RE: morality and sexuality

RE: morality and sexuality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 11:06:32 AM)
I would differ with you, there are in fact immoral sex acts, and they involve consent issues. People who cannot consent because they are immature (and I am not talking "legally" to young but literally unable to consent), mentally disabled, or they voice that they do not want to engage in a behavior or are coerced into it. I am very much a cultural relativist for the most part. What is acceptable here is not acceptable elsewhere, and vice versa... but most cultures do have an age of accountablity , and most cultures do have strictures against forcing people to engage in sexual acts against their will. There are some that don't mind you, but they are the exception and not the rule. For that matter there are places where murder is not seen as murder, or the definition of what is murder is different than it is here. There are some things I am not relative about, even though I may try to put aside my cultural bias to study an aspect of a certain culture that is different than my own, my cultural bias still exists. I am more interested in why it is that way, then why it is "wrong" when looking at the differences between how people view the world.

fluffyswitch -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 1:26:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I would differ with you, there are in fact immoral sex acts, and they involve consent issues. People who cannot consent because they are immature (and I am not talking "legally" to young but literally unable to consent), mentally disabled, or they voice that they do not want to engage in a behavior or are coerced into it. the problem that the theorists in this school would have with this statement (and i'm not necessarily saying that i disagree with you) is that consent is in and of itself socially relative. what is consent to one group is not consent to another group. case in point (and again i personally am not passing judgement, as most of these theorists also are not making judgement calls they're simply pointing out that there is nothing inherent in any act that ascribes morality)--the argument over safe words and boundary pushing. there are couples who may say that they don't rely on safe words because the dominant 'knows' what the submissive needs and will stop in time, or will decide when it is appropriate to push boundaries for personal growth. or, for a more sexually related example, a master says 'we're having sex tonight.', but the sub/slave is not necessarily 'in the mood' but the master claims it is his/her right to have sexual access. those within the community may claim that it comes with however they structure the relationship but a complete outsider to the community may label that as immoral and claim that it is violation of consent because the sub/slave is not willing to engage in that act but someone else made that decision for them. what most of these theorists claim, or at least it is my understanding that it is, is that we all have a sense of morality and that we even as social researchers make value judgements on certain acts due to our conditioning. however, sex itself (the actual act) is centered in the body which removes it from the social sphere--it is how we manifest that sex that places it in the social sphere. so do i say coerced sex is immoral? yes, especially since i've been both coerced and assaulted. however at its most basic there is nothing inherently immoral with sex or a sex act, society has said that certain acts are immoral and i happen to agree.

sophia37 -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 1:28:41 PM)
Yup. Fear and upbringing. Toss Ignorance in there as well.

fluffyswitch -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 1:34:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: Fluffyswitch ..anyway i'm reading this article that is articulating the position (which i agree with) that no sexual act is in and of itself immoral--that certain sex acts are immoral because society says that they are which is why some acts are okay in some sub cultures but not in others. Since morality is a human construct, that behaviour which is considered to be immoral is immoral to those that consider it so. Why the variance, because human beings are complicated and make different value judgements about similar things. I do not believe that all sexual behaviour is free of immorality. Thus underhand promiscuity in a "trusting" relationship is immoral IMO or carrying a disease knowing it and still being sexually active. Dont forget also that a specific sexual activity that causes outrage today has been acceptable in the past.Even to name it is probably forbidden. I would say that Sadism is probably immoral especially when inflicting serious suffering on unwilling victims. Torturers come to mind. After all a real Sadist wont derive much pleasure from a compliant Masochist. No sexual act being immoral is a silly position which IMO could only be put in a secular society that believes itself quite mistakenly to be rational. Ancient religious philosophers were well aware of the damage that unbridled human emotion can do. We have ignored the wisdoms of the past and are now experiencing the consequences. For example what arrangement best suits the bringing up children ? or lets not pass judgment on anyone , excuses can always be found for the most horrendous behaviour, especially by mental health so called professionals. i think though that all of those things that you are stating (which i do agree with) ARE all social constructs and the acts are being ascribed morality through the constructs. it is the meaning that we attach to those acts that make them immoral or moral, not some inherent meaning that is built into the act itself. foucalt for example would state that immorality comes into play in order to create a form of social control-we attach such a negative and yet arbitrary meaning to an act that we don't engage in it for fear of social retribution. however, a different society could come up with a completely opposite and yet still arbitrary meaning that would encourage it. which is right? neither is right, it's what works for that society. however there is nothing natural in either position that makes have that particular meaning. the fact that you invoke religion in and of itself places it in the sphere of society--there is nothing natural about religion, it is a purely social institution and durkheim would say that the fact that religion does place an emphasis on sexuality would in fact point to it being a social construct in need of regulation. can you tell i just got out of seminar? lol.

LadyEllen -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 1:55:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch the fact that you invoke religion in and of itself places it in the sphere of society--there is nothing natural about religion, it is a purely social institution and durkheim would say that the fact that religion does place an emphasis on sexuality would in fact point to it being a social construct in need of regulation. Sorry - but there is everything natural about religion in human beings. It arises quite naturally from the combined psychologies of human beings living together, for the purpose of providing a framework for collective living in accordance with an understanding of the world derived from their observation of their world. The real source of all our issues on this subject, and indeed on a lot more issues, is a religion which is not the natural consequence of our particular combined psychologies, but a religion derived from an entirely different context to our own which became formulated as a means of social control. E

fluffyswitch -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 2:00:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch the fact that you invoke religion in and of itself places it in the sphere of society--there is nothing natural about religion, it is a purely social institution and durkheim would say that the fact that religion does place an emphasis on sexuality would in fact point to it being a social construct in need of regulation. Sorry - but there is everything natural about religion in human beings. It arises quite naturally from the combined psychologies of human beings living together, for the purpose of providing a framework for collective living in accordance with an understanding of the world derived from their observation of their world. E yes but isn't that the definition of society as a whole? i'm not suggesting that it's unnatural in the sense that it's not a synthetic creation, just that it's social and not biological (though there is some debate over whether or not the experience of god is based in biology). we don't need religion to survive, just to make life more comfortable. at least we don't need it in the sense that we will not die or suffer extreme physical trauma for not having it.

LadyEllen -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 2:14:59 PM)
Were we not social animals in the first place, were we not creatures who depend on the support of others of our kind for our survival and mutual protection, then we could argue that society and religion is an artifice. For instance, do we argue that lions' social interactions are synthetic creations? No, because we understand that lions are social animals who group together for mutual benefit - in the same way we do. Their social rules and their religion may not be as sophisticated as ours but this is only a function of the difference in our two species in terms of psychological development. In both cases, the society and religion are not artificial creations to make life easier but absolute necessities to provide for survival. Until at least, in the case of mankind that which is natural is usurped by that which is not - as in the case of revealed religion such as Christianity, which removed of its context in our case also removes the essential function of religion and adversely affects the essential function of society, removing us from the natural world. E

NorthernGent -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 2:32:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch my question is (simply because i'm bored and happen to have writers block) why do YOU think that some acts are perfectly acceptable to some but not to others? Between nations or between individuals?

fluffyswitch -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 2:34:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch my question is (simply because i'm bored and happen to have writers block) why do YOU think that some acts are perfectly acceptable to some but not to others? Between nations or between individuals? either/or, or both.

NorthernGent -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 3:02:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch my question is (simply because i'm bored and happen to have writers block) why do YOU think that some acts are perfectly acceptable to some but not to others? Between nations or between individuals? either/or, or both. Individuals - you'll get a different explanation depending on the background of the person undertaking the explanation; psychologists, historians, sociologists, biologists, philosophers etc will have their take on it. Personally, I think there's a series of interwoven factors that will determine the constitution of the individual and thus his/her sexual preferences and view of acceptability. In the event you can pin it down to one factor, I'll be highly surprised. Speaking for myself, I'd go with personal experiences, the culture in which I live, my standard of education etc. Combined, these factors have shaped what I deem to be acceptable; for example, while I believe most acts between two consenting adults are acceptable, and, quite frankly, absolutely none of my business, I believe some people really do need saving from themselves. I'd put this down to being bombarded with liberal ideals from the year dot, i.e. individualism and privacy complimented with a hint of interventionism in extreme cases. Nations - background is paramount again. As an Englishman, I'd estimate that being an island nation has had a profound affect on my character. It may seem unconnected, but it has shaped our political framework, prosperity, culture and ultimately who we are as people: insular, indifferent, secular, independent, private and largely wanting to keep out of other people's faces. It follows, thus, what goes on inside the four walls of a home is no one's business except the owners, providing it doesn't amount to abuse. I'm just scratching the surface here, and could write on this one for a fair old time. I'd caution that my view is that we're shaped, in a significant part, by factors such as climate, geography, natural resources etc. Others will disagree.

philosophy -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 4:24:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch while i agree with you personally, there are theorists that argue that that's not a good enough answer, because there are societies where those activities are fully acceptable. and if it were a matter of social stability then it shouldn't be acceptable in any developed society, since it would damage its structure. and further, to take age of consent just as an example--if an immigrant moves from a country where age of consent is much lower, do they automatically become immoral if they try to maintain the norms they are most familiar with? .......clearly there is more than one model of a working society. There is also more than one model of a developed society. Don't let the map blind you to the territory.

seeksfemslave -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 4:42:29 PM)
quote: Fluffyswitch Foucalt for example would state that immorality comes into play in order to create a form of social control-we attach such a negative and yet arbitrary meaning to an act that we don't engage in it for fear of social retribution. It is true that moral admonitions have been used to impose social control but I hope you will agree that such control is not always wrong. Thus... Moral sanction 1 Sexual activity should only be undertaken when the possibilty of conception is present is clearly so at variance with the facts of human nature as to be not only worthless but downright inhuman. Moral sanction 2 Given a family environment where children are involved who need say18 years of psychological/material stability then sexual restraint is required. Is that so wrong? If humans were Turtles who could drop 2000 fertilised eggs on a beach and let nature take its course then things may be different. We are not Turtles we are capable of making moral judgements and like most things human it is a question of separating the wheat from the chaff. Such discussion is the "stuff" of politics and will almost certainly never be resolved. I firmly believe that secular Liberal intellectuals are not as "smart" as they believe themselves to be. I am also pleased that oppressve puritanical religious control has been at least in the West reduced. quote: Fluffyswitch it is the meaning that we attach to those acts that make them immoral or moral, There is some truth in this point but there is also error. For example I dont "like" male homosexuality. That may well be my problem. I dont "like" rape. I am sure that is not my problem

kdsub -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 6:01:28 PM)
Hi there I think there are at least two factors… the first and most important has to do with basic built in human reactions. As an example… if you are not homosexual just the thought of the act makes you queasy. Deep down you know it is not right…at least for you. You may come to be tolerant of it but most just cannot understand it and may come to fear it. Another would be incest … you know it is not right regardless of the health hazards. These types of reactions are common to all races and civilizations. Then there is the second factor… learned behavior. All civilizations have learned that to survive and prosper they must cooperate. Some have used religion as the uniting and governing factor… others national or tribal cooperation’s. Over a period of time a set of rules to live by emerge. These rules are very different from group to group but they all guide and help the group to survive. As more examples…some cultures may condone sex at the age of 12… others would but you in jail for the same act. Same with sexual mutilation as performed in some countries. But all of these practices are for a reason… even if we don’t agree with it. I don’t think there will ever be some enlightened time when all people on earth agree on what is acceptable and what is not when it comes to human sexuality. Butch

juliaoceania -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/28/2008 7:35:17 PM)
quote: what most of these theorists claim, or at least it is my understanding that it is, is that we all have a sense of morality and that we even as social researchers make value judgements on certain acts due to our conditioning. however, sex itself (the actual act) is centered in the body which removes it from the social sphere--it is how we manifest that sex that places it in the social sphere. so do i say coerced sex is immoral? yes, especially since i've been both coerced and assaulted. however at its most basic there is nothing inherently immoral with sex or a sex act, society has said that certain acts are immoral and i happen to agree. Morality is a cultural construct. We are often products of our environment, and we have certain codes of behavior that work in context to the culture being studied. We have spoken and unspoken rules of behavior which smooth social relations... these social contracts help us survive as a species. Now the content of what we find immoral and moral may differ, but the fact of the matter is morality and immorality as a concept help society run. It gives people a compass under which to operate. Without such conditioning, we are like rudderless boats in how we treat each other... if we had no constructs such as these we would not know what to expect from each other. People can cope with all sorts of adverse situations if their expectations are met I agree, there is no universal morality.. except perhaps one taboo that seems ubiquitous for our kind..... mother/son incest taboo is common in higher primates and is a cultural constant believe it or not...

fluffyswitch -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/29/2008 10:54:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave It is true that moral admonitions have been used to impose social control but I hope you will agree that such control is not always wrong. oh no i have no issue with social control in and of itself--just the forms that some and i emphasize SOME forms that that social control takes. social control takes many forms and is pivotal for a well running society but just because it helps society runs doesn't mean that it's truly necessary or helpful in all forms for all members of society, but like it or not even as a social activist i have to admit that social control is a necessity.

fluffyswitch -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/29/2008 10:58:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch while i agree with you personally, there are theorists that argue that that's not a good enough answer, because there are societies where those activities are fully acceptable. and if it were a matter of social stability then it shouldn't be acceptable in any developed society, since it would damage its structure. and further, to take age of consent just as an example--if an immigrant moves from a country where age of consent is much lower, do they automatically become immoral if they try to maintain the norms they are most familiar with? .......clearly there is more than one model of a working society. There is also more than one model of a developed society. Don't let the map blind you to the territory. well like i said before i don't necessarily argee with it on either a personal or theoretical basis--but then there is no such thing as a perfect social theory or there would be no need to keep studying society in teh first place because everything would already be figured out for us. however the argument is just that if it is as universal as some (not necessarily anyone on this board) would claim it to be it would be present anywhere, and develop just refers to those societies with some form of developed social institutions (which is the vast majority if not all societies on the planet).

domiguy -> RE: morality and sexuality (1/29/2008 11:12:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fluffyswitch my question is (simply because i'm bored and happen to have writers block) why do YOU think that some acts are perfectly acceptable to some but not to others? I'll chime in...It depends entirely on the individual...Maybe...lol. The more I am "out here" the more I realize that "we" are not like other groups...At least what I see represented out her on the forum. Since I participate on no other forum I cannot begin compare this forum to any other. This is what my imperical research has uncovered. For instance, many folks who view themselves as masochists seem to have experienced some sort of trauma in their pasts and seem to still harbor some fairly heavy unresolved issues...Cutters etc. There seems to be a heavier than normal tie to abuse when you look at these forums as a whole. From rape, physical and sexual abuse to incest and on down the line. So, although the act itself may not necessarily be construed to be unhealthy...The place which inspires the act or the want to have it to be committed may very well be. So an act I might be happily willing to do with one particular person I would not deem to be acceptable with another because of where and who they are today or what might have transpired in their past. It seems apparent that for many who do what we do...It comes from a very dark place. Unhealthy.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109375