Does Sex Have Limits?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2013, 07:01 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
Quote:A what if, natural disaster, 1 man left and 20 women who are man hating militant lezbos (if that's offensive I didn't know).
Wouldn't it be his biological duty /imperative to rape them, or the human race would become extinct.
Only if you value the continuation of the species more than the women not being raped. I'd be on the side of not raping, myself. To hell with the species. Anyway, if one or more women is ok with being pregnant, they could discuss artificial insemination.

Quote: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.
This.

sporehux Wrote:If we can agree that necrophilia is rape ,and then make rape an absolute, i'll be satisfied.
What if I signed a contract with someone who gave me permission to have sexual relations with their dead body (assuming they died first)? Then it would be consensual.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes amyb's post
22-10-2013, 10:37 PM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2013 10:44 PM by Mr Woof.)
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
It is patently obvious that there must be limits to sexual expression.
Sex is an enormously powerful drive that can be very dangerous.

Paedophilia and rape are clear examples of dangers, in terms of both physical and emotional suffering. Rape can also produce offspring, while paedohilia can physically rip children apart.

Sexually spread disease comes as a result of promiscuity, brothel attendance, swinging, group sex and the like; the reason of mulptiplicity of partners being pretty clear. Treatments effect the economy, and needs based issues.

Pornography needs limitations, and its very nature means that this is just what the pornogaphers don't want. Extreme violence directed against women, snuff movies, kiddie sex, all sneak themselves among less offensive videos and the drawing of some legal line cannot be ignored. "Perversity is not a dirty word".

Where rights so called, impinge on many of the rights of others, it seems necessary for society to adopt reasonable rules to help prevent the very worst behaviours.
Too, often the corporate world creates new and more ultra satisfying products for the consumer to indulge and in doing so he may be trapped, often unknowingly.

Where the values of any society become too crass, too artificial, and too convincing, the end products, or consumer durables, reflect this band aiding escapism at its peril.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
sex has been around for millions of years, it has no meaning in and of itself. The only meaning of it comes when you agree with the ladies when they say it does, earning brownie points.

don't ever say to a woman. Hey, when I am sticking my penis in you, it didn't mean anything, it's an old act that was done millions of years before us and will be done after us as well, no big deal.

I and I's relationship tips. BOOM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 12:32 AM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(22-10-2013 11:33 PM)I and I Wrote:  sex has been around for millions of years, it has no meaning in and of itself. The only meaning of it comes when you agree with the ladies when they say it does, earning brownie points.

don't ever say to a woman. Hey, when I am sticking my penis in you, it didn't mean anything, it's an old act that was done millions of years before us and will be done after us as well, no big deal.

I and I's relationship tips. BOOM

You do a good job in utterly trivializing a very important question........
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
23-10-2013, 05:29 AM
Does Sex Have Limits?
(23-10-2013 12:32 AM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 11:33 PM)I and I Wrote:  sex has been around for millions of years, it has no meaning in and of itself. The only meaning of it comes when you agree with the ladies when they say it does, earning brownie points.

don't ever say to a woman. Hey, when I am sticking my penis in you, it didn't mean anything, it's an old act that was done millions of years before us and will be done after us as well, no big deal.

I and I's relationship tips. BOOM

You do a good job in utterly trivializing a very important question........

That is the topic of the thread, whether not sex has meaning. I am saying it doesn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 07:42 AM (This post was last modified: 23-10-2013 07:46 AM by WimpyPete.)
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
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.
[/quote]

Thank you for the more detailed explanation but I think I'm still a bit unsure of what you are trying to say. Can you explain what it means that "An absolute is true because it is true in a self fulling way"? What is a "self fulling way"?

Next I think both of your examples are difficult because both "killing" and "right to safety" are broad categories and so when you say killing is not always bad or not always good I think I would be more specific and made the distinction to say that killing an innocent person is always wrong whereas killing in self defense could be justified. Which comes back again for me to an absolute, that murdering the innocent is always wrong.
In a similar way the idea of a "right to personal safety" would also have to be more specific, I think an attacking person does not have a right to personal safety because someone can justifiably fight them in self defense.

Maybe these are some things we could nit pic at all day, but I still would like my point addressed regarding rape because I don't feel that speaking about a kind of group morality of some kind does justice to the evil of rape. It is I think true that rape does have larger social consequences which are bad but I think the primary issue seems to be the direct act of violence done to the person and for that reason it is absolutely always wrong. If you are alone with a woman on an island rape doesn't suddenly become justified because there are no larger social consequences and the father of a raped girl is not angry because of the weakening of social structures that has taken place but instead is angry at the violation of his daughter, or if you yourself were raped I think you would say that act was wrong because of the evil done to you. Point being I don't think we can so easily dance away from the seeming absolute here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
(23-10-2013 07:42 AM)WimpyPete Wrote:  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.


Thank you for the more detailed explanation but I think I'm still a bit unsure of what you are trying to say. Can you explain what it means that "An absolute is true because it is true in a self fulling way"? What is a "self fulling way"?

Next I think both of your examples are difficult because both "killing" and "right to safety" are broad categories and so when you say killing is not always bad or not always good I think I would be more specific and made the distinction to say that killing an innocent person is always wrong whereas killing in self defense could be justified. Which comes back again for me to an absolute, that murdering the innocent is always wrong.
In a similar way the idea of a "right to personal safety" would also have to be more specific, I think an attacking person does not have a right to personal safety because someone can justifiably fight them in self defense.

Maybe these are some things we could nit pic at all day, but I still would like my point addressed regarding rape because I don't feel that speaking about a kind of group morality of some kind does justice to the evil of rape. It is I think true that rape does have larger social consequences which are bad but I think the primary issue seems to be the direct act of violence done to the person and for that reason it is absolutely always wrong. If you are alone with a woman on an island rape doesn't suddenly become justified because there are no larger social consequences and the father of a raped girl is not angry because of the weakening of social structures that has taken place but instead is angry at the violation of his daughter, or if you yourself were raped I think you would say that act was wrong because of the evil done to you. Point being I don't think we can so easily dance away from the seeming absolute here.

I actually agree with you for the most part. Rape is wrong for way more than just the social impacts (the personal ones are devastating) I was just trying to explain how morality that is not based on an Absolute can come to be. An Absolute truth is something that is stated but can never be questioned where as stuff that is always or nearly always true can be questioned and tested the results are just consistent. God says rape is wrong (protip: he doesn't actually rape is A-OK in the bible if done to the right people) so rape is wrong for only that reason. No thought necessary. However when you remove that Absolute you do need to think about it and unless you are a sociopath you realize that harming another human being is a bad thing.

I don't want to derail this thread but to answer your question about killing here is the best known moral test of killing an innocent Trolley problem.

(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
24-10-2013, 08:02 PM
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
Thanks Revenant, I think your right I think we generally agree but we are speaking with different terminology. Sorry for the late reply mid terms have hit and I am not able to check the forums so much now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 09:50 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2013 12:41 PM by TheGulegon.)
RE: Does Sex Have Limits?
This is the best answer to the question I was hearing:
(22-10-2013 02:48 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  If the sexual act does NOT bring harm to another living thing, mentally or physically, then I've got no problem with it, and will not speak against it. That is the whole of my sexual morality.

The best explanation for that answer was REV's
(22-10-2013 01:23 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(22-10-2013 01:07 PM)Dom Wrote:  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.

The question I was hearing was:

If you caught 2 twelve-year-olds having sex (one or both of whom could never have children due to some medical condition you knew of before catching them in the act[or they're both homosexual]), and, when asked, told you, with innocent eyes, that this was the only person they've ever had "feel-good" time with, and that " Blink well I don't love her like sister.....I don't love him like father -=- ..... no, I don't love them-we just like feeling good", and every 'negative' rationale you might put forward was cancelled out.....and they didn't want to have 'happy time' with other people than one another, simply because they thought those other people "get all weird & stupid about it"........

Would you still FORBID it?
&
If so, would it be because....Jeebus said it's unholy.....or Dawkins said so....
OR
WHY?

If, after asking all the right questions, & receiving all the right answers, all the good reasons are eliminated I'd probably still deny my permission for the act to be carried out under my roof since it is not necessary for survival, but I would be honest with both the children and myself when asked why.

"but....why? We only do it with each other so we don't get sick, and we do it because it feels good, not because we want to get marwied We can't even make babies....so....why? It's just sex, dad/mom Dodgy "

*think to self, "from the mouths of babes, eh Dodgy " *

"because.....due to the morality instilled in me by the culture I happened to grow up in,....it just FEELS wrong to allow you to have this kind of fun until you're older" yadda yadda

The bare-bones, deep-down truth is it's a belief based of feeling , not reasoning, if the reasons aren't actually there. Even if sex has no meaning, it still gets stamped with the "adults-only rule" by most of us, and (lets not kid ourselves) that has just a little bit to do with our wish to preserve their "innocence" even though consequence-free sex could be categorized as exactly that...innocent.

.....or I might have misinterpreted the OP's question.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: