A Conservative view of Sex, QnA

[_MrStakhanovite]

Of course there is always the scientific view of sex:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

It's not an either/or proposition. My views are not mutually exclusive with science.

[_Fiannan]

Of course there is always the scientific view of sex:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

It's not an either/or proposition. My views are not mutually exclusive with science.

Perhaps, but sex ultimately is in a species for reproduction. One might see sex like a car. You can have dinner in a car, put it on display, or whatever but ultimately the purpose of a car is to drive from one point to another.

Sex feels good, sure, but that entices us to engage in it and make it more likely that a sperm meets and egg. Of course later, maybe after menopause, it still feels good, but from a scientific point of view it allows both the male and female brain to produce chemicals that not only make people feel good, but make them bond at a neurochemical level. This encourages people to stay together and have two adults to raise the offspring.

This is why it would be an incredible act of conservatism for the LDS Church to tell members to have much, much more sex. It would probably save a lot of marriages. However, I do not know if that is to occur because most of the leaders were in their physiological prime in the 1940s and 1950s when women were duty-bound to provide sex for their husbands when they wanted it. So men of that era probably had lots of sex and women did as well, but sadly many never experienced an orgasm. The pendulum has swung today to the opposite extreme and in many parts of the western world a man can be charged with rape for insisting his wife engage in sex if she is not in the mood. Many couples are stressed and sex takes a back seat to other responsibilities -- few of these responsibilities are re-enforcing emotionally to the marriage. This is why it might be a good idea begin promoting sex more often.

[_Blixa]

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet isn’t inherently harmful either. Plenty of people ride their motorcycles sans any form of head protection without getting heart. That still would not stop me from saying everyone should wear helmets.

I think this Freudian slip reveals what is at stake for you in this exchange...In other words you are a Romantic Conservative.

It's not just a quip, either. I suspect that the phrase could be quite richly descriptive of your overall political stance as well.

I'd like to hear some more about exploitation, which I thought you would have introduced by now.

In lieu of argument, I'll just link this: Samsun Means To Come by one of my favorite artist duos, Young-Hae Chang Heavy Industries.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'd like to hear some more about exploitation, which I thought you would have introduced by now.

Exploitation? I'm not getting what you are asking for.


BTW- I'm diggin' this tune

[_Blixa]

I'd like to hear some more about exploitation, which I thought you would have introduced by now.

Exploitation? I'm not getting what you are asking for.


BTW- I'm diggin' this tune

I hope not just the tune, but the text as well.

I thought you might make an argument via "exploitation" rather than "morality" (or emphasize the former as a constituent part of the latter).

[_EAllusion]

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet isn’t inherently harmful either. Plenty of people ride their motorcycles sans any form of head protection without getting heart. That still would not stop me from saying everyone should wear helmets.

I don't think anyone is morally obligated to wear a helmet. That's up to each individual and their personal risk/benefit choices. Now, in the vast majority of cases I think it is in people's self-interest to wear a helmet if they properly considered their interests. So as a general rule of thumb, I'd say people should wear helmets.

Let's flip the analogy to something more akin to what you seem to be arguing. Take drinking and driving. I think driving drunk (or more accurately, needlessly impaired) is wrong because it is reckless. Not every act of drinking and driving is going to produce harm, but the act is risky enough that we can say it is usually morally wrong to drink and drive. It's like waving a gun in a crowded room. Of course, we can imagine scenarios where drinking and driving isn't wrong - say being forced to drive someone because of medical emergency - but those are exceptions to what otherwise is a fine rule.

Casual sex isn't like that, though. At least it's not in a reasonable % of the time. You seem to think it is. The potential for harm is not typically as severe, the benefits are stronger, and people have a better grasp on what is likely to cause harm. As far as harm goes, the advice should be "tread carefully" not "don't even dare."

But this is ultimately a side argument to your preferred natural law approach. I just don't buy that.

[_asbestosman]

I think there are moral implication for riding a motorcycle without a helmet. When someone does something unsafe, it can cost the rest of us indirectly through higher insurance payments, higher taxes, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean it rises to the level where wearing helmets should be mandatory, but it might.

[_LDSToronto]

I’m not talking about the guy who uses porn as an aid, I’m talking about the guy who takes home the insecure chubby girl, because he wants an orgasm, and he knows she’ll have sex with him. He’s not recognizing the severity of the act, and in doing so, reduces her from a person to just a thing to get off on.
I consider that masturbation, and not sex.

It sounds to me that your objection is more about sexual exploitation than it is about the moral nature of casual sexual encounters.

Using my limited understanding of Kant to interpret the scenario that you have described, it appears that the man has assumed that he has the right to use the insecure girl as a means to satisfy his own sexual needs; he has used the girl's insecurities to convert her into a means to an end. His duty, however, is to grant the girl the same status that he grants himself - she is an end in herself; she has freedom to act towards her own ends; she has a right to equal claim in their relationship, no matter how brief the encounter.

Thus, the man's actions are immoral not because he is engaging in non-committal sex, but because he is treating the girl as a means to an end and not as an end unto herself, and he does so by claiming a right to exploit her insecurities for his own gain.

One could easily extrapolate to a scenario where both the man and woman engage in casual sex and it would be moral by the standard described above.

H.