What's the deal with sex?

@Fido,

Fido,

By honour- do you mean commitment to your word?
Or to your love?
To yourself?
Your actions?

What is in honour?

I still don't understand how a person could say that love is more important than honour, that is why I ask.

Cheers!
-sc

@speakerchef,

speakerchef wrote:

Fido,

By honour- do you mean commitment to your word?
Or to your love?
To yourself?
Your actions?

What is in honour?

I still don't understand how a person could say that love is more important than honour, that is why I ask.

Cheers!
-sc

I certainly do not say that love is more important than honor. A person cannot live without honor, and people often never find that one they can love without restraint, doubt, pity, or hate.

Only that person with honor can be trusted with the care and feeding of a relationship, and this involves the treasuring of intimacy, as this is the wealth in a love relationship. It is not the only wealth in relationships, but without honor all wealth spiritual and temporal are endangered. Find the germ of honor in your if you ever expect to be worthy of love, for love and life are wasted on the dishonorable.

Something else. Love relationships have moments of intense sympathy and affection, but they are subject to outside forces that often stress relationships beyond the breaking point. People have their preconceptions of a relationship and these suffer and cause suffering. Ultimately a person's health or ability to love will affect the question. There are times in a love relationship when love seems everywhere else but in evidence. Then, on memories or hope people have to keep the relationship alive for their honor. And this is fair, because to bet everything on love and to lose is not a loss like the guilt a person of any honor will suffer in surrendering his commitments and looking for others. People can live without arms and legs easier than they can live with guilt. People with guilt invite their own suffering, and seek their destruction. Do not do this. Do not commit to relationships if your heart and head are not strong, and your will is not willing for every change of circumstance. Love is not for the weak, but for the brave, the strong, and the honorable. Never seek love out of need, but from an abundance of gifts, skills, wiles, and joys in life.

@Fido,

Fido,

I still don't understand what you mean by honour, or for that matter, love?

I know days could be spent writing on these two subjects alone, but do you have a concise definition for both?

Finally, I apologize- I intended to write "I still don't understand how a person could say honour is more important than love, that is why I ask."
Instead of "I still don't understand how a person could say love is more important than honour, that is why I ask."

I missed the reversal of honour and love in my proofreading. For what its worth it made sense in my head though!In fact, my whole ethical system appears to be built primarily about the idea of love.

Until I understand your definition of love and honour, I can't decide if I agree (end of discussion) or disagree (discourse, and interesting bits).

Please let me know

Cheers!
-sc

@speakerchef,

Only a general definititon of love is possible. Considered -as caring, or as a form of relationship- is as close as I can come because everyone gives it a final definition with their lives and with the value they give to love. There are many examples of love with only general definitions. Your love will always be unique.

Honor has more of a social definition because every honorable person in society tends to make the whole society honorable, and every dishonorable person tends to degrade the definition and endanger society. We forget that honor did not come out of a world of police. The police enforce laws, and not honor. Nor does honor come out of a money economy, though I trust it is a form of economy. People can trade on their good name like some use credit. Honor is more important for the poor, and money is more important for the rich. The reason for this is clear. Where people are poor, and money is scarce, for anyone to goes out of their community to get goods, or to trade for necessities, one must be able to trust those one leaves behind with family. Honor is essential to trust, and in this sense is like love, that we cannot love those we do not trust. But in small poor communites it is also essential to know that when you share your goods out of necessity with a neighbor that he in turn will reciprocate. Wealth can be hoarded, but poverty must be shared, or some will die for want. And who will die in a small community built upon some common nativity who is not family in some sense, who we do not love, -if aid is withheld?

When law, and capital first began to have real power in Europe, it did not only attack the affairs of honor, the defenses of honor that cost many lives and feuds, but they also attacked the communities that gave honor its meaning. When a person gave land to the church in order that his will would be conidered valid by the church, that person may have been giving what was not properly his to give. When the commons were closed in England and Scotland and all those who depended upon them for survival had to sell their little plots and move on; they were selling what was never before theirs to sell. People's children were stolen from to make great estates for a few, and the capital of hundreds of years was suddenly made available for investment. What about the many thousands put on the street without recourse but to sell their labor for wages?

Law has often supported, and even demanded the dishonorable from people. Law has often broken down the old economy of honor, and is doing so today. If it were possible in Europe for people to be forced to sell inalienable property, it will some day be possible for people in America to purchase inalienable rights. Never mind that we all made this country what it is. If it will be privatized, it will be through law, and against honor. And this attitude of money being the equal of honor destroys many relationships, even marriages, and finds a willing support in law.

@tMeeker,

We've lost sight of this topic which is sex. We've jumped into love and honor. Please try to stay on the topic of the thread as much as possible. Maybe a new thread topic should be opened with regards to honor and love.

@Fido,

Aaaah Fido, thank you!

Now I can weigh in.

First, love.

You say that everyone defines there own love (at least thats what I see between the lines) but if that is so isn't (to use the now classic example) a pedophile loving in there own way? In ancient Greece it was considered perfectly natural that men should want to have boys to love (pedophilically).

This was their unique style of love and considered perfectly natural, and from what the ancient Greeks write did little or nothing to harm the child. In fact, it was considered good for the child for he could pick which suitor he liked. He could select someone rich or poor, good looking or bad looking.These boys were of course not so young, but still in puberty (around 14,15).

This, of course is a terrible tragedy, but it stems from your definition of love.

If love is a relationship, do you mean any relationship like, say, a brother? Or that which is traditionally between a man and a woman?
I am uncertain here.

A minor point, but if all love is truly unique, could love be hate also? That would be really unique!

I still don't understand what you mean by honour, for I don't see a definition, just a description, however; I a mildly certain (if there is such a thing) of your meaning, and so I will precede.

If honour has its own economy, isn't if woefully inefficient?

1. Honour is only a form of credit, but credit can run out, credit can be a lie, credit can fail. You may say you'll rescue Maid Mirriam, but if your father's on his deathbed how do you walk away? Do you sacrifice actual love for potential love and honour, especially if you never promised your father that you be by his deathbed?
2. It is still based on money, because I am honour-bound to pay you back what I owed, be it a cow, car, carrying goods, or cash.

People trust the poor less, because of their situation, not more. Perhaps among the poor honour is more important, but I think that would be difficult to prove at best. As a poor person, I wanted to be rich, (just like the vast majority of other poor people want), so I would say that honour is not important. As a poor person, I didn't want honour, I wanted money.

Law always had real power in Europe. I have no idea how you could think otherwise. Imperial law has not always had power, but even when all of Europe broke into pieces, each society had very strict laws.

Law is important and powerful in every culture, be it native, white, black or any culture. Law exists in every one. It just may not be written down.

If you are referring to fuedalism and its 'honour system' please check your sources, especially from 6th century A.D. to 14th century A.D. honour was a noble idea, but was in no way commonly practiced. While I think the Crusades are wildly misinterpreted I certainly agree that they were dishonourable.

Your last question in third paragraph, What else do you think people have always done with their labor? Sell it! That is what people do in every society, even communism!

Furthermore, most of the rapine of the masses from the end of fuedalism was done by lords who were trying to barely get by because they couldn't support themselves without such measures. They were forced to become poorer and poorer, until they too had to sell to greater lords doing the same thing. Only the biggest lords escaped this.

Finally, the law is always about honour, because I am bound to honour it, in a very real sense. If everyone followed their honour there would be no need for law. If everyone followed the law there would be no need for honour.
The law isn't dishonourable, its incredibly noble, just a FEW blood-sucking attorneys destroy it for everyone. If anyone has every met a good lawyer, they'll know what I mean.

Look forward to your response.

Cheers
-sc

@speakerchef,

Speakerchef;
I am going to have to get back with you on this, but the question about pedophiles you will have to take up with them. I will point out that rape, as pedophilia is, is not the violent expression of sexuality, but is the sexual expression of violence. If you do not understand this, let me explain further: It is violence primarily expressed sexually. People who do that sort of thing in our society feel powerless, and take as their victims those who feel more powerless still. There is nothing of love in it. It is an act guaranteed to cause anger, to offend the public conscience, and to shame their victims. Two facts only demand mercy for pedophiles. One is that if they do not face death they will be less inclined to inflict death to avoid punishment; and many were themselves victims, and are now expressing their pain by inflicting it.

The cultural ethic that allowed man boy relationships in Greece are too distant to judge. I doubt it was ever as sexual as portrayed. Men in particular found the thought of being a receptical for another's bodily fluids revolting. We have to understand that they were at a point in time where the men had only recently taken over society from the women, If they were not matralinear, and I would have to look and see if they were still, and they were not matriarchal, as they certainly were not; then they had no normal and natural reason to respect women, and so held them as chattles. Eventually these societies caved in. Women were not valued, and lived hard lives without reward or thanks. As a consequence female children were exposed, and not wanted by fathers or mothers. While many family lines died out for lack of wives those women who did survive to adulthood found better lives as prostitutes than as mothers and wives. So perhaps the Greeks thought of themselves as super men and needed super women in the form of boys. Contempt of the opposite sex is not the basis of any good relationship I know of.

@Fido,

SeeTopic: Love and Honour

@speakerchef,

speakerchef wrote:

Aaaah Fido, thank you!

Now I can weigh in.

First, love.

You say that everyone defines there own love (at least thats what I see between the lines) but if that is so isn't (to use the now classic example) a pedophile loving in there own way? In ancient Greece it was considered perfectly natural that men should want to have boys to love (pedophilically).

What I mean is that Love is a very general, and what love is in reality will always recieve a final definition by the people in it. It still has to be mutual. It still has to be generally love.

Quote:

This was their unique style of love and considered perfectly natural, and from what the ancient Greeks write did little or nothing to harm the child. In fact, it was considered good for the child for he could pick which suitor he liked. He could select someone rich or poor, good looking or bad looking.These boys were of course not so young, but still in puberty (around 14,15).

I have seen similar things in this age where an old hand would take on the training of an apprentice.

Quote:

This, of course is a terrible tragedy, but it stems from your definition of love.

Love is always comic. Look at it, even the lowest form of comedy, the police story or whodunit is about bringing society together by excluding the criminal. Most are about some wayward element being brought into the family situation again, often through marriage. If you want to look at a good comedy, see Uncle Buck. It even has a great weenee, which is a technical term for that moment of recognition where the tragic comic figure sees himself for what he is ,and has to make the choice to be a part of the family or not.

Quote:

If love is a relationship, do you mean any relationship like, say, a brother? Or that which is traditionally between a man and a woman?
I am uncertain here.

All concepts are forms of relationship. All forms are forms of relationship. All relationships have some formality to them and the best have very little. Depending upon what sort of relationship you believe you are in, different rule apply. The rules are differnt between a love relationship and an employee, and employer relationship. Marriage is different that simple love between friends or a couple when first together.

Quote:

A minor point, but if all love is truly unique, could love be hate also? That would be really unique!

Love is still love, but each couple feels special in their love, and they are.

Quote:

I still don't understand what you mean by honour, for I don't see a definition, just a description, however; I a mildly certain (if there is such a thing) of your meaning, and so I will precede.

I think it was Count Basie (sp) who said: If youhave to ask (what Jazz is) you will never understand. People are raised on honor and honesty. We allknow what it is evenif we try to avoid it.

Quote:

If honour has its own economy, isn't if woefully inefficient?

1. Honour is only a form of credit, but credit can run out, credit can be a lie, credit can fail. You may say you'll rescue Maid Mirriam, but if your father's on his deathbed how do you walk away? Do you sacrifice actual love for potential love and honour, especially if you never promised your father that you be by his deathbed?
2. It is still based on money, because I am honour-bound to pay you back what I owed, be it a cow, car, carrying goods, or cash.

Good point. I trust that in honor societies there is always a deficite just as in our economy. Look at the potlatch societies of the West Coast Indians, or others societies whose primitive economy was built around the giving and recieving of gifts. Just like some people cannot have enough money there were some who could not have enough of honor even if it meant poverty. In many respect poverty among poor people is synonymous with honor. And just as people kill for money, some will kill to preserve their honor. Recently, in Pakestan, a man killed his step daughter and three or four of his own daughters because his step daughter left her husband who had hired her out to work in a cement plant, and the step father presumed infidelity bringing dishonor to his family. He judged he could not live without honor, and was probably right.

Quote:

People trust the poor less, because of their situation, not more. Perhaps among the poor honour is more important, but I think that would be difficult to prove at best. As a poor person, I wanted to be rich, (just like the vast majority of other poor people want), so I would say that honour is not important. As a poor person, I didn't want honour, I wanted money.

Where money is wealth, honor is cheap.

Quote:

Law always had real power in Europe. I have no idea how you could think otherwise. Imperial law has not always had power, but even when all of Europe broke into pieces, each society had very strict laws.

Not really. The difference between the German tribes and their laws was slight between the American Indian tribes and their laws. See: Law and Revolution. It is a legal history book concerned with the end of the first millenium and how the church took over and within a very short period developed Western Law as we know it throughout Europe.

Quote:

Law is important and powerful in every culture, be it native, white, black or any culture. Law exists in every one. It just may not be written down.

I would note, were I you, of all the difference between Islam and Christianity. What the Muslims have is significantly different, and in most respects is superior to our law. They may execute more, but they have fewer in Jail, less police, and less crime. You do see what happens when social controls are suddenly lifted. Old scores and insults are accounted for. First, they have a tribal view of honor. Second unlike us, they believe each person has an absolute right to justice. And third, their religion support their community and tribal legal view of justice.

Quote:

If you are referring to fuedalism and its 'honour system' please check your sources, especially from 6th century A.D. to 14th century A.D. honour was a noble idea, but was in no way commonly practiced. While I think the Crusades are wildly misinterpreted I certainly agree that they were dishonourable.

I think you mis understand feudalism. I have read much on this subject, and I can give you two examples off the top. First, each personhad his feudal rights through a mutual pledge of fidelity. A breach of this faith was called a felony. If a lord slept with his man's wife, which was dishonorable, then the man could have his fee without obligation- he could de-fy his lord. Honor was everything in that society. It was the source of wealth as none of the property could be said to belong to anyone since none was alienable. As the Chinese would say, some had top rights, and some had bottom rights; but all had rights. When the rich and the powerful finally got control of Europe and said the kings and lords actually owned the land it constituted a great theft.

Quote:

Your last question in third paragraph, What else do you think people have always done with their labor? Sell it! That is what people do in every society, even communism!

No, usually people supported themselves with their labor. In the middle ages there were few roads and little commerce, and little need for commerce. Everyone was sitting onthe greatest wealth they could imagine: the land.

Quote:

Furthermore, most of the rapine of the masses from the end of fuedalism was done by lords who were trying to barely get by because they couldn't support themselves without such measures. They were forced to become poorer and poorer, until they too had to sell to greater lords doing the same thing. Only the biggest lords escaped this.

Finally, the law is always about honour, because I am bound to honour it, in a very real sense. If everyone followed their honour there would be no need for law. If everyone followed the law there would be no need for honour.
The law isn't dishonourable, its incredibly noble, just a FEW blood-sucking attorneys destroy it for everyone. If anyone has every met a good lawyer, they'll know what I mean.

Look forward to your response.

Cheers
-sc

I think your view of history is off a few notches. If you pose these questions in the next thread I will answer. Thanks

@Dexter78,

dolphins have sex simply for pleasure, as do banobo chimpanzees!

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

dolphins have sex simply for pleasure, as do banobo chimpanzees!

Is that just for yours or everybody else's?

@tMeeker,

Seems the discussion had gone off topic a bit, but regarding the original post...

I guess I can that I feel the same way to an extent. While sex is most definetely a natural & necessary activity as it is with other creatures, there is clearly a big difference between the men & the animals. First of all animals that use sex as a means of reproduction do not seek excess the way humans do. Nor do animals get such a complex experience out of sex as do humans.
So to say that "sex cant be bad" because it is necessary for survival isnt very right in my opinion, because once again, an animal may use sex as a mere way of repruduction but the animal's use & experience differs from ours. If we consider ourselves and our experiences as something of a higher & more complex nature, we simply cant use that exuse.
I was reading something on Hinduism & certain ideas made a lot of sense to me (though its possible that I got the wrong impression). What certain paths seem to teach is that most of our "pleasures" (including sex) arent bad, but they are not the ultimate pleasure/satisfaction. Some exersizes in Tantra for example, focus on a deeper/more spiritual bonding during sex. My point is that of course being of an animal nature we have all the instincts regarding reproduction, but still most of us would agree that we are of a higher nature than other animals & thus theres no reason that we shouldnt seek/need more than our bare animal desires for our full satisfaction.
Personally I do not put this on marriage, but rather on just a true & deep bond between the 2 people.

@Teena phil,

Teena wrote:

Seems the discussion had gone off topic a bit, but regarding the original post...

I guess I can that I feel the same way to an extent. While sex is most definetely a natural & necessary activity as it is with other creatures, there is clearly a big difference between the men & the animals. First of all animals that use sex as a means of reproduction do not seek excess the way humans do. Nor do animals get such a complex experience out of sex as do humans.
So to say that "sex cant be bad" because it is necessary for survival isnt very right in my opinion, because once again, an animal may use sex as a mere way of repruduction but the animal's use & experience differs from ours. If we consider ourselves and our experiences as something of a higher & more complex nature, we simply cant use that exuse.
I was reading something on Hinduism & certain ideas made a lot of sense to me (though its possible that I got the wrong impression). What certain paths seem to teach is that most of our "pleasures" (including sex) arent bad, but they are not the ultimate pleasure/satisfaction. Some exersizes in Tantra for example, focus on a deeper/more spiritual bonding during sex. My point is that of course being of an animal nature we have all the instincts regarding reproduction, but still most of us would agree that we are of a higher nature than other animals & thus theres no reason that we shouldnt seek/need more than our bare animal desires for our full satisfaction.
Personally I do not put this on marriage, but rather on just a true & deep bond between the 2 people.

If sex is natural and necessarry (or even "instinctual"), then how can it be imoral? The "sex can't be wrong" argument may not "seem very right" to you, but it is a valid argument. Perhaps you meant in excess or in perversion. Excess and perverse are subjective distinctions, and therefore personal judgments. It is bad only if you or I say its bad, relative to each. (I am not advocating hedonism or perversion, i'm just pointing out the subjectivity of the statement.)

The difference between animals and humans is another thread so I wont expound on the idea more than to say your talk of "higher order" and "our animal nature" are confusing. What part of us is animal, and what part is not?

Here, however; you view human and animal sex differently; assuming to understand the complexity of the animals sexual experiance? How could you (or I) know the complexity of animal sexual experiance? While paramiceum sex may seem boring and utilitarian to us ther is no way to measure thier experiance. Many animals mate for life, an action seldom observed in primates; does that make them more moral than us? Banobo chimpanzees engage in sexual activity for a miriad of reasons other than procreation (read "our inner ape" by Franse De Waal), does that make them imoral?

Clearly sex beyond procreation is usefull in social relationships, and just as clearly some sex/sexuality is not healthy (as in rape or pedofilia). As for sexuality among consenting adults (including homosexuals), I dont think nonparticipants should be judgedes. I do agree that for our motivations to be less hedonistic and our experiance more spiritualy bonding would be leaning in the right direction, but lets not vilify our own human sexuality.

sorry if I sound confrontational:o I really do apreciate communicating with you! Thanks.

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

If sex is natural and necessarry (or even "instinctual"), then how can it be imoral? The "sex can't be wrong" argument may not "seem very right" to you, but it is a valid argument. Perhaps you meant in excess or in perversion. Excess and perverse are subjective distinctions, and therefore personal judgments. It is bad only if you or I say its bad, relative to each. (I am not advocating hedonism or perversion, i'm just pointing out the subjectivity of the statement.)

The difference between animals and humans is another thread so I wont expound on the idea more than to say your talk of "higher order" and "our animal nature" are confusing. What part of us is animal, and what part is not?

Here, however; you view human and animal sex differently; assuming to understand the complexity of the animals sexual experiance? How could you (or I) know the complexity of animal sexual experiance? While paramiceum sex may seem boring and utilitarian to us ther is no way to measure thier experiance. Many animals mate for life, an action seldom observed in primates; does that make them more moral than us? Banobo chimpanzees engage in sexual activity for a miriad of reasons other than procreation (read "our inner ape" by Franse De Waal), does that make them imoral?

Clearly sex beyond procreation is usefull in social relationships, and just as clearly some sex/sexuality is not healthy (as in rape or pedofilia). As for sexuality among consenting adults (including homosexuals), I dont think nonparticipants should be judgedes. I do agree that for our motivations to be less hedonistic and our experiance more spiritualy bonding would be leaning in the right direction, but lets not vilify our own human sexuality.

sorry if I sound confrontational:o I really do apreciate communicating with you! Thanks.

First of all I'd like to say in no way do I view sex as bad overall OR that sex beyond the purpose of reproduction is imoral.
You're right that we cant judge for certain what an animal's experience is like. Furthermore of course different animals may experience it very differently.

[quote]Excess and perverse are subjective distinctions, and therefore personal judgments. It is bad only if you or I say its bad, relative to each. (I am not advocating hedonism or perversion, i'm just pointing out the subjectivity of the statement.)[/quote]

Would you say something is bad though if it can be harmful to the person himself or somebody else? A person lacking any control (towards excess in general) and overindulging can very much harm himself. An example would probably be food. You can give a large amount of food to a tiger & it will not eat more than is beneficial/necessary for him. Humans do not seem to have such limits, we have to use our rational side in order for it to not lead to obesity for example. Humans are not limited in this way when it comes to sex either, we do not only "mate" when its necessary to mate. Humans CAN indulge in excess or like you said perversion, rape of whatever.

[quote]The difference between animals and humans is another thread so I wont expound on the idea more than to say your talk of "higher order" and "our animal nature" are confusing. What part of us is animal, and what part is not?[/quote]

Apologies if that didnt make sense, what I meant is that though we might've evolved from an animal & thus share certain animal instincs, I also believe that a more "rational" side or a more complex consciousness is present in humans. & I do believe that can affect the way we "experience" our experiences & makes us quite different from animals ( Of course I do admit that that I can not say for certain that an animal does not have a complex inner psychic life). I'm not usually very good at explaining, what I mean is that it appears to me (& nothing more than that) that we're standing in the mix & can either go backwards or forward. I do believe that quite often we simply degrade ourselves (matter of opinion).

Quote:

....experiance more spiritualy bonding would be leaning in the right direction

I agree completely, & that is pretty much my main point. Once again I'd like to clarify that I am not saying that sex is bad or that sex for pleasure is bad. What I am saying is that if we are capable of a deeper experience, I do not think its a good idea to disregard it (wheather there are animals that are capable of this on some level or if it is exclusive to humans, does not change my view of this in any way) & that is precisely what I see happening... especially with people in my age group.

& no worries. I understand its just shareing opinions & no person attacks or anything. Smile

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

If sex is natural and necessarry (or even "instinctual"), then how can it be imoral? The "sex can't be wrong" argument may not "seem very right" to you, but it is a valid argument. Perhaps you meant in excess or in perversion. Excess and perverse are subjective distinctions, and therefore personal judgments. It is bad only if you or I say its bad, relative to each. (I am not advocating hedonism or perversion, i'm just pointing out the subjectivity of the statement.)

It is not acts which are immoral; but people, because of their motivation of those doing act against morality, which, if they are not for some good are always immoral even if the outcome is not injurious or evil. Either you are with society, and follow the sense society has -of long duration- of what is healthy and desireble behavior, or you go your own way, sufficing with your own intelligence, and serving yourself with your own fork. Now; no mere mortals are born as wise as I have become, and it is rare that any man has the sense to see the point of moralism in youth. Sooner or later, most people get the point. The moral point is this: All good, virtue, and beauty lie in community, and all evil, vice, and ugliness lie beyond the bounds of community. Morality is where each person, by choice is joined with his family, friends, and society. It is not made of rules, but is a feeling, and an emotional sensing of reality made up of every relationship. And if you think of it, every relationship has its morality. Some times it is do unto others, and some times it is screw onto others, but each person has to choose between the two.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

The moral point is this: All good, virtue, and beauty lie in community, and all evil, vice, and ugliness lie beyond the bounds of community. Morality is where each person, by choice is joined with his family, friends, and society. It is not made of rules, but is a feeling, and an emotional sensing of reality made up of every relationship.

Interesting! Are you quoting or paraphrasing? I would like to understand that idea, right now i'm confused. No good outside of community and no bad inside community? Very normative approach. "emotional sense of reality"? Your use of the word emotion make me think of emotivism, and I tend to be more of a logical positivist.

I see your point about not a ridged set of rules though, and how individual motives (and actions) are inseperable from the group. I see a difference in community and society though; community being less encompasing than society. Ultimately the group/communuty itself can be imoral and harmfull to others in society. I can think of several communities that members might have a moral sense of rightness while being harmfull to others (el-quida).

In the US If someone is law abiding, caring, spiritual, productive at work, helpfull to others and just happened to be gay, that person could be concidered imoral in the community? What community, the gay community? I'm also sure that there are motives and actons within the gay community that are deemed imoral, so you are probably right in describing ethics in an emotional sense, it just sounds so ambiguous and sketchy when I would like it to be defined, and emperical. Perhaps my confusion is in how individuals merge and seperate from the group/groups.

I am hetero sexual, but I do advocate for my gay and lesbian friends. I think they have a right to thier relationships and thier identity without anyone imposing thier morality on them. I do not think it is right (imoral) for them to be denied civil union with all the benifits that comes with. I think they are being denied thier civil rights.

@tMeeker,

[quote]fido - All good, virtue, and beauty lie in community, and all evil, vice, and ugliness lie beyond the bounds of community[/quote]

I also find this interesting. If a community starts defining what beauty and virtue are, they essentially say what ugliness and vice are by the very fact that they are defining what virtue and beauty are. (thus the community also defines what vice and ugliness is) Or am I reading you incorrectly?

-----

Now, just jumping into the thread, and I'm sure someone has stated this. Sex, in and of itself, cannot be immoral because it is necessary. (I think I agree with Ogden on this one) However, Human sex is never just sex (like in nature). There is always additional elements that are thrown in. Sex becomes more than what nature intended it to be (merely reproduction). Once sex is used for means other than reproduction, it is no longer 'natural', in the sense that this is what nature has intended for sex. So once we go above and beyond the 'natural' status of sex, we can begin evaluating what is and is not immoral about it. And I suppose I do have to agree with Fido that, to an extent, cultures determine what is moral and immoral about sex. However, I do think there are certain things that are inherently immoral (for example, in Africa a man can sew his wife's genitalia shut to ensure that no other man sleeps with her).

On the other hand, I do not know if there is anything that is anything inherently moral about sex.

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

Once sex is used for means other than reproduction, it is no longer 'natural', in the sense that this is what nature has intended for sex. So once we go above and beyond the 'natural' status of sex, we can begin evaluating what is and is not immoral about it.

"beyond natural" thats a tuff one. Could there be natural purposes for sex beyond reproduction? I have found evidance that suggests that multiple male partners actually increases the survival of the offspring. It works like this: the multiple male partners are all unsure of thier paternity so they all feel obligated to care for the offspring. Maybe sexuality is usefull at cementing familial bonds (as noted by teena). That would also be a reason beyond reproducton that is useull but not necessarily imoral. Indeed the family bond is usefull to the individuals and the group as a whole.

I have observed in myself (and others) a desire to "be with" other females, even though I am married. I never gave in to this compulsion, and I felt guilty for it. But I suggest that this urge is natural, posibly to pramote genetic diversity, I deemed it imoral but not unatural. Very Happy

If we had a psychologist in this thread, I bet they could point out physiological benifits to sex. Is the pleasure of it usefull in nature? Is deriving pleasure imoral? You don't need a cup of tea, you just want it for the pleasure, and there is no harm in it. Is tea imoral?. Witch brings the discussion back around to point: "what's the deal with sex?"

@tMeeker,

Regarding the "beyond natural" bit (which I also find curious) It's pretty hard to judge what's natural & what isnt. I know I sort of held an assumption that only humans are capable of "unnatural" behavior, & thus, if a similar behavior can be observed in animals, then it must be natural. Could animals be capable of "unnatural" behavior?
I'm not even sure what exactly I'm classifying as natural/unnatural here. I guess just use of a thing for something other than what nature intended it for, or its prime use?? Either way I think its quite possible/likely that there is more than one (natural) purpose for sex.
& how morality ties in with whats natural is also a question.
I think I'll just look more into what information is available regarding animal/human sexual behavior before saying anything else.

2 articles I just read & found interesting:
The Gay Side of Nature - TIME
Oxytocin, chemical addiction and the science of love

@tMeeker,

Quote:

"beyond natural" thats a tuff one. Could there be natural purposes for sex beyond reproduction?

You are right that is tough. Good catch.

Philosophy Forum

What's the deal with sex?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know