5 ms·

The puritanical attitude is wrong. Sex is an amazing and great part of life, just like roller coasters or having 3 beers. Life is meant to be enjoyed. But over-

The puritanical attitude is wrong. Sex is an amazing and great part of life, just like roller coasters or having 3 beers. Life is meant to be enjoyed. But over-doing it, or using something in a way it wasn't meant to be used, can ruin that joy. Nothing is wrong with sex within a healthy relationship. But nobody who goes to a hooker really believes afterwards that they found true happiness there. We also avoid movies like Saw not only for our older children but even ourselves. Why fill out bellies with filthy water when there's plenty of fresh water all around us, free for the taking? Only people who convince themselves that there's no fresh water, or that it's not good enough for their belly, will look for filthy polluted water and convince themselves it's their only hope.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
> The puritanical attitude is wrong. Sex is an amazing and great part of life, just like roller coasters or having 3 beers. Life is meant to be enjoyed. But over-doing it, or using something in a way it wasn't meant to be used, can ruin that joy. Nothing is wrong with sex within a healthy relationship. But nobody who goes to a hooker really believes afterwards that they found true happiness there. But that's what I'm taking about. There's no (supernatural, physical, legal) law that states for everything fun and good, I have to suffer equal amounts. That's just moralization in the puritanical strain, which I reject. And I would also like to call out the sentence: " Nothing is wrong with sex within a healthy relationship." Nothing is wrong with consensual sex, period. I needen't be in a marriage or relationship with them. I don't care if it's vanilla, scat, bdsm, cuckolding, or whatever. We have more than enough science and technology that people can have sex with little fear. It's only when governments want to inflict their "morals" on people do people really start to hurt. They do this by keeping drugs, devices, and techniques away. Thankfully, The Satanic Temple has been challenging these "moral precepts" as the religious laws enshrined into to state laws. (Seriously, who'd have thought that TST would fight for peoples' rights?!) And I also have no issue with prostitutes. I've never procured the services of any, but I see no shame in doing so either. It's no more a temporary feel-good similar to that of a roller coaster or a concert. It's just "bad" because of the puritanical beliefs that all sex is bad, outside a marriage (later turned to relationship). And regarding SAW, the show was meh. It's a slasher for slasher's sake.
- Digory 9y ago
  >Nothing is wrong with consensual sex, period. Is that entirely true? If I say "nothing is wrong with eating Big Macs, period" that's right in one sense. But you and I can see with our own eyes what an unrestrained diet of Big Macs might do, and it's bad, if not legally wrong. You might say the problem with unrestrained eating is the desire or relationship with food, not the object (the Big Mac), but in that case traditional morality is also saying something about the focus of 'healthy' desire, not the sex act. Even if you strip away the "wrong," the way people incorporate sex into their relationships and ethics will make lives better or worse.
  - crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    >>Nothing is wrong with consensual sex, period. >Is that entirely true? If I say "nothing is wrong with eating Big Macs, period" that's right in one sense. But you and I can see with our own eyes what an unrestrained diet of Big Macs might do, and it's bad, if not legally wrong. That's a completely invalid comparison. One is an act of eating, and other is an act of sex. Unless you'd like to argue that sex=eating... I'll give the benefit of the doubt, and make the assumption you aren't. I make the point of stating "consensual sex". The only things traded between them are potentially bodily fluids. If a condom/spermicide fails, then a possible pregnancy occurs. And STI's can be transmitted. These are the negatives of consensual sex, but are easily mitigated in states or countries that don't force moralization laws like the Missouri Rape wand, or 3 day waits on access, or keep emergency contraceptive away. A condom breakage can be triaged with RU486 and other emergency contraception drugs. A further in pregnancy can be solved with abortion. If birth is desired, many jurisdictions have abandonment laws that legally allow instant adoption away. STI's can be treated in many cases. In some of the viral cases, the virus can be inhibited to prevent transmission unless a flare-up occurs. Even in HIV, anti-retrovirals make people who catch it early enough have a 0 viral load. A 0 load means you effectively cannot infect others. > You might say the problem with unrestrained eating is the desire or relationship with food, not the object (the Big Mac), but in that case traditional morality is also saying something about the focus of 'healthy' desire, not the sex act. And there, it comes out. "traditional morality". In my experience, this is just coded words for "Christian Morality" which comes alongside the precept 'I will legally enshrine the morals I follow and force you to follow them as well'. Simply put: I have no issue for you to choose to refrain from sex until marriage, and not eat Big Macs. I don't even care if you choose to masturbate while eating Whoppers. But do not confuse your ethics for mine. Nor should you try to enshrine your ethics as a form of law. > Even if you strip away the "wrong," the way people incorporate sex into their relationships and ethics will make lives better or worse. Better or worse, according to your ethics. Unless you're a party in that sexual encounter, you should stay out "ethically" as well in forced moralizations.
chimeracoder 9y ago
> But nobody who goes to a hooker really believes afterwards that they found true happiness there. There are a lot of assumptions rolled up in that sentence. Rather than try and unpack them all here myself, I'd encourage you to talk to actual sex workers. Not people who engage the services of sex workers, but the people actually doing the sex work themselves. Ask them about the work they do, why they do it, what their customers are looking for, and what role they think they're playing in their customers' lives. I think you'd be surprised by some of what you hear.
- sexoffender 9y ago
  A few months ago one posted here on HN, explaining how most of her clients were men who threw away their actual families to chase after fast-paced careers (like start-ups), and often wanted to just talk and have her role-play being a wife (including sex). I have no idea how many people here on HN fall into that category, but her clients didn't sound like they were finding that fulfillment in her services that they seem to ultimately be seeking after in life.
  - chimeracoder 9y ago
    > A few months ago one posted here on HN, explaining how... Yeah, to clarify, when I say "talk to actual sex workers", I'm not referring to reading comments posted on Hacker News.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

> The puritanical attitude is wrong. Sex is an amazing and great part of life, just like roller coasters or having 3 beers. Life is meant to be enjoyed. But over-doing it, or using something in a way it wasn't meant to be used, can ruin that joy. Nothing is wrong with sex within a healthy relationship. But nobody who goes to a hooker really believes afterwards that they found true happiness there. But that's what I'm taking about. There's no (supernatural, physical, legal) law that states for everything fun and good, I have to suffer equal amounts. That's just moralization in the puritanical strain, which I reject. And I would also like to call out the sentence: " Nothing is wrong with sex within a healthy relationship." Nothing is wrong with consensual sex, period. I needen't be in a marriage or relationship with them. I don't care if it's vanilla, scat, bdsm, cuckolding, or whatever. We have more than enough science and technology that people can have sex with little fear. It's only when governments want to inflict their "morals" on people do people really start to hurt. They do this by keeping drugs, devices, and techniques away. Thankfully, The Satanic Temple has been challenging these "moral precepts" as the religious laws enshrined into to state laws. (Seriously, who'd have thought that TST would fight for peoples' rights?!) And I also have no issue with prostitutes. I've never procured the services of any, but I see no shame in doing so either. It's no more a temporary feel-good similar to that of a roller coaster or a concert. It's just "bad" because of the puritanical beliefs that all sex is bad, outside a marriage (later turned to relationship). And regarding SAW, the show was meh. It's a slasher for slasher's sake.

Digory 9y ago
>Nothing is wrong with consensual sex, period. Is that entirely true? If I say "nothing is wrong with eating Big Macs, period" that's right in one sense. But you and I can see with our own eyes what an unrestrained diet of Big Macs might do, and it's bad, if not legally wrong. You might say the problem with unrestrained eating is the desire or relationship with food, not the object (the Big Mac), but in that case traditional morality is also saying something about the focus of 'healthy' desire, not the sex act. Even if you strip away the "wrong," the way people incorporate sex into their relationships and ethics will make lives better or worse.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  >>Nothing is wrong with consensual sex, period. >Is that entirely true? If I say "nothing is wrong with eating Big Macs, period" that's right in one sense. But you and I can see with our own eyes what an unrestrained diet of Big Macs might do, and it's bad, if not legally wrong. That's a completely invalid comparison. One is an act of eating, and other is an act of sex. Unless you'd like to argue that sex=eating... I'll give the benefit of the doubt, and make the assumption you aren't. I make the point of stating "consensual sex". The only things traded between them are potentially bodily fluids. If a condom/spermicide fails, then a possible pregnancy occurs. And STI's can be transmitted. These are the negatives of consensual sex, but are easily mitigated in states or countries that don't force moralization laws like the Missouri Rape wand, or 3 day waits on access, or keep emergency contraceptive away. A condom breakage can be triaged with RU486 and other emergency contraception drugs. A further in pregnancy can be solved with abortion. If birth is desired, many jurisdictions have abandonment laws that legally allow instant adoption away. STI's can be treated in many cases. In some of the viral cases, the virus can be inhibited to prevent transmission unless a flare-up occurs. Even in HIV, anti-retrovirals make people who catch it early enough have a 0 viral load. A 0 load means you effectively cannot infect others. > You might say the problem with unrestrained eating is the desire or relationship with food, not the object (the Big Mac), but in that case traditional morality is also saying something about the focus of 'healthy' desire, not the sex act. And there, it comes out. "traditional morality". In my experience, this is just coded words for "Christian Morality" which comes alongside the precept 'I will legally enshrine the morals I follow and force you to follow them as well'. Simply put: I have no issue for you to choose to refrain from sex until marriage, and not eat Big Macs. I don't even care if you choose to masturbate while eating Whoppers. But do not confuse your ethics for mine. Nor should you try to enshrine your ethics as a form of law. > Even if you strip away the "wrong," the way people incorporate sex into their relationships and ethics will make lives better or worse. Better or worse, according to your ethics. Unless you're a party in that sexual encounter, you should stay out "ethically" as well in forced moralizations.

chimeracoder 9y ago

> But nobody who goes to a hooker really believes afterwards that they found true happiness there. There are a lot of assumptions rolled up in that sentence. Rather than try and unpack them all here myself, I'd encourage you to talk to actual sex workers. Not people who engage the services of sex workers, but the people actually doing the sex work themselves. Ask them about the work they do, why they do it, what their customers are looking for, and what role they think they're playing in their customers' lives. I think you'd be surprised by some of what you hear.

sexoffender 9y ago
A few months ago one posted here on HN, explaining how most of her clients were men who threw away their actual families to chase after fast-paced careers (like start-ups), and often wanted to just talk and have her role-play being a wife (including sex). I have no idea how many people here on HN fall into that category, but her clients didn't sound like they were finding that fulfillment in her services that they seem to ultimately be seeking after in life.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > A few months ago one posted here on HN, explaining how... Yeah, to clarify, when I say "talk to actual sex workers", I'm not referring to reading comments posted on Hacker News.