Sexual morality? Your thoughts??

[Z]

I'm kind of curious - what should constitute an acceptable level of sexual morality, and why? Obviously, this is largely an opinion piece - and I seriously doubt anyone here is going to post, "Oh, I think everything should be free game, whether it quacks, wears training pants, or came out of the ground" (ewwwww... ewe?) but how much sexual conservatism is too much? And, more importantly, why?

For example, from a purely logical point of view, given that sex is pleasurable and therefore desirable, it could be asserted that sexual behavior that is harmful to others or unnecessarily risky to the individual should be avoided. But given that same logic, this could mean a few of our current taboos might require re-examination.

I know a lot of people who were mentally and emotionally mature before the State declared they could freely have sex - and many, MANY more people (probably myself) who likely will never reach a reasonable level of maturity to handle sex properly. So is setting a median 'legal age' reasonable, or should some sort of 'license for sex' be issued?

What about homosexuality? Bisexuality? Polyamory?

Anyway, touchy topic - pun intended - but, if you dare, let's hear your thoughts.

[Donks]

My thoughts are, as long as all partners willingly consent (of course they must be able to consent), it's fair game. Regarding age of consent, while arbitrary, setting an limit at 18 seems reasonable to me. I guess people younger than 18 can do whatever they want why other people under 18.

Regarding a license for sex? No way. Giving the government the power to chose who gets to reproduce seems completely unreasonable to me.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Really, I'm for consenting adults doing whatever they want with each other. The biggest issue in sexual morality, to me, is honesty. If you want to have 23 lovers, fine, just don't tell them each that they're "the one."

As for an age, yeah, we need one. Is it fair? No, but no age limits are. I know a few sixteen year olds I think would make great voters, and I know many 40 year olds that should be shot on sight were they to set foot at a poll. It's the same with the age of consent.

What should the age be? Well, we pretty much just have to pick one. There are numbers that are obviously too low (say, 6) and numbers that would be ludicrously high (say, 32), but somewhere in the mid to late teens sounds right, but where exactly? 15? 16? 19? We just have to take one and run with it.

Bestiality? Go ahead, but you have to kill and eat the animal when you're done.

Necrophilia? I honestly have no problem with it. It seems to me the moral equivalent of shtupping a RealDoll. I do understand, though, that the vast majority of humans remain attached to the useless flesh that once were there loved ones, so I see why people have a problem with it.

Homosexuality? Bisexuality? Polyamory? Go for it. Videotape it.

[pgwenthold]

For me, it is pretty simple: if it is consensual, do it.

Now, you mention the age of consent, and while I admit that it is highly variable, I think it is easiest to pick an age and go with it (although it's also possible to use a sliding scale - a 50 year old guy with a 16 year old girl is not the same as an 18 year old boy with that same girl - use the half your age + 7 rule until both are 18)

Homo-, bi-, poly- don't concern me if all parties consent with full knowledge.

[pgwenthold]

double post

(can the admins please try to fix the delete option?).

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
use the half your age + 7 rule until both are 18)


So 8 year olds can do 11 year olds but not vice versa? :p

[El Greco]

Frankly speaking, I think that the danger is overstated. Even with the more extreme cases of sado-maso we can only expect an insignificant rate of deaths. Of course it is not logical to attribute deaths during sex to sexual activity per se when pre-existing medical conditions are clearly the cause. Perhaps more important is the danger that occurs from self-satisfaction as in the cases of auto-erotic asphyxiation or the serious implications that have occasionally been reported after self-flagellation or sticking needles in one's own body. A somewhat peculiar case is that of murder as a means of satisfying one's necrophiliac appetite.


Oh, wait... this isn't a thread about sexual mortality, right ?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
So 8 year olds can do 11 year olds but not vice versa? :p

Recall the topic there was age of consent. By this, an 8 year old could consent to an 11 year old, but the 11 year old could not consent in return. Since anything has to be consensual, nothing can happen.

In fact, nothing can happen until they are both 14. Basically, this says that sex between 14 year olds would not be illegal. IMO, two kids fooling around. Sophomores (16) can't prey on 8th graders, 18 year olds can be with sophomores but should stay away from freshman. Etc.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by Donks
My thoughts are, as long as all partners willingly consent (of course they must be able to consent), it's fair game. Regarding age of consent, while arbitrary, setting an limit at 18 seems reasonable to me. I guess people younger than 18 can do whatever they want why other people under 18.

Regarding a license for sex? No way. Giving the government the power to chose who gets to reproduce seems completely unreasonable to me.

That works for me. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want sexually.

Of course... (hijack coming)

I also feel that way about gambling, prostitution and drugs. Pick an age and stick with it. Then, once you reach that age, you are on your own for personal life choices. Pay your taxes and do unto others. Other than that, have fun...

[c4ts]

What about incest?

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by c4ts
What about incest?

Tough call...

Define the term.

First cousins?

Immediate family?

Studies have shown that sex between first cousins are not likely to cause recessive traits to be enhanced. So I don't really see an issue here.

Immediate family is much tougher because of the psychological aspects. Obviously incest between underage humans would be unacceptable because of the strong possibility of abuse by the older member.

Consenting adults who want to have sex with their sibling should probably seek counseling, but if the sibling consents (gross) I figure it's their life so long as they don't reproduce. I feel the legal age of consent for sex with a sibling or parent should be set much higher than it is for sex in general. Family relationships are always filled with desire to please dynamics that make the whole issue very murky. What might be emotionally coerced at 18 is less likely to happen at 25.

[rachaella]

I think that age of consent should be done far differently than it is here in the United States. I'm not entirely sure what the model should be but I think it should allow for a certain measure of protection for say individuals between ages 12-18, allowing for consenting sexual activity between individuals of similar ages within that group but perhaps banning sexual activity between members far older than 18, like 25+, and teenagers younger than 17 or 18. The way our system works an 18 year born on July 4 could have sex with a 17 year old born on July 6 (turning 18) and get thrown in jail. Also making it simpler would be a nation-wide system instead of variations from like 15-19.

[Z]

I'm very pleased with the nature of the responses here, but a bit disappointed that none of the 'conservawoos' have posted any religious or 'moral' reasons for any given behavior. Perhaps, even discussing 'sex' is just morally wrong to them?

I wonder what lifegazer's view is on sex - since, to his philosophy, it is all masturbation?

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by voodoochile
That works for me. Consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want sexually.

Of course... (hijack coming)

I also feel that way about gambling, prostitution and drugs. Pick an age and stick with it. Then, once you reach that age, you are on your own for personal life choices. Pay your taxes and do unto others. Other than that, have fun...

I've always wondered about prostitution being illegal. How can it be against the law to sell something that it's perfectly legal to give away.

I've also long wondered why any one particular act could be considered immoral by people. I think the problem is that they're not using a real moral code so much as they're using a sanction based religious code and calling it morality.

Is forcing your beliefs or your own sexual shame on other people against their will immoral. I think so.

[TragicMonkey]

What kind of sex, amount of sex, and company in sex is practiced is entirely the decision of the people involved. If everyone's able to consent, and does, go for it.

I think age of consent laws are a good idea, generally, but should be brought into line with biology rather than concerned and shy parenting. For much of human history, and in many cultures, people were married and parents by age 15. Of course, individuals vary, both in physical and emotional development, so violations of the age of consent laws should take that into effect. If a precocious 15 year old seduces an older person, why should the other person automatically suffer for it?

As for the incest taboo, it's all strictly due to the "ewww" factor now (still bearing in mind age of consent). After all, in the era of birth control, it's not like monster children are much of a risk. Also, how about same-sex incestuous relationships? They have no shadow of a possibility of fruitful union, therefore are they more acceptable than heterosexual incest? Or is that worse, because it's both incest and homosexuality?

[RamblingOnwards]

There is an issue with incest beyond the reproductive factor - potential abuse of a power relationship.

When one party can be easily coerced into 'consent', I see the point of tighter controls - parent/children, teacher/student, boss/worker, etc. That's not to say it needs to be completely illegal, mind, just that it needs to be watched more closely.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm... a bit disappointed that none of the 'conservawoos' have posted any religious or 'moral' reasons for any given behavior. Perhaps, even discussing 'sex' is just morally wrong to them?

More like they know their "reasons" won't stand the slightest bit of critical examination.

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I wonder what lifegazer's view is on sex - since, to his philosophy, it is all masturbation?

I'm guessing all his experience with sex is, likewise. :D

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by maddafinga
I've always wondered about prostitution being illegal. How can it be against the law to sell something that it's perfectly legal to give away.

This is a great line.

And it's got me thinking. Is there anything at all comparable? Is there anything else in the world that is illegal to sell, but legal to give away?

[Jas]

Consent and full knowledge I think are all that's really important.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jas
Consent and full knowledge I think are all that's really important.

And its the full knowledge part that leads to your ages of consent, I think.

[Scot C. Trypal]

I'm very pleased with the nature of the responses here, but a bit disappointed that none of the 'conservawoos' have posted any religious or 'moral' reasons for any given behavior. Perhaps, even discussing 'sex' is just morally wrong to them?

I don’t think so. I think there’s just little to say about moral stances taken on faith to people who don’t share that faith. If you want to have faith in Mormonism, Islam, Catholicism, whatever, along with that comes morals regarding sex, diet, and so on that you simply believe. From my perspective, such things illegitimately hang on the coattails of morality, and, unfortunately, can get treated as seriously as murder. I also don’t think many of the faithful want to display such beliefs when it’s clear they’ll immediately get insulted for them.

Anyway, I’d pretty much agree with most everyone’s consent and age guidelines (as long as the sex doesn’t break, for example, a marriage agreement).

I wonder if, along with age, mental capacity should be an added consideration? Is it in any law? A sexual relationship between a 30 year old person with the mentality of a 3 year old and your average 30 year old seems to me similarly abusive to a minor-adult relationship, even if “consensual�.

Also, I think where one person knows they have an std and has sex with another person, uninformed of the risk, the law should get involved, particularly if the std is deadly and even if no transmission occurs. Silly that needs to be said, but I think some people get so afraid of limits to their sexual freedom they can overlook such behavior.

And it's got me thinking. Is there anything at all comparable? Is there anything else in the world that is illegal to sell, but legal to give away?

How bout a kidney?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Is there anything else in the world that is illegal to sell, but legal to give away?

Children.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Children.

You can give away your kids?

[Chocolate Chip]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
You can give away your kids?

adoption

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
You can give away your kids?

adoption

Can anyone even say they own their children in the first place? I don’t think they can be counted as property, at least not legally or morally.

Adoption, to me, is more like giving up a position, along with its responsibilities and benefits.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I'm very pleased with the nature of the responses here, but a bit disappointed that none of the 'conservawoos' have posted any religious or 'moral' reasons for any given behavior. Perhaps, even discussing 'sex' is just morally wrong to them? "Be fruitful and multiply?" ...

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Be fruitful and multiply?" ...

Those two things are contradictory.

Unless you think conversions are worth a try.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

Those two things are contradictory.

Unless you think conversions are worth a try. Of course back in those days I don't think being "a fruit" had anything to do with sexual preference. :D

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Of course back in those days I don't think being "a fruit" had anything to do with sexual preference. :D

It was just recreational?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

It was just recreational? Well, it was just like the term "gay" didn't use to mean being homosexual. At what point did they begin to associate the term "fruit?" And what do you mean by recreational? Do you mean in the sense that they're not doing anything to perpetuate the species? Of course in that sense I guess that would apply to a lot of people.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, it was just like the term "gay" didn't use to mean being homosexual.

Oh! Is that what it means? No wonder there were such unexpected results when I truthfully replied I was very happy, when asked by those friendly people on Folsom Street.

At what point did they being to associate the term "fruit?"

The term dates from King Richard the Lionheart's time. Apparently his wife, when asked if her field had been plowed, darkly commented that Rick was less interested in vegetables and more in picking fruit with his army buddies. Particularly bananas. The ladies of the court didn't quite get the gist of the remark, but several gentlemen contracted scurvy in their efforts to assure people they were conservative in their habits.

And what do you mean by recreational? Do you mean in the sense that they're not doing anything to perpetuate the species?

I thought you were suggesting that everyone in the classical era was simply doing it casually, for entertainment value. Well, they didn't have television.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

I thought you were suggesting that everyone in the classical era was simply doing it casually, for entertainment value. Well, they didn't have television. They probably didn't have an adequate means of birth control either, and spent much of their time trying to find a means by which to feed their faces, notwithstanding the multitude of little kids scurrying around.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Originally posted by Iacchus
"Be fruitful and multiply?" ...

What about 1Cor 7:1?

It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Sounds… um, kind of fruitful. ;)

...

Where’d you find that story TragicMonkey? My dictionary of etymology isn’t near as colorful.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Where’d you find that story TragicMonkey? My dictionary of etymology isn’t near as colorful.

My philology, like sex dolls, balloons, and beach balls, is fun but entirely full of air.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm kind of curious - what should constitute an acceptable level of sexual morality, and why? Obviously, this is largely an opinion piece - and I seriously doubt anyone here is going to post, "Oh, I think everything should be free game, whether it quacks, wears training pants, or came out of the ground" (ewwwww... ewe?) but how much sexual conservatism is too much? And, more importantly, why?

For example, from a purely logical point of view, given that sex is pleasurable and therefore desirable, it could be asserted that sexual behavior that is harmful to others or unnecessarily risky to the individual should be avoided. But given that same logic, this could mean a few of our current taboos might require re-examination.

I know a lot of people who were mentally and emotionally mature before the State declared they could freely have sex - and many, MANY more people (probably myself) who likely will never reach a reasonable level of maturity to handle sex properly. So is setting a median 'legal age' reasonable, or should some sort of 'license for sex' be issued?

What about homosexuality? Bisexuality? Polyamory?

Anyway, touchy topic - pun intended - but, if you dare, let's hear your thoughts.

Ok, this is my problem with you post. When you talk about morality, what really mean is some people deciding what other people should be able to do. (I'm referring to consenting adults, of course) I thing that it is no business AT ALL what people decide to sexually with each other. The whole notion that social sanctions against consenting behaviors between people is ridiculous. One's morality should only dicate the conduct one one's OWN affairs, so to speak, and not the affairs of others. Why is it just a tacit assumption that society has the right to dictate the way we live our personal lives, sexual or otherwise, so long as we are not interfering in the lives of others?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Bestiality? Go ahead, but you have to kill and eat the animal when you're done. While I attended the University of Utah someone started one of those lists on the bathroom stall. It simply said "what turns you on". The list grew quite long untill someone wrote "Ruber gloves and cats". That has always been my favorite answer to such queries.

Necrophilia? A victimless crime.

I do understand, though, that the vast majority of humans remain attached to the useless flesh that once were there loved ones, so I see why people have a problem with it. Agreed.

Homosexuality? Bisexuality? Polyamory? Go for it. Videotape it. Agreed, but as a word of caution it is best to avoid sex with wild Rhinos. Horny or not.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by RandFan
Agreed, but as a word of caution it is best to avoid sex with wild Rhinos. Horny or not.

As Mrs Ogg would testify, only the Hedgehog is truly safe.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
As Mrs Ogg would testify, only the Hedgehog is truly safe. I thought the song went "The Hedgehog Can Never Be Buggered At All".

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by RandFan
I thought the song went "The Hedgehog Can Never Be Buggered At All".

I was trying to be euphemistic, because I didn't want to leave the impression that I've got rumpy-pumpy on the brain.

Hey, how's that for a sexual taboo? Brain sex!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I was trying to be euphemistic, because I didn't want to leave the impression that I've got rumpy-pumpy on the brain.

Hey, how's that for a sexual taboo? Brain sex! :D

You have to admit that hedgehogs are kinda cute.

[TragicMonkey]

Although I hesitate to bring this up, because everyone will assume I'm talking about myself, a friend of mine knows someone who's been in a gay relationship for almost twenty years. The thing is, the guys are brothers. Not adopted, not half-, but brothers.

This creeped me out when I first heard it, but on reflection, I have to wonder why. I mean, they're obviously not going to have any monster kids. They're not children (apparently they started this thing in their late teens, or at least they aren't admitting to any earlier), and they aren't hurting anyone else (they have not told their family, which would probably count as psychological trauma or at least cause a scene at Xmas dinner).

So, I guess that despite my initial "eww!" reaction, there's not really anything I can intellectually object to. Still, it makes me a bit uncomfortable to think about it, and I'm pretty damn liberal even by modern standards. But just because something makes me uncomfortable, doesn't give me the right to condemn it.

Still, eww!

[bluess]

Consentual activity between peers, by all means. I lost track of who said it, but setting some age ranges where you didn't have the 50-yr-old cottoning onto the 16-yr-old would be nice, because there is still a lot of power issues going on there. Someone else mentioned the marriage contract - I think you're assuming that all marriage contracts include monogamy. This is not always the case. Most important - no guilt, no disease-passing.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by voodoochile
Tough call...

Define the term.

First cousins?

Immediate family?

Studies have shown that sex between first cousins are not likely to cause recessive traits to be enhanced. So I don't really see an issue here.

Immediate family is much tougher because of the psychological aspects. Obviously incest between underage humans would be unacceptable because of the strong possibility of abuse by the older member.

Consenting adults who want to have sex with their sibling should probably seek counseling, but if the sibling consents (gross) I figure it's their life so long as they don't reproduce. I feel the legal age of consent for sex with a sibling or parent should be set much higher than it is for sex in general. Family relationships are always filled with desire to please dynamics that make the whole issue very murky. What might be emotionally coerced at 18 is less likely to happen at 25.

Incest is bad for your city-state. It leads to the formation of exclusive tribes which may rival you in political power.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
And its the full knowledge part that leads to your ages of consent, I think.

Is this the "simple consent" vs. "meaningful consent" issue?

Wasn't that one of the featured campaigns of the skeptic mags a couple of years ago, when some researchers found out, that for younger teenagers at least (not pre-teen, i.e. 13 and up), simple consent correlated well with whether they felt the sex (with older people) to have been a positive experience or not, years after the fact.

Congress, et al., didn't want to hear it and did a "censure" or whatever, 99-0, of a scientific study. Given the touchy nature of the subject, few wanted to defend it, even though multiple scientific review boards found the research solid. Evidently "simple consent" with a 14 year old was not, after all, psychologically the equivalent of "a mauling by a dog."

The point being that the concept of "meaningful consent" evaporated -- "simple consent", which was all they asked about, mapped well vs. satisfaction.

[jambo372]

Sexual morality.
That reminds me of something.
I read the bible once and read sexual immorality as sexual immortality.
A few others also did this.
I wonder how you can be sexually immortal.

[bluess]

Originally posted by jambo372
Sexual morality.
That reminds me of something.
I read the bible once and read sexual immorality as sexual immortality.
A few others also did this.
I wonder how you can be sexually immortal.
If you're a human male, overdoes on Viagra.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by jambo372
Sexual morality.
That reminds me of something.
I read the bible once and read sexual immorality as sexual immortality.
A few others also did this.
I wonder how you can be sexually immortal.

You can with a hydraulic penis. Why you'd want it to outlast the rest of you is beyond me.

[voodoochile]

Originally posted by jambo372
Sexual morality.
That reminds me of something.
I read the bible once and read sexual immorality as sexual immortality.
A few others also did this.
I wonder how you can be sexually immortal.

Well, if there truly is a Heaven, then it better have sex - otherwise it isn't heaven...

"Far too many blonds in Heaven." - George Carlin

[jimmygun]

What two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is definately a-okay. It has to be in private to be considerate of others. In your face can bring on tons of hurtin' from those that really don't mind what you do but don't like to be confronted with it!

That being said, is there any fantasy that is taboo if it is not acted out in reality?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by jimmygun
What two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is definately a-okay. It has to be in private to be considerate of others. In your face can bring on tons of hurtin' from those that really don't mind what you do but don't like to be confronted with it!

Who gets to set the standards, though?

There are places in the world where public handholding or kissing is against the law, because it's obscene. Justified?

And sorry if I'm reading too much between the lines...



"Considerate of others"....hmmm. Sounds familiar. That phrase generally crops up when self-professed libertarians like to point out that while they, of course, fully support everyone's right to live as they choose, and there's nothing wrong with being gay, could you maybe please just never do anything in public or that anyone else has to see, for the sake of the children? Oh, no, we don't mind you doing it at all, just not visibly. And those parades aren't quite in the best of taste. Wouldn't you all be happier living quietly, so you don't get stared at? In fact, why tell people? It's such a personal thing. That closet is so nice and comfortable, wouldn't you like to stay in there, and then we can all get along? Yes, that would really be best for everyone.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by jimmygun
In your face can bring on tons of hurtin' from those that really don't mind what you do but don't like to be confronted with it!

Oh, and I'm somewhat disappointed to think that anyone is still willing to blame the victims of hate crimes. Yeah, they really bring it on themselves.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't mind straight people, as long as they act gay in public.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
adoption

In fact, as with organs for transplantation, numbers of people profit from adoptions. It always struck my as particularly bizarre that it should be that the one practically irreplaceable component to the organ transplantation process - the donated organ - is the only item in the entire extremely expensive transplantation process for which there is no compensation at all. You best believe that every other individual involved in the organ transplantation process is well and properly compensated.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I'm kind of curious - what should constitute an acceptable level of sexual morality, and why?

I'm a Christian, and one of the more irksome tendencies that I see is the fixation on homosexuality over and above other forms of fornication. In my opinion, it is approximately 187,425 times worse to commit adultery than to commit a homosexual act.

I don't know what you mean by acceptable. Legally? Personally? Ummm, I think that there should be a defined *age* where sex with minors should be a criminal offense. I honestly don't know what that age should be. 16? 18? I don't know. Why? For a variety of reasons, religious, secular, rational, emotional, all of that. Not the least of which is it is basically a universally accepted norm, even if the age is variable based on culture and time.


but how much sexual conservatism is too much? And, more importantly, why?

I believe that parents have the *right* and the *duty* to impart some notions about sexual morality to their children. If some parents tell their children that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, I don't know if I would think of that in the "too much" sense. I don't know if we can legislate sexual morality when it comes to how parents inform their children.

As for the law, I'm pretty comfortable with how it is now. In spite of some schools of public sentiment, fornication is permissible and popular and legal. Personally I wouldn't have it outlawed, in spite of my religious views.


For example, from a purely logical point of view, given that sex is pleasurable and therefore desirable, it could be asserted that sexual behavior that is harmful to others or unnecessarily risky to the individual should be avoided. But given that same logic, this could mean a few of our current taboos might require re-examination.


In my way of thinking...I don't think that sexual diseases of a big deal. Personally, I would only have sex with someone if I wanted to have a child with them, or someone that I would suffer any sort of pain/misfortune with/for. Utilitarian thinking, in regards to sex, means little to nothing for me, personally. Sex is a personal issue and the way I see it, if somebody lives by a different sexual ethos, that's their business.

When you say taboos...let's name a few. Incest? If a brother/sister in their 20s are getting it on, I'd hope they'd keep it to themselves, and I think it's good that there is a taboo against that. I've been taught that incest is one of the few universal sexual taboos (nuclear family incest that is). I think taboos should be independent of the law. So, I say keep the incest taboo, but don't throw bro/sis in jail because they're incesting.


I know a lot of people who were mentally and emotionally mature before the State declared they could freely have sex - and many, MANY more people (probably myself) who likely will never reach a reasonable level of maturity to handle sex properly. So is setting a median 'legal age' reasonable, or should some sort of 'license for sex' be issued?

I think that legal age is a necessary evil. You absolutely HAVE to have a legal age. It may not be *fair* for everyone, some individuals at 15 may be more mature than 21 year olds, but for the sake of society, we can't have men having sex with 11 year olds permissible by law.


-Elliot

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I'm a Christian, and one of the more irksome tendencies that I see is the fixation on homosexuality over and above other forms of fornication. In my opinion, it is approximately 187,425 times worse to commit adultery than to commit a homosexual act.


Out of curiosity, how are you defining adultery? My wife and I are sexually involved with a few other couples on a regular basis. Would you consider that adultery, since we all participate as couples? We look at it as sharing rather than cheating, and both feel that it has made us a stronger, closer couple.

Your sentence above also seems to me to imply that homosexuality is a bad thing in and of itself. I agree that it might be bad for you, (I certainly don't go for it personally) but I don't see how it could be bad in and of itself.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by maddafinga
Out of curiosity, how are you defining adultery? My wife and I are sexually involved with a few other couples on a regular basis. Would you consider that adultery, since we all participate as couples? We look at it as sharing rather than cheating, and both feel that it has made us a stronger, closer couple.

It depends on, I think, the understandings of the vows that you made when you were married? See, I think that when you VOW something to another person, in front of family and friends and peers, that really means something.

Now, if you and your wife have agreed to have sexual experiences that are a bit outside of the mainstream, I would have a different understanding of your form of adultery. Frankly I guess it wouldn't bother me all that much.

I think that I have in mind one spouse cheating on the other spouse without their knowledge or consent, with full knowledge that they are going against vows which they have made to the ostensible life-partner.



Your sentence above also seems to me to imply that homosexuality is a bad thing in and of itself. I agree that it might be bad for you, (I certainly don't go for it personally) but I don't see how it could be bad in and of itself.

Well, I think that some desires are bad, and some aren't. I don't expect you to think like I do, but would you at least agree with me that some desires are bad, and some aren't? If so, there will be variable classifications within that belief. We would mutually agree that certain desires are *bad*; perhaps some desires that you think are *bad* I would not think to be bad, and definitely some desires that I think are *bad* you would have a different opinion about.

Probably you are less concerned with defining desires in such a way, with notable exceptions I am sure.

I consider homosexual desire to be more absurd than *bad*. I know that when it comes to desire, people really get sensitive, but that's my honest assessment. And frankly my religious beliefs have little to no impact on my personal opinion regarding homosexuality.

-Elliot

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I think that when you VOW something to another person, in front of family and friends and peers, that really means something.

Me too. I take my marriage vow seriously and don't plan to break them. I have no intention of getting divorced for just about any reason I can think of. I think that reasonable adults can discuss problems in a rational manner and overcome just about any problem there is, IF both parties are committed.


I think that I have in mind one spouse cheating on the other spouse without their knowledge or consent, with full knowledge that they are going against vows which they have made to the ostensible life-partner.


Again I agree, I'd not ever do that either. I don't believe in cheating without knowledge or consent at all. Of course, I don't have to. My wife is attracted to the same kinds of women that I am. She usually goes and gets them if she wants them, where I'm a serious introvert and would just sigh and look.

We happen to look at having a relationship outside of the marriage as cheating, whereas sex is just sex.




Well, I think that some desires are bad, and some aren't. I don't expect you to think like I do, but would you at least agree with me that some desires are bad, and some aren't? If so, there will be variable classifications within that belief. We would mutually agree that certain desires are *bad*; perhaps some desires that you think are *bad* I would not think to be bad, and definitely some desires that I think are *bad* you would have a different opinion about.

I'd agree with you there as well, though I'll consent that we might define a bad desire differently in some cases. I think a desire might become bad when it starts to infringe on another's life, without that person's consent. I might desire your tv set or stereo, which wouldn't be bad in and of itself. However, if I acted on that desire by sneaking into your house and taking those things, then it would be a bad desire. If I'd just gone and bought one at Best Buy, it could be seen as a good desire. Is it that act that defines the desire?

Now here's a sticky question.... Lets say you have a bad desire (say, to rape kill and eat certain types of people for example) but you don't act on that desire. Is it really all that bad then, or does it only become bad when you do act on it. What if you never act on it in your whole life? Does it only become bad when you choose to act on it, even though the desire had been in you for years before you did?

I consider homosexual desire to be more absurd than *bad*. I know that when it comes to desire, people really get sensitive, but that's my honest assessment. And frankly my religious beliefs have little to no impact on my personal opinion regarding homosexuality.

-Elliot

It's a good thing that your religious beliefs have little impact on your opinion. We need more of that in the world. Personally it doesn't bother me in the slightest, but I know that I'm atypical in that reguard. I don't think any homosexuals would consider themselves bad or their desires absurd, though I have known a couple who let their religious beliefs influence their thinking in that manner. Not a good thing.

[jimmygun]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Who gets to set the standards, though?

There are places in the world where public handholding or kissing is against the law, because it's obscene. Justified?

And sorry if I'm reading too much between the lines...



"Considerate of others"....hmmm. Sounds familiar. That phrase generally crops up when self-professed libertarians like to point out that while they, of course, fully support everyone's right to live as they choose, and there's nothing wrong with being gay, could you maybe please just never do anything in public or that anyone else has to see, for the sake of the children? Oh, no, we don't mind you doing it at all, just not visibly. And those parades aren't quite in the best of taste. Wouldn't you all be happier living quietly, so you don't get stared at? In fact, why tell people? It's such a personal thing. That closet is so nice and comfortable, wouldn't you like to stay in there, and then we can all get along? Yes, that would really be best for everyone.



I am simply pointing out the very real scenario that if you get into someone's face about anything you are bound to run into a fist or two. What I and many others object to are the behaviours of the radicals like those in gay pride parades where nudity and simulated sexual behaviour is, with an in-your-face openly antanganistic approach, demonstrated for all to see, regardless of who is there or who may be watching. I do not act that way in public with my heterosexuality (for one reason, I would be arrested and labled as a sexual offender for the rest of my life) nor would I if I were gay.

Come out of the closet! You have my support. But not my total support! You still have to behave like you are in a multi-cultural, multi-faceted society.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by jimmygun
I am simply pointing out the very real scenario that if you get into someone's face about anything you are bound to run into a fist or two. What I and many others object to are the behaviours of the radicals like those in gay pride parades where nudity and simulated sexual behaviour is, with an in-your-face openly antanganistic approach, demonstrated for all to see, regardless of who is there or who may be watching. I do not act that way in public with my heterosexuality (for one reason, I would be arrested and labled as a sexual offender for the rest of my life) nor would I if I were gay.

Come out of the closet! You have my support. But not my total support! You still have to behave like you are in a multi-cultural, multi-faceted society.

Firstly, only a very small percentage of people in those parades are acting in the way you find distasteful. They are, however, the most visually noticeable, and therefore they get all the television coverage, leaving people with the illusion that the whole parade was full of limp-wristed, rainbow-draped, chap-wearing freaks.

It's along the lines of showing only the screaming women with fake bloody fetuses and crucifixes in any news story about abortion protests. The normal ones aren't interesting, so they don't get air time.

Secondly, a lot of it is pure psychology. There is still a lot of hatred out there, including self-hatred. Acting outrageously is a sort of defence against that. It's a kind of nervous defiance.

Thirdly, there is a point to it. You said "demonstrated for all to see, regardless of who is there or who may be watching." -- that's the point. They know you don't like it, and that you don't want to see it. They are saying, tough. For a very, very long time homosexuality had to be kept under wraps, never discussed. Many in previous generations simply thought they were insane, or possessed by devils, or spent their entire lives denying their own innermost nature because they didn't know what it was. That's not going to happen again. Whether you love it, hate it, or couldn't care less, homosexuality exists and everyone knows it. It will not be swept quietly under the rug to preserve the delicate sensibilities of fastidious straight people.

Finally, "behave like you are in a multi-cultural, multi-faceted society"? That's what a multi-cultural, multi-faceted society is for: people we don't particular like can do things we don't agree with, and you can't stop them just because you don't care for it. There are plenty of public decency laws on the books, and yes, they are still enforced. Police might use their discretion as to time and place, though-- would you really expect no temporary slack given on public nudity during Mardi Gras? It's not like there's a freakin' gay pride parade every day. Lighten up.

[arthwollipot]

I hate to make gratuitous "me too" posts, but... er... me too.

I completely agree with everything you said, TragicMonkey.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by maddafinga
Now here's a sticky question.... Lets say you have a bad desire (say, to rape kill and eat certain types of people for example) but you don't act on that desire. Is it really all that bad then, or does it only become bad when you do act on it. What if you never act on it in your whole life? Does it only become bad when you choose to act on it, even though the desire had been in you for years before you did?

Oh I definitely think that it is a bad desire. The fact that the person *does* not act on it, I think, confirms that. Right?

At the same time, I wouldn't necessarily link bad desire to bad person. I'd like to think we'd keep our bad desires to ourselves. (rule of thumb? if in doubt, assume it's bad ;0 ) And if we can't help our desires and if we are all a bit faulty and get crazy ideas and all that, let's call that the human condition and not crucify people over bad desire. But I don't see how it is helpful to not consistently maintain that the desire is, in fact, bad. For example, if we make a big deal about how so-called bad desires aren't really bad, as long as nobody acts on them, can that possibly be good for society?



I don't think any homosexuals would consider themselves bad or their desires absurd, though I have known a couple who let their religious beliefs influence their thinking in that manner. Not a good thing.

You could be right. There maybe some of those people who would vehemently disagree with you, and you will be skeptical of their disagreement. It's a touchy issue.

Maybe this isn't a good analogy. I'm always going after the vast majority of television shows. Perhaps sometimes I make people defensive if they watch crime scene shows, or reality shows. Obviously there is some *desire* at work there. It's absurd desire. To me. It is apparent to me that to them, it isn't absurd desire.

I don't think that desire is inviolable. If someone makes the informed and conscious *decision* that they want to change their desire, they have that right and we should support them as much as we would support a person who would KEEP their own personal desires, even if society considers them to be *absurd*. In other words, I think that many gays could/should be more tolerant of gays who seek desire adjustment. But we all take things personally, don't we?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It's not like there's a freakin' gay pride parade every day. Lighten up.

I think this is a fair point. For example, I understand that some people are buggerred by public religious events, be they parades or whatever.

I do reserve the right to shake my head. The need to openly advertise one's sexuality...to publicly revel and define yourself in a particular sexual role or costume...it's just not my thing. And I'll likely impart that sensibility on my (theoretical) children.

-Elliot

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Oh I definitely think that it is a bad desire. The fact that the person *does* not act on it, I think, confirms that. Right?

Not necessarily. I sometimes might have a desire to shave my beard or to eat a huge bowl of ice cream, but I don't. Neither of those is a bad desire, despite the fact that I didn't act on it.


I don't think that desire is inviolable. If someone makes the informed and conscious *decision* that they want to change their desire, they have that right and we should support them as much as we would support a person who would KEEP their own personal desires, even if society considers them to be *absurd*. In other words, I think that many gays could/should be more tolerant of gays who seek desire adjustment. But we all take things personally, don't we?

-Elliot

I don't know that you can make a decision to change a desire. You can make the decision not to act on that desire, but I think it's there no matter what.

I think the bigger question is why would someone who is gay feel the need to seek "desire adjustment?" The ones that I've known who had a complex like that had it because of the religion and "morality" their parents beat into them when they were younger. Once they were able to see themselves as they were, and accept that, they were able to become okay again.

You're right that we do, in fact, all take things personally. I guess that's hardwired and unavoidable. A rational adult can overcome that with a bit of work though. Maybe that's yet another desire to decide to act on or not.

[Terry]

Originally posted by someone
The need to openly advertise one's sexuality...to publicly revel and define yourself in a particular sexual role or costume...it's just not my thing.

Heterosexual people always seem to think their sexuality is invisible. Here's a clue for you - it is not.

--Terry.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Being a small-"l" libertarian, the rule for me is simple: Consenting adults should be allowed to engaged with whatever activity they wish as long as they do not harm the rights or property of others. Of course, as many would point out, the issue of what constitutes an "adult" is rather fugly. Obviously, an 8-year-old can not possibly consent to a sexual relationship, but a 16-year-old can. As to age difference issue; if a 16 year old can make sexual decisions, then for consistancy sake,they should be allowed to make the decision with whomever they want regardless of age. Of course, the issue of coercison might come into play.

What about homosexuality? Bisexuality?

Non-issues for me. I even think they should be allowed to marry.

Polyamory?

Since I don't really believe that humans are meant to be truly monogamous, it's fine as long as everyone can agree to the terms.

I always thought the "line marriage" concept in Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" was kind of cool.

As for other issues that have been raised:

Beastiality: Animals are property. They don't have rights no matter what Ingrid Newkirk tells you. It might be disgusting to screw a goat, but I don't think the goat is in much of a position (either legally or intellectually) to cry "rape."

Incest: Again the issues are "consent vs. coercion" with the Ewwwww-factor thrown in.

Prostitution: It should be 100% legal with just enough regulation to make sure the workers are "clean" and are using protection. (Especially for lonely, single, 30-year-olds who can't get a woman to look at him.) I find it odd that this and pornography are the only issues that the fundies and the feminists agree upon, but for slightly different reasons. If feminists are so afraid that hookers are going to be "exploited" by pimps and Johns, wouldn't it make sense to make it legal (or at least decriminalize it) so prostitutes can safely seek damages from and punisment against those who abuse them without being tossed in jail themselves? Making sex a black market item only invites the crime that sterotypically follows the trade.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Originally posted by maddafinga
She usually goes and gets them if she wants them, where I'm a serious introvert and would just sigh and look.

What a minute... You get to LOOK??? :D

This discussion is really bringing me down.

[arthwollipot]

Again, I find my views being echoed by others on the board, so while I feel that I'd like to contribute to the conversation, I find myself in a position where my views have already been stated.

This time it's Mark A. Siefert who has clearly elucidated my own position. He must be a mind-reader.

However, people who want to know more than is good for them might be interested in reading this discussion (http://www.livejournal.com/community/religion_etc/23194.html) in a LiveJournal community I am a contributor to. It is somewhat related to this discussion. You'll recognise me.

[Scot C. Trypal]

The need to openly advertise one's sexuality...to publicly revel and define yourself in a particular sexual role or costume...it's just not my thing. And I'll likely impart that sensibility on my (theoretical) children.

And I’ll do the same, in the sense that I think one should try to keep the actions of sex private, out of courtesy, but Terry has a point. You can’t go 1 week on a job without finding the sexuality of every heterosexual being advertised in the general sense, from their pictures on their desk, to their talk of their spouses, dating, and which celebrities get them going. The main difference being when I see my business partner’s photo of him hugging his wife I don’t imagine sex acts which upset me, while two men embracing causes many folk to assume and envision sexual imagery which disgusts them.

I get that it’s hard to understand, but those guys, all gussied up and gyrating, are getting back at those who harmed them in the past. They want you to squirm, like they did. I think it’s a petty, and self-defeating act of revenge, but I get it nonetheless, and, though it’d help me out, I can’t bring myself to ask them to keep out of the spotlight.

I don't think that desire is inviolable. If someone makes the informed and conscious *decision* that they want to change their desire, they have that right and we should support them as much as we would support a person who would KEEP their own personal desires, even if society considers them to be *absurd*. In other words, I think that many gays could/should be more tolerant of gays who seek desire adjustment

No, a desire is not inviolable. Some of them can come on and leave with simply chemistry; the most familiar fluctuating desire being hunger. But some desires aren’t nearly so flexible, and a desire can only be consciously muted by other desires. We can only act on desires, even when they are desires about desires, and all of them must still originate from without, in biology, psychic waves, gods, whatever you think is out there.

As far as supporting people who want to change their desires, whatever they may be (short of harming themselves or others), I’m with you. Is it even true gays, as a group, can be said to be intolerant of those who want to change, or is that just myth based on some small minority? I really don’t know, but I’ve never found anyone in the gay community disagreeing with me. I don’t know a gay person who didn’t try to change, and can’t see them cursing others for trying, unless those others attack them first.

When I run into a newly outed gay kid looking for ways to change, I just tell him: 1. the best odds reported by the most biased anti-gay groups I know of are 33% (0% if you ask Phelps), 2. I’ve personally known some of their “success stories� and they are not only unsuccessful, but psychologically traumatized to boot, and 3. If they can’t accept being gay, I hope they can change and I wish them all the luck. I’ll even give them contact info for the “reparative therapy� groups if they want. The only thing I ask is that they 1. Don’t enter into homosexual sexual activity while believing it is immoral, and 2. Don’t marry a person of the opposite sex without giving them the info to make an informed consent.

I consider homosexual desire to be more absurd than *bad*. I know that when it comes to desire, people really get sensitive, but that's my honest assessment.
But we all take things personally, don't we?

What sort of things? I don’t take my desires to be sacrosanct. I find many of them to be silly, like my enjoyment of sci-fi films or my love of programming. And come on, heterosexual sex drives aren’t absurd? Have you watch MTV lately? :) Even if you want to say it’s all about procreation and ignore the important interpersonal bonding of physical intimacy, all those folks out there using birth control are doing nothing more dignified in the way of sex acts. The mechanics of it are just plain humorous.

What’s touchy about homosexuality is that most gay people have been hurt in very personal ways by people they loved because of it. Many have seen their friends turn to suicide to escape its social consequences. Finally, for many, it’s their one route to some of the most uniquely human and important pleasures, like companionship, intimacy, and family, not just some desire for prurient acts, and any threat to cut it off is a large threat.

No one really cares about the difference in desires itself; they care about the real-life consequences of how others react to it. They are sensitive to how others insult and debase their most cherished relationships and families. They fear that even “You’re absurd but I’m not� may lead back into a very dark past.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Is it even true gays, as a group, can be said to be intolerant of those who want to change, or is that just myth based on some small minority? I really don’t know, but I’ve never found anyone in the gay community disagreeing with me. I don’t know a gay person who didn’t try to change, and can’t see them cursing others for trying, unless those others attack them first.

I don't know a single gay person who did try to change. But then again I know more bisexuals than pure homosexuals. Bisexuality kind of puts the kibosh on the whole "wanting to change" idea. Bisexuals can and do change, and then they change back. Freely and as frequently as they want.

Those homosexuals I do know are all comfortable with their sexuality and as far as I know have not attempted to try and be heterosexual. Or rather - in some cases they behaved heterosexually before "discovering" that they were gay, and then they changed in that direction. One man I know has always been comfortably homosexual (since he was old enough to understand it) and according to his admission has never felt any kind of sexual attraction to women.

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
What’s touchy about homosexuality is that most gay people have been hurt in very personal ways by people they loved because of it. Many have seen their friends turn to suicide to escape its social consequences.

There's the crux of the matter. Homosexuality is only bad because a lot of people believe it's bad and act upon that belief. It is not bad in and of itself.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
I don't know a single gay person who did try to change.

[snip]

Those homosexuals I do know are all comfortable with their sexuality and as far as I know have not attempted to try and be heterosexual. Or rather - in some cases they behaved heterosexually before "discovering" that they were gay, and then they changed in that direction.

But are you only counting the gay adults you know, from the time you knew them? It is rare to encounter an adult who admits he used to be gay, but isn't any more, or would like not to be. This is because adults are grown up, and the ones who admit to any sort of gayness have already made their peace with it.

If you count all the people who are openly gay now, but spent their childhood and puberty and young adulthood in denial and trying very hard to turn straight, then I think the numbers would skyrocket. I haven't met any gay people who didn't used to want to change, back when they were younger and terrified.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by maddafinga
Not necessarily. I sometimes might have a desire to shave my beard or to eat a huge bowl of ice cream, but I don't. Neither of those is a bad desire, despite the fact that I didn't act on it.

But we were talking about bad desires, and not innocuous ones? I know you're not engaging in moral equivalency here.

Is there a difference between a bad desire, that isn't acted on, and an innocuous desire, that is acted on? Yes! The bad desire is still a bad desire, and the innocuous desire is still innocuous.

All un-acted on desires are not equally bad, or good, or neutral. I think I can prove this. If you had a 9 year old who expressed the desire to kill and rape his mother, you wouldn't just say "that's fine, just don't act on that desire". Sorry if I'm going over the top there, but your theoretical and even-handed assertion doesn't fit with the human experiences (which DOES include assigning moral/immoral labels).


I don't know that you can make a decision to change a desire. You can make the decision not to act on that desire, but I think it's there no matter what.

No, you *can* make a decision to do *anything*. I can decide to build a car from scratch. It ain't happening, but I can decide to do it.

Can a desire be changed? I'm not sure. Why not? What if a man desires sex with a woman one year, and not the next year? Has that desire legitimately been changed? A specific woman that is. Or even women in general.

Yes, there exist opinions that desire is immutable, and it's an assertion that can never completely be proven or disproven. I'm of the Girardian school of mimetic desire...it *recognizes* that desire is variable and influenced by the situation and influenced by human choice and is not fixated at all. But I'm also not a psychologist so who knows. Does anybody know?

If I look within myself...I think that some desires that I had many years ago, I no longer have. I used to have a *serious* sugar desire, so much so that I would empty sugar receptables from restaurants to supply my secret addiction! That desire is gone. I do *not* desire sugar like I used to. I'm more of a salty dog these days actually. Why? Biological/hormonal reasons? And sex isn't biological/hormonal either?


I think the bigger question is why would someone who is gay feel the need to seek "desire adjustment?"

Why would *that* particular desire be any less valid than the *gay* desire, whatever that is? What desires are OK and what aren't? If someone *desires* to adjust their *desire* good for them. If you're concerned about the reasons, the reasons are several, most of them federal. See, that right there was the "quoting public enemy desire" that I had many years ago. I no longer have that desire.

Wait a second...

No, seriously. If you want to question why someone would want to adjust their desire, is that any more or less valid than questioning why someone would have *any* particular desire in the first place?

And why not change desire? People alter their ways of thinking by taking courses or attending seminars. We alter our behavior patterns in so many different ways. We change our diets, our waist sizes. Why are those desires ok, but the desire to adjust desire not OK?

In my opinion, DESIRE has been elevated to a veritable golden calf. You can't question DESIRE because it's natural! Whatever. It's no more, or less, natural than bad arches or teeth. There's nothing sacred about desire. It can be questioned and adjusted just as *anything else* can be questioned and adjusted in the human experience, the human reality.

There. I've said that. Now somebody tell me, what makes DESIRE so sacred and so special that desire adjustment is so disordered? If you want to say that *any kind of adjustment* is out-of-order, that would be a *consistent* defense. But who in their right mind would advocate that?


The ones that I've known who had a complex like that had it because of the religion and "morality" their parents beat into them when they were younger. Once they were able to see themselves as they were, and accept that, they were able to become okay again.

You've already defined what is *okay*, just as the religious have done. Granted, you *okay* is variable and dependent upon the individual. But what is *okay* anyhow? Whatever we want to be okay is okay, even if it does vary from person to person, as the *okay* concept is still a real one.

Yes, I should *hope* that people have reasons behind a desire to have desire adjustment. Influences are variable, and to me they are beside the point. If atheistic parents drill their kids to reject any notion that love is romantic or transcendental or chooseyourownfuzzyword, they can go ahead and seek psychological help to rid themselves of the desire to believe in the (sigh!) power of love. Whatever. In this case you have a problem with the *philosophies* and not the concept of desire adjustment, which, as I've already declared, deserves no special elevation or protection.



I'll try to get specific now. You are saying that a person has desires, those desires are natural, and desire adjustment is not helpful. I am agreeing with you on the first two points, and am suggesting that desire adjustment is no more or less bad (or good) than cosmetic surgery or straightening out curly hair or wearing contact leneses. What's wrong with blurry vision anyways? Have you seen some of the people who walk around the streets these days? Arf arf.


-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Terry
Heterosexual people always seem to think their sexuality is invisible. Here's a clue for you - it is not.

--Terry.

It sometimes is, and it sometimes is not.

In my case...it isn't. Gay men are attracted to me. I guess there's always an exception.

Let's state some obvious things here. A good hunk of the heterosexual majority is uncomfortable with homosexual displays of affection, fetishes, and exuberance. They don't care about what you point out: the unquestionable double standard.

The difference is that they don't equiovocate between homosexuality and heterosexuality, while I'm guessing you think that they're just different sides of the same coin, or different facets of the same gem.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Excellent post Scott.

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
What sort of things? I don’t take my desires to be sacrosanct. I find many of them to be silly, like my enjoyment of sci-fi films or my love of programming. And come on, heterosexual sex drives aren’t absurd? Have you watch MTV lately? :) Even if you want to say it’s all about procreation and ignore the important interpersonal bonding of physical intimacy, all those folks out there using birth control are doing nothing more dignified in the way of sex acts. The mechanics of it are just plain humorous.

Why stop there? What about the Food Channel? What's up with some of those jokers? Home and Garden? Get a friggin life!

Let's go ahead and call MTV the heterosexual sex channel (with occasional gay sloganeering to keep things straight). Yes, humans can take anything and make it absurd.

I don't think you're suggesting that heterosexual sex is absurd, but just that sometimes it can be absurd. And I agree with you. My opinion is that homosexuality is fundamentally absurd in a way that heterosexuality is not fundamentally absurd. Yes, all sexual activity can descend into absurdity.


What’s touchy about homosexuality is that most gay people have been hurt in very personal ways by people they loved because of it. Many have seen their friends turn to suicide to escape its social consequences. Finally, for many, it’s their one route to some of the most uniquely human and important pleasures, like companionship, intimacy, and family, not just some desire for prurient acts, and any threat to cut it off is a large threat.

All of that is true. I don't find homosexuals absurd at all. I think I've said before, if I had their desires, I'd probably think very differently about all of this. Almost definitely.


No one really cares about the difference in desires itself; they care about the real-life consequences of how others react to it. They are sensitive to how others insult and debase their most cherished relationships and families. They fear that even “You’re absurd but I’m not� may lead back into a very dark past.

Which is why I'll never say that.

-Elliot

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by elliotfc
I'll try to get specific now. You are saying that a person has desires, those desires are natural, and desire adjustment is not helpful. I am agreeing with you on the first two points, and am suggesting that desire adjustment is no more or less bad (or good) than cosmetic surgery or straightening out curly hair or wearing contact leneses.

A Buddhist would point out that desire itself is the problem, not the objects of desire, whatever they may be. Of course, desiring to stop desiring is also a problem....which explains why there are more Buddhists than Buddhas or boddhisattvas.

As far as the morality of un-acted upon desires, from the viewpoint of ethics, it doesn't matter what horrible thing you want to do as long as you don't do it. Which would make a suppressed desire to rape kittens just as good or bad, ethically, as a suppressed desire to paint your bathroom pink.

However, in the modern world, there is another dimension to the equation: psychology. The desire to rape kittens, if suppressed, isn't bad in itself ethically; it is, however, a symptom of what is probably a mental illness. Science has advanced to the point that we understand that the brain is affected by chemicals, from everything from diet to the amount of sunlight you're getting. Psychology shows us that the mind can suffer from problems and issues which are actually fixable. Perhaps we should't evaluate desires, when comparing them, purely on ethical/moral grounds, but also in terms of mental health? A symptom of sickness, not of sin.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
There's the crux of the matter. Homosexuality is only bad because a lot of people believe it's bad and act upon that belief. It is not bad in and of itself.

This will extend past the topic, of course, but I've got to ask. Is anything bad, in and of itself? And if so, why?

The question isn't what is bad, and what isn't bad, but what moral systems are behind such statements.

When moral systems collide, then language falls apart and people say opposite things.

Anyhow, of course your moral system makes your statement valid, and other moral systems will make other statements valid. As to which moral system is the objectively correct one...

That's where government and secularism come in, laws and standards and all that. Sorry to be talking so elementary about this, I'll stop now. -Elliot

[Scot C. Trypal]

I don't think you're suggesting that heterosexual sex is absurd, but just that sometimes it can be absurd. And I agree with you. My opinion is that homosexuality is fundamentally absurd in a way that heterosexuality is not fundamentally absurd. Yes, all sexual activity can descend into absurdity.

Maybe it’s because I don’t much care about any sex act, but all sexual actions do seem a bit absurd to me. Sure it’s pleasurable, and I can’t really say why I see two bodies oscillating for that pleasure as being any more absurd than, say, looking for the pleasure found in a good chat, but I just reflexively find it all silly. If it gets to the point that one risks their life or another’s over it, or carelessly makes children because of it, I’d go so far as to call it irresponsible and, sometimes, criminal.

Does the possibility of offspring and more amenable anatomy make one act of heterosexual sex less absurd than one act of gay sex? Sure; assuming a heterosexual human, the average human, there is much more to gain in the sex for the risk.

But heterosexual sex acts would be a more absurd choice for a homosexual human--all the risk, feels unnatural and repelling, and even if you get a child out of it you’ve started him/her out with parents who are likely unable to keep a home intact. Still, even if the aim of becoming parents makes sex less absurd, take the ratio of the # of sex acts to the # of dependent children in each couple’s history and you’ll find many gay couples scoring lower on the Absurdity of Sex Life Scale :).

Lastly, procreation is not even the sole practical use for sex in our species. As it is used in primates, it’s a very important instinctive tool for creating intimate relationships. This companionship and the sharing of recourses that follows, are great benefits to most all sex, and it also often leads back to many infertile couples raising children and families anyway (though some would call it absurd to want to give up a carefree life for parenthood :) ).

Which is why I'll never say that.

-Elliot

Forgive me if I’ve been unduly defensive; it’s an old and admittedly bad habit. I even hear the phrase “lifestyle choice� and I leap into the trenches.

In my opinion, DESIRE has been elevated to a veritable golden calf. You can't question DESIRE because it's natural! Whatever. It's no more, or less, natural than bad arches or teeth. There's nothing sacred about desire. It can be questioned and adjusted just as *anything else* can be questioned and adjusted in the human experience, the human reality.

There. I've said that. Now somebody tell me, what makes DESIRE so sacred and so special that desire adjustment is so disordered? If you want to say that *any kind of adjustment* is out-of-order, that would be a *consistent* defense. But who in their right mind would advocate that?

These political issues get boiled down so much into tiny catchphrases that I can see why it’s hard for others to understand their opponent. “My desires are natural and that makes them unquestionable� is a great example of this loss in translation. I don’t think anyone believes this.

As I see it, the objections here are about coercion. Say a woman marries into a polygamist religious organization. With just that information, that’s fine by me, just as is a woman joining a therapy group hoping to change her lesbianism. Now say she followed that desire because it’s linked to her polygamist father’s love, or because he has threatened her with homelessness, or violence, or even Hell. She’s then balancing her desires: religious, familial, financial, sexual and so on. Should she get married and choose a religion for financial reasons? For threats of abandonment? I don’t think so. I think most gay people object to these instances where people are coerced into years of fighting themselves, instead of wanting it freely for their personal convictions.

One should also keep in mind that there are often very tragic results of these attempts to change, even if they choose it freely, not the least of which are deceived heterosexual spouses. I know those who had electroshock therapy, and many who are still actively gay but very psychologically disturbed for their therapy experiences and can’t get the hate they fostered for themselves in these groups out of their thinking. They should be free to attempt it, and no one should be intolerant of them for it, but they are risking their well-being and it should be treated as a risk.

On the upside I know couples who met in such therapy. :)

You've already defined what is *okay*, just as the religious have done. Granted, you *okay* is variable and dependent upon the individual.

Is it really much less variable and dependent upon the individual for the religious? You have the religious who interpret into their faith that *all* sex is evil, women can’t teach, lesbians can be ministers, blood donations are sinful, it’s okay to murder gays, and so on and on, and that’s just the Christians. For each adherent there seems to be a moral code.

But I’m not the sort to let morality float like that, for atheist or theist. I think morality is based on the golden rule (with the caveat that you must consider what others would want done unto them; not just what you’d want done unto you. E.g. you’d not want to give a glass of milk to a thirsty person intolerant of lactose, even if you’d appreciated it).

You’ll ask why? Because 1. I see no way to value one human’s freedom over another’s, and 2. I believe that such a basis for morality is the recipe for a society where the wildly different desires of each individual can be best satisfied as a whole. As far as personal pragmatic reasons go, I don’t like the empathetic reflex I get if I hurt someone else and know if I don’t honestly value your wants, you’re much less likely to value mine.

Isn’t it odd that out of all the OT morals, our Judeo-Christian culture has ditched almost all the non-Golden Rule morals? A woman wants a crab cheeseburger while wearing a cotton/linen pant suite? Go ahead. But this homosexuality taboo has hung on tight and some even see it more serious than murder.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by elliotfc
This will extend past the topic, of course, but I've got to ask. Is anything bad, in and of itself? And if so, why?

The question isn't what is bad, and what isn't bad, but what moral systems are behind such statements.

When moral systems collide, then language falls apart and people say opposite things.

Anyhow, of course your moral system makes your statement valid, and other moral systems will make other statements valid. As to which moral system is the objectively correct one...

That's where government and secularism come in, laws and standards and all that. Sorry to be talking so elementary about this, I'll stop now. -Elliot

Yeah, good idea not to get into the whole absolute/relative morals thing. Suffice to say that I believe that morals are relative, and that no action is intrinsically bad except in the context of society. Let's just leave it at that, shall we? Agree to disagree?

[jimmygun]

Firstly...sorry for the delay in answering, the thread got lost in the shuffle...

To quote TragicMonkey...

Firstly, only a very small percentage of people in those parades are acting in the way you find distasteful. They are, however, the most visually noticeable, and therefore they get all the television coverage, leaving people with the illusion that the whole parade was full of limp-wristed, rainbow-draped, chap-wearing freaks.

It's along the lines of showing only the screaming women with fake bloody fetuses and crucifixes in any news story about abortion protests. The normal ones aren't interesting, so they don't get air time.

Secondly, a lot of it is pure psychology. There is still a lot of hatred out there, including self-hatred. Acting outrageously is a sort of defence against that. It's a kind of nervous defiance.

Thirdly, there is a point to it. You said "demonstrated for all to see, regardless of who is there or who may be watching." -- that's the point. They know you don't like it, and that you don't want to see it. They are saying, tough. For a very, very long time homosexuality had to be kept under wraps, never discussed. Many in previous generations simply thought they were insane, or possessed by devils, or spent their entire lives denying their own innermost nature because they didn't know what it was. That's not going to happen again. Whether you love it, hate it, or couldn't care less, homosexuality exists and everyone knows it. It will not be swept quietly under the rug to preserve the delicate sensibilities of fastidious straight people.

Finally, "behave like you are in a multi-cultural, multi-faceted society"? That's what a multi-cultural, multi-faceted society is for: people we don't particular like can do things we don't agree with, and you can't stop them just because you don't care for it. There are plenty of public decency laws on the books, and yes, they are still enforced. Police might use their discretion as to time and place, though-- would you really expect no temporary slack given on public nudity during Mardi Gras? It's not like there's a freakin' gay pride parade every day. Lighten up.

Does the number of violators of the law matter? If only one person were acting in an unlawful manner that person should be brought to justice. Keeping nudity and salacious behaviour away from children is a good idea be it hetro or gay right? I do not find it distasteful, I find it to be illegal according to the laws which govern such public behaviour. I do not make allowances for anyone's sexual preferance. We are all a part of society and society functions best when we respect that others are not the same as us.

Are you saying that any behaviour is acceptable if the person behaving thus has their own reason for doing it? Does that excuse them from the social obligations of the law?

Bring on the hate card...it is used everytime someone even thinks about dissagreeing with anything of the gay comunity. It is used for attack and now for defence of illegal behaviour.

"Whether you love it, hate it, or couldn't care less, homosexuality exists and everyone knows it. It will not be swept quietly under the rug to preserve the delicate sensibilities of fastidious straight people."

Does this statement mean that the only person who would object to illigal behaviour is a quivering anti-sexual puritan straight person? Are there no gays out there that object to the illegal behaviour? Would a gay person shrug off an unwanted sexual assault by another gay by saying the same things in that assaillants defence?

Homosexuality exists? Wow, thank you for that eyeopener. I neither love it nor hate it. I am indifferent to it (and am therefore a homophobic, gay killing, nazi and racist for being indifferent).

Even if hetrosexuallity didn't exist and the whole planet were homosexual there would still be a need for social laws that would allow for the differences between people.

The laws that govern public displays of nudity and sexual acts are there for a reason. I support those reasons as I am sure there are many of the gay community that do too. That the police choose to ignore the laws in one place and not another is wrong. It is my contention that the police do not enforce the law because of the political screamfest that would result. The police would be labled as anti-gay.

If the law is there enforce it. If the law is wrong change it.