It's just no big deal. Obviously it's no big deal to me, and no big deal to others as well. As for the rest, it should be no big deal for them, too. — Sapientia

Great, a more circular reasoning could not be possible :P

My wife? What wife? :D

And what six pack? :(

Nah, people on the street should enjoy my hypothetical six pack, too. Some probably did in the past when I actually had one and when it was on show in public. — Sapientia

LOL!

I was hoping we could avoid that quibble. I was speaking in a looser sense of not knowing enough about a situation to make a good judgement. — Sapientia

Sure, that is sometimes possible.

Great, a more circular reasoning could not be possible. — Agustino

Yes it could, because it's possible, which in turn suggests that it could. Therefore it's possible.

Dude I quoted you directly in the other thread and it's there for anyone to read. Here it is again: — VagabondSpectre

Yeah what the hell does that sentence say? Does it say the desire for God or the desire for the transcendent?! >:O I think you just need some new glasses.

Being born with the potential to learn mathematics is not the same as being born with mathematical ideas in your head. — VagabondSpectre

As if I said it was.

What if they want a mate that they are attracted to, so they are trying to make themselves attractive. — VagabondSpectre

That's good, no need to pay special attention to making themselves attractive for that. All they have to do is be themselves. That person should like them for who they are.

Should they be happy with whichever man/woman their parents/priest indicates they should marry? — VagabondSpectre

No.

I'm talking about sex, not love. Why do people have to only deal in love and not in sex? — VagabondSpectre

Because we're not animals. Next question please.

Umm, so you're upset that they're "using one other" even though they're both well aware that pleasure is being traded for pleasure? Doesn't usery need to be one-sided or else it's not usery? — VagabondSpectre

No, because this isn't an economic exchange. It involves who they are as persons directly (including their bodies and minds), in a way a business deal doesn't. A business deal doesn't involve lying close to that person and putting your penis in them. Nope. It just doesn't.

When you walk into any commercial establishment and exchange money for services, you're treating people like TOOLS? You're making a self-serving exchange for your own ends.... When you buy a sand-which.... So what? — VagabondSpectre

Read what I said above, and stop strawmanning and being stupid please.

Forgive me, but I'm having a hard time wondering who is harmed during an actual transaction for sex for money. Clearly the woman isn't harmed; she got paid! So is it the main who gets harmed? He loses his hard earned money and afterwards feels emotionally depressed that he must pay women to sexually gratify him? I don't get it, please enlighten me... — VagabondSpectre

Both of them are harmed, because they use one another as tools, they don't respect each other's personhood and VALUE as a person, they fail to actualise their potential for communion with one another, and they fail to uphold their human dignity. Need I go over these same explanations over and over again? :s

Ummmmmmm.......

So running around on all fours, living amongst a pack of dogs, eating sleeping and living like them, is not animal behavior?

The existence of feral children pretty much destroys your notion that humans have some kind of innate set of ideas like "god" and "decency"... — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, go back and do a proper study of it. We have very little scientific knowledge of feral children (your own Wiki article says as much), and many of the stories are hoaxes. There's also stories of people who are now living amongst people even though they were feral. So no, clearly NOT like dogs. Go walk the dog, you may be more successful at that, than at peddling BS here.

Yes it could, because it's possible, which in turn suggests that it could. Therefore it's possible. — Sapientia

Smart owl :D

As for the rest, it should be no big deal for them, too. — Sapientia

Why?

Yeah what the hell does that sentence say? Does it say the desire for God or the desire for the transcendent?! >:O I think you just need some new glasses. — Agustino

That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning. - Augistino

Stop being pedantic please.

That's good, no need to pay special attention to making themselves attractive for that. All they have to do is be themselves. That person should like them for who they are. — Agustino

Would you marry someone you found visually repulsive because you like who they are?

Because we're not animals. Next question please. — Agustino

we ARE animals. We evolved here on Earth right along side all the others...

Read what I said above, and stop strawmanning and being stupid please. — Agustino

This might seem like some fast and loose conversation for you, but I can assure you that anyone who is reading this likely isn't going to fall for your present style of calling me a stupid liar when all I need to do is copy and paste your own quotes to contradict you:

" When the self-serving ends of each are over, their relationship is too, which means they treat each other as TOOLS - not as persons. In casual sex the two participants each want the sexual pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the realtionship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for his/her own selfish ends, and not real people." -Augustino

When your self serving ends are over with a MacDonald's worker, and they with you (making money), the relationship is too, which means that you treat each-other like TOOLS - not as persons (CITATION NEEDED). In casual fast-food, the two participants each want the pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the relationship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for their own selfish ends, and not real people." -Augistino's reflection

Both of them are harmed, because they use one another as tools, they don't respect each other's personhood and VALUE as a person, they fail to actualise their potential for communion with one another, and they fail to uphold their human dignity. Need I go over these same explanations over and over again? — Agustino

"Actualize their potential for communion with one-another" is the kind of phrase I could program a post-modern research paper generator to produce. It's meaningless and you know it Aug... Do you honestly expect me to bend-over backwards and guess what the hell it is you actually mean here? (if you're not just making shit up ad hoc that is...).

In what way do tricks and johns fail to "respect each-other's personhood" in a way that MacDonald's workers and customers do not?

Let me guess: "BECAUSE WHEN THE PENIS ENTERS THE VAGINA IT'S SINFUL AND DISRESPECTFUL!"

Yeah, go back and do a proper study of it. We have very little scientific knowledge of feral children (your own Wiki article says as much), and many of the stories are hoaxes. There's also stories of people who are now living amongst people even though they were feral. So no, clearly NOT like dogs. Go walk the dog, you may be more successful at that, than at peddling BS here. — Agustino

Pedanticer and pedanticer....

Yes we know very little about feral children because they're somewhat rare, and many stories of feral children have been hoaxes. That said, there are numerous well documented cases of feral children who have exhibited extreme degrees of animal behavior and additionally (but not crucial to my point) they have severe difficulties re-adapting to normal human life (sometimes they even escape back to the wild).

Of the bona fide cases of feral children that we do have, there's not much room for study given the amount of therapy and rehabilitative work that feral children require. When and where we find them, we're not about to sequester them for study. And yet, the few well documented cases of feral children we do have provide conclusive proof that if a child gets raised by an animal, they will adopt the behavior of the animal (i.e: they won't learn about god and decency on their own).

Were you even aware of the existence of feral children before I brought them up?

That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God)

Stop being pedantic please. — VagabondSpectre

It says desire for the transcendent (which does INCLUDE God, but it obviously is much larger than the concept of God).

Would you marry someone you found visually repulsive because you like who they are? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, quite possibly.

we ARE animals. We evolved here on Earth right along side all the others... — VagabondSpectre

Sure, but this doesn't mean we're JUST animals. We're also VERY different from other animals. Animals weren't painting in their caves AND burying their dead AND worshipping, etc. ;) Don't make me bring this one up on you again.

Ant colonies don't have a space for altars, where they make sacrifices and such. Maybe only in your dreams they do.

When your self serving ends are over with a MacDonald's worker, and they with you (making money), the relationship is too, which means that you treat each-other like TOOLS - not as persons (CITATION NEEDED). In casual fast-food, the two participants each want the pleasure that each can provide the other. When one of them can no longer do that, the relationship ends - again showing that they were just TOOLS that each was using for their own selfish ends, and not real people." -Augistino's reflection — VagabondSpectre

How does buying something from McDonald's involve your personhood in any real sense of the term? How does making a business deal involve your personhood? Oh it doesn't. Right. Of course then that it is irrelevant if they're using you as tools, because they're not actually using you at all, since your personhood isn't involved. Again, doing business isn't the same as putting a penis in someone. You seem not to be able to get this.

In other words, how do you FAIL to treat each other as persons when you make that exchange with the McD's worker? None of your personhood is involved in anyway in that, it's not an intimate act at all.

"Actualize their potential for communion with one-another" is the kind of phrase I could program a post-modern research paper generator to produce. It's meaningless and you know it Aug... Do you honestly expect me to bend-over backwards and guess what the hell it is you actually mean here? (if you're not just making shit up ad hoc that is...).

In what way do tricks and johns fail to "respect each-other's personhood" in a way that MacDonald's workers and customers do not?

Let me guess: "BECAUSE WHEN THE PENIS ENTERS THE VAGINA IT'S SINFUL AND DISRESPECTFUL!" — VagabondSpectre

You've shown no evidence of having understood what is being told to you to begin with. Evidence that it's time to go back to studying what I wrote.

That said, there are numerous well documented cases of feral children who have exhibited extreme degrees of animal behavior and additionally (but not crucial to my point) they have severe difficulties re-adapting to normal human life (sometimes they escape . — VagabondSpectre

Ah, sometimes they can escape! So they're not like dogs, because dogs can never escape RIGHT?! Really, you're making yourself appear stupid.

Were you even aware of the existence of feral children before I brought them up? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I was totally aware of them. They're still not anywhere near animals, evidenced even by the sole fact that they can sometimes escape that condition.

It says desire for the transcendent (which does INCLUDE God, but it obviously is much larger than the concept of God). — Agustino

The transcendent; anything spiritual (what's spiritual?): "anything beyond the physical"...

Read as: anything vaguely superstitious = a baby's desire for god. Humans are superstitious, QED babies desire god right?

Yes, quite possibly. — Agustino

so whether or not you're physically attracted to someone is not a consideration whatsoever in the partnership of marriage?

Sure, but this doesn't mean we're JUST animals. We're also VERY different from other animals. Animals weren't painting in their caves AND burying their dead AND worshipping, etc. ;) Don't make me bring this one up on you again.

Ant colonies don't have a space for altars, where they make sacrifices and such. Maybe only in your dreams they do. — Agustino

Aug, I asked why humans cannot trade sex for sex without "love" needing to be a factor. "We're different from animals" is not a satisfactory answer. The fact that ants don't have altars doesn't mean we cannot trade sex for money in a loveless transaction without some terrible harm being inflicted (other than to your own emotions, for whatever reason).

How does buying something from McDonald's involve your personhood in any real sense of the term? How does making a business deal involve your personhood? Oh it doesn't. Right. Of course then that it is irrelevant if they're using you as tools, because they're not actually using you at all, since your personhood isn't involved. Again, doing business isn't the same as putting a penis in someone. You seem not to be able to get this. — Agustino

What do consensual sexual favors have to do with personhood? Oh, nothing.

If one day a woman should let you put your penis in her don't for a minute think that she's offering up her "person-hood".

You've shown no evidence of having understood what is being told to you to begin with. Evidence that it's time to go back to studying what I wrote. — Agustino

I would rather study L Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics" to be honest...

What the fuck does "Actualize their potential for communion with one-another" mean?

Does it mean anything or is it just nonsense? Did you just make it up?

Ah, sometimes they can escape! So they're not like dogs, because dogs can never escape RIGHT?! Really, you're making yourself appear stupid. — Agustino

Yes, I was totally aware of them. They're still not anywhere near animals, evidenced even by the sole fact that they can sometimes escape that condition. — Agustino

Dogs never escape? :-}

The strangest hills Aug... The strangest hills...

Dogs never escape? :-} — VagabondSpectre

Do they? Show me a dog starting to become a human. :s

What the fuck does "Actualize their potential for communion with one-another" mean?

Does it mean anything or is it just nonsense? Did you just make it up? — VagabondSpectre

Read some Aristotelian philosophy and you may be able to understand what it means.

I would rather study L Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics" to be honest... — VagabondSpectre

Okay, go do that then.

What do consensual sexual favors have to do with personhood? Oh, nothing.

If one day a woman should let you put your penis in her don't for a minute think that she's offering up her "person-hood". — VagabondSpectre

They absolutely do have to do with your personhood, because sexual acts are INTIMATE, and involve close bodily and emotional contact.

Aug, I asked why humans cannot trade sex for sex without "love" needing to be a factor. "We're different from animals" is not a satisfactory answer. The fact that ants don't have altars doesn't mean we cannot trade sex for money in a loveless transaction without some terrible harm being inflicted (other than to your own emotions, for whatever reason). — VagabondSpectre

Yes, and I answered you why. Read it and study what it means:

Both of them are harmed, because they use one another as tools, they don't respect each other's personhood and VALUE as a person, they fail to actualise their potential for communion with one another, and they fail to uphold their human dignity. Need I go over these same explanations over and over again? :s — Agustino

so whether or not you're physically attracted to someone is not a consideration whatsoever as a potential marriage partner? — VagabondSpectre

Nope. Not at all. Physical attraction may play a role in getting me interested in her as a PERSON in the first place, but it would definitely be of no consideration in deciding whether I should marry her or not.

Read as: anything vaguely superstitious = a baby's desire for god. Humans are superstitious, QED babies desire god right? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, anything beyond the physical includes the superstitious. Animals don't have superstitions, yet another difference.

Read some Aristotelian philosophy and you may be able to understand what it means. — Agustino

Or, you could have clear ideas and communicate them effectively... There's always that option!

They absolutely do have to do with your personhood, because sexual acts are INTIMATE, and involve close bodily and emotional contact. — Agustino

What if sex need not involve intimate emotion? What's your definition of personhood?

Yes, and I answered you why. Read it and study what it means: — Agustino

Right, right, because they don't actualize their potential for communion with one-another! How could I have been so forgetful!

Honestly though Aug, explain what all this stuff means or you're going to start sounding really stupid...

Do they? Show me a dog starting to become a human. :s — Agustino

Feral children (and children who were not raised with normal social interactions) do not escape their "condition", the severity of which depends on the severity of their circumstances. They're all permanently affected and only a few have managed to eek out even some modicum of normalcy. They do not acquire verbal language and their social habits are forever changed.

But what you're saying here is that because feral children can learn some new behavior later in life that "innate human ideas" somehow exist, right?

I've seen dogs and cats be trained to use the toilet, does that mean that they have some innate human ideas too?

Nope. Not at all. Physical attraction may play a role in getting me interested in her as a PERSON in the first place, but it would definitely be of no consideration in deciding whether I should marry her or not. — Agustino

Why would you be more interested in an attractive female at the outset?

You low down hedonist dog you!

Yes, anything beyond the physical includes the superstitious. Animals don't have superstitions, yet another difference. — Agustino

How do you know animals aren't superstitious?

I think that dogs who growl at mailmen are behaving superstitiously...

OK, fair enough, I do agree there is a difference between being pregnant and semi-naked, or even naked, on a beach, and posing semi-naked and pregnant for a magazine, as I already highlighted by my comments about celebrity and minor celebrity. There are nudist beaches here in Sydney, and I have swum at some of them, and i find nothing at all offensive about seeing naked human bodies, and i feel no shame about appearing naked myself. Some are more visually attractive than others, to be sure.

I don't agree with your allegation of there being a "political agenda", though, with the "Serena' image. At least no more than there is a political agenda to every aspect of media, simply by virtue of the fact that we are political beings.

An excerpt from "The Holy Wars: The Battle for the Soul of the West" page 253:

I entered the bar with trepidation, knowing that a somewhat less than motley assortment of hipsters and new-left degenerates lay in wait, but this was my last night before shipping off to the front, and this was the only place for miles, so I had little choice... When I crossed the threshold it was instantly obvious that all of my presumptions were 100% correct. There were neon color mo-hawked "its" bloating from almost every booth and corner, with hands and mouths interlocked in every possible permutation. On the dance floor there were bearded men in over-tight jeans performing some sort of homoerotic bounce dance while everywhere in-between there were pairs of females who clearly had lesbian sexual interest in one another, with much of it on direct display. "Just go find the bar and get a drink" I thought to myself while instinctively muttering "I'm a soldier..." under my breath. But before I could find the bar some inconsiderate hedonist splashed his queer drink on my fatigues, when suddenly I heard a voice.

"Oh sweety pie! Let me help you with that!". When I looked up and saw her, I immediately noted that she was not wearing any makeup and actually had very clear skin, which surprised me because generally the people in these places have no respect for how they pollute their bodies. She was also covered from head to toe in some kind of uniform, and while she clearly did not wear it to be explicitly sexually appealing, her natural beauty was not greatly dimmed by the overall bagginess of her attire. She even had a beautiful name-tag: "Jessica...". I also took immediate note of how attentive to my needs as a human being that she was, rather than treating me like the beef-cake I'm normally viewed as. Before I knew it I could feel a new sensation welling up inside of me... At first it felt like God's love, but this time it was different. I knew however that this love was in fact a gift from God, and that I had better take this as providence and act immediately.

After swallowing my butterflies and mustering up my proper courage, I finally just said it: "Do you want to actualize our potential for communion with me?". She swooned instantly and completely. The way that she tilted her head and raised one eyebrow was very clearly a display of sexual submission. I took her by the hand and tried to abscond with her from that den of sin, and it was at this moment that I learned of Satan's true dominion over this world. For you see, she was and may be still held psychologically captive at that institution of depravity. She resisted my attempts to free her due to some invisible force that I have yet to gain full knowledge of. I've returned a few times only to see her forced to bring drinks to other men and to attend their needs as a human being as if her heart did not belong to only me. I pray that one day God, in his infinite wisdom, will free her from her bonds and deliver her into my capable and confident arms...

Or, you could have clear ideas and communicate them effectively... There's always that option! — VagabondSpectre

They are clear first of all, and they are communicated effectively given that this is a philosophy forum and not just a casual conversation in a pub.

What if sex need not involve intimate emotion? — VagabondSpectre

Was I saying anything about intimate emotion? I said sex involves emotional contact, which is a true fact. I don't know what kind of sex you have had, such that even in the middle of the sex act you feel no emotional contact whatsoever with the other person (and no - this doesn't mean love).

What's your definition of personhood? — VagabondSpectre

Fundamentally a person is someone bestowed with both will and intellect, such that the intellect can guide the will in the choices that it makes - but personhood refers to the constituent elements that belong to the human person, namely body, emotions, feelings, mind and spirit.

Buying something at McD's is purely a financial transaction, which does not involve the body, emotions and feelings of someone the way the sex act involves them. Now if you are going to say they do, then I think we're quite clear that you don't know what sex is.

Feral children (and children who were not raised with normal social interactions) do not escape their "condition", the severity of which depends on the severity of their circumstances. They're all permanently affected and only a few have managed to eek out even some modicum of normalcy. They do not acquire verbal language and their social habits are forever changed.

But what you're saying here is that because feral children can learn some new behavior later in life that "innate human ideas" somehow exist, right? — VagabondSpectre

So how come some feral children can learn languages eh? Why don't you teach your dog a language too?!

I've seen dogs and cats be trained to use the toilet, does that mean that they have some innate human ideas too? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, in relatively simple activities, but try teaching a dog or a cat to paint, to speak, etc.

Why would you be more interested in an attractive female at the outset?

You low down hedonist dog you! — VagabondSpectre

First, attractive would involve what I personally consider attractive about her, which may be different than what society does, so others may not necessarily consider her attractive as well.

And your question isn't a fair question. I said physical attraction MAY play a role in getting me interested in her as a person in the first place - so this is by no means a necessity as your question suggests. I could meet my future wife online for example, and first talk to her before I see her for example, in which case this wouldn't be the case. But otherwise physical attraction may play a role by simply making her be a person that I simply notice faster than other people, which makes it more likely that I will interact with her.

How do you know animals aren't superstitious?

I think that dogs who growl at mailmen are behaving superstitiously... — VagabondSpectre

Acting out of fear and taking some sort of action against something identified as a possible threat isn't being superstitious.

There are nudist beaches here in Sydney, and I have swum at some of them, and i find nothing at all offensive about seeing naked human bodies, and i feel no shame about appearing naked myself. — John

Well, sure if that's your thing, no problem doing it at a NUDIST BEACH. But there would be a problem if you did that in the middle of the street. It's not indecent to be nude at a nudist beach, but it is indecent to be nude on the street.

Personally I wouldn't do that, not because I would feel ashamed or offended by it, but I just see absolutely no point to go to a nudist beach - as in I'd have zero reason to go.

I don't agree with your allegation of there being a "political agenda", though, with the "Serena' image. At least no more than there is a political agenda to every aspect of media, simply by virtue of the fact that we are political beings. — John

I think this is not right. There is a political agenda to it which is driven by all sorts of postmodern and neo-progressive movements that Serena has always been a part of. Part of their agenda is to eliminate standards and hierarchies of beauty and truth, including in-so-far as they pertain to the pregnant female body.

They are clear first of all, and they are communicated effectively given that this is a philosophy forum and not just a casual conversation in a pub. — Agustino

me: "What does "actualize our potential for communion mean?".
you: "Go read Aristotle".
me: "Lol".

Was I saying anything about intimate emotion? I said sex involves emotional contact, which is a true fact. I don't know what kind of sex you have had, such that even in the middle of the sex act you feel no emotional contact whatsoever with the other person (and no - this doesn't mean love). — Agustino

Not all sex comes with the same emotional packaging. Sometimes both parties are just looking for a certain kind of physical contact.

But what exactly does "emotional contact" mean with reference to sex?

I could hug someone and feel emotional love and I could fuck someone and feel none at all; just because there is physical (sexual) contact does not mean that emotions are necessarily involved...

But I still want to understand the argument for your position that exchanging sexual favors is harmful. First you saidbecause it violates personhood, then defined "personhood" as "constituent elements belonging to someone" i.e: body and emotions (and some other junk), and so I guess your actual argument is: "exchanging sexual favors is harmful because physical and emotional contact being used as a tool for gratification is disrespectful to the "personhood" of participants in sexual behavior"

Is that a fair portrayal of your argument?

Buying something at McD's is purely a financial transaction, which does not involve the body, emotions and feelings of someone the way the sex act involves them. Now if you are going to say they do, then I think we're quite clear that you don't know what sex is. — Agustino

In order to acquire money people need to work (sacrificing their body and emotions). The MacDonald's worker is sacrificing their patience to deal with customers and their time and body to do the work in exchange for money. It's not entirely different from a prostitute doing work for a john. The form of gratification is different (sex instead of junk food) and the work involved is different (genitals are involved). So essentially the only major difference is that sex is involved.

What's inherently bad about sex again?

(P.S: you probably should not say because it "violates personhood", because your reasoning for why violating personhood is bad is itself based on the fact that sex is involved, making the reasoning circular)

So how come some feral children can learn languages eh? Why don't you teach your dog a language too?! — Agustino

They don't tend to learn language, especially not verbal language. You're letting my point get away from you though Aug: feral children sometimes cannot learn many aspects of normal human behavior, which indicates that they're not born with innate knowledge/ideas. You can say "why can some children escape their condition" as if it points to some built-in door to enlightenment, but it's simply not so (at least as you originally indicated) Feral children can learn when we manage to discover and capture them and force it upon them, but they're not out there "desiring god and the transcendent" and observing your own notions of "decency". Believing they are is beyond fantasy.

Yes, in relatively simple activities, but try teaching a dog or a cat to paint, to speak, etc. — Agustino

You constantly move the goal posts further and further back... At least in this case you randomly asking why non-human animals cannot perform tasks that only humans are known to perform isn't at all relevant.

Acting out of fear and taking some sort of action against something identified as a possible threat isn't being superstitious. — Agustino

"Identified as a possible threat" is just another way of saying "something unidentified".

Choosing to react to something unidentified in a particular way (fear) because you feel threatened might actually be one of the main drives of superstitious belief...

People fear god (who is unidentified) by assuming all kinds of nonsense about the nature of reality and our relationship to it.

If the dog were smarter I'm sure he would come with all kinds of fancy nonsense to go along with their mail-man hatred...

Back to sex though, please explain what you meant by "emotional contact" and how exactly is someone harmed when they willingly seek out this kind of emotional contact for gratification?

You alluded that you don't know what kind of sex I've had, the answer is many different kinds.

I'm not trying to be rude in asking this, but have you ever had sex?

me: "What does "actualize our potential for communion mean?".
you: "Go read Aristotle".
me: "Lol". — VagabondSpectre

What don't you understand by the expression actualise the potential for communion? You don't understand what a human potential is? Go read Aristotle and find out. Or you don't understand what communion means? It means getting out of the prison of your own self and relating with someone else, something that perhaps you've never done seeing that you're so clueless.

Not all sex comes with the same emotional packaging. — VagabondSpectre

Yes indeed, but it always comes with SOME emotional packaging.

Sometimes both parties are just looking for a certain kind of physical contact. — VagabondSpectre

So if I think about someone else, I just want to enjoy their body for a night and then not be troubled by them anymore, am I loving? Am I a decent person? Am I doing anything wrong perhaps?!

But what exactly does "emotional contact" mean with reference to sex? — VagabondSpectre

You are greatly puzzling me, it seems that you don't even understand the meaning of basic words. What planet have you been living on until now? Emotional contact - a contact which involves feelings of close emotion excited in both people.

I could hug someone and feel emotional love and I could fuck someone and feel none at all; — VagabondSpectre

Would you not then feel another emotion instead of love while fucking them?!

just because there is physical (sexual) contact does not mean that emotions are necessarily involved... — VagabondSpectre

This is false. You either don't know what is meant by emotions, or you're redefining them in some ad hoc manner. Or you're completely clueless about sex.

But I still want to understand the argument for your position that exchanging sexual favors is harmful. First you saidbecause it violates personhood, then defined "personhood" as "constituent elements belonging to someone" i.e: body and emotions (and some other junk), and so I guess your actual argument is: "exchanging sexual favors is harmful because physical and emotional contact being used as a tool for gratification is disrespectful to the "personhood" of participants in sexual behavior"

Is that a fair portrayal of your argument? — VagabondSpectre

No, not quite. I've already given you my portrayal of my argument very clearly, and I've pointed you to it several times already. You've made no effort to read it properly:

Both of them are harmed, because they use one another as tools, they don't respect each other's personhood and VALUE as a person, they fail to actualise their potential for communion with one another, and they fail to uphold their human dignity. Need I go over these same explanations over and over again? :s — Agustino

The point is that you're disconsidering the other person (and therefore disconsidering yourself) when you have sex with them in such circumstances. Even the mere fact that you're not concerned with their emotional well-being (which you yourself admit) is a sign of that.

In order to acquire money people need to work (sacrificing their body and emotions). The MacDonald's worker is sacrificing their patience to deal with customers and their time and body to do the work in exchange for money. It's not entirely different from a prostitute doing work for a john. The form of gratification is different (sex instead of junk food) and the work involved is different (genitals are involved). So essentially the only major difference is that sex is involved. — VagabondSpectre

It is entirely different. First the McD's worker isn't sacrificing his body at all. And the prostitute isn't only sacrificing her time. She's also sacrificing her emotional desires, her value as a person, and her dignity.

What's inherently bad about sex again? — VagabondSpectre

Nothing, inherently. But sex can be misused.

(P.S: you probably should not say because it "violates personhood", because your reasoning for why violating personhood is bad is itself based on the fact that sex is involved, making the reasoning circular) — VagabondSpectre

Your basic problem is that it seems that you cannot comprehend facets of human existence and experiences. And nothing I say can save you from the fact that you just seem to lack basic human experiences.

feral children sometimes cannot learn many aspects of normal human behavior, which indicates that they're not born with innate knowledge/ideas. — VagabondSpectre

No it doesn't. Just because they're born with a certain potential doesn't mean they can always actualise it. Mentally retarded people cannot actualise a lot of human potentials.

Feral children can learn when we manage to discover and capture them and force it upon them, but they're not out there "desiring god and the transcendent" and observing your own notions of "decency". — VagabondSpectre

Yep, that's exactly what I said, these potentials require the right circumstances and experiences (including being raised in a social environment) to be actualised.

"Identified as a possible threat" is just another way of saying "something unidentified".

Choosing to react to something unidentified in a particular way (fear) because you feel threatened might actually be one of the main drives of superstitious belief... — VagabondSpectre

No, I wouldn't qualify this as superstition.

People fear god (who is unidentified) by assuming all kinds of nonsense about the nature of reality and our relationship to it. — VagabondSpectre

They fear God because they have an experience of the transcendent.

Back to sex though, please explain what you meant by "emotional contact" and how exactly is someone harmed when they willingly seek out this kind of emotional contact for gratification? — VagabondSpectre

>:O >:O >:O Man this guy!! I've already answered that question about 4 times for fuck's sake!

You alluded that you don't know what kind of sex I've had, the answer is many different kinds. — VagabondSpectre

Where exactly have I alluded to that? :s >:O

I'm not trying to be rude in asking this, but have you ever had sex? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, unfortunately, but that's something that I regret. And I have absolutely no clue how in the world someone can possibly be rude by asking the other person if they've had sex :s

Coming soon to Netflix: My Dinner With Agustino. Join VagabondSpectre as he joins his host for a meal at McD's he may never forget... or digest. The conversation is as sparkling as the soft drinks, and there is plenty of food for thought. The nude beach scene alone is worth the price of admission. 15 minutes later, you will be hungry for more! Rated PG for philosophical gourmet. Two thumbs up, way up! (Y) (Y)

What don't you understand by the expression actualise the potential for communion? You don't understand what a human potential is? Go read Aristotle and find out. Or you don't understand what communion means? It means getting out of the prison of your own self and relating with someone else, something that perhaps you've never done seeing that you're so clueless. — Agustino

The problem Aug, is that you're using terms which are ambiguous and in some senses unrelated to my inquiries.

There's about 20 different ways to interpret "actualize their potential for communion". If I boil it down into it's necessary elements though it just becomes meaningless: "don't actualize" means "do/does not", "potential" we can forget about because it's redundant in the sense that the ability to do/not do something includes the possibility of that thing happening, and finally "communion" now means "getting out of the prison of your own self and relating with someone else" (I'm not satisfied with this BTW, it's just as vague).

So, casual sex is bad because the participants don't "get out of the prison of their own selves and relate to each-other". (feel emotional contact)

What do you mean by "relate to each other"? I'm pretty sure that a good prostitute will be capable of relating to their tricks on some level (what level of "relation" is required for sex to not be harmful?), and I'm also sure that a considerate trick is also capable of relating to and appreciating the services of the prostitute, even though they may have paid for it.

If I go with the intuitive (and un-philosophical) interpretation of what you're trying to say, basically it's that "if there's no meaningful emotional connection during sex, then it's harmful" (I'm sure you will object to this phrasing, which is why I keep asking you to clarify and define your statements).

Why though Aug, why is "a lack of emotional contact" during sex such a harmful thing? (And for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, please stop giving me this semantic run-around)

Yes indeed, but it always comes with SOME emotional packaging. — Agustino

What's so important about the "emotional packaging" of sexual contact? Or, why does a lack of a certain kind of emotional contact (what kind?) during sex render it harmful?

So if I think about someone else, I just want to enjoy their body for a night and then not be troubled by them anymore, am I loving? Am I a decent person? Am I doing anything wrong perhaps?! — Agustino

What takes place in the sanctity of your own mind cannot possibly be held against you as wrongful or indecent, it's your actions that affect other people.

At the right club, "I just want to enjoy your body for a night and then I won't trouble you any more" might actually get you invited to a few bed chambers.

If you approached a prostitute and said "I just want to pay to enjoy your body and to not trouble me beyond that", they might say, "That's generally the idea...".

If you approached a school teacher on their lunch break and said "let me use you for sex", then that would probably be indecent (although if you ask the right person you would be surprised). You might be doing sexual harassment, which would be wrong.

So, is it that asking for sex from someone who you do not love is inherently disrespectful? (if that's the case, then why is loveless sex between two consenting and horny adults harmful? They might not be personally disrespected enough to care)

You are greatly puzzling me, it seems that you don't even understand the meaning of basic words. What planet have you been living on until now? Emotional contact - a contact which involves feelings of close emotion excited in both people. — Agustino

Well I ask because "emotional contact" could mean so many different things that your argument which bases "the harm of sex" on "the absence of (a particular kind of?) emotional contact" might become hard to defend if I start postulating all the different kinds of emotional contact that prostitutes and their clients might feel (or two horny party-goers). "Close emotion" is unfortunately just as vague. Is sexual arousal a close emotion? What about gratitude and appreciation for services rendered? Is a feeling of safety a close emotion? Is the desire to please someone else in a sexual manner a close emotion?

What I'm trying to find out is the precise type of "close emotion" that renders sex not harmful, and how or why it achieves this...

Would you not then feel another emotion instead of love while fucking them?! — Agustino

I might feel any number of emotions depending on the circumstances, but are lust and sexual satisfaction/gratification emotions? If not then I suppose sometimes I feel nothing but skin.

When you had sex was there love there? If not what emotion was there?

This is false. You either don't know what is meant by emotions, or you're redefining them in some ad hoc manner. Or you're completely clueless about sex. — Agustino

Consider the glory hole. This is an ancient invention (presumably) which has been employed by many-a-sexual degenerate for the sole purpose of clipping away any possible emotional artifacts which might be caused by the sight of your sexual partner (judgment or shame for instance, which some people feel, but not everyone does). It employs a simplistic but elegant mechanic of a hole to negotiate an anonymous contract between two willing participants. One participant has a penis that they want pleasured, and the other participant wants to pleasure a penis (or be pleasured by one).

The glory hole epitomizes loveless sex, but at the same time it very obviously mitigates any kind of interpersonal emotional exchange/connection that might impact either participant negatively. I'm very curious to see how you can show sex through a glory hole to be harmful on the basis that it lacks emotional contact or on the basis that other people are emotionally harmed by it.

The point is that you're disconsidering the other person (and therefore disconsidering yourself) when you have sex with them in such circumstances. Even the mere fact that you're not concerned with their emotional well-being (which you yourself admit) is a sign of that. — Agustino

"Dis-considering"... *Vagabond takes a deep breath*...

Why am I morally obligated to be considerate of everyone's emotional well being? If I am at a night club, and a woman is dressed a certain way and showing me a certain kind of body language, why can I not assume she is competent enough to take care of her own emotions? If sex is what we both want, why do we need to toss in a bunch of extra emotions and commit to anything beyond a sexual encounter?

If I'm not actually abusing her (nor she I), how is any damage done to our emotional well-being?

As a side note, you should consider the nature of your "emotional well-being" argument. the main problem with it is that you have not clarified any kind of actual harm being caused or how "emotional well-beings" are necessarily harmed by sex without communion, but instead have outlined "a lack of benefit" ("disconsideration"). Your phrasing in this grows continuously more post-modern; "disconsideration of the emotional well being of others" sounds like some sort of anti-free speech argument that would have white-cis-het-males like ourselves quieted on the basis that other people take emotional offense of some kind.

It is entirely different. First the McD's worker isn't sacrificing his body at all. And the prostitute isn't only sacrificing her time. She's also sacrificing her emotional desires, her value as a person, and her dignity. — Agustino

She's only sacrificing her dignity in the eyes of people who view prostitutes as having no dignity. (expensive escorts in the 2000$ a night range have more dignity than you can afford XD). But so what if dignity is sacrificed? A garbage man sacrifices their dignity in the eyes of the banker whose waste they collect right? Personally I have a lot of respect and compassion for prostitutes (strippers too). They're harder working than most humans and they provide a service that not many are willing to provide. Add this to the fact that modern society decided they're criminals and pushed them into a dangerous and shadowy world of organized crime, and so have become a class of humans dispossessed of their right to freedom and happiness purely because a majority of people decided that they're bad because of the sex acts they perform. I know you don't support the criminalization of prostitution, and I commend you on that, but like so many you have this deeply seeded bias that someone who has sex is somehow a sinner (and it warps your perception of sex itself).

A ditch digger or coal miner sacrifices their body in ways that prostitutes and McDonald's workers both do not (they suffer actual bodily harm/damage) along with anyone who gets injured at the work place.

When it comes to "value as a person", performing a sex act shouldn't somehow affect how people value themselves, nor should it necessarily affect how others view that person. If you think someone loses value as a person because they have done sex work, then that's your own sentimental judgment.

Nothing, inherently. But sex can be misused. — Agustino

According to everything I've pieced together so far, a one night stand between two horny and consenting adults is a(n immoral?) misuse of sex. I'm panning for answers to why!

Your basic problem is that it seems that you cannot comprehend facets of human existence and experiences. And nothing I say can save you from the fact that you just seem to lack basic human experiences. — Agustino

I'm trying to get at clear specifics because when you use ambiguous terms you've yet to define (or just keep redefining with other ambiguous terms) it allows you to equivocate endlessly about what it is you're saying. (i.e: desire for god becomes desire for the transcendent, which becomes "anything beyond the material", or potential for communion becomes emotional contact, which then becomes "close emotion". )

Yep, that's exactly what I said, these potentials require the right circumstances and experiences (including being raised in a social environment) to be actualised. — Agustino

So in other words, children have just as much "potential for indecency" as they have "potential for decency"? Wouldn't it make more sense if we understood individuals as "the things they have learned" rather than "the sum of all possible things they could learn"? (Or, why do you think babies have pre-programmed ideas as opposed to creating those ideas from a somewhat blank slate as stimulus accumulates? ("Tabula-rasa").

No, I wouldn't qualify this as superstition. — Agustino

Do you at least assent to my re-framing "desire for anything beyond the material" as being sufficiently described by "superstition"? (If so, then I'll basically begin arguing that while most humans have some degree of superstition, some humans might have so very little that it's not a relevant or quantifiable factor in their psychology).

They fear God because they have an experience of the transcendent. — Agustino

Is it the experience of the transcendent that threatened them with eternal damnation? (as a religious youth, that's why I feared God).

Man this guy!! I've already answered that question about 4 times for fuck's sake! — Agustino

Well......... You kinda just suggested that I lack a basic understanding of human experiences rather than telling me what kind of "close emotion" ought to be present in sex to prevent the "disconsideration of the emotional well-being of the other" from causing harm.

Where exactly have I alluded to that — Agustino

Here:

Was I saying anything about intimate emotion? I said sex involves emotional contact, which is a true fact. I don't know what kind of sex you have had, such that even in the middle of the sex act you feel no emotional contact whatsoever with the other person (and no - this doesn't mean love). — Agustino

(I should point out that in the above you differentiate between "intimate emotion" (you described sex as "INTIMATE") and emotional contact, as if there are some precise meanings behind these terms which very clearly makes them distinct, but you've never bothered to share these precise meanings with me, hence my goose wrangling).

Yes, unfortunately, but that's something that I regret. And I have absolutely no clue how in the world someone can possibly be rude by asking the other person if they've had sex :s — Agustino

Well because casual sex can be largely unemotional, and your argument seems to hinge on the idea that sex without "communion/emotional contact/close emotion" is harmful, I reckon you haven't had much casual sex (my own experience establishes the harmlessness of communionless sex) and I'm bringing this up as a means to show you that the impact of sex may extend beyond your own experiences...

X-)

Personally I wouldn't do that, not because I would feel ashamed or offended by it, but I just see absolutely no point to go to a nudist beach - as in I'd have zero reason to go. — Agustino

The nudist beaches I have been to are in national Parks along the path s I have been wlaking, and i stopped for a swim. Swimming nude in the ocean and feeling the water on your whole body is a great feeling; that is one very good reason to do it.

You may be right about Serena; I haven't looked into her life at all so I have no idea whether she is strongly politically motivated. What exactly do you believe her agenda is "eliminating standards and hierarchies of beauty and truth" though? That seems pretty vague to me. I'm not sure what they could be, much less what it could mean to "eliminate" them.

The problem Aug, is that you're using terms which are ambiguous and in some senses unrelated to my inquiries. — VagabondSpectre

I think most people have quite a capacity to handle those terms, but it seems you don't.

"don't actualize" means "do/does not" — VagabondSpectre

Wrong, that is just a specific instance of actualising and it's absolutely not the definition of the term.

"potential" we can forget about because it's redundant in the sense that the ability to do/not do — VagabondSpectre

Again, this is just wrong (you will see later why).

"getting out of the prison of your own self and relating with someone else" (I'm not satisfied with this BTW, it's just as vague). — VagabondSpectre

I think that's quite specific. What's unclear and vague about it?

So, casual sex is bad because the participants don't "get out of the prison of their own selves and relate to each-other". — VagabondSpectre

That, among a host of other different things. It seems that you're intent on subsuming communion, to emotions, etc. but this is completely false. These are all different and independent reasons.

What do you mean by "relate to each other"? — VagabondSpectre

To relate to another you must first relate to yourself and to something that transcends you. The act of relating to another isn't a purely physical one, but something that involves your whole being.

Why though Aug, why is "a lack of emotional contact" during sex such a harmful thing? — VagabondSpectre

A lack of emotional contact during sex is impossible. Being unaware of the presence of one emotion or another isn't to say that they don't exist. Making efforts to block them out (glory holes, not knowing who you're having sex with, etc.) doesn't mean that they aren't still there.

What's so important about the "emotional packaging" of sexual contact? Or, why does a lack of a certain kind of emotional contact (what kind?) during sex render it harmful? — VagabondSpectre

I made none of the inferences you suggest I made here.

"if there's no meaningful emotional connection during sex, then it's harmful" (I'm sure you will object to this phrasing, which is why I keep asking you to clarify and define your statements). — VagabondSpectre

Of course I will object to it because it's false. You're talking of something that is a performative contradiction.

What takes place in the sanctity of your own mind cannot possibly be held against you as wrongful or indecent, it's your actions that affect other people. — VagabondSpectre

>:O Tell me Vagabond, is it possible that a man wrong himself? Clearly it's not only actions that affect other people that are wrong, we accept this every single day of our lives in the practice of living. A drug addict who injects heroin in his veins is doing something wrong to himself, even if he "consents" to it. His consent doesn't change the wrongness of it, neither does the fact that it doesn't affect other people.

At the right club, "I just want to enjoy your body for a night and then I won't trouble you any more" might actually get you invited to a few bed chambers. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, so? :s

So, is it that asking for sex from someone who you do not love is inherently disrespectful? — VagabondSpectre

Do you wish to discuss the morality of discussing sex, or the conditions under which the sexual act is disrespectful?

What I'm trying to find out is the precise type of "close emotion" that renders sex not harmful, and how or why it achieves this... — VagabondSpectre

There is no close emotion that renders sex not harmful as such.

I might feel any number of emotions depending on the circumstances, but are lust and sexual satisfaction/gratification emotions? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, the feeling of lust would be an emotion. So let's start with it. When you lust after something you're not satisfied. How can lusting be good? If you get yourself in the position when you lust for something you are hurting, you have already harmed yourself. How can that be good? Do you enjoy being thirsty? Would you purposefully go around getting yourself thirsty?

It employs a simplistic but elegant mechanic of a hole to negotiate an anonymous contract between two willing participants. — VagabondSpectre

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?

The glory hole epitomizes loveless sex, but at the same time it very obviously mitigates any kind of interpersonal emotional exchange/connection that might impact either participant negatively — VagabondSpectre

It TRIES to mitigate them, however it is not successful. For example, people could still experience feelings of guilt afterwards - among many many other emotions that it's possible to experience, including during the act.

Why am I morally obligated to be considerate of everyone's emotional well being? — VagabondSpectre

Well do you want to be a nice and decent person? If so, then yes, you should consider everyone's emotional well being.

If I am at a night club, and a woman is dressed a certain way and showing me a certain kind of body language, why can I not assume she is competent enough to take care of her own emotions? — VagabondSpectre

Why would you assume that? How the hell do you know that she's competent enough to take care of her own emotions from her body language, can you tell me that? How do you know for example that she just didn't have a fight with her boyfriend/husband and is doing something to express her anger towards him, something that she may later regret for example?

If sex is what we both want, why do we need to toss in a bunch of extra emotions and commit to anything beyond a sexual encounter? — VagabondSpectre

This happens automatically. Sex always involves one's whole being.

If I'm not actually abusing her (nor she I), how is any damage done to our emotional well-being? — VagabondSpectre

Except that you would be abusing each other.

how "emotional well-beings" are necessarily harmed by sex without communion — VagabondSpectre

Wait, those two are different aspects, they're not the same.

(expensive escorts in the 2000$ a night range have more dignity than you can afford XD) — VagabondSpectre

What does their dignity as people have to do with the amount of money they charge? :s This is a very peculiar thought, so please explain to me. Clearly you're asserting that the amount of money they charge has something to do with the dignity they have. So presumably a prostitute charging very little has little dignity, while one charging a lot has a lot of dignity. So then, by your own argument, a prostitute charging nothing for her services has no dignity, and this seems quite close to what we mean by casual sex. Is this correct?

I know you don't support the criminalization of prostitution, and I commend you on that, but like so many you have this deeply seeded bias that someone who has sex is somehow a sinner (and it warps your perception of sex itself). — VagabondSpectre

They are. They are doing a lot of harm to themselves, their partners, and their future spouses.

A ditch digger or coal miner sacrifices their body in ways that prostitutes and McDonald's workers both do not (they suffer actual bodily harm/damage) along with anyone who gets injured at the work place. — VagabondSpectre

Prostitutes can also suffer direct bodily and emotional damage. Most of them have quite a beaten up psyche, which makes life very difficult for them, which is why a lot of prostitutes resort to doing drugs.

According to everything I've pieced together so far, a one night stand between two horny and consenting adults is a(n immoral?) misuse of sex. I'm panning for answers to why! — VagabondSpectre

Again, why the hell are you referencing that they are (1) horny, and (2) consenting? We've already established that consent has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the morality of the underlying action. For example, if I force you to have dinner with me, that has nothing to do with the morality of having dinner, it has to do with me respecting your will as an individual. So consent is NOT part of sexual morality, just like it's not part of dinner morality. Consent has to do with respecting the autonomy of other people, and their freedom of choice. Breaking one's consent tells us nothing about the morality of the underlying action over which their consent was broken. And you should explain to me now, why forcing you to have sex with me is worse than forcing you to have dinner with me, and clearly consent ain't gonna help you.

or potential for communion becomes emotional contact, which then becomes "close emotion". — VagabondSpectre

I never said this. Nor did I say the previous. I meant desire for transcendent from the very beginning in that discussion as I've already proven.

So in other words, children have just as much "potential for indecency" as they have "potential for decency"? — VagabondSpectre

No, absolutely not. See, this is what I mean when I tell you that you don't understand these terms. That's why your first definitions are wrong. Indecency cannot be positively defined in and of itself, but rather it is always defined with regards to decency, which can be defined in itself. Children have a potential for decency - if they fail to actualise that potential, then they are indecent.

(Or, why do you think babies have pre-programmed ideas as opposed to creating those ideas from a somewhat blank slate as stimulus accumulates? ("Tabula-rasa"). — VagabondSpectre

Because without these potentials, they could not develop in the directions that they do in the first place.

Is it the experience of the transcendent that threatened them with eternal damnation? (as a religious youth, that's why I feared God). — VagabondSpectre

No, not at all. It is the experience of sin that threatened them with eternal damnation.

Do you at least assent to my re-framing "desire for anything beyond the material" as being sufficiently described by "superstition"? — VagabondSpectre

No, although desire for anything beyond the material can involve superstition. Superstition would certainly be a sign of such a desire.

Well because casual sex can be largely unemotional, and your argument seems to hinge on the idea that sex without "communion/emotional contact/close emotion" is harmful, I reckon you haven't had much casual sex (my own experience establishes the harmlessness of communionless sex) and I'm bringing this up as a means to show you that the impact of sex may extend beyond your own experiences... — VagabondSpectre

No, I've never had casual sex for that matter, but that certainly doesn't suggest that I wouldn't know what casual sex involves, or what feelings would be aroused, or what the effects of casual sex would be. Certainly I know what would happen and how I would feel if I were to put my hand in the fire, even though I've never done this. Our imaginations allow us to construct experiences based on feelings and emotions that we have already experienced through other, different experiences. For example, before I had sex the first time, I knew what the feelings of say orgasm would be like from masturbation, so I wasn't that surprised by the feeling. I also knew what the feeling of love and attraction were from things like having kissed my girlfriend, and from the intimate time I had spent with her. It would be absolutely silly to suggest that someone must have casual sex in order to know what casual sex is like - just as silly as suggesting that you have to put your hand in the fire to know what fire is like.

We are sexual beings, so the sexual act is not necessary at all to understand what it would be like. This is one experience that young people are often misguided and deceived by. They often think they need to have sex, because omg see what it's like, etc. Then they do things that they later regret having done. The truth is, as sexual beings, we already know, by nature, what the sexual act is like, because we simply have those feelings anyways. I'm a celibate, and have been a celibate for quite some years now, but I wouldn't say I'm asexual. I experience sexual feelings, I simply don't act on them, but I'm acutely aware of them. Monks have very similar experiences as well. If anything, you're closer to yourself as a sexual being by being celibate, than by being promiscuous.

Now, onto more serious matters. First thing to note is that sex is terribly problematic, and has been terribly problematic for all of human history. So your approach of treating sex as if it was not problematic at all BY DEFAULT is simply ignoring everything that we anthropologically know about man. This is so because sex has to do with the very existence of life itself. It is very close to the source of our being. That is why most cultures and civilisations that have ever existed have had what is known as natural sexual morality. Sex has not been treated like buying a burger from McD's, and there are clearly reasons for this, some of which have been outlined above.

Otherwise it would be absolutely impossible that very diverse civilisations have condemned certain sexual behaviour - such as homosexual sex - but haven't condemned looking at the sky for example. As an example, all major religions of the world condemn homosexual sex, including the Eastern ones like Hinduism and Buddhism. There were civilisations which allowed homosexual sex in certain circumstances, but not in all (Roman, Greek, etc.). What we note from this is that this behaviour has always been problematic and has been regulated by rules, for most of human history. So it is entirely absurd to treat it as if it wasn't problematic, and the burden of proof rested on me to show that it is. That's number one.

Oh, and please don't give me examples now of some minor tribes, etc. who have lived differently. I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the majority of large human civilisations that have existed.

Point number 2. Why does one want to have sex? Where is the origin of sexual desire in a human being, and what is it directed towards? Now, one undeniable end of sex is reproduction. I think you will agree at least with that much. Without affirming this end of the sexual act, one is in effect denying themselves, because they're denying the manner and mode in which they themselves entered the world.

Another essential end of sex is unitive - do you agree that the sexual act is something that can produce intimacy and closeness between two different people, something that perhaps can only be achieved through the sexual act? If so, then this is something that appears to be unique to sex, unlike "fun", "pleasure" and the like, which can be attributed to a variety of other experiences, and do not seem to be essential to the nature of sex.

So if we had to define sex, we would define it as that action that occurs between a man and a woman that can lead to either reproduction or intimacy. That's what sex can do, essentially. That's what belongs to its essence as an activity, and isn't an accidental feature, like "fun" and "pleasure" would be. Sure sex can be fun and pleasurable, but that doesn't belong to it as an essence, that's not what identifies it as a separate activity from, say, eating burgers with someone (which is also "fun" and "pleasureable").

We also affirmed before that sex is very close to the origin of life, including your own origin. It is thus very close to your being, and necessarily so. It reminds you of your own making. Therefore sex is something that involves your whole being, and not just your physical body, but your soul too (defined as the form of the body).

So tell me Vagabond, does good food frustrate the essential ends of the body it is meant to satisfy? So likewise, would good sexual behaviour maintain accidental features, like "fun" and "pleasure", while frustrating essential features such as procreation and intimacy? So then, can we call casual sex "good"?

Furthermore, if sex always involves one's whole being (as a person), is it right and loving to deny your beloved sexual fulfilment, by denying them intimacy, for example? Or do you mean to argue that you simply do not care about the actual needs of the other, but only what they say, such that if they were to tell you that their need is to be eaten alive, you would proceed to give them a hand with it?

As we have established, sex is inherently directed towards a unitive end (btw we're talking about sex in-so-far as it relates to persons, so please don't bring up animals), so then if you deny yourself this unitive end by whatever means, is that no different and no worse than chewing food for the taste, and then spitting it out? If you refused to eat food anymore, denied the nutritional end of eating, and instead just chewed the food for the taste, and then spit it out, would you be harming yourself? So then Vagabond, don't you think that likewise you'd be harming yourself if you deny the unitive purpose of sex, which as we said is very close to your own being, and doing so regardless of whether or not you experienced some pleasure in the process?

If you treat another person as a tool for your own pleasure, then have you not neglected their real needs and desires? Have you not objectified them, treated them as undignified, and insulted their personhood? Is a human being no more than a vibrator or a plastic vagina? So if someone were to desire to be like a plastic vagina, would it be good to help them achieve that desire? If someone desired to be a slave, put in chains, would it be good to help them achieve that state? Would you, without hesitation, help them by putting and locking the chains on them, and then sending them off to the corn fields? And if this is how you treat others, then what about your own self? Does this not mean that you consider your own self the same way you consider them, and therefore you harm your own self in the process?

Why am I morally obligated to be considerate of everyone's emotional well being? If I am at a night club, and a woman is dressed a certain way and showing me a certain kind of body language, why can I not assume she is competent enough to take care of her own emotions? If sex is what we both want, why do we need to toss in a bunch of extra emotions and commit to anything beyond a sexual encounter? — VagabondSpectre

It is about your choice in the end and there are a number of different possibilities that would suggest why a woman behaves in such a manner. I have not yet had sex with a man but the way that I dress and communicate can often be interpreted as provocative and highly sexual, indeed there have been many men that have become really aggressive towards me from frustration at their inability to get close to me and as a way of trying to make me comply.

You need to be weary of your assumptions and consider a number of factors that requires you to know a person first, understand who they are, where they come from and perhaps you may find that it is your own assumptions that is making you choose to believe what is essentially your desire and your lack of responsibility. Such intimacy without respect for her history, her personhood, her reasons for being their in the first place merely objectifies her into what you want, not who she is.

I have not yet had sex with a man but the way that I dress and communicate can often be interpreted as provocative and highly sexual — TimeLine

Yes, but I think this is a problem for you. From the amount of time you spend talking about men on these forums, it seems that you are at least obsessed about men, and I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them. I gather this especially from the stories you tell, and how you assume that other men on these boards are interested in you, combined with your generally low opinion and regard for men etc. So what if you dress this way on purpose to attract their attention and feel superior by refusing whatever you perceive to be their advances?

This would not be moral, if that's the case. Of course, neither would the aggressive actions from men that you say you experience be moral. But then immorality breeds immorality.

But I obviously agree with that post above.

I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them — Agustino

I think you are morally trying to compete with me. You are using the very assumptions that draw conclusions that only express your own projection on the subject, the abovementioned for instance. You seek to dominate. And by George you certainly frustrate.

No, I do not like dominating men; a woman can be virtuous and still wear a bikini.

I think you are morally trying to compete with me. — TimeLine

Why do you think that?

You are using the very assumptions that draw conclusions that only express your own projection on the subject — TimeLine

How is it my projection? This is what I noticed from your own stories, and I said it may be a possibility.

a woman can be virtuous and still wear a bikini. — TimeLine

Does it seem to you like I said she can't be virtuous if she wears a bikini in the right circumstances? :s

Does it seem to you like I said she can't be virtuous if she wears a bikini in the right circumstances? :s — Agustino

You made it out that I seek to dominate men, am obsessed over them, when I said that I have yet to sleep with anyone. How does that even work? That is a symbol of my inherent respect for myself and my desire to be with someone who respects me just the same. And what stories? That my father was extremely violent and I grew up scared of men? You don't know me, Augustino, you are just projecting with your assumptions and pretending it to be fact because you desire to see yourself as holier than thou.

Being friendly is not being provocative, the point I was attempting to convey was that men often think what is not there.

You made it out that I seek to dominate men, am obsessed over them, when I said that I have yet to sleep with anyone. — TimeLine

No, I actually didn't, I said however that this may be possible, precisely because I don't know you well enough to say for certain. Hence why I said:

This would not be moral, if that's the case. — Agustino

How does that even work? — TimeLine

To be obsessed about men does not entail that you sleep with them, have sex with them, etc. As far as this works, it would be a psychological thing, seen from the fact that you return over and over again to discussing men, in quite weird ways, such as keep repeating what an ideal man is, how you spend your time with people who don't really deserve it, etc. Why do you do that? That's called obsessing over something, because I can assure you that most members here don't want to read how you're so great that you shouldn't be spending time with whoever, etc. Neither is it useful for the kinds of discussions that go on here.

Being friendly is not being provocative, the point I was attempting to convey was that men often think what is not there. — TimeLine

I agree.

No, I actually didn't, I said however that this may be possible, precisely because I don't know you well enough to say for certain. — Agustino

So, now you don't? So, why say this?

From the amount of time you spend talking about men on these forums, it seems that you are at least obsessed about men, and I would go even further and say that you do draw pleasure out of dominating other men by frustrating them. — Agustino

When? Where? And this coming after how many posts you have made in this forum about women?

THINK before you write.

This is really besides the topics of discussion of this thread, but for example this kind of stuff:

ponder why I feel like I spend most of my time in the company of people I merely tolerate when it could be spent with you.

That's the latest time I noticed it, because we usually don't participate in the same threads but I've seen this repeated several times before, and I think other people would have noticed the same. Why do you keep talking about what you consider an ideal man, how you're waiting for you King Solomon, how you don't like to spend your time with people that you do spend your time with because you only tolerate them, etc. :s that's all very strange behaviour, which is exactly why I'm picking on you. Do you see anyone else obsess over such issues? :s

And by the way, we're just derailing the thread, so you can respond to that, but then I won't respond anymore, because it wouldn't belong here.

Listen, how is saying that going to the movies with a friend who I know I would have to tolerate because she will go on and on about topics that are of no interest to me when I could spend the time on the forums here with Noble Dust having laughs like the video he posted; how the heck you could possibly consider that to be sexually provocative is completely and unequivocally insane. We were having a laugh. And what is wrong with seeking an ideal? All I am doing is trying to understand men because of my inexperience and there is nothing wrong with that.

This is exactly on topic. Who are you to talk about women if you barely know the difference between your left and right hand? But stay silent nonetheless. It would do all of us some good.