Sex is morally wrong?

[anonymousnick2001]

why the rest of my life? i think the rest of the night is enough i we both (or three) accept this situation.

me and my beer is the only holy union i know

...ok, being serious, for me as an atheist this sounds incredibly pathethic, but i can understand your point if you are a religious fellow. i think this particular discussion is leading to nowhere...a question: do you get your moral restrictions from your own ponderings or from any written resource

Hey, I appreciate you trying to understand my point of view.

Much like SS, my moral restrictions come from what I feel to be true as well as my religious beliefs, as well as my upbringing and what I've observed in life. None of them indepent of one another.

 

[NAD]

This is ridiculous. I remember when I thought sex and love were connected, then I got laid, by a woman I loved mind you, and realized the two were wholly seperate.

It's self evident.

 

[Kenneth R.]

elaborate. you conclude without any reasoning.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I personally have little interest in sex as anything but an expression of love, I must say. I'm certainly not morally against it, it just doesn't appeal all that much.

 

[Etaoin]

I view sex differently now than I did as a teenager or young adult...then I approached it more casually, but it wasn't fulfilling the way it can be now, as an adult, when I have an emotional attachment to my partner

as far as whether or not is is morally wrong, no, I don't believe so, but I'm agnostic, and don't have the same point of view as another person who is attempting to follow the guidelines of a religion, so I don't believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, and if all involved are consenting adults, well then, there you go...consenting adults

I enjoyed the experimenting I did when I was younger, but I also got hurt frequently, but that was because I rarely knew what I wanted, and when I did, I was unsure of how to express it, afraid of rejection, or getting laughed at

so...in response to the original question, what do you want to get out of sex? make your choices accordingly, and learn from your decisions, and wear a condom!

 

[speed]

Sex is a natural, and most importantly, a necessary human action. I dont understand all the morals behind it. Clearly if one wants to protect oneself from disease, then yes, maybe some sort of standard should be applied. However, I cant believe some idiots on this board would tell a hot chick (or man depending on gender or preference) who flirted with them, and seduced them, that no, sex is morally wrong. I mean come on here; morals are for the most part covering up for ones sexual problems--or lack of sex.

 

[anonymousnick2001]

However, I cant believe some idiots on this board would tell a hot chick (or man depending on gender or preference) who flirted with them, and seduced them, that no, sex is morally wrong.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Worst comes to to worst, I'd just jack off violently and splooge out the window before I did anything stupid.


...



Anything else stupid.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Sex is a natural, and most importantly, a necessary human action. I dont understand all the morals behind it. Clearly if one wants to protect oneself from disease, then yes, maybe some sort of standard should be applied. However, I cant believe some idiots on this board would tell a hot chick (or man depending on gender or preference) who flirted with them, and seduced them, that no, sex is morally wrong. I mean come on here; morals are for the most part covering up for ones sexual problems--or lack of sex.

that depends who the "hot chick" is, and the context in which such proposition occurs. that is where i argue morals matter. i also argue that yes it is a necessary and natural human action. in addition, i'm saying that the basis for sex should be in accordance with those morals and i am of the opinion that it should include love. apparently people disagree.

 

[the alumnus]

I have a question about the "rules" of Catholics. Silent Song, I don't know if you're Catholic or not, but people were meant to give birth when they were 15 or 16.. 1000 years ago. That doesn't work today because of our society, but neither does women staying home and being a housewife. So I ask, why have Catholics (and any other forms of Christianity wich have similar views) changed the "appropriate" age for sex to marriage, (wich can't realistically happen until you are 16 or 18, and I dont think its smart to do it then) but not changed other standards to fit this day and age

i don't think there is any specific catholic doctrine that specifies an age for marriage. i think you'd be surprised at what ages people can marry in catholic countries (i'm looking here at latin america). apparently the age of consent in brazil is 14 http://www.worldsexguide.org/brazil.html which is the largest catholic country in the world. i am assuming that if you are of age of consent you can also marry.

 

[speed]

that depends who the "hot chick" is, and the context in which such proposition occurs. that is where i argue morals matter. i also argue that yes it is a necessary and natural human action. in addition, i'm saying that the basis for sex should be in accordance with those morals and i am of the opinion that it should include love. apparently people disagree.

Sex should include love? For you perhaps, but this may be your problem: sex doesnt have to be about love at all. In your structured mind perhaps it does, but not in your body. Its a natural physical inclination that has nothing to do about love.

And what could be worse than listening to religious leaders or the Catholic church about sex? WHo wants to be a Saint?-- a cruel sadistic person that denies themselves the world, and forces others to share in their sufferings.

 

[Kenneth R.]

in my beliefs the world is not something i would indulge in haphazardly. you are right that from the perspective of the body it may have little to do with love, but from the perspective of the mind, that should be a central aspect. you speak of indulgence, would it not be a more indulging experience if augmented by love?

ps: i've already stated that i am not catholic.

 

[no country for old wainds]

You'd think that physical union is always an expression of some form of attraction to varying degrees, and that love is by definition the most intense, powerful and all-encompassing form of attraction, thus sex as a product (rather than just accompaniment) of love would be the most powerfully pleasurable form. Still, there may well be loopholes in that, and it still has very little to do with *morality* in itself.

 

[Kenneth R.]

would it not be morality when you come to decide whether to proceed or not given certain conditions?

 

[speed]

i was just using catholicism so I could make point about chastity and saints. I just find it enjoyable to argue with you SS, you have a very unique viewpoint on most things, yet a bewildering attachment to traditions and morals that is rather interesting.

True, sex could be augmented by love; sex could also be augmented even further with a limber and adventerous partner. But love and sex are two vastly different things. One can love another platonically; this love can be even greater than love of a sexual partner.

Im deeply immoral; I have my own morals damn it. Thus whenever morality is brought up, I feel the need to crush it. i just dont see how people can live under the morals of others? Please explain!

 

[Kenneth R.]

i agree there are different facets of love, but since we are discussing sex i would assume that the love in question is that between two people who are attracted to each other.

if you are immoral, than how can you have your own morals? people should not live under the morals of others, they should do what they feel is moral. however, as none of us are perfect or all-knowing, we may learn from each other's views and thus apply the morality of others in our perspectives.

 

[no country for old wainds]

would it not be morality when you come to decide whether to proceed or not given certain conditions?

I guess so yes, I was really referring to externally-derived standards rather than one's internal moral code. I think a lot of the arguments in this thread are down to the definition of "morality" not being agreeably defined, actually.

 

[Zack]

i don't think there is any specific catholic doctrine that specifies an age for marriage. i think you'd be surprised at what ages people can marry in catholic countries (i'm looking here at latin america). apparently the age of consent in brazil is 14 http://www.worldsexguide.org/brazil.html which is the largest catholic country in the world. i am assuming that if you are of age of consent you can also marry.

I guess I kinda said it wrong. For society (I'm referring to America), the most common age is in the twenties. So the Catholic church has set the appropriate time for sex at marriage, and knowing that most people aren't going to run off and get married their sophomore year at high school, I think they have essentially set it for around there. So what my point was, if they are fitting some things like that to work with society, why not other rules?

 

[Furious B]

you're entitled to your opinions, but i think that sort of action is hollow and without lasting meaning or purpose.

I had to interject because it is infuriating to watch you blather on and on about how love is required for sex and how you think that it serves no purpose other than to consummate the “love” of two individuals and how it’s otherwise meaningless. A reasoning which is much akin to the Amish way of thinking, I get an image of the lifestyle which they adhere to which is so clearly full of joy and happiness. Furthermore, you have yet to give any reason other than your subjective feelings on the matter, which hold no weight in this discussion.

if you are immoral, than how can you have your own morals? people should not live under the morals of others, they should do what they feel is moral. however, as none of us are perfect or all-knowing, we may learn from each other's views and thus apply the morality of others in our perspectives.

Really, this sounds like an argument from a televangelist. I’m actually kind of waiting for you to beg for tithing from your heard whilst carrying out the obligatory bible verse soon thereafter.

Look kid, God doesn’t fuck, so he should not be going around and giving us sex advice.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I had to interject because it is infuriating to watch you blather on and on about how love is required for sex and how you think that it serves no purpose other than to consummate the “love” of two individuals and how it’s otherwise meaningless. A reasoning which is much akin to the Amish way of thinking, I get an image of the lifestyle which they adhere to which is so clearly full of joy and happiness. Furthermore, you have yet to give any reason other than your subjective feelings on the matter, which hold no weight in this discussion.



Really, this sounds like an argument from a televangelist. I’m actually kind of waiting for you to beg for tithing from your heard whilst carrying out the obligatory bible verse soon thereafter.

Look kid, God doesn’t fuck, so he should not be going around and giving us sex advice.

your arguments are no less subjective than mine, so therefore they "hold no weight in this discussion" as you so put it.

as for the religion bashing, clearly you know not what you speak of, and further, your final paragraph is so absurd its laughable.

 

[Furious B]

your arguments are no less subjective than mine, so therefore they "hold no weight in this discussion" as you so put it.

Read my post one more time. I did not make an argument for or against the topic, with the exception of the comment at the end (which was somewhat in jest). You will notice that I did not make any assertions directly as to whether sex is morally wrong. The bias against your beliefs is obvious, but I don’t come out and say exactly how I feel about the subject. I merely wanted to point out your fallacious reasoning and that it won’t hold any water for said reasons.

Look, you said that sex without love is “meaningless” and “hollow,” yet you did not back up what you had said. How so? Have you ever actually had sex without love? And considering that meaning to any individual is what ultimately matters (because your argument moves away from morality, but now to “meaning”), how do you know people that had sex without love felt hollow afterward? Who are you (even God, for that matter) to say that the person felt “hollow” afterward? Oddly enough for some people the experience and being alive in the moment is enough meaning to justify sex without love. Moreover, regardless of the whether or not sex has meaning is irrelevant. The point is “Sex is morally wrong?” If you believe it is, justify your remarks.

as for the religion bashing, clearly you know not what you speak of, and further, your final paragraph is so absurd its laughable.

I know exactly what I speak of. Look, if my comment is "so absurd its laughable," how about just addressing my comment so that everyone knows exactly how absurd it is? Then we can all be tickled.

You know, although my last statement is somewhat of a joke, I do feel that it does have validity, in a sort of roundabout, eccentric way.