Morality and Dating

Social Forums Non-Philosophical Chat
21

Matthew

What prude world do you live in man? A girl having sex at 16 is not a young age. The average person losers their virginity at 16. That is the complete normal age to have sex. Did you know Pocahantas was like 12 years old when she was getting railed by John Smith? No one thought that was immoral at the time. You are absolutely crazy. She would not have been warped by you having sex with her.

I think casual sex should be like rock climbing…a casual but potentially dangerous activity. Dangerous with STDS and what not.

No I would not have sex with a 13 y/o. I can’t say I have seen a girl under the age of 16 that I find attractive. They just don’t look good, they look like kids.

22

Bill wrote:

That’s not young to you, but to me it is. I can give two shits as to whether or not Pocahontas was having sex at 12- that doesn’t mean she was ready.

So what you’re telling me is that you would have sex with a 13 year old if you found her attractive. Basically, whatever you’re attracted to is fair game then? Bill, at what age do you think a person is capable of deciding whether or not it’s in their best interest to have sex? Obviously you think 16 is old enough, but in my opinion it’s not old enough for everyone. I remember 16 rather well, and I wasn’t ready to have sex. But that’s just me, and probably some other people too. I can also imagine that there are people completely capable of making the decision to have sex at 16. So what? We’ve concluded that some people are ready to have sex at 16, and some are not. I got the impression from the girl that she wasn’t, even though she thought she was. Haven’t you ever wanted something as a child, only to have you parents not give it to you because it was in your best interest? I’m glad my parents didn’t buy me all the toys in the world when I was a child, because now I’m not a spoiled brat. I was not capable of realizing the effects of being spoiled when I was a child, just like some 16 year olds are not aware of the ramifications that sex will have on them. Perhaps this girl knew that she could handle it, perhaps not. Either way, I just played it safe.

23

But I don’t find 13 y/o’s attractive and I sure as hell can’t see myself ever finding one attractive. I think you make much too big a deal about sex then it really is. Why are people not ready for it? If they are smart enough to wear a condom and practice safe sex they are ready. The reason people get so emotionally evolved with sex is because it is percieved as “This mystical thing”. Over in Europe where sex is much more casual people aren’t getting as emotionally evolved. Inleast from what I have seen, and there are less problems with it.

24

Bill, sex is a big deal to some people, and to some people it isn’t. Whether or not it should be a big deal or shouldn’t doesn’t really matter at this point (besides, whether or not sex is important is a value statement, so it can never be proven either way). Therefore, I want to respect the wishes of the people that think it’s a big deal, and I want to have sex with the girls that don’t. People can’t vote until they’re 18 because they’re supposedly not knowledgeable enough to make such a decison until then. Granted, some people are qualified to vote at 16, but their vote is sacrificed for the greater good. Because I care about the direction of the United States, I think that people under 18 shouldn’t vote. Because I care about the ability for someone to decide whether or not sex will be important to them, I don’t have sex with minors. It’s really as simple as that.

25

Do you think driving is a bigger deal than sex?

If you grew up in Japan where the legal age of consent is 13, do you think you would still feel the same was as you do now? What if the legal age of consent was 16 all across the United States? Would it then change your opinion? In reality none of these things should. But I guarantee that they do.

26

Bill, I understand the concept of moral relativism. I am absolutely positive that culture has played a huge role in determining what I deem acceptable. You’re preaching to the choir. However, I don’t care where you come from, if you have sex at 3 years old, it’s going to fuck with your mind, and possibly injure you. I think that’s pretty evident and universal. The earliest consenting age for sex across cultures seems to be 9-12 (as far as I know) and the oldest seems to be 18. So now we have a continuum between 9 and 18, and everyone wants to pin point where exactly the appropriate age is. I think it’s safer to not gamble at all, and go with 18. Some people are going to get the shaft (or rather, not get it) because they may be ready before hand. Oh well. They’ll just have to find someone else to lay other than me, because I’d rather not have the displeasure of screwing a girl that isn’t quite prepared for it.

But that’s just me. Perhaps one day you’ll find a 13 year old that through smoking and breast implants looks like she’s 18. If you think that what the girl really needs is sex and not a therapist, go right ahead and have your 15 seconds of fun.

27

I don’t see anything wrong with that. It’s no more or less “immoral” than the objectification of women and men as mere objects for emotional gratification. In the way you describe it, a man (or a woman) can see a woman (or a man) as an object that can be useful in fulfilling their sensual (that means sensed via touch, sight, hearing, tasting and smelling i.e. Physical) desires. In the way I am describing it, a man (or a woman) can see a woman (or a man) as an object that can be useful in fulfilling his/her emotional desires such as a desire to not feel lonely (aka desire for companionship), a desire to feel loved and cared about, a desire to for intellectual stimulation, a desire for (finanical) security.

As you describe it, people see people as sex objects, or objects to fulfill physical desires and as I describe it, people see people as objects to fulfill non-physical desires. Many people view the fulfillment of sensual/physical desires as immoral but view the fulfillment of the endless list of emotional desires (anything other than physical desires) as moral.

There is a double standard, and it shows in the term “sex object.” When a man wants a woman solely for the purpose of fulfilling his physical desires, he is said to be guilty of objectirication, of seeing her as a sex object. But when a man wants a woman for companionship, he is not accused of objectirfcation, of seeing her as a “companion object” which is what she actually is to him. It’s just a different desire (or set of desires) that the object (the woman) is fulfilling.

Anyway, I agree with you that it is not immoral If “both people want to have sex for the sake of personal pleasure.” And I agree with you that it is immoral for one to be deceitful to have his desires fulfilled. However, the desire for sexual pleasure is not the only desire that people use deceit in order to fulfill the desire.

So if you are just honest, and say “I am in vegas for a couple days, and think you’re hot and would love to fuck your brains out and have a lot of fun with you” and she says OK, then there is no problem. Even if she says no, and you just agree to kiss and have fun, you’ll have fun doing that, and she might (in other words, she will, if you’re a good kisser/lover) change her mind and and decide to fuck anyway.

28

I agree with Bill…

If there’s grass on the field, play ball.

I mean, I know girls who say they had their periods at age 10.

I always wanted to screw a 10 year old.

Now if you don’t mind, I have to go purge my system. I’m starting to feel ill.

29

wrong posting

30

Bill wrote:

Bill wrote:

Either way, the meaning of the words is not why Matt is questioning his decision. Following your line of argument, if I obtain pleasure and happiness from killing, does that justify murder? In the same way, if I obtain pleasure from sex is that the sole justification for doing it? Look at the situation in context.

Bill wrote:

If I were being hypocritical I would be telling people to do what I don’t do. I don’t think that is the case.

Bill wrote:

Yes, I see what you mean. However, I don’t know what you should or shouldn’t think. What you believe is your opinion and opinions can be right or wrong depending on perspective. I may think that believing that “Blacks are inferior” is wrong and I may try to convince you otherwise. Whether or not you choose to listen is up to you.

31

No because you have to consider the happiness of the other person. The principle of utility is the happiness of everyone involved. She wanted to have sex , he wanted to have sex, sex could very well have made the most happiness in that situation. Meaning it would be the morally right thing to do, and the morally wrong thing to abstain from sex.

You are telling people not to do what other people tell them. Which infact is in a way telling them to do what you tell them because you are telling them not to do what other people tell them. Hypocritical./quote]

I don’t know what you are doing wrong with your quotations.

32

Bill wrote:

No, I am telling people not to do what other people tell them simply because other people think it is the right thing to do. I am telling them to question the reasoning behind what they do.

How do you know having sex would have made her happy? you can’t even define happiness, so how do you justify happiness according to her terms?

33

She wanted to have sex. Probably a pretty good chance it would have made her happy.