Sex- Where Should The Line Be Drawn?

[neytirifanboy]

Originally Posted by Mune

With the exception that I'm willing to go even more stray from societies PoV. I believe that two friends who deeply love each other can engage in sexual acts together. After all- What is a partner. Just a 'heightened friendship'.

In that case we probably agree almost totally. When I mentioned social acceptability, I was refering more to criminal or non-consensual use of sex such as rape, pedofilia and forced prostitution. However, it must be stated that in some cultures these things are often allowed and tolerated although I do not agree with them on the basis one person should not be coerced by another as that is against a liberal view.

In general, I believe that western European countries have got their attitude to sex broadly right.

Apart from that, I think everything you said was completely acceptable.

And I also think that using porn is also more than acceptable, provided those making the porn are doing it of their own free will.

[Mune]

Once again, I agree with everything you just said.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by neytirifanboy

Well from reading this thread, I would regard myself as one of the more liberal thinking here. Although, believe me, I am much more liberal in theory than I am in practice. In theory I believe in free love but in practice I am a prude.

Sexuality is part of who we are. And it is different for each person. But however, that manifests itself we have to embrace it within the limits of social acceptability.

If you try to surpress sex, in the end it will only surpress you in return.

Sex for entertainment?: I say why not. I have no problem with that for those that want to use it that way. Provided everyone is consensual and mature enough to understand it. And it is better than violence for entertainment.

Of course the main issue I have against sex as entertainment is purely biological rather than moral. My greatest fears relating to sex are STDs and unwanted pregancy. And these are real risks that should be considered. But I have no problem with two people having a one night stand at all.

The only moral issue I have is when one person betrays another through sex. But this is not directly to do with sex as this could also relate to misuse of finance, friendship, power or any anything else.

But that does not mean that sex should be surpressed as if it is something dirty. I think people who go on about "making love" are actually elitist. But the fact is that sex is simply an animal instinct that serves procreation. It is nothing more and nothing less. It is not some great spiritual activity and neither is it the work of the devil. Well not in my opinion anyway.

EXTREMELY well said... I completely agree

[rapunzel77]

Originally Posted by neytirifanboy

If you try to surpress sex, in the end it will only surpress you in return.

Perhaps this is where the misunderstanding lies? I don't think it is an issue of "supression". Its more an issue of responsibility and self-control. I believe that sex is a great gift but it is a dangerous one. This is also true for other gifts such as fire, water, alcohol, even food. What happens when someone eats to much? Don't they get sick? or fat? IS that a good thing? No. Is food natural and essential for life? Of course it is. So is sex. However, it must be used carefully and treat it well responsibly.

Sex for entertainment?: I say why not. I have no problem with that for those that want to use it that way. Provided everyone is consensual and mature enough to understand it. And it is better than violence for entertainment.

Again, I don't deny that there is pleasure in sex. However, due to the nature of sex, it must be used carefully. There is an emotional attachment that occurs in sex. It is a physical expression of love. IF it wasn't, then why are there many romantic things associated with it? I think it is sad to use sex simply as a recreational tool when there is a lot of emotion and energy that goes into it. We are human beings with real thoughts, feelings, and emotions. In sex, all of those things are used. IF there is no love there, why enact in what would be a meaningless exercise?

Of course the main issue I have against sex as entertainment is purely biological rather than moral. My greatest fears relating to sex are STDs and unwanted pregancy. And these are real risks that should be considered. But I have no problem with two people having a one night stand at all.

Again, you cite the two main reasons why it would be very dangerous to have casual sex and then you said it would be fine? Does that make sense? Its like saying that it would be fine to be plastered drunk and decide to drive even though there is a risk that the person could get themselves killed or worse, kill someone else?

Have we come to the point in society in which people can care less about anyone else but themselves and therefore it is perfectly ok to engage in reckless behavior because they feel like it? To me, this is how you are sounding. If I have misunderstood, then please let me know.

The only moral issue I have is when one person betrays another through sex. But this is not directly to do with sex as this could also relate to misuse of finance, friendship, power or any anything else.

Isn't this a contradiction though? I mean, if there is NOTHING emotional about sex and it is just an animal instinct then how can anyone be betrayed in it? Surely there isn't anything "emotional" about it, right?

But that does not mean that sex should be surpressed as if it is something dirty. I think people who go on about "making love" are actually elitist.

Again, this is where there is a very wide difference of opinion on the nature of sex. I don't believe it is dirty and I don't know of anyone who is suppressing it. There isn't a day that goes by that a commercial, tv show, news, etc talks about sex in some form. Its everywhere. Also, I find the statement that those who actually believe that sex is meant to be special and expression of love are elitists to be shallow. There are many people in this world who believe that sex is very special. We are not "elitists".

But the fact is that sex is simply an animal instinct that serves procreation. It is nothing more and nothing less. It is not some great spiritual activity and neither is it the work of the devil. Well not in my opinion anyway.

This is where there is a very large philosophical difference. Those of us, like myself, who believe that sex is sacred and special believe that humans are more than animals. We have intellect and will. We are not completely like animals. In your view, that is all we are. It is because of this key philosophical difference concerning the nature of man that we have these disagreements. I believe that man is a special and unique being who because he does have an intellect and will, he can choose to control himself. It becomes very dangerous for him to commit to reckless behavior because there is real emotions involved.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

Again, I don't deny that there is pleasure in sex. However, due to the nature of sex, it must be used carefully. There is an emotional attachment that occurs in sex.

I agree there can be, but only if you want it to. Since you used an analogy of food, you can eat something without it being your favourite thing ever or the only thing you ever want to have.

It is a physical expression of love. IF it wasn't, then why are there many romantic things associated with it? I think it is sad to use sex simply as a recreational tool when there is a lot of emotion and energy that goes into it. We are human beings with real thoughts, feelings, and emotions. In sex, all of those things are used. IF there is no love there, why enact in what would be a meaningless exercise?

Fair enough... But you really can't go telling people who do seek enjoyment from it what to do. Like ANYTHING in life, it's what you make of it.

Again, you cite the two main reasons why it would be very dangerous to have casual sex and then you said it would be fine? Does that make sense? Its like saying that it would be fine to be plastered drunk and decide to drive even though there is a risk that the person could get themselves killed or worse, kill someone else?

No, because sex without protection (when not actually trying for children) is purely irresponsible, there is no other word for it.

Have we come to the point in society in which people can care less about anyone else but themselves and therefore it is perfectly ok to engage in reckless behavior because they feel like it? To me, this is how you are sounding. If I have misunderstood, then please let me know.

That doesn't really make sense... If people do care care about others as you said then they will reflect that, but 'reckless behaviour' has no bearing on what you think of someone else.

Isn't this a contradiction though? I mean, if there is NOTHING emotional about sex and it is just an animal instinct then how can anyone be betrayed in it? Surely there isn't anything "emotional" about it, right?

Not if one person is EXPECTING something more form something. Similarly, if someone was cheating on someone who was expecting then to only have them.

Again, this is where there is a very wide difference of opinion on the nature of sex. I don't believe it is dirty and I don't know of anyone who is suppressing it. There isn't a day that goes by that a commercial, tv show, news, etc talks about sex in some form. Its everywhere. Also, I find the statement that those who actually believe that sex is meant to be special and expression of love are elitists to be shallow. There are many people in this world who believe that sex is very special. We are not "elitists".

Yet you believe certain forms are more valid than others due to context? That is the very definition of elitism.

This is where there is a very large philosophical difference. Those of us, like myself, who believe that sex is sacred and special believe that humans are more than animals. We have intellect and will.

We really aren't. Animals have intellect too, just not sentience. We are controlled by our emotions as much as any else, we have isntincts, we are driven by our needs.

I believe that man is a special and unique being who because he does have an intellect and will, he can choose to control himself. It becomes very dangerous for him to commit to reckless behavior because there is real emotions involved.

And animals don't? That is completely misunderstanding the nature of intellect in my opinion.

[Aquaplant]

Sex in itself doesn't have any kind of intrinsic value. It's only what we choose to make of it.

Also, I think we should set it as a default assumption, that we are talking about recreational sex, because the reproductive side is pretty self explanatory.

Originally Posted by rapunzel77

Again, you cite the two main reasons why it would be very dangerous to have casual sex and then you said it would be fine? Does that make sense? Its like saying that it would be fine to be plastered drunk and decide to drive even though there is a risk that the person could get themselves killed or worse, kill someone else?

Basically what HumanNoMore already said.

Everything can be used irresponsibly, and sex doesn't make exception. Responsible people who go out camping in the woods, put out their fire before they leave. Responsible people who have casual sex, use protection. A rather bland comparison, but seeing as I'm lazy, it'll have to suffice.

Have we come to the point in society in which people can care less about anyone else but themselves and therefore it is perfectly ok to engage in reckless behavior because they feel like it? To me, this is how you are sounding. If I have misunderstood, then please let me know.

But one can't have sex alone, you always need a partner, a willing partner. It's something two individuals agree to do, so how can it be selfish behavior?

Isn't this a contradiction though? I mean, if there is NOTHING emotional about sex and it is just an animal instinct then how can anyone be betrayed in it? Surely there isn't anything "emotional" about it, right?

Saying that it can be something, doesn't necessarily always make it so, or the other way around. Suffice to say there's emotional potential in sex, but it isn't always there, because it's only what we make of it.



Also, as the matter of difference between humans and animals, it's rather difficult to say there's really any difference, other than purely subjective one. Animals possess intellect same as we do, and some animals, like dolphins are believed to be sentient in the same way we are. However it's impossible to say for certain, because we don't share the means to communicate efficiently enough to verify this.

[MetalManatee]

Pygmy-Na'vi sums up my personal beliefs perfectly in basically all of her posts. I think the more "liberal-minded" people posting in this thread are trying to put across the point that none of us have the right to choose or govern what other people should think/believe/do... what we all must realise is that there is a TREMENDOUS spread of different personalities/psyches/emotional responses amongst the human race and that what is right for one person is not necessarily right for others. I completely agree with the people who express the view that consensual activity between people capable and mature enough of making such decisions bears no issue, as long as it is not harming others in the process. Everything is so subjective with these sort of debates. What is "harmful" to one person/relationship (some people keep mentioning porn in this context) is what strengthens and solidifies another person/relationship. The most important thing here, in my mind, is respecting that everyone has the right to decide for themselves what morals suit them best .