4 ms·

Of course you must care for the other person's wellbeing. Which includes consent freely given. BDSM emphasises that. Go and read stuff. > After all, a victimiz

Of course you must care for the other person's wellbeing. Which includes consent freely given. BDSM emphasises that. Go and read stuff. > After all, a victimized person... In such a case consent has not been freely given. Therefore this would be classed as assault. Edit: there's nothing specific to gays or BDSM in this either, exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex. > Sexual ethics is really, really complicated I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be. Difficult corner cases of ethics always exist eg. treating a person against their will because that person hasn't the ability to consent so someone else must, and the treatment is given without consent (I was in hospital in the next bed to a guy, a child in a man's body, where this happened. Not a nice experience). In most cases things are straightforward. Most adults are adults. > Consent" alone just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is essential. Freely given consent does cut it. The stuff about true love, I reject. That's a christianised view of sex. People can and do have sex while liking but not loving each other, and you have no right to judge them for it. ...care for others... Obviously

zozbot234 6y ago
> exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex. Of course, and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation. The term is fornication, which directly derives from the Greek and Roman terms for their widespread practice of prostitution. But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive. And Christian ethics says that we must always care for our neighbor with the same love we have for ourselves. Surely this must be all the more true in inherently complex and problematic matters like sex. This is the care for others that is asked of us. > I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be. Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a complicated matter. Not because of weird "corner cases", but because of the extreme level of maturity - and indeed of human self-dignity, self-actualization, autonomy etc. - that's required of us to avoid even unwittingly victimizing others. The case where two people are genuinely and happily in love with each other is not a "christianised view" that we're insisting on for the sake of being judgmental; it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation You recognise no other ethics? You abrogate all ethical judgements to your narrow viewpoint, apparently leaving none for others - of all other religions and in my case, atheism. So I am amoral? immoral? You haven't learnt from the horrors that christianity inflicted upon so many. In not learning, you are willing to perpetuate them. > But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive 'overly'? define 'overly' here. It's just a causally slapped-on label. You disapprove of casual sex, well that's your view, not mine. Any sex is fine if it's consented to, including degrading sex, which is loathsome to me but some like that - I will not tell others how to live their lives. But some christians will, it seems. > Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a complicated matter Heck, this sentence is a mess: "...that can be involved in sexual victimization" as opposed to other victimisation? "it seems safe to say" Does it? You need to justify this - again without presumptive weasel wording. "...it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode." More weaseling, implying that my position is 'easy mode' therefore childish and wrong. If we assume adults can give consent freely by dint of being adults and not in exploitative circumstances, that's enough for me and covers the vast majority of encounters. You're just wrapping up an uncharitable (but christian!) view of what's right and wrong saying others should obey it. This caused eg. gays to have a miserable time for centuries. Shall I mention the treatment of jews, the crusades, the inquision. I reject anything that leads to a rerun of those, I reject your value system (at least on this aspect). I reject your judgement of others. I reject your intolerance. Some words from the bible I do like: Judge not lest you be judged.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    > You recognise no other ethics? You abrogate all ethical judgements to your narrow viewpoint, apparently leaving none for others - of all other religions The rule of reciprocity is part of many ethical traditions, as is general respect for temperance and self-control in sexual matters. So I'm not sure how christianity is alone or even 'narrow' in this respect. Of course we should not be judgmental of people for what they do in private, since they're not involving anyone else and can be assumed to act with at least basic responsibility. But those who actively promote lifestyles and ideologies in the public sphere can be fairly criticized. Like it or not, promoting a lifestyle or ideology such as LGBTQ+ means making very specific claims as to how "others should live their lives" and we all should be free to choose whether or not to further promote these claims and values.

zozbot234 6y ago

> exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex. Of course, and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation. The term is fornication, which directly derives from the Greek and Roman terms for their widespread practice of prostitution. But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive. And Christian ethics says that we must always care for our neighbor with the same love we have for ourselves. Surely this must be all the more true in inherently complex and problematic matters like sex. This is the care for others that is asked of us. > I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be. Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a complicated matter. Not because of weird "corner cases", but because of the extreme level of maturity - and indeed of human self-dignity, self-actualization, autonomy etc. - that's required of us to avoid even unwittingly victimizing others. The case where two people are genuinely and happily in love with each other is not a "christianised view" that we're insisting on for the sake of being judgmental; it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation You recognise no other ethics? You abrogate all ethical judgements to your narrow viewpoint, apparently leaving none for others - of all other religions and in my case, atheism. So I am amoral? immoral? You haven't learnt from the horrors that christianity inflicted upon so many. In not learning, you are willing to perpetuate them. > But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive 'overly'? define 'overly' here. It's just a causally slapped-on label. You disapprove of casual sex, well that's your view, not mine. Any sex is fine if it's consented to, including degrading sex, which is loathsome to me but some like that - I will not tell others how to live their lives. But some christians will, it seems. > Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a complicated matter Heck, this sentence is a mess: "...that can be involved in sexual victimization" as opposed to other victimisation? "it seems safe to say" Does it? You need to justify this - again without presumptive weasel wording. "...it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode." More weaseling, implying that my position is 'easy mode' therefore childish and wrong. If we assume adults can give consent freely by dint of being adults and not in exploitative circumstances, that's enough for me and covers the vast majority of encounters. You're just wrapping up an uncharitable (but christian!) view of what's right and wrong saying others should obey it. This caused eg. gays to have a miserable time for centuries. Shall I mention the treatment of jews, the crusades, the inquision. I reject anything that leads to a rerun of those, I reject your value system (at least on this aspect). I reject your judgement of others. I reject your intolerance. Some words from the bible I do like: Judge not lest you be judged.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > You recognise no other ethics? You abrogate all ethical judgements to your narrow viewpoint, apparently leaving none for others - of all other religions The rule of reciprocity is part of many ethical traditions, as is general respect for temperance and self-control in sexual matters. So I'm not sure how christianity is alone or even 'narrow' in this respect. Of course we should not be judgmental of people for what they do in private, since they're not involving anyone else and can be assumed to act with at least basic responsibility. But those who actively promote lifestyles and ideologies in the public sphere can be fairly criticized. Like it or not, promoting a lifestyle or ideology such as LGBTQ+ means making very specific claims as to how "others should live their lives" and we all should be free to choose whether or not to further promote these claims and values.