Rather than call it “Sexual Immorality”, allow me to call it “sexual perversion”.
I thought about this some years ago concerning homosexuality: some folks call it “a perversion”, so I asked myself, "OK, what is sexual perversion?â€
I offer the following for consideration:
I first took the biological justification for intercourse: reproduction. This was going to be the “factor” that I used in determining how perverse something was.
So using this gauge you can sort of estimate things:
Perverse, from least to most:
Sex for the purpose of reproduction
Sex with the opposite sex without the purpose of reproduction
Sex with yourself
Sex with the same sex: I’m not sure if this is more or less perverse than sex with yourself. (I think it might be more, since one is rejecting the whole “opposite sex†thing.)
Sex outside of your species.
Perhaps sex with inanimate objects?
And finally: sex with extraterrestrial space aliens.
This characterization takes morality out of the equation although one can substitute “morality†for “perversion†I suppose.
Whadday’all think?
Why would you consider sex without the express purpose of reproduction to be (somewhat) perverted? What is your definition of this type of sex? Using birth control methods or simply irresponsible sex? (Which would make the use of birth control a moral decision, no?)
And why is masturbation considered perverted?
Humans are not big horn sheep. We don’t go into rut every fall season. We are subject to our biology, and humans (as well as other apes) are driven to sex constantly.
The answers to your questions seem to be in my first post: it’s just a definition of perversion based upon reproduction.
A person could just as easily make a different definition. Say, for example, based upon pleasure: sex with pleasure is normal/sex without pleasure is perverse. That would work as well. But that doesn’t seem to be the nature of what we refer to when we talk about sexual perversity.
As for masturbation: I’d say there are degrees of perversity there too. If one is thinking of the opposite sex during masturbation, then it seems somewhat less perverse than someone who is thinking of a chicken. Yes?
Less perverse is actual sex with the opposite sex. More perverse is actual sex with a chicken!
BTW: yuck.
Anyway, it’s just a simple way to view this issue as opposed to the view that “nothing is perverse”.
You are reading me out of context. The infidelity example was to illustrate the use of happiness as the basis for deciding what’s moral or not. And sure if that is what moral or immoral is then drinking coffee with the married woman is immoral. What I am asking is whether what’s natural should be the reference for such judgement.
And I do not think I am saying sexual intercourse is immoral, it’s natural. Some certainly are, and that is the question here: which ones are and why?
OK, so you basically going along the biological, naturalistic approach, ie that which natural, eg human penis for human vagina is what’s right or moral. And this is so biologically because it “fits” and also there is a reason for such a fitting, namely reproduction. All other uses of the penis and vagina do not have such soundness of reason.
But many here are argueing against this, saying biology does not say what ought to be, but simply saying what is the case. But what ought to be the case is left uncomfortably open and unsaid.
There is also the need to consider the context of an act, even if the act is biologically natural. And this context has nothing to do with biology. For example the notion of marriage. There is apparently no such notion in the animal kingdom. There are no such things as infidelity or rape or adultery or prostitution. Only in human societies there are such, and morality is judged more from within this framework and not merely from the biology.
We do not think it immoral for a male baboon to go mate with any female he can lay, or other females from another troop, if he can survived that troop’s alpha male. We also dont think infanticide by a new male lion after the previous male have adandon the pride as things immoral. There are no notion of cowardice or shame in animal society too, but only humans are labelled cowards or heroes.
Thus I think there must be an extra-biological dimension in human societies, that is not merely an outcome of biological evolution. For if it is merely the latter then we should see religion and morals in animals too, for they are just one of us, or vice versa. But we don’t.
the rule that governs sexual morality s the same exact rule that governs everything thing else. “be nice to your neighbor, give them what they want etc”
if your neighbor says they dont want you having sex with other people, and you are receiving their kindness, then dont be an asshole, dont cheat on them. if they say lets have sex with other people, then surely nobody will be hurt. if you think you should have an exclusive relationship because your jealous, then tell them that. if they dont think your worth it, theyll tell you that.
the only thing you have to do in order to be sexually moral is talk to your partner and make sure you dont do the things that are going to hurt their feelings.
the stupid thing that ruins the enjoyment of sex for billions of people is the stupid religions throwing this stupid wrench in the way of happiness. why the hell would god care if you “incorrectly” use his machine for pleasure and not children. clearly sex brings pleasure as well as children. if you have children on purpose when you dont want children, then yeah you are an idiot. but sex when you want pleasure, that makes sense.
maybe the pill screws up your kids, and the condom definetely makes sex suck, but religions need to shut the hell up about the meta-physical, unmeasurable side effects that only god sees. because if god cared so much, why wouldnt he make it clear to us that sex is so bad. he made it clear that being selfish is bad, he had no problem doing that.
The ethics of things being “consensual” between people go beyond the scope of sex. It’s a much bigger question, and I think I’ll refrain from answering since I think it may be a tangent off of this topic.
I’ll mention that there is the concept of “monogamy” in nature: animals that mate for life.
It looks there is no standard. By that I mean some apes are monogamous and some are not. If 100 percent of mammals were monogamous and 100 percent of amphibians were not, I’d say there was some pattern to be gleaned.
I don’t believe in any sort of objective morality, but I second this notion. The concept of morality, I believe, is a complication of the biological drive to survive. Animals don’t have a code of morality, but they do have instincts. Humans no longer rely so much on their instincts, and we have a greater capacity to call into question every aspect of our lives than any animal. So, we invent the concept of morality to help us understand the forces that drive us, i.e. instinct, biological imperatives, etc.
I know that what is considered moral by some is immoral to others, and since I don’t believe in a universal, all-encompassing moral code that is derived from anything more concrete than the very subjective world of human intellectual abstraction, I see no reason why nvxplorer’s statement shouldn’t hold. Of course, it can be a complex process to determine whether something that a set of consenting adults wishes to do is actually harmless to others. In a hypothetical scenario, by having anal sex with a dead 10-year old, am I hurting anyone else? If so, how? And does it matter that the dead child is neither an adult nor capable of offering consent? Should someone else’s judgment be substituted? Whose judgment-- the parents, the religious leaders, ethicists, physicians? Does the fact that this behavior may strike the majority as plainly “sick” and “perverse” justify the argument that it is immoral?
That’s an interesting scenario. I think the question becomes one of pathology (as you allude to), not morality. This leads us to the broader question; how does morality apply to those with psychological impairments? (Which we need not discuss here.)
I’ll chime in here. First, as long we understand that morals are subjective, I’m OK with people saying “that’s immoral”. Basically what they are saying is “I don’t like that, and I think there are a significantly large group of people who agree with me”. If I were to say “flossing is immoral”, the understanding is that there are a group of people out there who would back me up. Morality is mob rule.
Second, I’ve had the “anal sex with a dead 10-year old” argument and this is how it played out:
There should be an age limit to being consensual. Sex is usually 18.
People should be able to decide what they want to do with their own bodies after they are dead. If they want to consent to weird sex acts, who are we to stop them?
The list of immoral acts include the first ones: sex, dead people, and kids; but also included: prostitution, suicide, incest and drug use.
So the worse-care-scenario looked something like this:
An 18-year-old prostitute consenting (through signing a contract) to post-death sex (for money) with a parent (yuck, this is probably the sickest part)) and then taking drugs that lead to self-imposed death (suicide). Once dead, freaky sex with the body can occur in accordance with the agreement.
I agree with that. It is definitely mob rule, in practice. So it follows that for any subsection of the population, there is a dominant perception of sexual morality and immorality, and if I want to do something that is considered immoral within the current mob mentality, I can make it a moral act by relocating underneath a different mob umbrella that holds different views.
This would work on a small scale… but in the United States, for example, there are powerful factions who are intent on forcing their version of sexual morality down onto everyone else, so that all the smaller subgroups, i.e. the states, are not allowed to function-- as they were intended-- as the laboratories of democracy. Democracy being a form of mob rule, this perverts the system to a degree in that the mob ceases to be defined by number and begins to be defined by title, which is a reversion to classism…
All of that brushed aside, I think the clearest answer is that sexual morality is defined by power, the same as anything else. Power through numbers, power through money, power through election/appointment, power through religion, etc. And in my opinion, that means that the greater the power of any supposed moral authority, the more dangerous it is. Thus, the specificity of any moral code should be inversely proportional to the number of people who are subjected to it, thus providing a unifying, stabilizing common fabric for the greater society as well as accomodating the inherent diversity of its component groups.
