Always true and that right to personal safety is one of those.

So it seems you are simply switching absolutes to "right to personal safety". Now maybe you are speaking of this according to group morality but I don't think this is how we think when we think about rape being wrong. It is the pure fact of the evil done to that person who is raped which is wrong and not the fact that it makes society function worse. The focus isn't the functioning of society in this case but a certain value of human dignity which is being assaulted. Let me know how you would see that way of thinking of it.

My example there was the more bare bones stripped down version of Humanism. The difference between absolute and what I said was always true (this was poorly worded on my part and understandably confusing) is this An absolute is true because it is true in a self fulfilling way. Something that is always true is something that is true because we can test it and make a determination on the outcome. A good example of the difference is killing another Human being. It is not always bad or always good it is more often bad than good but it is not an absolute.

The right to safety of person is demonstrably beneficial to not only the individual but to the group as a whole. When that right is removed the group as a whole suffers for it.

[Image: 1385531_10153405726455195_824138760_n.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
limits in sex? ) do not think so. Every person has its own limits . It can not be the same for all
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 04:11 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(21-10-2013 03:47 PM)WimpyPete Wrote:  Hey guys,

This is something of a follow up to my previous post with some poll questions. I found the answers to the question, "what is your sexual morality" interesting and thought I might probe a bit more on this. Some people asked for clarification on the question so I narrowed it to ask simply are there any rules of engagement, are there good or bad practices, namely are there any sexual actions which people would consider immoral.
The general response was that anything goes so long as it is between consenting adults. I just wanted to question this response a bit by looking at it in conjunction with the response given to the question of, "what is the meaning of sex (for you)"? Most people said it only has the meaning that each person gives to it, which I would say results in saying that sex itself has no intrinsic meaning but only the meaning one would choose to associate with it. If that isn't correct let me know.
Now here is my new question. If sex has no meaning and is really just an act done for pleasure or in some cases love etc, what reasons do we give for forbidding non-adults from the act?
I agree with those who said that sex should remain between consenting adults, but I am just wondering if some of the people who answered that sex has no meaning in itself and is really just a pleasurable activity and also that it should be between adults only might care to comment as to the reasons why. I'll leave it at that for now and see what people come out with, thanks guys I look forward to hearing from you and talking a bit more.

limits in sex? i think each person has his or her own limits. it can ot be the same
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: