3 ms·

>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

by 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.

by Digory 9y ago

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.