The Truth about Sex

[Tylyr]

In Thessalonians 4:3-5 Paul writes:

"It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honourable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God"

Without going into explicit detail Paul seems to cover all the bases of sexual immorality. He does acknowledge that it is more difficult for some than others
"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."​

Thanks for the Bible reference!

Yes, I think we will disagree no matter how much we talk about this.

Alright, we'll have to agree to disagree then. Thanks for the conversation.

You said not to talk about the definition of the word "rape", but to instead focus on the action. However, in describing the action, you propose...another definition (well, several, actually...)! By switching to "describing an action", you actually raise more definitional questions than were present before.

I don't know if you are intentionally being difficult, or if something else is going on, but seriously, this conversation cannot go on with what seems to be uncooperative ignorance on your part.

To me arguing over the definition of rape is a way to avoid saying if its right or wrong.

I agree.

 

[squirrel123]

"Rape" is someone forcing someone else to engage in intercourse with them without there consent through the use of physical Force and violence. Is this a good enough definition?

No, it's not a good enough definition.

Force is not always necessary. Drugs and/or taking advantage of an impaired state can negate the need for force, but it is still rape. Statutory rape also doesn't necessarily involve physical force / violence.

 

[Blade]

There are SOME things that happen with everyone growing up. Things man with man woman with woman.. so forth so on. What a married pair do in there own home is between them. Now.. to think at anytime of someone else then the one you are married to or not married. To think things out side .. is sin. But man lets not get silly. The worst time is when your young lol.. yet.. sometimes it seems to stay or happens later in life. So.. somethings..the answer is easy..

Believe it or not..go take a cold shower or run around the block a few times lol

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I don't know if you are intentionally being difficult, or if something else is going on, but seriously, this conversation cannot go on with what seems to be uncooperative ignorance on your part.

I'm not being "difficult"--I'm just showing you how your presuppositions about the "objectivity" of morality is a dreamworld, a thing of your own invention. You cannot demonstrate the existence of objective moral concepts, and my point is that the proof of this is exemplified in the messiness and grayness of moral and ethical decision making. We are creatures of circumstance, environment, and experience; it therefore follows that our moral decision making will be indelibly shaped by the subjectivities of the same. And even if we arrogantly propose that our moral decisions are based on "objective" principles, we only reveal a deep ignorance of the nature of our own epistemology and end only in a deceit (intentional or otherwise).

 

[Tylyr]

I'm not being "difficult"--I'm just showing you how your presuppositions about the "objectivity" of morality is a dreamworld, a thing of your own invention. You cannot demonstrate the existence of objective moral concepts, and my point is that the proof of this is exemplified in the messiness and grayness of moral and ethical decision making. We are creatures of circumstance, environment, and experience; it therefore follows that our moral decision making will be indelibly shaped by the subjectivities of the same. And even if we arrogantly propose that our moral decisions are based on "objective" principles, we only reveal a deep ignorance of the nature of our own epistemology and end only in a deceit (intentional or otherwise).

You are being difficult.
It's not hard to understand the question I am asking.
Is rape intrinsically wrong, or is it not?
By dancing around this simple question, you are proving to be very difficult.
I'm sure others would agree with me.
Thanks for your time, I will not be responding to anymore of your comments.

 

[squirrel123]

So I've only listened to the first video (because I have limited time) and I have some observations.
1. There are a lot of assertions made, but not a single citation of scripture. So its all your opinion. I don't see what makes your opinion more objective that my opinion.

• 1:50 Aspect of pleasure isn't as great as the other ones - Why not? What do you base this assertion on?
  
• 2:10 Why is sex that excludes one of these aspects disordered? Based on which scripture?

2. Some glaring mistakes.

• 3:05 - That's not how surrogacy works. Legal surrogacy does not involve sex - it's done with In Vitro fertilization. I'm pretty sure any gay man would tell you that they would consider their "spouse" having sex with a woman for any reason as adultery, or at least as betrayal).
• 4:55 - Many couples do stay together, happily, for many years, even decades, without ever having sex, for many reasons

I agree that some of the acts that you condemn are not good, perhaps even sinful. I disagree with others.

I don't know who or what gave you the authority to talk about your opinions for 7 minutes, and designate it "objective truth".

 

[alexandriaisburning]

You are being difficult.
It's not hard to understand the question I am asking.
Is rape intrinsically wrong, or is it not?
By dancing around this simple question, you are proving to be very difficult.
I'm sure others would agree with me.
Thanks for your time, I will not be responding to anymore of your comments.

But what you're not realizing is that the words you are using are very "loaded" with presuppositions. When we, as humans, speak about moral behavior (and more importantly, judgements about moral behavior), it is not in a vacuum. We consider context, motivation, circumstance, cultural mores, etc.

For example, one of the ten commandments say that humans "shall not kill". However, a massive history of "just war" theory, judiciary theory, and personal defense theory (just to name a few examples) provide a very gray filter that has been used to allow humans to do the very thing they are commanded not to do (e.g., kill another human). One might argue that these "loopholes" go against the "objective" command of not killing; however, I would argue that they more appropriately provide support for what I have been saying, that these are a result of the difficult process that is moral reasoning. Moral reasoning can never be isolated to an objective statement; doing so only creates self-righteous, arrogant people at the best, monstrous results at worst.

 

[Tylyr]

So I've only listened to the first video (because I have limited time) and I have some observations.
1. There are a lot of assertions made, but not a single citation of scripture. So its all your opinion. I don't see what makes your opinion more objective that my opinion.

• 1:50 Aspect of pleasure isn't as great as the other ones - Why not? What do you base this assertion on?
  
• 2:10 Why is sex that excludes one of these aspects disordered? Based on which scripture?

2. Some glaring mistakes.

• 3:05 - That's not how surrogacy works. Legal surrogacy does not involve sex - it's done with In Vitro fertilization. I'm pretty sure any gay man would tell you that they would consider their "spouse" having sex with a woman for any reason as adultery, or at least as betrayal).
• 4:55 - Many couples do stay together, happily, for many years, even decades, without ever having sex, for many reasons

I agree that some of the acts that you condemn are not good, perhaps even sinful. I disagree with others.

I don't know who or what gave you the authority to talk about your opinions for 7 minutes, and designate it "objective truth".

Thanks for your comment.

Objectively speaking, I believe this is the Truth about sexual intercourse. I believe that if every one of the three aspects of sex is not accounted for, the sexual act is not ordered towards how God originally designed sex.

You are right when you say I haven't "proved" that any of my claims are actually true, but that does not change the fact that I am speaking objectively. That being said, for me to "prove" the truth value of every claim I made in this video, it would have been at least 4 hours long! That is why I linked some helpful sources in the description of the video.

So because I didn't "prove" anything, this is where philosophy comes in, where we can debate the truth value of the premises, which led to the conclusion.

Here is the line of logic I used in the video (P=Premise, C=Conclusion):

P1: God created and ordered the gift of sexual intercourse with the three aspects of Procreation, Intimacy, and Pleasure.
P2: A sexual act that does not account for one or more of these aspects intrinsically changes the way God created and ordered the gift of sexual intercourse to be.
P3: Intrinsically changing the way God created and ordered something to be is disordered.
C: Therefore, a sexual act that does not account for one or more of these aspects is disordered.

Okay, so now that I laid all the premises out like this, which premise do you believe is false?

 

[squirrel123]

Thanks for your comment.

Objectively speaking, I believe this is the Truth about sexual intercourse. I believe that if every one of the three aspects of sex is not accounted for, the sexual act is not ordered towards how God originally designed sex.

You are certainly entitled to believe that, and as long as your wife or future wife (whichever is applicable) agrees, none of these beliefs will cause harm, so I will spend zero time trying to change your mind.

You are right when you say I haven't "proved" that any of my claims are actually true, but that does not change the fact that I am speaking objectively. That being said, for me to "prove" the truth value of every claim I made in this video, it would have been at least 4 hours long! That is why I linked some helpful sources in the description of the video.

Oh, but it absolutely does change it. Opinions are never objective, facts are. And when speaking about scripture, if you can't prove it with a simple book/chapter/verse citation, it's an opinion. An opinion to which you are entitled, but still a subjective opinion.

[QUOTE ] Okay, so now that I laid all the premises out like this, which premise do you believe is false?[/QUOTE]
My (equally subjective) opinion isn't the subject here, which is why I haven't stated it. I merely objected to you presenting your opinion as objective facts.

 

[Tylyr]

Oh, but it absolutely does change it. Opinions are never objective, facts are. And when speaking about scripture, if you can't prove it with a simple book/chapter/verse citation, it's an opinion. An opinion to which you are entitled, but still a subjective opinion.

My (equally subjective) opinion isn't the subject here, which is why I haven't stated it. I merely objected to you presenting your opinion as objective facts.

Let's clear some things up, you are making a objective claim that my claims are not objective.

Let's take Google's definition;
Objective - adj - (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I believe my factual claims are not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

In order for your claim to be true, you must prove where my claims are influenced by personal feelings and/or opinions, otherwise your claim is meaningless.

Let's take another look at the claims I made:
P1: God created and ordered the gift of sexual intercourse with the three aspects of Procreation, Intimacy, and Pleasure.
P2: A sexual act that does not account for one or more of these aspects intrinsically changes the way God created and ordered the gift of sexual intercourse to be.
P3: Intrinsically changing the way God created and ordered something to be is disordered.

Again, if you cannot prove where these claims are influenced by personal feelings and/or opinions, your claim that my claims are not objective is meaningless.

 

[squirrel123]

Facts can be substantiated and proved. If you can't prove it, it's an opinion.

If your claims are not influeced by feelings or opinions, what are they based on? Why don't you give me the scripture they are based on? Give me the citation (book/chapter/verse), and I will immediately concede that your claims are, indeed, fact.

I cannot proof where your claims are influenced by personal feelings, because I don't know you. However, you refuse to prove their objectivity, which, in itself, is proof that it isn't object.

PS: I never claimed that anything I said in this thread is objective. I'm not that arrogant. In the absence of conclusive proof from you, I have no choice but to hold the OPINION that your claims are, in fact, subjective. Get it? Now, please prove me wrong by citing the scripture you base your claims on.

 

[Tylyr]

Facts can be substantiated and proved. If you can't prove it, it's an opinion.

If your claims are not influeced by feelings or opinions, what are they based on? Why don't you give me the scripture they are based on? Give me the citation (book/chapter/verse), and I will immediately concede that your claims are, indeed, fact.

I cannot proof where your claims are influenced by personal feelings, because I don't know you. However, you refuse to prove their objectivity, which, in itself, is proof that it isn't object.

PS: I never claimed that anything I said in this thread is objective. I'm not that arrogant. In the absence of conclusive proof from you, I have no choice but to hold the OPINION that your claims are, in fact, subjective. Get it? Now, please prove me wrong by citing the scripture you base your claims on.

I never said I can't prove my claims. I never said I won't prove my claims.
You never asked me which of my factual claims you want me to prove........

So I'll ask you again... which premise do you think is false?
P1: God created and ordered the gift of sexual intercourse with the three aspects of Procreation, Intimacy, and Pleasure.
P2: A sexual act that does not account for one or more of these aspects intrinsically changes the way God created and ordered the gift of sexual intercourse to be.
P3: Intrinsically changing the way God created and ordered something to be is disordered.

 

[squirrel123]

I never said I can't prove my claims. I never said I won't prove my claims.
You never asked me which claims you want me to prove........

Can't / Won't ... from where I stand, they are very hard to distinguish.

So I'll ask you again... which premise do you think is false?

I agree somewhat with two of your premises. I don't agree 100% with either of your three premises.

But I'm not interested in discussion my opinions. I've been down the road of discussing sex with a catholic - it was long and repetitive and exhausting and decidedly not pretty. I have better things to do with my time.

 

[Tylyr]

I have better things to do with my time.

So why did you even comment in the first place?

 

[squirrel123]

So why did you even comment?

Because it irritates the *&% out of me when people present opinions as fact, and try to manipulate people into agreeing them by asserting that to disagree is to go agaist objective fact.

I always perceive that as extreme arrogance.

(And that, too, is my subjective opinion. Feel free to disagree).

I appologise to stepping in. I should learn to ignore (perceived?) arrogance on the web.

 

[Tylyr]

Because it irritates the *&% out of me when people present opinions as fact, and try to manipulate people into agreeing them by asserting that to disagree is to go agaist objective fact.

Where have I ever stated that disagreeing with me is to go against objective truth/fact?

disagree is to go agaist objective fact.

Edit:
Either way, I really hope you understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.

An example of a subjective opinion would be, "I like ice cream".
This is subjective because it is based on personal opinion.
This claim could be either true or false.
If the person making the claim does like ice cream, then the claim is true.
If the person making the claim does not like ice cream, then the claim is false.

An example of a objective fact would be, "I am 6 feet tall."
This is objective because it is based on fact.
This claim could be either true or false.
If the person making the claim is 6 feet tall, then the claim is true.
If the person making the claim is not 6 feet tall, then the claim is false.

In other words, just because I claim I am talking objectively doesn't mean I am claiming to be infallibly correct.
It just means I am talking about a topic based on facts. Whether those facts are true or false does not determine whether or not I am talking objectively.

This is why I claim to be talking objectively. I hope this might clear up our misunderstanding.

 

[squirrel123]

English may not be my first language, but my vocabulary does include common words like 'objective' and 'subjective'. No need to be condescending.

Anyway, I'll be checking out now. This is already going in circles.

 

[Tylyr]

English may not be my first language, but my vocabulary does include common words like 'objective' and 'subjective'. No need to be condescending.

Anyway, I'll be checking out now. This is already going in circles.

My intent is not to be condescending, I apologize for coming off that way.

However, you should not be so quick to accuse me of arrogance. Do you know how insulting that is? Especially when it is not true?

Also, you should not have made the accusation that I am not speaking objectively when you don't even understand that the word means.

Anyways, thanks for your comments. I'm glad we could clear up the misunderstanding.

 

[xpower]

No, it's not a good enough definition.

Force is not always necessary. Drugs and/or taking advantage of an impaired state can negate the need for force, but it is still rape. Statutory rape also doesn't necessarily involve physical force / violence.

Are you saying if a guy and a girl get drunk and they have consensual sex then it is rape? Now if one of them is unconscious, then I agree it is rape. But if you were both drunk or on some type of drugs and you both consented to having sex and then after the fact you can't remember and say you were rape, then it is not rape. Also statutory rape is not rape, statutory rape is a subjective legal term that changes across the United States and even across the world, it is all about if a person can consent to sex or not. legally speaking anyway.

 

[squirrel123]

Are you saying if a guy and a girl get drunk and they have consensual sex then it is rape? Now if one of them is unconscious, then I agree it is rape. But if you were both drunk or on some type of drugs and you both consented to having sex and then after the fact you can't remember and say you were rape, then it is not rape. Also statutory rape is not rape, statutory rape is a subjective legal term that changes across the United States and even across the world, it is all about if a person can consent to sex or not. legally speaking anyway.

If a guy intentionally takes advantage of the fact that a girl is too drunk to know what she is doing, then yes - it's rape. After all, being unable to say no is not the same as saying yes. If the guy intentionally got the girl drunk in the first place, it's an even more resounding "yes". (The same goes if the roles are reversed, btw, even though American laws lag behind re. men getting raped)

If both are equally drunk, it gets way more complicated, and you probably can't hold either one more responsible than the other.

Also - the only part of statutory rape that is subjective (and possibly dependent on culture), is at what age a child is mature enough to consent. I've never heard anyone (except NAMBLA creeps) claim that an adult having sex with a child is OK.

The point is - physical violence is not a requirement for rape.

If (as per a news story here from a few years ago) a man locks a child in a room and treatens to kill the child unless the mother has sex with him, that is also rape. Consent under duress =/= consent.