"Sexually moral" hypocrites

[alex man142]

^^Exactly. The other night I was getting blitzed on my friend's yacht. I got into a discussion with another friend about the hypocrisy of his views (albeit not in a very combative way because that's dangerous on a boat.)

The reality is, that while he articulates what are understood to be conservative moral positions he also openly admits he doesn't conform to them. Whereas my standards are far lower but I think I'm closer to his position than he is.

What?

I got married before having sex. We were just enjoying eachother like we're supposed to My wife and I were not really planning on kids as she is still in college, we wanted to wait. I guess we failed in that regard Nonetheless, we're both pleased.

Congratulations! But considering the thread topic I have to ask:

1) What contraception did you use?

2) If so, did you have qualified training in how to use it?

Well, we got married in rural Kenya, so contraceptive access isn't that common. I asked my parents, but they have 10 kids, so they have none.

Lets say none

 

[xcorps]

You can get killed by a car for many reasons. Sometimes it's the fault of driver, sometimes fault of the pedestrian, sometimes nobody's fault. But that's no reason to stop using cars, better option is to promote more responsible behavior.

But if you think sexual abstinence is the only way, please. Do so. I think you'll do our race a favor. Just don't try to impose it on other, will you?

A) This is about morality. A car accident that isn't caused by intentional or gross negligence is not immoral.
B) You should quote where I said anything about abstinence
C) You shouldn't try to use weak strawmen to support your position.


Ireland:

Well, the first argument is obviously that both sides have consented

I really need to see an examples of where people knowingly consent to have unprotected intercourse with a person infected with HIV, Syphillis, or the clap.

How can regular driving, more dangerous than sex, be more morally permissible?

According to the CDC 19 million Americans are exposed to STD's every year. Take out 6 million occurances of HPV and a million of Chlamydia and you are left with about 400,000 new incidents of Hep B and Hep C, Syphilis, and Gonorrhea. About 40,000 deaths from car accidents every year.

And this conversation isn't about dangerous activity, it's about the morality of promiscuity. The only way to equate the two is to look at IRRESPONIBLE operation of a motor vehicle. Are you going to try to tell me that driving at 100mph on a highway isn't immoral? Or that driving under the influence isn't immoral? Or that driving a vehicle that you know is unsafe isn't immoral?

And the only relation car driving have with responsible sex

Responsible sex isn't immoral.

/

And Xcorps appears to be risk averse to the point of insanity.

Only when that risk affects other people.

 

[Sar1n]

A) This is about morality. A car accident that isn't caused by intentional or gross negligence is not immoral.
B) You should quote where I said anything about abstinence
C) You shouldn't try to use weak strawmen to support your position.
Responsible sex isn't immoral.

Here

Not it isn't perfectly possibly to prevent pregnancy if you have coitus. Nothing, including condoms, spermicide and female birth control ...used together... is foolproof. The best you can hope for is a +/- 1% chance of failure.


That's the kind of blase' attitude that I find immoral.

and here

but just how mature is it to risk pregnancy and disease transmission for a few minutes of coitus?

If these lines weren't meant to promote abstinence, they sure as hell sounded that way.

The whole argument here stems from your gross exaggerations of dangers of sex. Promiscuity itself is much less dangerous than irresponsible driving. If you take proper precautions, of course.

 

[Denny Crane!]

A) This is about morality. A car accident that isn't caused by intentional or gross negligence is not immoral.
B) You should quote where I said anything about abstinence
C) You shouldn't try to use weak strawmen to support your position.


Ireland:

I really need to see an examples of where people knowingly consent to have unprotected intercourse with a person infected with HIV, Syphillis, or the clap.



According to the CDC 19 million Americans are exposed to STD's every year. Take out 6 million occurances of HPV and a million of Chlamydia and you are left with about 400,000 new incidents of Hep B and Hep C, Syphilis, and Gonorrhea. About 40,000 deaths from car accidents every year.

And this conversation isn't about dangerous activity, it's about the morality of promiscuity. The only way to equate the two is to look at IRRESPONIBLE operation of a motor vehicle. Are you going to try to tell me that driving at 100mph on a highway isn't immoral? Or that driving under the influence isn't immoral? Or that driving a vehicle that you know is unsafe isn't immoral?



Responsible sex isn't immoral.



Only when that risk affects other people.

Ice Hockey effects you and other people with risk, its mutual consent.

You do get we're discussing sex not rape, right?

 

[Lazarus]

Responsible sex isn't immoral.

Depends entirely what your definition of responsible is. I find responsible to mean "using a condom" (seeings as I'm the male end, I can be sure it's done right). If I meet someone beautiful and they rather fancy it I'll give them a boink, but I'll do so perfectly responsibly by taking precautions to keep both them and myself safe.

You can enjoy a healthy, wealthy sex life and still be responsible.

As for the OP, it's all been said really. People who have a great deal to say about what is and is not moral will always be hypocrites because they have far more opportunities to be a hypocrite. This goes doubly so for religious people because they hold themselves to a totally unrealistic standard.

 

[xcorps]

The whole argument here stems from your gross exaggerations of dangers of sex.

Guess you missed that part about sex being the primary contributor of unwanted pregnancy and STD's, and all that emo trope that goes along with "he promised to call".

Promiscuity itself is much less dangerous than irresponsible driving. If you take proper precautions, of course.

You cannot take proper precautions if you are promiscous. It's like being careful while you're driving drunk.

Ice Hockey effects you and other people with risk, its mutual consent

Wut?

 

[Adar]

Well, we got married in rural Kenya, so contraceptive access isn't that common. I asked my parents, but they have 10 kids, so they have none.

Lets say none

Well then everything is working as intended I guess . The fact that I haven't failed with contraceptives so far almost gets me worried about fertility now when I actually start planning for kids. But on the other hand I know that I am a careful person.

Responsible sex isn't immoral.

The problem is the definition of morality and right now I am unsure on how you judge it. For me it's essentially with a condom and healthy people.

 

[Center For Rationality]

I am confused. Is the OP claiming that "moral" people are wrong because they violate their own moral values in order to achieve high goals, if so their one of three ways to respond to this: claim morals are subjective, which a religious person won't do, claim consequentialism which states that basically ends justify the means, or point out its clear argumentum ad personam.

If he is just say religious and moral people violate their moral values when they should be following them:
He's right.

 

[xcorps]

The problem is the definition of morality and right now I am unsure on how you judge it. For me it's essentially with a condom and healthy people.

If you have sex with a woman you don't know, and the next night you have sex with a different woman..that's immoral. You have exposed the second woman to the possibility of contracting an STD.

If you have an STD but don't tell your potential partner, that's immoral.

If you tell a girl that you are sterile and therefore don't need a condom because she can't get pregnant, that's immoral.

If you promise your girlfriend that you won't have sex with anyone but her and then do...that's immoral.

If you meet some chick in a bar 2 weeks after you had an STD test, use a condom and spermicide...that's not immoral.

 

[Denny Crane!]

promiscuity just means many partners you don't have to be drunk and can constantly be safe by using condoms.

There is nothing irresponsible or unsafe in that, no more so than any other activity and since it is an activity that not to be considered rape involves mutual consent then you can't really bring other people into it and say it doesn't count if someone else is involved. The same could be true of anything that carries any kind of risk however small or large like driving a car, playing ice hockey or horse riding.

 

[MaximiIian]

I don't understand the whole thing about "sexual morality". Sex between consenting persons isn't a moral issue. And if it is, it's an unequivocal moral good. When exercised responsibly and with the consent of all involved, it brings happiness to oneself and others. And in my humble religious view, it can be a powerful conduit for communion with the gods and projecting one's true Will.

 

[sumskilz]

I always found it rather interesting why morality (Both secular and religious) has always found its basis and power in Sex, and what you can and can't do, and the social stigma said perceived morality can create. The actual real moral answer to morality and sex is... morality has nothing to do with the private sex lives of individuals. Anywhere. It should not have a say in it. We should not have a say in it. If a woman wants to have sex with 12 guys in a few months. Thats their business. Why should they be labeled a slut? Many guys do exactly the same, but do not suffer the same social stigma. If someone wants to do anal, or an orgy. Who is society to comment? Why do we have a right?

Morality holds power over sex, and all that hypocritical stuff, simply because early religion (Most of them anyway, i'm talking about Assyria, Babylon, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism etc), found the best way to control the masses was through making rules about the one things all humans naturally partake in. Sex. Hence by limiting sexual variety and devience, they can control their flock more efficiently, be able to be seen to have an impact on the day to day lives, punish those who deviate, and be seen to be doing it. For instance the Catholic Church, brought about the 'missionary' position, as the only correct way to have sex. ANY other was morally abhorrent to society, due to religious influence upon said society. Now to even things out (indeed please do not be offended if your of a religious persuasion, i do not intend to 'bash your beliefs my friends, i'm merely pointing out historical cases, no more), secular society makes the same use of morality and sex to control its populations. For instance, a glaring example... the VICTORIANS! Yes, it was inevitable, for the most part, sex was a very taboo subject, women were not expected to walk around unchaperoned, especially late at night... or among men, as this could be considered a deviance from 'polite' society and morality, reputation was very important for a women, especially sexually, to be able to do the things they were expected, such as make a good match for marriage, be held up as a model example for their class etc.

So i guess what i'm rambling at is how almost insidious the morality of sex is to society. The two should never meet indeed. Social opinion and the moral opinion of others is something that to truly be 'Moral' we should remove from the sphere of morality. For the whole thing indeed is a farce, and no more than a power play. As our opinion of others is based upon that. Does that make sense to anyone? If not please do say! I can try and summarize!

The reason these morals arose in pre-modern societies is because they decrease child mortality rates and reduce violence. There is a high correlation between paternal investment and paternal confidence. Low paternal investment in pre-modern times increased child mortality. Without social controls on mate selection, there is considerably more violence between men, violence by adult males against children, and violence against women. In modern times, we have tried to control these issues in other ways that allow for more sexual freedom, but the problems still exist to some degree because they are a product of our evolutionary background.

Practice extreme promiscuity when you are young to get it out of your system, if you are a male, then preach as much as you can once you get married

Obviously this makes sense from an evolutionary psychology perspective as well.

I don't understand the whole thing about "sexual morality". Sex between consenting persons isn't a moral issue. And if it is, it's an unequivocal moral good. When exercised responsibly and with the consent of all involved, it brings happiness to oneself and others. And in my humble religious view, it can be a powerful conduit for communion with the gods and projecting one's true Will.

You’re actually saying it is a moral issue (bolded).

 

[MaximiIian]

You’re actually saying it is a moral issue (bolded).

I don't see that as a moral issue. Exercising something responsibly is just common sense, not ethics and morality. Is not-sticking-your-pecker-in-a-toaster also a moral issue?

 

[sumskilz]

I don't see that as a moral issue. Exercising something responsibly is just common sense, not ethics and morality.

Isn't the point of having sex responsibly in order to avoid hurting someone? For example, is it responsible to have sex with someone without informing them you have an STD? Is it responsible to have sex with a woman who is married with young children? It doesn't really matter what your answers are, these are ethical questions either way.

Is not-sticking-your-pecker-in-a-toaster also a moral issue?

It would be to some people, but I'd say no because you'd only be hurting yourself.

 

[removeduser_4536284751384]

If you have sex with a woman you don't know, and the next night you have sex with a different woman..that's immoral. You have exposed the second woman to the possibility of contracting an STD.

If you have an STD but don't tell your potential partner, that's immoral.

If you tell a girl that you are sterile and therefore don't need a condom because she can't get pregnant, that's immoral.

If you promise your girlfriend that you won't have sex with anyone but her and then do...that's immoral.

If you meet some chick in a bar 2 weeks after you had an STD test, use a condom and spermicide...that's not immoral.

Ok, I guess I mostly agree with you then! You weren't being clear enough earlier. I don't think what you've said here equates to anything like "there is no such thing as safe sex" though.

 

[Admiral Piett]

Sexual Morality is about understanding that there is no such thing as safe sex. Sex has consequences, many of them are life changing or even life ending. Ignoring those consequences and how they affect other peoples lives is what's immoral.

You talk about virgins being somehow immature, but just how mature is it to risk pregnancy and disease transmission for a few minutes of coitus?

Sexual morality does not prevent disease. Even two virgins can give each other an infection acquired through other means like third base. Being sensible and rational about it is the best way to maximize one's safety.

Sex is an aspect of adult maturity and always has been. Even in the most pious of places. (Rape excluded for obvious reasons) How can you really know someone you're going to marry unless you've shared the deepest intimacies with them? Sexual compatibility is very important in long term relationships and that incompatibility is usually why men who married young women often became more and more promiscuous throughout their marriage. So that is part of the reason why virginity is identifiable with 'innocence' and 'immaturity'.

Honestly, its better to experiment prior to that and gaining a deeper knowledge not only of them but of yourself.

 

[AqD]

You talk about virgins being somehow immature, but just how mature is it to risk pregnancy and disease transmission for a few minutes of coitus?

Shaking hands may cause disease transmission too. Also pregnancy can be aborted, so what's the big deal?

 

[alex man142]

Shaking hands may cause disease transmission too. Also pregnancy can be aborted, so what's the big deal?

I could go all day on that, but I choose not to, as that is not the topic. Lets just say my wife survived two of those.

Sexual morality does not prevent disease. Even two virgins can give each other an infection acquired through other means like third base. Being sensible and rational about it is the best way to maximize one's safety.

Sex is an aspect of adult maturity and always has been. Even in the most pious of places. (Rape excluded for obvious reasons) How can you really know someone you're going to marry unless you've shared the deepest intimacies with them? Sexual compatibility is very important in long term relationships and that incompatibility is usually why men who married young women often became more and more promiscuous throughout their marriage. So that is part of the reason why virginity is identifiable with 'innocence' and 'immaturity'.

Honestly, its better to experiment prior to that and gaining a deeper knowledge not only of them but of yourself.

I married my wife before having sex with her. Sex isn't everything in a relationship; I married her because we were best friends and I enjoyed being with her. My times with her were and are the best of my life so far. Sure, sex is good, and we have alot of it (not much now cause she's heavily pregnant) but our relationship is built around our love of each-other, our sex happens because of our love.

To be honest, I know people with STDS, it's not fun. I'm glad I remained abstinent until I got married Best choice of my life, besides marrying my wife, of course.

 

[Ummagumma]

Shaking hands may cause disease transmission too. Also pregnancy can be aborted, so what's the big deal?

Cultural (read: Religious) taboos regarding sex. Sex is Bad, Sex is not fun. Enjoyment of Sex is a sin. Sex is just for reproduction. Repress the evil that makes it seem enjoyable. Repress it! Repress it!!
Yeah, things have relaxed a lot, particularly after the decadence and freedom of the 1920's and 1960's. But most of it stems from (unnatural?) religious morality. AIDS has given the anti-sex argument some new ammo since the 80's, and now kids being too drunk to use protection is spreading chlamydia like wildfire. Still, it could be worse.

 

[Himster]

For an Orwellian state to exist the sex impulse has to be repressed. In 1984 it seemed very important that the state worked very hard on developing a "cure" for the orgasm and eliminate any pleasure except the pleasure of loving big-brother, closely resembling most religious organizations: past, present and probably future.

 

[Ó Cathasaigh]

I am not tracking on the claim that virginity equates to immaturity....explain further.

 

[Himster]

Inexperience equates to immaturity.

 

[removeduser_4536284751384]

our relationship is built around our love of each-other, our sex happens because of our love.

I think you're being incredibely presumptious. That happens outside of marriage too. You decision is great if it makes you happy but it won't necessarily be the same for others.

 

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Inexperience equates to immaturity.

That's the part that makes no sense to me.

 

[Ummagumma]

That's the part that makes no sense to me.

I think it is that sex is a deep psychological motivator, and something that - just as with any other kind of social interactions - requires experience to understand. Some folks are, for lack of a better word, kinkier, than others. If there is a marriage between two people that have never explored their sexuality, then they cannot know, or even discuss, the ins and outs of it (+1 bad pun point). They may end up being almost totally incompatible, which will only lead to one or both of them seeking that thing they are missing from outside of the relationship. If one becomes a sex addict while the other is a prude, it leads to infidelity, or even abuse. Of course, this probably happens anyway. And some couples will never have a problem. So the whole point is moot, by degrees. However, forewarned is forearmed - it is generally better to have experience of something before embarking on a long term commitment.

 

[Lazarus]

There's a certain enlightenment I (personally) feel can only be achieved post-sex. It kind of puts the whole world in to perspective in a funny way. Spawns some of my best thoughts.

Then again I'm prone to being quite melancholy post coitus, so maybe it's not the act itself but the transition from sombre to euphoria to melancholy in such a short space of time.

 

[Ó Cathasaigh]

For God's sake, don't call it coitus.

 

[MaximiIian]

That's the part that makes no sense to me.

How does it not make sense? Sex is something that is deeply part of the human experience. It is, to be blunt, the source of society. It is intensely tied to the maturity and growth of us as human beings. Having no experience with sex very much makes a person naive and thus immature on the subject.

 

[Admiral Piett]

I married my wife before having sex with her. Sex isn't everything in a relationship; I married her because we were best friends and I enjoyed being with her. My times with her were and are the best of my life so far. Sure, sex is good, and we have alot of it (not much now cause she's heavily pregnant) but our relationship is built around our love of each-other, our sex happens because of our love.

To be honest, I know people with STDS, it's not fun. I'm glad I remained abstinent until I got married Best choice of my life, besides marrying my wife, of course.

Everyone has different sex drives. Others are perhaps more driven than you are. Sex is typically a more potent carnal drive so its more common for sex to come first and then love afterwards. Personally, I could never love someone in a romantic way if we do not know each other in the most intimate of ways. That's just me though and that is why sexual morality shouldn't trump pragmatism when it comes down to it. Practically the only thing that is 100% effective in not acquiring STDs is not engaging in any human contact with someone in any sexual way. And that isn't healthy emotionally or for growth - not unless you have a release for those energies elsewhere.

 

[alex man142]

How does it not make sense? Sex is something that is deeply part of the human experience. It is, to be blunt, the source of society. It is intensely tied to the maturity and growth of us as human beings. Having no experience with sex very much makes a person naive and thus immature on the subject.

I don't think that naive and immature are good words to describe it. Sexually inexperienced? Maybe, but some of the people I respect the most are either celibate or waited until they got married to have sex.

Everyone has different sex drives. Others are perhaps more driven than you are. Sex is typically a more potent carnal drive so its more common for sex to come first and then love afterwards. Personally, I could never love someone in a romantic way if we do not know each other in the most intimate of ways. That's just me though and that is why sexual morality shouldn't trump pragmatism when it comes down to it. Practically the only thing that is 100% effective in not acquiring STDs is not engaging in any human contact with someone in any sexual way. And that isn't healthy emotionally or for growth - not unless you have a release for those energies elsewhere.

I have a serious sex drive, just ask my wife

I guess I'm weird, I'm just monogamous; I can't shop around, and I can't simply have sex with a woman just to have sex. I have a high sex drive, but I just can't bring myself to do it. Sure, my hormones want me to, but I just can't.

My wife is STD free, so I can have sex as much as I want with her and remain STD free myself. STDs come from promiscuous sex.