Did I say that sexual promiscuity, etc. should be illegal or what? Identifying an activity as immoral isn't coming with the pitchfork, as I'm not trying to get him to do anything by force. I'm just discussing with him, and explaining why his behaviour is immoral. — Agustino

Explaining why his behaviour is immoral is coming at him with a pitchfork. And who are you to speak when you say the following:

I work out, I have a sexy body that I'm proud of, why would I want some tramp to enjoy it eh?... I want to have sex with a woman who deserves to have sex with me — Agustino

Just to let you know: "narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism."

What the hell is wrong with people these days... — Agustino

Indeed.

Well that's certainly not my fantasy. Do you think I'm lying to you? And no if you were to say that to your exclusive partner it wouldn't be just a white lie, it would be quite problematic because you're being dishonest about your intentions and how you feel about her. And that's actually very serious, you will never be capable to have an intimate relationship with someone if you'll keep up this dishonest behaviour. — Agustino

Good for you if it's not your fantasy. I now know that you can be counted on to seize the opportunity to allocate blame in response to an honest admission. That speaks to your character. I don't think you are lying, but I do think you present an unrealistic portrait of marriage or any long term committed relationship.

Explaining why his behaviour is immoral is coming at him with a pitchfork. — TimeLine

No that's absolutely not coming at him with a pitchfork, you don't even know what you're talking about. A pitchfork implies violence (or certainly the threat of violence) used to get someone to behave a certain way, and no I haven't done that.

And I certainly wouldn't mind if someone wanted to discuss my behaviour being immoral, I have no problems with that.

Just to let you know: — TimeLine

Yeah give me a break. There's a difference between narcissism and a normal and adequate self-respect and self-esteem which takes into consideration your situation. If you consider yourself such that you're willing to sleep with just about anybody, there's something wrong with your self-esteem.

And who are you to speak when you say the following: — TimeLine

The one who knows myself and my body better than you do, clearly.

allocate blame in response to an honest admission. That speaks to your character. — geospiza

Yes it does, I'm trying to educate you not to do that to your loved one, because it would be very very bad for both of you if you did that. It's better to be honest if you have that fantasy, and discuss it openly, and work through it with your beloved rather than hide it from her through your "white lie", which isn't actually that white at all. If you repress it like that, it will just ruin your relationship or get you to do something that you regret.

It's better to be honest if you have that fantasy, and discuss it openly, and work through it with your beloved rather than hide it from her through your "white lie" — Agustino

Perhaps. I urge you to try it and report back on your experience.

Also, I don't need to be "educated" by you, so please avoid attribution of either the "white lie" or the "full disclosure" to me personally.

I urge you to try it and report back on your experience. — geospiza

I did try it, it went very well. Not exactly with your fantasy (I never had that one), but rather with porn viewing. I told my girlfriend when I was 16ish (can't remember the exact ages), and she helped me get over it.

I don't understand why you wouldn't be honest - if the other person dumps you, that's good, you got rid of a son/daughter of a bitch who didn't love you to begin with, and who wasn't willing to help you overcome your moral defects and become a better human being. That's good in my books, and it should be good in yours too. You want someone who cares about you and is willing to be there for you and help you through difficulties, someone who you can be open with. And you want them to be the same with you too - open so that you can help them when they struggle with something, not afraid that if they tell you whatever you will break up with them or I don't know what. That's not a normal relationship where one of the partners fears that the other will break up with them if they are honest, that's a very abusive one, where people are in it just because they can get something from the other through deception, not because they actually love and care for them and are willing to help them become better people.

so please avoid attribution of either the "white lie" or the "full disclosure" to me personally. — geospiza

What do you mean avoid attribution? You yourself said it. And I absolutely do think you need to be educated if you think that hiding your fantasies about other people from your partner is a "white lie". It's absolutely not a white lie.

The experience of a genuinely loving relationship where I am respected and admired and likewise that I respect and admire my partner elongates that pleasurable sensation beyond the bedroom, and it establishes meaning to our existence in a mutually shared capacity that in doing so motivates us to become better people. It is not only casual sex that I have a problem with; many couples - including those that are married - are in it for convenience, dependence or tradition rather than for love and so it is an empty bind that results in the same meaninglessness as casual sex and one will never find themselves feeling pleasure neither ever progressing. But unlike, say, masturbation (which I don't think is immoral but without pornography, but please let's not get into that), there are a number of practical concerns that render casual sex problematic, the epidemiological is clear for one. The problem can thus also become practical ethics as well as morality. — TimeLine

I hope I am not crossing the line by suggesting that you have a woman's perspective. That perspective is certainly welcomed by me!

Is a bar the place where you would expect to find your soulmate? Notwithstanding that you might find your soulmate there, what kind of expectations would you have about finding Mr. Right in that setting?

If I understand your position, it is that overtures by a man seeking casual sex from a woman is morally wrong. I would like to point out that these overtures are not always to be taken at face value. They are sometimes simply a method of "breaking the ice". The default dynamic between men and women of reproductive age is that men are seeking sex, and women are understandably suspicious. That dynamic can be a very formidable barrier to any communication at all. One way that I have observed will sometimes diffuse that situation is for a man to act out what the woman is afraid he is seeking, and to permit the woman to say "no" and to have that rejection accepted. Sophisticated people know that the overture is half-serious as is the rejection. After that, the chances of a more meaningful interaction are sometimes more likely, and could actually lead to sex (casual or otherwise).

Isn't there something to be said about lightening up a little?

who wasn't willing to help you overcome your moral defects and become a better human being — Agustino

People don't generally begin a romantic relationship with the primary purpose of helping to cure the other person's imperfections. More often it just comes with the territory. There is also a measure of acceptance that is normally required by both parties to sustain any long term relationship.

What do you mean avoid attribution? You yourself said it. And I absolutely do think you need to be educated if you think that hiding your fantasies about other people from your partner is a "white lie". It's absolutely not a white lie. — Agustino

You need to give your head a shake. I confessed to a fantasy. I see now that it was a mistake to let my guard down. I made no such admission to telling the "white lie". I said only that there might be good reason to withhold disclosure of one's fantasies from others in some circumstances.

People don't generally begin a romantic relationship with the primary purpose of helping to cure the other person's imperfections. — geospiza

Does my sentence which you quoted say the opposite somehow? I don't see it.

I made no such admission to telling the "white lie" — geospiza

And?! Did I say you did?

I said only that there might be good reason to withhold disclosure of one's fantasies from others in some circumstances. — geospiza

Yes - that and the examples you gave are the problem.

No the analogy absolutely can't be drawn that way. The analogy compares the logic of the situation, NOT the gravity of the offences. Only someone like you can fail to see this. The analogy points that the underlying logic is the same. In the case of giving them cyanide, their consent doesn't make that action moral. Neither does their consent make the action of sex moral. Now, what the fuck does any of this have to do with which action is worse? :s Are you that incapable of comprehending what you read?! — Agustino

By comparing the two situations you're mplying that "sex" is harmful on some level of comparison to which "handing out cyanide" is harmful. By saying that "the underlying logic is the same", you're necessarily drawing some sort of comparison between the harm of cyanide and the harm of sex, where since both actions are in some way inherently harmful, to do either of them constitutes a moral infraction. Keep in mind this does not demonstrate how or why sex is harmful, it just compares it to giving out suicide as part of your rhetorical appeals.

Read what I wrote above before peddling this stupid strawman for the 1000s time — Agustino

The problem is that I actually read everything you wrote... Remember when you were screaming about how consent has nothing to do with the morality pertaining to sex? (who am i kidding, of course you don't! ill quote it for you):

"Right motherducker, and did I say anything different?! The immorality has nothing to do with the underlying activity (whether this is SEX or EATING DINNER), but rather with the infringement of their freedom. And in both cases, there is the SAME infringement of freedom."

"Right, so we can conclude that having dinner with me is not immoral. Now you stopped looking at the question of consent, and looked at the underlying activity. Do the same for sex. Stop looking at consent. It has NOTHING to do with it.

"If two willing participants negotiate an anonymous contract whereby one will eat the other one alive, and they both give their consent, have they done nothing wrong? Again, this whole idea that consent somehow has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the rightness or wrongness of an activity is absurd. If I force you to have dinner with me, that's as wrong as if I force you to have sex with me from the point of view of consent. But clearly, we take me forcing you to have sex with me as a much more serious offence than if I were to force you to have dinner with me. Why is that?""

Unfortunately you have failed to communicate a sensical position in regards to consent and sex. Very clearly you don't think consent has to do with the morality of sex, and so by that logic having non-consensual sex with someone must be the same as having consensual sex with them (plus some arbitrary violation of consent like being force fed cabbage).

This is no red herring or strawman Aug, this is the messy underside of your poorly formed moral ideas. If I were you I would recant...

No, you haven't breached my consent, you've violated my property and a few other rights, not my consent. — Agustino

If you have a no flyers sign and tell me not to dig a hole in your yard, but I send you flyers and dig a hole in your yard, I've breached your consent. Care to re-read or re-respond to my point now that this common sense issue has been cleared up for you? Here it is again:

"If I breach your consent and mail you flyers and solicitations, I've breached your consent, and I've also infringed on your relaxation (a small but tangible harm). How big of a moral wrong is it that I've breached your consent? (hint: the gravity of breaching consent has something to do with the gravity of the underlying harm). If I breach your consent by digging a 30x30x10 foot hole in your front yard, then I've breached your consent and presumably caused substantial damage to your property.

If you want flyers though, and give me consent to send them to you, then the same action (sending flyers) becomes beneficial to you as opposed to harmful (consent changes the moral nature of the underlying action as it applies to individuals). If you're trying to install an in-ground pool, and you consent for me to dig the hole for it, then I'm actually doing something morally praiseworthy.

You cannot necessarily separate consent from the morality of certain actions and behaviors."

No, if by like you mean a comparison of the gravity of the two offences. However, if by like you mean that they share the same logical structure, sure. — Agustino

The logical structure you're trying to say they share is that both sex and handing out cyanide are harmful; that's the comparison you're making. You're saying that consent doesn't matter because it's the immorality/harm of the underlying action that matters and then assuming that sex is harmful/immoral by comparing it to handing out suicide.

I could make a similar comparison. Having consensual sex with someone is like giving them a consensual hair-cut. Both actions are not immoral because consent is involved and there is no necessary harm in the underlying actions...

Because you cannot have a tattoo without injury the body, but you can work at McDonald's without injury. — Agustino

You honestly think tattoo's constitute injury? (Sad).

I've got some news that you might find surprising: people can have casual sex without injury or tears.

But my point here is that the risk of harm doesn't make something inherently immoral, epecially in light of whether or not individuals are willing to accept that level of risk via consent (there are exceptions, but this holds true for things like driving, sky-diving, haircuts, and casual sex).

No, consent is only breached when you actively force someone to do themselves against their will. If I do something that doesn't match what someone else wants me to do, that's absolutely not breaking their consent. Breaking their consent is forcing THEM to do something they don't want to do, typically through the use of force. You have a bit more studying to do. — Agustino

Situation A: Rape: sex against someone's will is forced upon them (immoral due to breach of freedom, and immoral due to harm caused by sex)

The above is how you would describe "the logical structure" of the immorality of rape, correct?

Situation B: Consensual sex happens + cabbage is force fed to them: food against someone's will is forced upon them (immoral due to the breach of freedom, and immoral due to harm caused by sex).

Is the above the correct "logical structure"?

If so, can you explain why rape has the same moral gravitas as consensual sex + a minor infraction against someone's consent? (remember, because consent has nothing to do with the morality of an underlying action)...

We only need to enforce it culturally, not legally - that would be a good thing, it would save a lot of people from suffering and pain. Certainly better than allowing you to enforce your idiocy culturally. — Agustino

I'm not the one trying to enforce anything, I'm trying to escape your attempts to restrict my freedom via your crappy moral suppositions.

I never said people have to have casual sex, I only said that you have no business morally judging what goes on in my bedchamber between me and other consenting adults.

That doesn't mean they're not objectively harmful. Someone may not perceive cannibalism as harmful. So what? Does that tell me cannibalism is not harmful? This is a very stupid objection that people don't all agree. Who gives a fuck what they say? I don't. I just care about the truth. — Agustino

Here you are again, comparing sex directly to cannibalism as if there is some moral equivalency.

The way your mind works is terrifying.

If you care about the truth then make an actual argument as to why casual sex is objectively harmful instead of just telling me it's like suicide and cannibalism in logical structure...

No, that's actually not true. If my behaviour was directed towards successfully impregnating a female I'd donate my sperm to a sperm bank and impregnate thousands of females. Clearly I'm not very keen to do that. Their idea that everything we do is directed toward impregnating a female is extremely naive and short-sighted, and disregards the human component (as opposed to the animal) of our being. — Agustino

I said "much of your psychology" not everything you do...


You're not actually trying to deny the genetic impact on your emotions/psychology are you?

That it also has an evolutionary role, there's no doubt about it, but to assume that the evolutionary role is everything about it, that's naive. There's a lot more reasons why I want to bond for life with a female, some of which have little to do with offspring. — Agustino

What other reasons?

To be happy? (nope, because that's hedonism or something)

Because god told you to (and because obeying god makes you happy)? (DING DING DING!)

There is no doubt that love has chemical effects that are detectible in the body - but to go from that and say that that's all what love is, that's the height of idiocy, excuse my words. That's called jumping to conclusions to say the least. — Agustino

Heaven forbid a conclusion should get jumped in the magnanimous Augustino's presence...

Love is in fact a chemical cocktail. It's not a metaphysical or transcendent "force", it's a physical state of mind, and it was created and refined by evolution, not by god or some objective meaning of life.

Love means more than "a chemical cocktail" from within the human condition, but I have to point this out to prevent you from appealing to love itself as some kind of metaphysical or sacred foundation for "objective/teleological moral appeals". In other words, the existence of love doesn't demand that we orient the entirety of our moral frameworks around it. In other words, just because people have sex without being married or in love doesn't mean that some purpose of life or proper way of living has been subverted. To argue this is the case is merely to presume that love and marriage are our starting moral values instead of using reason to show why they are valuable as moral ends.

For the most part yes, but it depends. So long as it doesn't frustrate the other purpose of sex (intimacy) I'd have no issue with some forms of contraception. — Agustino

Why are you allowed to frustrate one of the two necessary ends of sex?

Is there some kind of "satisfy at least one teleological end of an action and you're not immoral" rule?

I'd say that makes no sense according to your logic. If you're frustrating EITHER end you're doing yourself harm (by your logic).

Are you an idiot or what's the matter with you? How can sex be an expression of your love for them when you rape them? Can you please explain this? — Agustino

I don't know, but since "consent has nothing to do with the morality of the underlying action", and because "I value them as a person, want to be intimate, reproduce, and express my love for them through the act of sex" (let's assume that I even marry her at a shotgun wedding, which also isn't immoral because "consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action"), then how could this instance of rape possibly be immoral? (Well, by your logic since she would not be returning my love, she would technically be harming me as I raped her because she doesn't value me and thinks of me merely as a body/tool.)

Remember, consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of sexual acts!

BEST MORAL POSITION 2017!!!!!

No, there is no logical connection between something being acceptable and not being immoral, so you're drawing this link based on empty air. — Agustino

I mean, you're the one who stated that cannibalism is always immoral but acceptable in some cases. I'm the one who is suggesting that it is moral (or not immoral to be specific) in some cases, such as in the case of survival necessity.

I don't actually subscribe to the idea that some actions are in and of themselves immoral. I think that depends on intentions, circumstances, and in some ways outcomes.

Under your moral framework you can just define certain actions as inherently immoral (without showing why they are necessarily immoral) and then just keep referring back to that assumption/premise whenever you are questioned.

Yes, happiness does involve pleasure, however to affirm idiotically as you have that someone will be happy because they experience pleasure is stupid beyond measure. — Agustino

Here's what I originally said Aug: "Pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology. The drive to seek pleasure is just as fundamental as the drive to avoid pain and to stay alive. For some people, the pleasure of food is a part of what makes life worth living, and so pleasure from eating very well can be a necessary and intentional end for a given individual.... I could still object on the basis that evolution endowed us with pleasure attached to sex and eating because happiness is an essential end of human existence, and therefore we actually eat (and fuck) to be happy.".

This doesn't imply that anyone who experiences any amount of pleasure will therefore be happy, it alludes to a relationship between pain, pleasure, and happiness.

Calling me an idiot while blatantly misinterpreting what I've said is stupid within measure (ironically, it measures in the "idiot" range).

No, since you're not actively doing something to frustrate the ends of your sexuality. — Agustino

How does not getting married and not reproducing NOT frustrate "the necessary teleological ends of sex and your own sexuality/biology" (per your definition)?

Yes that is immoral. You can do whatever you want with your penis, that doesn't mean it's good.

The rest of your post is blabber, red herrings and strawmen so I won't bother. When you have something more significant to say, you can let me know. — Agustino

Stop saying that consensual sex is in any way morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism, and stop suggesting that consent has nothing to do with the "underlying morality of actions" (especially with reference to sex).

"I ain't never what said near nothin of that you scare-crow type person you!!!! Stop scaring my crows!!!! All I is what sayin - that sex is bad, you should feel bad, and always remember that consent gots nothin to do whatsoever with the moralities of sexual relations!!!".

As is customary, please enjoy the following musical number as as satirical interlude in this most riveting of debates!!!!

you're necessarily drawing some sort of comparison between the harm of cyanide and the harm of sex — VagabondSpectre

Saying both are inherently harmful isn't comparing them.

Unfortunately you have failed to communicate a sensical position in regards to consent and sex. Very clearly you don't think consent has to do with the morality of sex, and so by that logic having non-consensual sex with someone must be the same as having consensual sex with them (plus some arbitrary violation of consent like being force fed cabbage). — VagabondSpectre

In terms of JUST sexuality yes. But this is not a problem. Since having sex with them doesn't involve just sexuality, it involves other virtues as well, such as justice and charity. So while in terms of sexuality there is no immorality provided that the non-consensual sex is with your wife, there would be immorality in terms of justice and charity. And since justice and charity are both more important than sexuality in terms of morals, then having non-consensual sex with your wife is immoral overall.

Really you're clearly not very well read, because Aristotelians through history have dealt multiple times with this objection that you bring up and you somehow think I never thought of :s

This is no red herring or strawman Aug, this is the messy underside of your poorly formed moral ideas. If I were you I would recant... — VagabondSpectre

No there is a strawman based on the fact that it seems your intellect isn't strong enough to be able to make the necessary distinctions or appreciate charitably the ideas presented, or if you lack knowledge, read and inform yourself.

If you have a no flyers sign and tell me not to dig a hole in your yard, but I send you flyers and dig a hole in your yard, I've breached your consent. — VagabondSpectre

No you haven't. You'd have breached my consent when you force ME to do something, not when YOU do something. In that case you've breached my right to property amongst several others, but not my consent.

If you want flyers though, and give me consent to send them to you, then the same action (sending flyers) becomes beneficial to you as opposed to harmful (consent changes the moral nature of the underlying action as it applies to individuals). If you're trying to install an in-ground pool, and you consent for me to dig the hole for it, then I'm actually doing something morally praiseworthy. — VagabondSpectre

You're equivocating between two different senses of consent.

Having consensual sex with someone is like giving them a consensual hair-cut. Both actions are not immoral because consent is involved and there is no necessary harm in the underlying actions... — VagabondSpectre

That may be true if sex were like having a haircut. But it's not. You said "it's more invasive" ;)

If so, can you explain why rape has the same moral gravitas as consensual sex + a minor infraction against someone's consent? (remember, because consent has nothing to do with the morality of an underlying action)... — VagabondSpectre

In scenario A you present one action, in scenario B you present two actions which are unrelated. That makes it impossible to compare directly.

I'm trying to escape your attempts to restrict my freedom via your crappy moral suppositions. — VagabondSpectre

How am I restricting your freedom? Since when is morality a restriction of freedom? Do you think your freedom is restricted for example because you can't eat other people? Do you think your freedom is restricted because you and others have property rights? No - actually your freedom is increased in these manners.

To be happy? (nope, because that's hedonism or something) — VagabondSpectre

It would be hedonism if happiness = pleasure - it seems you keep comflating the two, you can't even keep your mind straight mate. What's wrong with you?

Love is in fact a chemical cocktail. It's not a metaphysical or transcendent "force", it's a physical state of mind, and it was created and refined by evolution, not by god or some objective meaning of life. — VagabondSpectre

This is your assumption. You have yet to prove this, and let me tell you - science ain't gonna help you, because this is a METAPHYSICAL assumption.

In other words, the existence of love doesn't demand that we orient the entirety of our moral frameworks around it. — VagabondSpectre

It actually does, if you understood it.

Why are you allowed to frustrate one of the two necessary ends of sex?

Is there some kind of "satisfy at least one teleological end of an action and you're not immoral" rule?

I'd say that makes no sense according to your logic. If you're frustrating EITHER end you're doing yourself harm (by your logic). — VagabondSpectre

Yes, now you actually bring up something valid - took you a long time guessing and stabbing in the dark to put your hand on something that may be problematic. Not all Aristotelians would agree with me here, but basically here's my argument: Human beings are formed of a rational soul, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive) souls (ALERT: these are Aristotelian terms with clear definitions to which people who understand the definitions would agree, please don't cry about God) but adds to them the capacity for will and intellect (personhood). Granting that what differentiates human beings from animals is superior and greater (will & intellect), it follows that if it's necessary to sacrifice a telos that belongs to the animal and vegetative parts of the soul in order to achieve a telos that belongs to the human part of the soul then such is moral. Under this reasoning, if it's necessary to sacrifice reproduction, to achieve intimacy, then this would be moral, since (sexual) reproduction belongs to the animal part of the soul, while intimacy belongs to the uniquely human part of the soul. Another reason why promiscuity isn't immoral in animals, for them the telos is just reproduction, so they're not doing anything immoral, for promiscuity is something that hurts the uniquely human telos of intimacy. That's also why you're immoral if you have promiscuous sex aimed at reproduction - but it would be a lot less immoral than if you were to just have promiscuous sex while frustrating both intimacy and reproduction.

"consent has nothing to do with the morality of the underlying action", and because "I value them as a person, want to be intimate, reproduce, and express my love for them through the act of sex" (let's assume that I even marry her at a shotgun wedding, which also isn't immoral because "consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of an action"), then how could this instance of rape possibly be immoral? — VagabondSpectre

You clearly don't understand. No it doesn't have to do with the intrinsic morality of the underlying action, but it DOES have to do with the morality of the human interaction that is presupposed by the underlying action. So even if the underlying action were moral, you can still commit some wrongs through the interaction (by for example imposing your will by force on another).

These are Aristotelian distinctions, which you don't seem to be capable to make even though you've read Aristotle (or so you claim). For example, there is talk of X being wrong in-so-far as it is considered in itself - this wouldn't include consent in the case of sex for example. But there is also talk of whether or not X is wrong (tout court), which would include other considerations apart from just the underlying action in and of itself.

I mean, you're the one who stated that cannibalism is always immoral but acceptable in some cases. I'm the one who is suggesting that it is moral (or not immoral to be specific) in some cases, such as in the case of survival necessity. — VagabondSpectre

No, it's never MORAL to murder or eat other people. It may be acceptable simply because it is the lesser evil - for example someone tries to murder you, and you kill them first. That's not moral, but it's acceptable, simply because it's the lesser evil for you.

I don't actually subscribe to the idea that some actions are in and of themselves immoral. I think that depends on intentions, circumstances, and in some ways outcomes. — VagabondSpectre

Right everyone does this. Distinctions exist at the intellectual level, not in reality. If you read some Aristotle, you'd actually know this. Again - the reason why your comprehension is so terrible is because you don't even have the basics clear. I'm not gonna educate you in logic and metaphysics now.

"Pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology. The drive to seek pleasure is just as fundamental as the drive to avoid pain and to stay alive. — VagabondSpectre

It's questionable whether there even is such a drive as seeking pleasure for its own sake. Furthermore, "pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology" is very questionable.

How does not getting married and not reproducing NOT frustrate "the necessary teleological ends of sex" (per your definition)? — VagabondSpectre

Because I don't undertake an action that frustrates those ends. I'm staying in my natural state - not marrying, and not reproducing - in other words not doing anything. I'm not taking any action which frustrates those ends. Not doing anything doesn't count as doing something that frustrates it. I don't die if I don't have sex, so there's nothing frustrated about my being or about my sexuality (as I've shown before).

Stop saying that consensual sex is in any way morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism, and stop suggesting that consent has nothing to do with the "underlying morality of actions" (especially with reference to sex). — VagabondSpectre

I never claimed consensual sex is morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism. You're strawmanning again and this is becoming very painful to discuss because of your ignorance of what I'm actually saying.

It is not mutually consensual casual sex between two single adults that I find immoral, but this very assumption, this notion that it is reasonable to approach a woman to 'find out' which is enough to expose your intent and the very point I am attempting to convey. The intent that compels you to 'find out' whether a woman is sexually available is a flaw in your perception of women and this intention verifies who you are as a person. So, what happens to the woman who you approach and who is not sexually available? Who gives a shit, right? Abandon, and then next? Next what exactly? Your intention in approaching the woman to find out if she is available for casual sex is immoral; that is sexual objectification. Morality is about what is going on in your mind and the decisions that you make and the perceptions that you believe, and not about them agreeing to it or not. — TimeLine

By this logic it's never moral to ever approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a romantic relationship because that sexually objectifies her and what not.

How do people ever get into a relationship in this world? Is only the woman allowed to make the first move? Does she need to wear a sign that says "interested in a relationship" around her neck?

What?

Why do you continuously put me into the same category as Aug? I do not think you are morally depraved neither do I have a problem with sex outside of marriage, but having meaningless sex without love is, to me, degrading to my personhood. I actually believe in genuine love and I have yet to encounter someone who can see 'me' rather than my body and I refuse to share my body for a fleeting moment of sexual gratification. — TimeLine

That's all well and great for you. But I don't think having casual sex is actually degrading to my person-hood, or the person-hood of the women i have sex with, nor do they think that.

Your own personal sensitivity toward the act of sex is your own personal sentiment, not some objective truth about the way the world is for everyone who engages in casual sex.

You refuse to have casual sex, congratulations. The rest of the world keeps turning...

If perhaps you think that no man should ever "approach" any woman because you're personally not interested, then you should rethink the idea of whether or not society ought to operate around your personal standards of decency and offense taking.

If you're utterly not interested, then keep guarding yourself and life will go on (although if you wear revealing dresses at bars, some men are probably going to approach you (which is not some grave moral infraction), and some might even over-step and invade your personal space or harass you (which is wrong). My advice is to not go to such bars and clubs. (or places where sexual fraternization is the main attraction).

The reason why I'm comparing you to Aug's position is because essentially you're both using your own prudishness to moralize against what I believe are basic and uncontroversial moral beliefs (like it's o.k to ask a woman out on a date, or it's o.k for a woman to wear a pretty dress to encourage men to ask them out on dates) (the former you disagree with, the latter Aug disagrees with).

Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"? — VagabondSpectre


I see, but then you say:

" She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies." — VagabondSpectre


No objectification of women there, right? — TimeLine

You think being honest about whether or not I'm attracted to certain female bodies is harmful to them?

Even when they're intentionally and explicitly posed in a sexually provocative manner? this is the effect tat pinup models are actually going for you know...

"Sexual objectification" isn't the same as whatever "devaluation of person-hood" is. I don't suddenly forget that sexy women are people too because I talk about their body as if I'm attracted to it...

This is you once again trying to use your personal sex-negative feelings as a moral hatchet against me like I'm some corrupt and immoral villain...

I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them). — VagabondSpectre


Urg, yeah ok. — TimeLine

What do you mean "Urg, yeah ok."...

Are you suggesting that this isn't how casual sex works? Are you expressing disbelief?

The experience of a genuinely loving relationship where I am respected and admired and likewise that I respect and admire my partner elongates that pleasurable sensation beyond the bedroom, and it establishes meaning to our existence in a mutually shared capacity that in doing so motivates us to become better people. — TimeLine

I don't care about elongating the pleasure of admiration and respect beyond the bedroom. Nor do I need admiration and respect to "establish meaning to my existence", nor do I find "motivating myself to become a better person" to be morally obligatory.

It is not only casual sex that I have a problem with; many couples - including those that are married - are in it for convenience, dependence or tradition rather than for love and so it is an empty bind that results in the same meaninglessness as casual sex and one will never find themselves feeling pleasure neither ever progressing. But unlike, say, masturbation (which I don't think is immoral but without pornography, but please let's not get into that), there are a number of practical concerns that render casual sex problematic, the epidemiological is clear for one. — TimeLine

This is you trying to tell other people what to do for their own good because you think you know better and what will make them happy.

I'm not persuaded.

The problem can thus also become practical ethics as well as morality. This is what you are refusing to discuss because you are trying to defend yourself from Aug who is coming at you with his pitchfork and torch; set that aside, we are talking rational ethics. — TimeLine

Strictly speaking, your notion that approaching a woman to find out if she's interested in sex is immoral because if she's not interested then she and society yata yata yata are harmed is like saying that it's immoral to make eye contact with any other human being because they might have some sensitivity that renders eye contract a traumatic experience for them.

It's like you want to wrap everyone and everything in bubble wrap because you cannot bare to risk the discomfort of being approached by a man who is interested in a sexual relationship.

Those aren't rational ethics. It's nowhere near a broadly accepted premise that a man merely approaching a woman is immoral or unacceptable (and therefore useful as a social ethic) and even if it was all our marriages and relationships would probably need to be arranged for us by some central authority.

No. I never suggested that, you assume that because you are failing to see the philosophical problem at hand. We need to ascertain whether there is any intrinsic meaning in our sexual relations with one another - which we have come to agree as meaning formed by mutual affection and love that becomes instrumental to the pleasures that bring value to sexual activity and to our own identity or personhood - and as such, what lacks intrinsic meaning is the disvalue due to the lack of this mutual affection and love. — TimeLine

I don't care about meaning. I simply said that emotional intimacy can be pleasurable. I didn't mean to give you the impression that some sort of "meaning" based argument would actually be persuasive...

You're concerned with intrinsic meaning and value and integrity and dignity and person-hood and all that stuff, but I outright disagree that any of it is relevant concerning the harm-based morality of casual sex or approaching women in bars.

You feel that personhood is devalued through casual sex or approaching women in bars, great, whatever personhood means to you and however you feel it is affected is your own personal and emotion feeling about the world. It isn't a measurable or universally shared position and so I utterly refuse to pretend like moral arguments can be sensically founded upon them. To reiterate, I do not share your subjective opinion that we should derive "meaning" from sex, or that casual sex necessarily affects self-esteem or personhood or dignity or integrity or self-value or any of that nonsense.

I hold that casual sex is not necessarily harmful, nor is approaching women in bars necessarily harmful (or unethical/unreasonable), and you're not going to convince me it is harmful merely by appealing to your own emotional sentiment towards it with concepts like "personhood".

As I once said to Aug, what the fuck does personhood even mean?

The source of pleasure in our sexual activity becomes the key to permissibility and so, if as stated above it has intrinsic meaning over or above the source of pleasure, likewise should the source of pleasure outweigh the intrinsic meaning, the person or the other' value is reduced below the desire to attain an orgasm. It is not to say that it will certainly lead to acts of rape or harm of another neither does it require absolute prohibition, but sociopaths can also be non-violent and we are talking morality here. The very source of our abhorrence of non-consensual acts of sexual activity. — TimeLine

I find rape to be abhorrent because the harm and trauma that non-consensual sex causes is terrifying, not because I value value intimacy above orgasms (which right now I don't).

So to reiterate your argument: If the pleasure that someone gets from intimacy outweighs the pleasure (and meaning?) that they get from the intimacy of sex, they are therefore devaluing the other person?

How does that logically follow? What does the pleasure I get from an orgasm have to do with how I value other people, or the pleasure I may or may not get from "meaningful sex"?

It may appear logical to believe that casual sex is justifiable and rape is completely abhorrent, but there is certainly an inconsistency when trying to argue philosophically why acts such as rape wherein no principles - value, meaning - binds the act itself together is any different to casual sex which also lacks this binding principles. — TimeLine

It's about necessary harm (or the reasonable expectation of harm). The reason why we can say rape is abhorrent but casual sex is not is because casual and consensual sex is by definition not considered to be significantly harmful by the participants, whereas for the case of rape actual emotional/psychological/physical harm is inflicted (and violation of consent is universally inflicted).

If you base your moral system on some kind of objective meaning or purpose, it makes more sense as to why you think casual sex is morally not so different from rape (or will somehow lead to an increased prevalence of rape). But most people (and secular society) bases it's moral framework not around objective meaning, but on (almost universally) shared desires for freedom and freedom from harm. That's why comparing casual sex to rape is a false moral equivalence if we're talking about morality designed to preserve human health and happiness as opposed to morality designed to preserve some hierarchy of objective "meaning-related" values (like: love must be put above orgasms).

Saying both are inherently harmful isn't comparing them. — Agustino

Saying "agreeing to have casual sex with someone is like agreeing to eat someone alive" is comparing them.

Why bother making the juxtaposition if not to suggest some kind of equivalence between these two things?

In terms of JUST sexuality yes. But this is not a problem. Since having sex with them doesn't involve just sexuality, it involves other virtues as well, such as justice and charity. So while in terms of sexuality there is no immorality provided that the non-consensual sex is with your wife, there would be immorality in terms of justice and charity. And since justice and charity are both more important than sexuality in terms of morals, then having non-consensual sex with your wife is immoral overall.

Really you're clearly not very well read, because Aristotelians through history have dealt multiple times with this objection that you bring up and you somehow think I never thought of :s — Agustino

So it's not the harm done to your wife that makes raping her immoral, it's that it's not "just" and "charitable"?

What in your virtue ethics makes it unjust (hint: does it have to do with consent?), and what does charity have to do with it?

You're equivocating between two different senses of consent. — Agustino

What two different senses? I don't see the distinction.

That may be true if sex were like having a haircut. But it's not. You said "it's more invasive" ;) — Agustino

Ah, but coal mining is "more invasive" ;) therefore paying a coal miner to work your mine-shaft is immoral just like paying a prostitute to work your meat-shaft.

Invasive =/= harm/immoral though, remember?

In scenario A you present one action, in scenario B you present two actions which are unrelated. That makes it impossible to compare directly. — Agustino

I'm taking this response to mean that you're unable to explain why non-consensual sex is worse than casual and consensual sex. "because consent has nothing to do with the underlying morality of certain actions"

How am I restricting your freedom? Since when is morality a restriction of freedom? Do you think your freedom is restricted for example because you can't eat other people? Do you think your freedom is restricted because you and others have property rights? No - actually your freedom is increased in these manners. — Agustino

My freedom would be restricted if i didn't have the right to have sex with consenting adults, not increased...

This is your assumption. You have yet to prove this, and let me tell you - science ain't gonna help you, because this is a METAPHYSICAL assumption. — Agustino

You mean your metaphysical assumption that love is more than it's physical description? I know, science ain't gonna help you there.

Fun fact though, claiming god designed love is just as provable as claiming that the invisible flying spaghetti monster excreted it out of it's invisible spaghetti anus...

Yes, now you actually bring up something valid - took you a long time guessing and stabbing in the dark to put your hand on something that may be problematic. Not all Aristotelians would agree with me here, but basically here's my argument: Human beings are formed of a rational soul, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive) souls (ALERT: these are Aristotelian terms with clear definitions to which people who understand the definitions would agree, please don't cry about God) but adds to them the capacity for will and intellect (personhood). Granting that what differentiates human beings from animals is superior and greater (will & intellect), it follows that if it's necessary to sacrifice a telos that belongs to the animal and vegetative parts of the soul in order to achieve a telos that belongs to the human part of the soul then such is moral. Under this reasoning, if it's necessary to sacrifice reproduction, to achieve intimacy, then this would be moral, since (sexual) reproduction belongs to the animal part of the soul, while intimacy belongs to the uniquely human part of the soul. Another reason why promiscuity isn't immoral in animals, for them the telos is just reproduction, so they're not doing anything immoral, for promiscuity is something that hurts the uniquely human telos of intimacy. That's also why you're immoral if you have promiscuous sex aimed at reproduction - but it would be a lot less immoral than if you were to just have promiscuous sex while frustrating both intimacy and reproduction. — Agustino

You realize that all this can be brushed aside with no effort because it contains no actual evidence?

The assumption that humans have a "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Dividing this unproven soul into the "animal" and "vegetative" is an unsubstantiated extension of just assuming "rational souls" exist in the first place (regardless of how vague I might object the terms to be). Then comes the arbitrary moral value assumption that says the "vegetative" is more morally valuable than the "animal". And finally comes the assumption that the telelogical hierarchy of necessary ends of these realities constitutes a sound basis for objective moral reasoning. This is just bullshit predicated on bullshit...

You clearly don't understand. No it doesn't have to do with the intrinsic morality of the underlying action, but it DOES have to do with the morality of the human interaction that is presupposed by the underlying action. So even if the underlying action were moral, you can still commit some wrongs through the interaction (by for example imposing your will by force on another).

These are Aristotelian distinctions, which you don't seem to be capable to make even though you've read Aristotle (or so you claim). For example, there is talk of X being wrong in-so-far as it is considered in itself - this wouldn't include consent in the case of sex for example. But there is also talk of whether or not X is wrong (tout court), which would include other considerations apart from just the underlying action in and of itself. — Agustino

I don't think you understood my point here. I'm well aware that imposing your will on other people by force is immoral, but by your logic marriage in an of itself is not immoral, and so forcing someone to eat cabbage would be imposing your will on them and therefore immoral, and also forcing someone to marry you would be imposing your will on them, and therefore immoral, But my question is "why is forcing someone to marry you worse than forcing someone to eat cabbage?" Your system of moral reasoning doesn't seem like it can readily answer that question (unless you want to just whip out random virtue based arguments when and where it suits your moral intuition, which I'm happy to address). Just to be clear, what I'm hoping to get you to agree to is that the morality or immorality of some actions can depend entirely on the consent of the parties involved (such as in the case of receiving flyers, digging holes on property, being fed cabbage, marriage, and sex).

If you could also be so kind or have an answer for the above and want to move on, please explain to me what it is that makes X action wrong/immoral?(casual sex in and of itself, tout court). What are those other considerations you allude to? This is what I've been trying to get at the entire time...

It's questionable whether there even is such a drive as seeking pleasure for its own sake. Furthermore, "pleasure from eating is fundamental to human psychology" is very questionable. — Agustino

Then actually question them...

Pleasure from eating is in fact fundamental to human biology and psychology. It's an evolution endowed drive that incentivizes us to nourish ourselves. Just like how pleasure attached to orgasms incentivizes us to procreate. Just like how having fun with a partner (especially while having an orgasm) while filled with their scent/pheromones, the sight/mental imagery imagery of them, the sound of their voice (etc...), can cause a lasting psychological/emotional and pleasurable association between you and these things to be formed (love).

Any questions?

Because I don't undertake an action that frustrates those ends. I'm staying in my natural state - not marrying, and not reproducing - in other words not doing anything. I'm not taking any action which frustrates those ends. Not doing anything doesn't count as doing something that frustrates it. I don't die if I don't have sex, so there's nothing frustrated about my being or about my sexuality (as I've shown before). — Agustino

I'm pretty sure that not procreating is frustrating toward the end of procreation... Are you saying that procreation is not one of your necessary teleological ends?

I never claimed consensual sex is morally equivalent to suicide and cannibalism. You're strawmanning again and this is becoming very painful to discuss because of your ignorance of what I'm actually saying. — Agustino

What's even more painful is when you crow about straw-men and then go on to voice the exact argument that you claimed was a straw-man, sometimes in the very next sentence.

Consent doesn't matter when it comes to the morality of sex because it's the underlying harm of the action that matters. If someone asked you to kill them or to eat them alive, you wouldn't oblige them would you?

When I say "why is consensual casual sex harmful" and you say "because consent has nothing to do with it; think of someone who consents to be eaten alive", you're not answering the question I'm asking which is "what is harmful about casual sex". I have to always say "consensual" because previously you argued that casual sex was harmful on the basis of loss of dignity/personal value (which is subjective) and which can be easily rebuked with the addition of consent (i.e: the moral right of an individual to devalue/denigrate themselves if that's what makes them happy).

So I'm expecting an argument that contains reasoning as to what makes sex inherently harmful, and all you give me are juxtapositions between sex and suicide and sex and cannibalism (as you rant about the irrelevance of consent).

Can you at least see why every time you say "that would be like agreeing to eat someone alive" It seems like the rhetorical point you're making is that sex and cannibalism are both in some similar category of inherently immoral actions (some degree of moral equivalence)?

And as always, please enjoy this hypothetical musical scene from your moral paradise (or a variation not too far off):

It would be good if your posts contained a bit more meat to them, at the moment it's full of empty verbiage, misunderstandings, strawmen and red herrings. So since you're not capable to regulate yourself and respond with due consideration, I will from now on address to you very few and specific questions, so hopefully you'll put more effort in answering them and we'll be capable to have a proper conversation.

Why bother making the juxtaposition if not to suggest some kind of equivalence between these two things? — VagabondSpectre

To illustrate that they are (or can be) both harmful in-themselves, without even bringing the question of consent into play.

So it's not the harm done to your wife that makes raping her immoral, it's that it's not "just" and "charitable"?

What in your virtue ethics makes it unjust (hint: does it have to do with consent?), and what does charity have to do with it? — VagabondSpectre

Charity involves compassion and taking care of others, if you force them to do something that's not very compassionate. The virtue of justice and charity do have to do with consent, among other things, in this specific context. However, the virtue of chastity (which is what we refer to when we call sex in and of itself immoral - has zero to do with consent).

My freedom would be restricted if i didn't have the right to have sex with consenting adults, not increased... — VagabondSpectre

Yes, but the immorality of casual sex does not restrict this freedom. We're not talking about making casual sex illegal. You said that I try to restrict your freedom - and that's false.

You mean your metaphysical assumption that love is more than it's physical description? I know, science ain't gonna help you there. — VagabondSpectre

I asked a question first. Since you say that love is JUST the chemical reaction visible in the body, the onus is on you to prove this, since a priori, it is at least logically possible, especially given our experience, that love involves a lot more than this.

You realize that all this can be brushed aside with no effort because it contains no actual evidence?

The assumption that humans have a "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Dividing this unproven soul into the "animal" and "vegetative" is an unsubstantiated extension of just assuming "rational souls" exist in the first place (regardless of how vague I might object the terms to be). Then comes the arbitrary moral value assumption that says the "vegetative" is more morally valuable than the "animal". And finally comes the assumption that the telelogical hierarchy of necessary ends of these realities constitutes a sound basis for objective moral reasoning. This is just bullshit predicated on bullshit... — VagabondSpectre

Okay here's where I wanted to bring you. You've now said that this contains no actual evidence. Furthermore you've said that the "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Please remember these two statements. I want you to take the questions below and provide me clear and direct answers - no evasiveness, no mocking, no nothing of that sort. Failure to do this will indicate that you're not interested to continue this conversation on a rational basis.

• What is this "rational soul" that you claim is not proven or scientific?

• What do you mean by scientific or proven in relation to the "rational soul"? Keep in mind that these words have different standards - a different standard of proof is required to show there is a tree outside your garden, compared to showing that atoms exist.

• Do you hold that only what is scientifically proven is worthy of belief?

• Do we mean by a "good" doctor a doctor who performs his function well, either in healing the ailments of the body/mind or in keeping the body/mind healthy or what do we mean? (telling me this question is irrelevant or somehow avoiding to answer it will count towards failure and evasiveness).

• Do you think you can dismiss a long philosophical tradition without even understanding its positions by just waving your hand and calling it bullshit? Something you don't understand isn't necessarily bullshit, and you have to, as of yet, show evidence that you do at minimum understand it. This is precisely the mistake Dawkins commits with Aquinas in his God Delusion.

By this logic it's never moral to ever approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a romantic relationship because that sexually objectifies her and what not.

How do people ever get into a relationship in this world? Is only the woman allowed to make the first move? Does she need to wear a sign that says "interested in a relationship" around her neck? — VagabondSpectre

Indeed, if you are seeking a relationship with someone that you don't know and there a number of people that do this in various social or cultural settings for the purpose of regular sexual intercourse or to ensure approval by their social environment and when the initial objective - whatever it may be - may no longer be fulfilling, the object is disposed of and replaced. Love at first sight is also load of garbage, because the fact is that your intention to pursue a romantic relationship should always follow friendship.

You and Aug are both doing the exact same thing in different ways, that is you are seeking for entirely selfish purposes based on what you want, but through friendship one develops empathy, which enables one to give love and so you no longer desire that type of gain and turn that narcissism away to feel care and admiration for your partner. They are no longer an object but a person and when this is reciprocated a genuine bond is formed and thus one begins the process of a romantic relationship.

So yes, it is immoral to approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a sexual relationship, unless this follows you approaching a woman with the intention of getting to know them as a friend.

I don't care about elongating the pleasure of admiration and respect beyond the bedroom. Nor do I need admiration and respect to "establish meaning to my existence", nor do I find "motivating myself to become a better person" to be morally obligatory. — VagabondSpectre

To be morally conscious - which is established by friendship - is the language that enables empathy and thus ultimately love, the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world and identify other people. You thus consciously experience the world, otherwise you are doomed to remain trapped in your own limited cognitive framework, unfeeling and mindlessly controlled by your instinctual drives and an environment that dictates how you should behave. If your environment endorsed rape, would you do it? Or having sex with a prostitute who may have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery? Or be in an unloving relationship because you attain social praises?

Without morality, you are a mindless drone, a non-person.

My advice is to not go to such bars and clubs. (or places where sexual fraternization is the main attraction). — VagabondSpectre

I think you may be having some trouble being philosophical. It was rather tedious reading most of what you wrote because clearly you fail to understand what it is that I am attempting to convey, as proven below:

Strictly speaking, your notion that approaching a woman to find out if she's interested in sex is immoral because if she's not interested then she and society yata yata yata are harmed is like saying that it's immoral to make eye contact with any other human being because they might have some sensitivity that renders eye contract a traumatic experience for them. — VagabondSpectre

:-|

"Sexual objectification" isn't the same as whatever "devaluation of person-hood" is. I don't suddenly forget that sexy women are people too because I talk about their body as if I'm attracted to it... — VagabondSpectre

Care to explain your logic here?

I hope I am not crossing the line by suggesting that you have a woman's perspective. — geospiza

1. I am a woman.
2. And?

Notwithstanding that you might find your soulmate there, what kind of expectations would you have about finding Mr. Right in that setting? — geospiza

I quite literally do not think about it. I understand the balance of probability; a guy wearing footy shorts high up to his crotch and a stained navy blue singlet may unlikely be my soulmate, neither is the guy whose neck has disappeared into his muscles and who says 'I fink' instead of 'I think' but ultimately compatibility is relative. You cannot formulate a decisive list when it comes to love because that list epistemically references your social environment and is thus artificial because you seek what you are taught rather than what you actually want and who you are compatible with.

Isn't there something to be said about lightening up a little? — geospiza

Yes, because saying that is just a subtle form of coercion.

Sophisticated people know that the overture is half-serious as is the rejection. — geospiza

Reminds me of the following quote:

Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them. — Margaret Atwood

I confessed to a fantasy. I see now that it was a mistake to let my guard down. — geospiza

For what it is worth, I wish you would not view your 'confession' as a mistake because I can appreciate your fantasy as well. There is nothing wrong with your fantasy.

Yes, because saying that is just a subtle form of coercion. — TimeLine

How warped and cynical.

Reminds me of the following quote:

Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.
— Margaret Atwood — TimeLine

Ah yes, Canadian treasure Margaret Atwood. I used to know her step son, Graeme Gibson Jr. He formerly ran a bird ringing station on Pelee Island. Not sure what he's doing now.

Insecure men are afraid of women's laughter. Confident men are not bothered by it.

A man should never seek to physically intimidate a woman (except maybe in an emergency).

For what it is worth, I wish you would not view your 'confession' as a mistake because I can appreciate your fantasy as well. There is nothing wrong with your fantasy. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It was a mistake to admit it to what's-his-face because he just turned around and used it to personally attack me. Anyhoo, it's just a fantasy, not an ambition.

I've been told that a common women's fantasy is the opposite: to have the singular devotion and attention of one man they admire. If that's true, how can we account for these conflicting fantasies in a relationship?

It was a mistake to admit it to what's-his-face because he just turned around and used it to personally attack me. — geospiza

I did not personally attack you - go back and read it again. It seems to me that you have no clue what you're talking about and you get very easily offended - that's not my fault now.

You and Aug are both doing the exact same thing in different ways, that is you are seeking for entirely selfish purposes based on what you want, but through friendship one develops empathy, which enables one to give love and so you no longer desire that type of gain and turn that narcissism away to feel care and admiration for your partner. They are no longer an object but a person and when this is reciprocated a genuine bond is formed and thus one begins the process of a romantic relationship. — TimeLine

Can you please stop discussing and spewing falsity about me? There's nothing selfish about anything that I've said for that matter. Nor did I encourage treatment of women as objects, but rather quite the opposite. You should really be ashamed of yourself for letting your personal feelings towards me cloud your judgement to the extent that in almost each and every message of yours you have to say misrepresent what I say in order to be able to say something negative about me.

I did not personally attack you - go back and read it again. It seems to me that you have no clue what you're talking about and you get very easily offended - that's not my fault now. — Agustino

Easily offended? Yes, you do seem to find it easy to offend people.

Easily offended? — geospiza

Yes, I believe that's what I wrote. What about it?

Edit: Well seems you've edited your post.

Yes, you do seem to find it easy to offend people. — geospiza

Again, I haven't insulted you. Why do you feel insulted? Can you explain that?

I've been told that a common women's fantasy is the opposite: to have the singular devotion and attention of one man they admire. If that's true, how can we account for these conflicting fantasies in a relationship? — geospiza

Hmmm...please do not count me in that idea of a woman's fantasy because for me, that is what I experience in the marriage of 22 yrs married, 26 holding hands. While it was a fantasy before I got married, the idea of singular devotion is way to restrictive for my fantasies. My fantasies rarely involve just one person being present and sometimes only involve me.

Having said that: I think it is fair that I share that my husband wanted an "open marriage" when I met him and I was just out of a relationship and not looking for anyone to commit to, yet still resisted the idea of an "open marriage". Five years later we redefined what marriage looked like which included the option of having a third person join given they agreed to a few rules.

Odd it is that we have yet to run across someone that exceeds or even meets our rules for play. So even though it is possible, we have never found another person that was worth it.
It follows the mantra that we have had since we redefined our marriage which is: "I want you to be here with me, as long as you want to be. Not a day longer, not a day less."
I think by leaving the door open, knowing that you would not hate the other if they chose to walk away, allows us to want to stay. I am not really sure, nor do I want to dissect this beautiful flower into it's parts and pieces, to figure out what "it" is that allows us to stay together contently. But I can tell you it is not without work and both pursuing goals together that we would never have achieved on our own.

ps. for the literal thinker, when we speak of being there not a "day" longer, we are not talking about AN argument, A disagreement or A spat. We are speaking of not wanting to be there anymore. Period. Full Stop.

Can you please stop discussing and spewing falsity about me? — Agustino

That actually made me laugh. I said to Vagabond that he and yourself are doing the exact same thing, that is wanting rather than learning how to give and ultimately objectifying onto others your desires in different ways, and this followed what you yourself said:

I have a sexy body that I'm proud of, why would I want some tramp to enjoy it eh? — Agustino

Your continuous contradictions is making it fast becoming impossible to communicate with you. You are so aggressive, as you say here:

Keep quiet with your bullshit. — Agustino

Or:

you got rid of a son/daughter of a bitch who didn't love you to begin with — Agustino

Even in this same sentence below, you do exactly what you say you are not doing, where you say you don't 'personally attack' followed by a personal attack,

I did not personally attack you - go back and read it again. It seems to me that you have no clue what you're talking about and you get very easily offended - that's not my fault now. — Agustino

Now my argument with Vagabond is that attraction and love to another person is about giving love and learning to understand the other person through empathy, which is formed through friendship. You would not call people 'tramps' for a start, such Othering is unnecessarily aggressive. If you do not respect a woman that you encounter, brush your shoulders off and move on, but who knows, these so-called 'tramps' could quite simply be good women who don't fit into the category you expect of them. Who are you to judge?

How warped and cynical. — geospiza

For those that use subtle coercion to try and pressure others to conform? Yes, they are rather warped people, aren't they.

To illustrate that they are (or can be) both harmful in-themselves, without even bringing the question of consent into play. — Agustino

Juxtaposing sex and cannibalism does not actually demonstrate that sex is inherently harmful, it just rhetorically (via sophistry) compares the two and indicates a moral equivalence. That might not be that you were trying to say, but that's how you have said it.

I asked a question first. Since you say that love is JUST the chemical reaction visible in the body, the onus is on you to prove this, since a priori, it is at least logically possible, especially given our experience, that love involves a lot more than this — Agustino

Do you really think I'm about to accept the burden of proving that god did not design love?

I figure you ought to prove the inverse if you want to base your own objective morality upon it...

Okay here's where I wanted to bring you. You've now said that this contains no actual evidence. Furthermore you've said that the "rational soul" is not proven or scientific. Please remember these two statements. I want you to take the questions below and provide me clear and direct answers - no evasiveness, no mocking, no nothing of that sort. Failure to do this will indicate that you're not interested to continue this conversation on a rational basis.

• What is this "rational soul" that you claim is not proven or scientific? — Agustino

According to you, it's what human beings are formed of, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive).

• What do you mean by scientific or proven in relation to the "rational soul"? Keep in mind that these words have different standards - a different standard of proof is required to show there is a tree outside your garden, compared to showing that atoms exist. — Agustino

Something scientific is something that is falsifiable. Since we do not yet understand enough about human psychology there's no way to test if the "rational soul" description is false or innaccurate

• Do you hold that only what is scientifically proven is worthy of belief? — Agustino

No but I hold that obscure and unsubstantiated beliefs are worthy of scrutiny before belief.

• Do we mean by a "good" doctor a doctor who performs his function well, either in healing the ailments of the body/mind or in keeping the body/mind healthy or what do we mean? (telling me this question is irrelevant or somehow avoiding to answer it will count towards failure and evasiveness). — Agustino

What do we mean by a good doctor? Sure, someone good at healing....

• Do you think you can dismiss a long philosophical tradition without even understanding its positions by just waving your hand and calling it bullshit? Something you don't understand isn't necessarily bullshit, and you have to, as of yet, show evidence that you do at minimum understand it. This is precisely the mistake Dawkins commits with Aquinas in his God Delusion. — Agustino

I think the following: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Since you've not provided evidence for your long traditional philosophy, I can dismiss it without evidence...

Now that I've answered your questions, please answer just a single one of my own:

What makes casual sex inherently immoral/harmful?

Do you really think I'm about to accept the burden of proving that god did not design love? — VagabondSpectre

I didn't speak about God at all. So why are you bringing God in? I've asked you to prove merely that love is JUST a chemical cocktail and nothing more. It's not a black and white thing. If love isn't just a chemical cocktail, that doesn't mean God exists, so don't be scared. This is not a trap. I'm just asking you an honest question.

I figure you ought to prove the inverse if you want to base your own objective morality upon it... — VagabondSpectre

And don't you need to prove your point if you want to convince us that love is just a chemical cocktail? Or do you expect us to fall down before your great wisdom in blind acceptance? That sounds quite like what you project on religious people to tell you the truth. It's quite hypocritical to hold others to standards you don't hold yourself to.

According to you, it's what human beings are formed of, which includes capacities of the animal (sensory) and the vegetative (nutritive). — VagabondSpectre

What does that mean? I didn't ask you to recite what I said, I asked you what it means. You say you're familiar with Aristotelian tradition, so please go ahead and explain to me what exactly a rational soul is. What is this thing that human beings are formed of?

No but I hold that obscure and unsubstantiated beliefs are worthy of scrutiny before belief. — VagabondSpectre

Okay, I agree. What would you say "obscure" and "unsubstantiated" mean? How do you make a belief "clear" and "substantiated"?

What do we mean by a good doctor? Sure, someone good at healing.... — VagabondSpectre

And would you agree that we mean someone good at healing, instead of good at baking pies, because we appeal to the function of the doctor, and so we consider a doctor to be a good doctor when he performs his function well?

I think the following: that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — VagabondSpectre

Right, and I agree with that. But to claim that this tradition is presented without evidence is quite silly - even on an a priori basis, some of the brightest minds who have ever lived have believed it. To really make that claim you must first show that you understand that tradition, and show that it lacks such evidence, something that you haven't done. To be able to do that, you'd have to engage with the tradition, do you agree?

Now that I've answered your questions, please answer just a single one of my own: — VagabondSpectre

I will answer your question, but you won't understand the answer yet, so hopefully if we work through the questions I've asked you above, you will start to understand what I mean by this answer. So I would advise even if you disagree with the answer to refrain from critiquing it for now, so that you can begin to understand what it means. After you understand it, then you can begin critiquing it.

What makes casual sex inherently immoral/harmful? — VagabondSpectre

The fact that it necessarily frustrates the telos of intimacy of sex.

I said to Vagabond that he and yourself are doing the exact same thing, that is wanting rather than learning how to give and ultimately objectifying onto others your desires in different ways, and this followed what you yourself said: — TimeLine

How am I objectifying others through that statement? To objectify them would imply that I treat them as objects rather than persons, correct? That I treat them as tools, presumably for my benefit, right?

Even in this same sentence below, you do exactly what you say you are not doing, where you say you don't 'personally attack' followed by a personal attack, — TimeLine

How is telling someone they don't know what they're talking about when they make false statements, and telling them they're easily offended a case of "personal attack"?

Now my argument with Vagabond is that attraction and love to another person is about giving love and learning to understand the other person through empathy, which is formed through friendship. — TimeLine

Yeah, good, I agree. We're on the same side of this if you haven't realised.

You would not call people 'tramps' for a start, such Othering is unnecessarily aggressive. — TimeLine

So if I call someone who is a tramp, a tramp (not to her face in this case) is that bad? Why?

If you do not respect a woman that you encounter, brush your shoulders off and move on, but who knows, these so-called 'tramps' could quite simply be good women who don't fit into the category you expect of them. — TimeLine

Sure, but why do you think I wouldn't respect women I encounter? :s I referred to tramps who jump on you - that's what I actually said - so I think if they did that, according to your own logic (with which I don't quite agree by the way), they would have objectified me.

Who are you to judge? — TimeLine

Of course I will judge them by their actions. When you say I'm extremely aggressive, aren't you judging me? I could do the same - who the hell are you to judge? :s Maybe I'm a really nice guy - who are you to say I'm not? Just because I don't fit your preconceived standard of behaviour? Pff - stop objectifying me!

the object is disposed of and replaced. — TimeLine

"disposed of?"

Isn't that an arbitrarily negative way to look at one night stands? The woman leaves of her own accord, or I do. Nobody is disposing of other people..

Love at first sight is also load of garbage, because the fact is that your intention to pursue a romantic relationship should always follow friendship. — TimeLine

Why should it always follow friendship? Because that's how you feel about it? Because otherwise your feelings get hurt?

Why?

You and Aug are both doing the exact same thing in different ways, that is you are seeking for entirely selfish purposes based on what you want, but through friendship one develops empathy, which enables one to give love and so you no longer desire that type of gain and turn that narcissism away to feel care and admiration for your partner. They are no longer an object but a person and when this is reciprocated a genuine bond is formed and thus one begins the process of a romantic relationship. — TimeLine

I don't understand what you mean here; I don't have sex with objects, I have sex with people.

Can you please stop making assumptions about how awful of a person I am for being attracted to female bodies?

Should I follow your advice because I'm so narcissistic or what?

So yes, it is immoral to approach a woman with the intention of pursuing a sexual relationship, unless this follows you approaching a woman with the intention of getting to know them as a friend. — TimeLine

Not all women want to be friends with their sexual partners. This seems to once again be your own personal emotional reaction to the idea of being approached in a bar. You think that a man should not have any sexual interest before getting to know a woman (this will never be the norm, men are too horny), and some other women think that a man should be confident and sexually attracted to them from the get go.

If I see you at a bar dressed a certain way, behaving in a certain manner (provocatively), I might make the presumption that you're interested in something other than friendship (or think it a reasonable possibility), and I might take the grave moral risk to make a sexual pass at you.

I won't invade your space, I won't touch you, I will only use my words and my body language. You will reject me, and that's totally fine (I wonder who will be more offended, you for me having a pass made at you, or me for being told I'm an immoral narcissistic piece of shit for thinking that I even had the right to approach/speak to you and to get lost...).

What should happen here is you reject me (in whatever manner is fine, I'm a big boy and social rudeness isn't something I tend to moralize over), and then I leave, and then life goes on for both of us, unmolested by each other's presence.

What's so lastingly harmful about this?

What if... What if everybody knew that this was the "hook-up bar"? What if there was a sign at the entrance that said "people inside this establishment are interested in sex, and therefore may or may not approach you with sexual interest in mind", and then you went in anyway on the count of it's your pal's birthday?

Would I still be immoral for approaching you with sexual interest?

To be morally conscious - which is established by friendship - is the language that enables empathy and thus ultimately love, the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world and identify other people. You thus consciously experience the world, otherwise you are doomed to remain trapped in your own limited cognitive framework, unfeeling and mindlessly controlled by your instinctual drives and an environment that dictates how you should behave. If your environment endorsed rape, would you do it? Or having sex with a prostitute who may have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery? Or be in an unloving relationship because you attain social praises?

Without morality, you are a mindless drone, a non-person. — TimeLine

So, I don't exactly follow your logic here and your fast and loose use of terms makes it difficult to know exactly what you're trying to say.

Why is "friendship" required to be "morally conscious"?

I don't understand how you can describe "morally conscious" (meaning: "has friends" for all I know) as "the language and the cognition and capacity to connect to the external world, and to identify other people in the external world".

I can do that without friendship. I can empathize with someone without friendship. Let me give you an example. If I see a person in distress, I will attempt to offer comfort and assistance (or at least I like to think I would). I'm not going to approach someone in distress and make a sexual pass at them, indicating that I'm not an empathy-less sub-human monster, and furthermore even if someone is not in distress, I'm not going to make a sexual pass at anyone unless I think it is a reasonable expectation or assumption (given the setting, context, behavior, dress, actions, etc...).

When I see a woman dressed up and at a club displaying body language as if she want's to attract attention, I'm going to assume to hat she's not in distress, that's she's O.K with being approached, and that having sexual interest in her isn't going to do her any harm. Do you still call me immoral for doing so?

I can assure you that my cognitive framework extends beyond the weirdness of only being able to perceive other people as people if A) you know the language of friendship and love (or something that I don't understand) and B) have no sexual interest in them, because that makes them into an object an not a person....

You accuse me of being mindlessly controlled by my drives, and I accuse you of being mindlessly controlled by your prudish sensitivity toward the idea of casual sex and dating in modern culture. You can think that societal morality should revolve around your own sensitivity, and as I said to Aug, that's merely ego-centrism (where you really are unable to perceive of others as having ideas and standards different from your own)

You thus consciously experience the world, otherwise you are doomed to remain trapped in your own limited cognitive framework, unfeeling and mindlessly controlled by your instinctual drives and an environment that dictates how you should behave. If your environment endorsed rape, would you do it? Or having sex with a prostitute who may have been kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery? Or be in an unloving relationship because you attain social praises?

Without morality, you are a mindless drone, a non-person. — TimeLine

All this because I don't believe the women who regularly attend some bars and night-clubs to be as prudish or easily offended as you are...

A mindless drone who would rape and enslave...

I think you may be having some trouble being philosophical. It was rather tedious reading most of what you wrote because clearly you fail to understand what it is that I am attempting to convey, as proven below: — TimeLine

Oh come now. Appeal to un-philosophicalness?

Let me try and decipher what you mean:

VagabondSpectre wrote: "Strictly speaking, your notion that approaching a woman to find out if she's interested in sex is immoral because if she's not interested then she and society yata yata yata are harmed is like saying that it's immoral to make eye contact with any other human being because they might have some sensitivity that renders eye contract a traumatic experience for them. —


Timeline wrote: :-|

VagabondSpectre wrote: "Sexual objectification" isn't the same as whatever "devaluation of person-hood" is. I don't suddenly forget that sexy women are people too because I talk about their body as if I'm attracted to it... — VagabondSpectre


Care to explain your logic here? — TimeLine

You explain me yours and I'll explain you mine...

Your moral point about approaching women with sexual interest/intentions is that it's harmful to them. Specifically it's harmful to you because of your own sensitivity, but to many women it's not considered harmful at all, and it's even considered desirable by most women in night-clubs. So my example was that if there was someone who felt harmed by eye-contact, they might naively think that nobody should be allowed to look someone else in the eye while under some delusion that either eye-contact actually harmed everyone else or that social morality needs to placate their own personal sensitivity in the matter...

Regarding "the harm of sexual objectification", it's not actually a necessarily harmful thing. Some women successfully sexually objectify themselves (Beyonce for instance). But when I speak about a woman (a model in a photograph in this case) and refer to them as sexy or attractive or someone I'd like to fuck, why do you think this means I'm either harming her or somehow devaluing her person-hood? (Why do you allege that I'm the kind of person who would rape a woman if society endorsed it? Because I don't agree to your sex-negvative morality I therefore have no morals at all? Because I'm not your friend I'm unable to perceive the external world or people in it and remain trapped in my petty cognitive framework?)

Someone's person-hood, and their personal value (how I value them, and how I view their "personhood" (again, whatever that really means), their rights as a human, etc, have nothing to do with whether or not I want to fuck them...

Explain what your point is please...

You say this:

So if I call someone who is a tramp, a tramp (not to her face in this case) is that bad? Why? — Agustino

But then, earlier in your little tirade against me, you said:

That's not kind, that's not nice, and that's not virtuous. End of story. — Agustino

You contradict yourself constantly; so I am not kind or nice or virtuous when I speak, but you are? And then you ask why it is bad to call someone a tramp? That people who don't love you are the sons and daughters of bitches? Your strategies to try and worm your way out of and excusing yourself from your behaviour is only deceptive to you and asking a multitude of irrelevant questions is as much a tactic as appealing to the 'many people agree with me' rhetoric when you attempt re-direct the blame to your interlocutor.

Of course I will judge them by their actions. When you say I'm extremely aggressive, aren't you judging me? I could do the same - who the hell are you to judge? :s Maybe I'm a really nice guy - who are you to say I'm not? Just because I don't fit your preconceived standard of behaviour? Pff - stop objectifying me! — Agustino

This is not a game of who can write the most or who will give up first or who can manipulate words the best as a way to deflect any responsibility. Again, here you are contradicting yourself and you are indeed aggressive. Several of your posts have been deleted if you haven't noticed.