Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The recent ruling by the SCOTUS that has officially made same sex marriage legal in all 50 states has quite predictably been controversial.
On this forum alone, there have been multiple threads asking 'what's next?' Many claiming that with same sex marriage now legalized, nothing will stop things like polygamy, beastiality, or pedophilia from being perfectly legal and acceptable. The accuracy of those claims aside, the defense for these arguments usually involves the notion that homosexual sex contradicts nature and is a violation of sexual morality.
But what is sexual morality?
At it's most basic roots, it would simply be a moral standard for sexual activity. In order to understand that, we must first define the moral standard. Those arguing against the same sex marriage ruling tend to cite the Bible as their source, but that's not really a standard. A moral theory should have a phrase to accurately sum it up, for example, Kant's moral theory could be summed up as 'every individual who has human status has an obligation to act from duty and to treat all other persons as an end and not a means to an end.' Fairly short and makes a clear enough point, but is still vague enough to be interpreted.
So what's the equivalent for sexual morality?
I'd assert that it is as follows: respecting one's own sexuality as an element of their personhood and affording that same respect to all other persons.
I'd argue that this is consistent with most people's view on sexual morality. For example, this would suggest rape is immoral as it bares no respect for the other individual's sexuality. It can suggest that cheating is immoral, but it can also say that an open relationship isn't.
What do you all think of such a definition? How would you amend it, defend it, or defeat it? And do you have an alternative idea of what constitutes as sexual morality.
*I'd ask that any who hold religious belief not end their explanation with a religious text but rather delve a little deeper into what the belief means. I think this is fair to ask in a section that is not the religion subforum. Also, please no political debate on exclusively same sex marriage, as this isn't the PoC section (which I deliberately chose not to post this in) either.
Sexual Morality is out the window when movies and now TV shows are pushing the limits all the time.
In the past when 2 people in a movie were going to make love they would close the door to the camera. The audience knew what they were up to and our imaginations took over. Today the camera follows the couple right into the bed and now we have the uncomfortable nude scene.
You could argue that art reflects life and a movie is simply a slice of the characters life but do we really need to see everything? I know I don't.
I have gay friends and clients both male and female and they are good people. I think it is silly that some people make such a big deal about 2 people loving each other I don't need to know nor do I want to know what they get up to in the bedroom.
Sex is so mainstream today. People like engaging in it, they like talking about it and seeing it but I think it needs ot be dialed back a bit to regain some of that morality.
When it comes down to it sex is an act between 2 individuals and the rules and morality they attach to the act is a very personal choice be it a one night stand or within a marriage.
I think the moral standard is defined by the couple that is involved in the act.
I have gay friends and clients both male and female and they are good people. I think it is silly that some people make such a big deal about 2 people loving each other I don't need to know nor do I want to know what they get up to in the bedroom.
Sex is so mainstream today. People like engaging in it, they like talking about it and seeing it but I think it needs ot be dialed back a bit to regain some of that morality.
When it comes down to it sex is an act between 2 individuals and the rules and morality they attach to the act is a very personal choice be it a one night stand or within a marriage.
I think the moral standard is defined by the couple that is involved in the act.
All true, but so very binary, and completely misses the o.p.'s point. Sex does not have to be limited to just 2 people. Neither does committment or even sexual fidelity! Three or more people can decide that just the three (or four... ten) of them will have sex only with each other. Now what? Yeah, the joint property executions would be complex. Duh. I cannot accept that as a valid reason to limit legal marriage to just two people.
..........So what's the equivalent for sexual morality?
I'd assert that it is as follows: respecting one's own sexuality as an element of their personhood and affording that same respect to all other persons.
.........
On the surface of it, perhaps.......but how far must it go?
Part of my work involves figuring out tactics and other techniques and this often involves using, if not exploiting, the vulnerabilities of people. An example in another area since it has been "published" and the sexual one has not (or at least, not as widespread).
I suggested for the placement of an insurgency team to use people of the ethnicity often found in custodial duty, to place them in such uniforms, in order to achieve a level of invisibility. The common person usually does not see the janitor.
Okay, back to topic. In a way, it is at least slightly disturbing that I think that way about others, that my mind handles problems that way. Am I an immoral person for doing so?
One might always say, "Ah,but you are doing things like that for our side, so it is okay,"....but who gets to say what is our side and what is okay?
Secondly, considering the materials I might have to access to answer the questions I may ask, how do we control those materials, if we even allow them to exist? Example: I approached a trafficking problem with the question of "What makes Indian women such a favorite target?" and found out that their particular Sari, their clothing (and in rape research, clothing is not a favorable question or match), invokes a particular indicator in their culture.
Long story short: we can define sexual morality as we wish but when we get into the area of respecting another, our complicated world may quickly have us at conflicting ends.
^^^That makes a lot of sense but I would stress that this would not pertain to minors and there are laws in place that should be there. Also, there are other groups of people with certain mental limitations that are not in a position to give informed consent and sadly, these people are too often targeted.
When it comes to "informed consent", I was at a website where it was supposedly "religious" on what the Bible says and it was horrible. Women being told that they had to do whatever the husband said in the bedroom and some of the stuff was cruel and the woman had every right to say "No!" yet was being told that she must "submit". I was shocked. I think a lot of people are in situations were "informed consent" really isn't.
I actually tried to google for an article that would explain it, even reduced my query to just "morality" but never got anything that really defined it. I know many here just "poo-poo" anything from Wiki but I think this does a breakdown that I couldn't find elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ethics
I follow Biblical law on sexual morality. It has worked for me over the last 60 years and for millions of others. So long as someone does not flaunt the contrary in my face or attempt to convince me that I am wrong considering the immorality involved, they may do whatever they wish IF it is within the law.
We do have some very serious sexual deviants in our midst. This has less to do with their sexual morality than there wacked mental state. Seriously, I know of a case in our last county where a woman saw a man having sexual intercourse with her horse in the field. He was picked up and charged (rape kit proved the crime) as he should have been not to mention getting some serious help with his head. I don't think the issue was with his sexual morality.
Commonsense dictates morality in general and having a code so that the people can coexist.
I wonder what is sexual morality in countries like the USA. I think anything goes. The country seems to be more accepting of whatever new trend, preference/orientation is out there. Promiscuity was such a taboo back in the day and now you’ll even have celebrities sharing their experiences as if they were talking about the weather. Homosexuality was also a taboo. Not so long ago if someone said homosexuals would have their own channel or tv shows, parades, appear in movies, etc. or go as far as changing the law in their favor people would call you crazy. Now look how far they are getting. I am hearing about other groups of preferences/orientations also beginning to start their movements to have USA accept and support them. It might be a long road but if homosexuals could do it I can see other preferences/orientations also achieving a lot specially in a country where its all about being open minded, accepting differences, celebrating diversity, rooting for love, being a happy family regardless of what you like, etc.
Long story short: we can define sexual morality as we wish but when we get into the area of respecting another, our complicated world may quickly have us at conflicting ends.
True. That's also the issue with the 'Golden Rule.' Treat others they way you want to be treated; assuming others want exactly what you want.
But, I still think a general level of respect is possible. I split sex and sexuality into two camps: the pleasure and the intimate. If we have 4 people, two of each, logic would dictate that the two looking for intimacy would end up together and the two looking for pleasure would end up together because to do the opposite would likely end in one of them being dissatisfied and the other hurt. This would be respect for the individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
^^^That makes a lot of sense but I would stress that this would not pertain to minors and there are laws in place that should be there. Also, there are other groups of people with certain mental limitations that are not in a position to give informed consent and sadly, these people are too often targeted.
When it comes to "informed consent", I was at a website where it was supposedly "religious" on what the Bible says and it was horrible. Women being told that they had to do whatever the husband said in the bedroom and some of the stuff was cruel and the woman had every right to say "No!" yet was being told that she must "submit". I was shocked. I think a lot of people are in situations were "informed consent" really isn't.
I actually tried to google for an article that would explain it, even reduced my query to just "morality" but never got anything that really defined it. I know many here just "poo-poo" anything from Wiki but I think this does a breakdown that I couldn't find elsewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ethics
I follow Biblical law on sexual morality. It has worked for me over the last 60 years and for millions of others. So long as someone does not flaunt the contrary in my face or attempt to convince me that I am wrong considering the immorality involved, they may do whatever they wish IF it is within the law.
We do have some very serious sexual deviants in our midst. This has less to do with their sexual morality than there wacked mental state. Seriously, I know of a case in our last county where a woman saw a man having sexual intercourse with her horse in the field. He was picked up and charged (rape kit proved the crime) as he should have been not to mention getting some serious help with his head. I don't think the issue was with his sexual morality.
Commonsense dictates morality in general and having a code so that the people can coexist.
I wouldn't say it shouldn't apply to minors. A minor is a broad group, arguably broader than adults despite spanning fewer years. Obviously, children shouldn't be sexually active (though many have curiosity and that shouldn't be stamped out but guided in such a way that it respects individual sexuality) but minors... it's not that simple. There's a difference between a 16 year old having relations with a 19 year old whom they've known for many years and a 16 year old having sex with their 37 year old teacher. Under the current system, both are equally illegal, despite the former being something that I think is perfectly acceptable.
As for the 'deviant' things, which is a broad and somewhat unhelpful term, it's a little more complex. People who find themselves interested in animals or children for example. The issue with these is consent can't really be reached, animals because they can't communicate and children because they couldn't possibly fully understand what they're consenting to. These people can still technically live within the bounds of sexual morality though, they would however have to abstain or use their imagination. I however believe people like that are mentally ill, as you said, and are in need of help.
Here is an interesting look at the age of sexual consent: http://www.ageofconsent.us/ None are under 16 years of age and some allow for an age difference. I have no sympathy for those that are charged with statutory rape, it is the law and claiming not to know someone well enough to know if they are "legal", well, maybe a part of the sexual morality there should be knowing your partner a little bite better.
If the laws regarding "sexual morality" are unacceptable, like with SSM, people can work to change them. I know the age of sexual consent has actually went up in some states in recent years.
We had a teacher who was 24 years old and married. She decided to have an affair with a student. She began the affair about 1 month before he turned 16 and that made all the difference in what the aftermath is for her. She was pretty much deemed sexually immoral.
Here is an interesting look at the age of sexual consent: http://www.ageofconsent.us/ None are under 16 years of age and some allow for an age difference. I have no sympathy for those that are charged with statutory rape, it is the law and claiming not to know someone well enough to know if they are "legal", well, maybe a part of the sexual morality there should be knowing your partner a little bite better.
If the laws regarding "sexual morality" are unacceptable, like with SSM, people can work to change them. I know the age of sexual consent has actually went up in some states in recent years.
We had a teacher who was 24 years old and married. She decided to have an affair with a student. She began the affair about 1 month before he turned 16 and that made all the difference in what the aftermath is for her. She was pretty much deemed sexually immoral.
I get what you're saying about not knowing someone well enough, but what if someone lies about their age? Let's say they're 15 but say they're 17 (in a state where the age of consent is 16), and the 19 year old believes them. The 19 year old would be charged as a rapist, but the 19 year old had no ill intentions. The 15 year old however lied, and if you remove legal definitions, the 15 year old is the only one who did something wrong.
I think certain sex laws are a bit too... rigid. Or broad?
The problem is that they make sense in certain circumstances, but in others, really prove to be pointlessly ineffective. For example, the sex offender registry makes sense within the context to which is was created. But it's used much more broadly. Should someone choose to bring charges against someone for public urination, they'd be on the sex offender registry. No rational person can possibly think that makes sense, yet it's in there. The issue with laws like that is when they're challenged, the defense is usually entirely an emotional one. 'Think of the kids!' If someone in a serious debate motioned to change age of consent laws, many would immediately rush to predicting a mass rise in child molestation cases, despite that not being a realistic result of most changes.
I think the state mostly needs to but out of people's business. If a 19 year old and a 16 year old have sex, that's not a big deal. That shouldn't go to the courts, unless one of them forced themselves onto the other or something. That's where the state should get involved. Cases that lack consent. The obvious problem with that would be in cases where a much older person would try and say that had consent with a minor. But logically, 99% of those cases, there would not be real consent without manipulation, and I'd say manipulating someone to agree to have sex is the same thing as just forcing someone into it, though perhaps in a tamer way. Not a more moral way though.
In general, I think sex laws are too intrusive. If two people agree to what's happening, that's 99% of the time no one else's business. Some laws should exist to protect children and minors (and I guess anyone really) from people who would try to do something to them, but let's be reasonable about how we go about doing that. The current laws reflect an extremely pessimistic religious conservative view that is a view that has more than outlived it's usefulness. People like sex; a lot. Let's no use the old 'sex is dirty' thinking and switch to one that simply teaches us to respect it for what it is.
Sexual morality is doing the right thing when having sex.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a lot of people are in situations were "informed consent" really isn't. 
