• darthbarracuda
    2.9k
    I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women. And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties - the buyer and the seller. Invariably the buyer is the man, the seller is the woman. The woman is the object, the man is the subject. The man "scores" a home run. The woman gives, the man takes. The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does.

    In fact, the notion of sexual consent itself brings with it certain revealing assumptions. We do not typically ask for consent for other activities - I do not ask for consent to sit across from you, for example. I do not ask for consent when I approach a cashier to check out from the grocery store.

    So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important? It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the woman (to do things to her body, to use her body as a mean for his own climax, to satisfy some urge that is inherently questionable).

    My perspective on consent in sex is this: if you feel the need to ask for consent, then there is something questionable about what you wish to do (to the other person). "Kinks" are so often not about satisfying the other person but instead are about whether or not the other person will allow you to do something to them.

    Bataille has argued that the erotic is inherently about defilement. In patriarchal, heterosexual culture, the woman has perfect, clean beauty that is defiled by the man. She is torn down, stripped of her dignity as the man ejaculates in or on her body. The notion of sexual consent then essentially boils down to asking another person if they are willing to have their dignity trampled over. "I respect you as a person, so I ask you for consent so that I can treat you not as a person but as an object." Yet this is clearly contradictory, you cannot ask a person to suspend their dignity and still claim to respect them as a person.

    Thoughts? When/how is sex moral? Feel free to post whatever.
  • Πετροκότσυφας
    783
    Feel free to post whatever.darthbarracuda

    Thanks for giving us your consent.
  • tim wood
    905
    Kant argued that mutuality in sex, in marriage, makes it all right. As to consent, if you visit a friend, do not you usually ask permission for entry/use first, in some way or another?
  • Hanover
    3.8k
    I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women.darthbarracuda

    Either that or it's the cause of the continued existence of the species. Non-humans also engage in heterosexuality, despite having no idea what patriarchy means.
    And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties - the buyer and the seller. Invariably the buyer is the man, the seller is the woman.darthbarracuda

    And so in progressive Marxist countries do they grab women by the hair and drag them into the cave and have their way with them or is the idea that consent must precede my probing your body and impregnating you a capitalist idiosyncrasy?
    We do not typically ask for consent for other activities - I do not ask for consent to sit across from you, for example. I do not ask for consent when I approach a cashier to check out from the grocery storedarthbarracuda

    And yet I do ask for consent before I walk into your house, drive your car, remove your earrings from your ear, or play with your tongue, So we've now established that some things require consent and others don't. Typically we require consent when we seek to use something that belongs to someone else, which would include anything from your ballpoint pen to your vagina.
    So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important? It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating.darthbarracuda
    Your sex life isn't like mine I guess.
    Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the woman (to do things to her body, to use her body as a mean for his own climax, to satisfy some urge that is inherently questionable).darthbarracuda

    So women don't enjoy sex? Interesting.
    My perspective on consent in sex is this: if you feel the need to ask for consent, then there is something questionable about what you wish to do (to the other person). "Kinks" are so often not about satisfying the other person but instead are about whether or not the other person will allow you to do something to them.darthbarracuda

    Asking for consent doesn't take the form of "Pardon me ma'am but would you like a good rogering," but it takes the form of all communication, which is partly verbal, partly not. That is, I can know I lack consent without being told "Stop! You lack consent." Your view on "kinks" strikes me as silly, as if you can't have two people with the same preferences who both wholly consent, even should you find their shared preferences odd.
    "I respect you as a person, so I ask you for consent so that I can treat you not as a person but as an object." Yet this is clearly contradictory, you cannot ask a person to suspend their dignity and still claim to respect them as a person.darthbarracuda

    Did you grow up in a nunnery where they taught you sex was dirty?
  • John Doe
    113
    [a] And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties- [c] the buyer and the seller. Invariably the buyer is the man, the seller is the woman. The woman is the object, the man is the subject.darthbarracuda

    Okay...so where exactly does this massive inference from [a] to [c] about human relations and sexual practices come from?


    The woman is the object, the man is the subject.darthbarracuda

    Well, sure, if you deny women agency by inferring that women aren't just as capable of facilitating and enjoying their own sexual encounters as men are.

    The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does.darthbarracuda

    *ahem* Perhaps what's needed is more experience in healthy, hetrosexual practices, rather than repudiating them? This would also give a fuller sense of partnership and equality between the sexes.

    In fact, the notion of sexual consent itself brings with it certain revealing assumptions. We do not typically ask for consent for other activities - I do not ask for consent to sit across from you, for example. I do not ask for consent when I approach a cashier to check out from the grocery store.darthbarracuda

    So...some things require consent and others do not? How exactly is this revealing beyond our collective interest in basic respect for human dignity and bodily autonomy?

    So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important?darthbarracuda

    Basic respect for human dignity and bodily autonomy.

    sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the womandarthbarracuda

    This is a really sad, slightly impoverished view of sex and female autonomy that I urge you to reconsider. Consent is about preventing the potential of violation, objectification and manipulation. You're essentiallizing the corruption of a potentially beautiful relationship between willing adults. It's the quintessential pessimist's move, to suggest that the potential for corruption makes the whole activity "inherently" bad or meaningless.

    Yet this is clearly contradictory, you cannot ask a person to suspend their dignity and still claim to respect them as a person.darthbarracuda

    Okay, here's a question. Is an autonomous sexual partner who enjoys sexual liasons with men, feels empowered and sees absolutely nothing wrong with her choices "suspend[ing her] dignity"? Certainly, it seems to me that, if anything, you're suspending her dignity by projecting your negative remarks onto her.
  • gloaming
    40
    "I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women..."

    Agreed. Just like homosexuality is inherently related to the patriarchal subordination of men.
  • Michael
    7.1k
    Just like homosexuality is inherently related to the patriarchal subordination of men.gloaming

    And the matriarchal subordination of women.
  • BlueBanana
    861
    We do not typically ask for consent for other activities - I do not ask for consent to sit across from you, for example.darthbarracuda

    You definitely should, though. Maybe it's just my weird obsession with personal space - for example, I think manspreading is completely acceptable because no one in public transport has an inherent right to sit next to me.

    However, as Michael pointed out, communicating consent is not always verbal. Cashiers consent to doing their job by being employed, which includes interactions with customers. Similarly, me not placing a bag on the seat opposite to me on bus signals that the seat is free, while on other contexts a verbal consent might be very much in place, such as on private property or in a restaurant.
  • Michael
    7.1k
    However, as Michael pointed out, communicating consent is not always verbal.BlueBanana

    You mean as Hanover pointed out?
  • BlueBanana
    861
    Oh, right yeah.
    Reveal
    I don't remember consenting to you answering to my comments
  • 0 thru 9
    585

    Forgive the side question, but... are you intentionally trying to bait Agu, or is it merely accidental? :lol: I mean, this thread is like waving a picnic basket in front of a large, hungry bear. I’m getting out of here while I can, and watching from a safe distance! :nerd:
  • Bitter Crank
    6.1k
    The viewpoints you expressed are "not even wrong" but I will join the sensible mob in excoriating your post.

    I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women. And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties - the buyer and the seller.darthbarracuda

    Heterosexuality = patriarchal subordination is a plank in the platform of constructionism. The equivalence supposes that natural processes operating over many, many millions of years have nothing to do with us. The hateful feminists who spout this nonsense think heterosexuality is a plot hatched in the halls of wicked patriarchal capitalist, imperialist, sexist, racist males.

    The woman gives, the man takes. The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does.darthbarracuda

    More biological blindness. I have overheard women having orgasms with male partners on a number of occasions. So we know that competent men can bring their partners to orgasm--maybe not in 5 minutes.

    So then what is it about sex that makes consent so important?

    Sex is a biological, personal, and social act. People obtain consent for the same reason that "consent" of a sort is involved in inviting someone to dinner, inviting someone to dance, inviting someone to kill a couple bottles of good wine, go for a walk in the woods, or go swimming together. Pleasurable activities are best when people are enthusiastically engaged. Consenting allows both partners to set up the situation for the best possible results.

    It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating.
    darthbarracuda

    What you are describing is really bad sex. Rape maybe. It reminds me of feminists in the 1970s who claimed "An erection is tantamount to rape." Talk about having hangups.

    My perspective on consent in sex is this: if you feel the need to ask for consent, then there is something questionable about what you wish to do (to the other person).darthbarracuda

    I guess if I invite you to dinner you would assume I am planning on poisoning you. If I ask you to go for a walk in the woods, I must be planning on murdering you there.

    Now, darthbarracuda dear, you know damn well that your denatured feminist sexual advisors consider sex without consent to be rape. So if you don't ask it's rape and if you do ask it must be some disgusting filthy humiliating sex, like maybe a three way with the Kentucky Derby winner. Hey, Justify is a very nice horse -- Triple Crown winner. Are your credentials as good as his?

    Bataille has argued that the erotic is inherently about defilement.darthbarracuda

    You talking about Georges Bataille 1897–1962? The intellectual, pornographer, qualified-librarian, attempted founder of a secret society devoted to human sacrifice--that one? Are you sure you read him correctly? The one who said "This is not to say when two people “rut like animals” they are not being erotic, but that such apparently bestial abandon is significant because of what it means for the minds of the people involved." That one?

    the woman has perfect, clean beauty that is defiled by the man.darthbarracuda

    unadulterated retro bullshit.
  • allan wallace
    15
    Hmmm, a very interesting discussion! Thanks for triggering some hearty guffaws Bitter Crank! My spirits have lifted! :smile:

    I've been married for over 20 years. I vaguely remember what sex feels like....if i didn't need my appendage to urinate i'd happily have the ruddy thing prepared for the guillotine! During my 'teens, twenties, thirties, and even forties it governed like a tyrant, a sworn enemy of reason and good sense. It could have led me to becoming a homicide statistic. It's reign of terror is over!
  • Tobias
    6
    "It is because (this sort of?) sex is inherently violating, objectifying, manipulating. Consider: it is usually the man who asks for consent of the woman (to do things to her body, to use her body as a mean for his own climax, to satisfy some urge that is inherently questionable)."

    Hmmm, I agree with quite a bit of what you say, but you also jump to conclusions and miss a lot of nuance. The issue of consent is actually quite simple. We ask for consent because it takes two to tango. The rules of sex are that it is intercourse with consent of both parties. If it is without consent it would be rape. Rape is a kind of sex frowned upon because sex against the will of one party is a very painful humiliating and unpleasant affair for one of the parties. So basically we require consent. I do not think it has anything to do with teh capitalust system. Sex is not 'inherently wrong', sex without consent is inherently wrong, much the same as violence is inerently wrong.

    During the sex act you indeed use the other person for your pleasure, I agree with that. However the beauty of it is that the other uses you for that very same purpose. It is the mutual objectification that makes it moral. If objectification is merely one sided, yes than you have a point, but it is not. The point of it is, at least for me, that the other consents to the defilement, the base urges and what have you, but also has the right to use you in likewise manner.... and you even like it when he/she does... So yes, sex is most intimately bound up with consent, because otherwise the objectfication is just base and nother else than structural dominance in the worst form.
  • raza
    704
    The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does.darthbarracuda

    Often it is the other way around, from my experience.

    Should I have felt used?

    Is what you wrote just your experience, or what survey are you referring to?
  • Janus
    5.6k
    The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does. — darthbarracuda


    Often it is the other way around, from my experience.
    raza

    Awww, now some of the men are going to feel inadequate. :joke:
  • 0 thru 9
    585

    :grin: Lol. Probably more the result of hormones than the appendage, one would think. The sex hormones in both (all?) genders have many effects but simply one basic goal: reproduction. Whether that upends one’s life, causes conflicting feelings and acne, or puts one in jail, is of no concern to the hormones. They do their job, and because they do we are here today to discuss them!

    I think of sex and its attendant desires not entirely different from food, eating, and hunger, just on a species level. Food to keep the individual going, sex to keep the species going. With both intrinsic punishments and rewards for certain choices and actions.
  • Aleksander Kvam
    213
    , sex to keep the species going0 thru 9
    im sure it mostly for the sake of pleasure...
  • Aleksander Kvam
    213
    I think heterosexuality is inherently related to patriarchal subordination of women. And the idea that all that makes sex moral is "consent", is related to capitalism, because it makes sex out to be a service or exchange between two parties - the buyer and the seller.darthbarracuda

    what an insane thought
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    2.9k
    The woman is the object, the man is the subject. The man "scores" a home run. The woman gives, the man takes. The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does.darthbarracuda

    Personally, I think that society promotes the idea that "The man orgasms in ~5 minutes, the woman never does" and it is a bummer for the woman. There are very, VERY, few males that in a relationship are willing to take the time to allow a woman to orgasm. Maybe it is a force of nature with the male stimulation, as I think I remember Eddie Murphy saying "In jail man, we get hard when the wind blows" which may in fact be a physical response for a male and part of the misunderstanding.

    As a woman, for me? The mental stimulation leads to a clearing of my mind which is the time when my body engages and there is a degree of allowance in MY own mind. I am allowed to not need to think, removing the need to protect my most intimate part of my mind, which allows my body to follow. In giving up the need to lead, it is giving up control, making myself vulnerable, naked to the person I am trusting my inner self with and then a true orgasm can occur but there is no guarantee.

    So to say "that a woman never does" is almost correct for me as I can count how many times in my life that I have truly achieved orgasm. As a man, can you count how many times you have achieved orgasm?

    And since we are on the subject: Is it necessary for a man to ejaculate to have an orgasm? Or do men have other forms of orgasm?
  • Aleksander Kvam
    213
    the important thing of course is comunication between partners, even in bed.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.