I think Elman means the act only qualifies as 'loving' if it is "between two people who are commited to each otehr and their relationship". Otherwise, I'm guessing, it qualifies only as a physically enjoyable act.And if these committed relationships of love occur outside of marriage?
What I find interesting Steezie is how both the theist and the atheist have at least this much sense of what "common sense" morality is.Yeah, dont beat people who havent done anything wrong. Dont kill people who havent done.
Just for starters
That's cold man!I don't know. You seem to want to be involved with it. You seem to want the people who are involved to feel dishonored because their partner has had sex with someone else. Maybe they don't feel dishonored and don't want to.
Go ahead and be dishonored and don't marry someone who has had sex before. Don't expect everyone else to care.
I personally would have no respect for a woman thirty years old who had never had sex before. I would find her comical, and would expect to find some flaw, some reason why nobody wanted her.
It's partially a reaction to the way some of them are smug about it, as if it's an accomplishment to not do something.That's cold man!
I pretty much agree with this. I think the concept of hurting people and not hurting people is pretty much inherent in society, however it evolved. It's all the arbitrary stuff in the bible, such as pretty much anything related to sex, that I disagree with.What I find interesting Steezie is how both the theist and the atheist have at least this much sense of what "common sense" morality is.
I realize that what I am calling "common sense" morality has in reality varied somewhat between ages and cultures, but it has never completly differed.
It is evident that for thousands of yrs everyone has had some sort of built in sense of what right and wrong is. I've concluded that common sense morality is real thing because it exist and everybody has it, yet there is no scientific evidence to prove that it is real...
Not to mention that sex for procreation only is more like animals.OH great...now some people are comparing pre-marital sex to animals simply giving in to their animal desire.
Well, that may be what people think they want. And in the long run, it may turn out just fine for most. But let me submit the alternative - why should any person be responsible for satisfying the sexual baggage their partner brings into the relationship. I would suggest that a couples sexuality is something that should be built exclusively internally and from the ground up. It should not matter what some other person not outside this relationship did or didn't do, liked or didn't like. Those things only become stumbling blocks to the couple building their own model of sexuality.
Lets face it, the physical aspects of sex are pretty simple and well known. It isn't as if anybody anymore enters a sexual relationship not knowing what goes where. The only thing that sex with others brings is preconceived notions about what you or your partner prefer. But what if your partner doesn't like such and such or they want to try this or that and you wnat nothing to do with it. Should that be a relationship stopper? I should hope not! In reality, prior sexual experience is wholely unnecessary and potentially detrimental to building a sexuality with the current partner.
I personally would have no respect for a woman thirty years old who had never had sex before. I would find her comical, and would expect to find some flaw, some reason why nobody wanted her.
It's partially a reaction to the way some of them are smug about it, as if it's an accomplishment to not do something.
Really, what is it about not prostituting our daughters, and causing them to become harlots; or not having sex with with our mother, our daugther, our daughter in law, our sister, our sister in law, our aunts, the wife of another man , other men, or animals that you disagree with.It's all the arbitrary stuff in the bible, such as pretty much anything related to sex, that I disagree with.
I think all of these things are fair game, as long as all the parties are consensual, birth control and disease prevention are performed, and no trust is being broken, i.e. the man in the "wife of another man" does not care. If all of these people (and animals) are unattached, do 'em all, I say. Note that I may not necessarily do these things myself, but I don't consider myself the moral watchdog to prevent other people from doing them.Really, what is it about not prostituting our daughters, and causing them to become harlots; or not having sex with with our mother, our daugther, our daughter in law, our sister, our sister in law, our aunts, the wife of another man , other men, or animals that you disagree with.
I'm dropping out of these two premarital sex threads because it is just too exhausting to keep up. I'll tell you what I mean and leave the last word to you.I'm not sure what you mean by "sexual baggage". I think I need to understand that before I can really respond to this. Thanks.
So you believe that consentual/protected sex is right but unconsentual/unprotected sex is wrong.I think all of these things are fair game, as long as all the parties are consensual, birth control and disease prevention are performed, and no trust is being broken, i.e. the man in the "wife of another man" does not care. If all of these people (and animals) are unattached, do 'em all, I say. Note that I may not necessarily do these things myself, but I don't consider myself the moral watchdog to prevent other people from doing them.
Some caveats:
There is a big difference between "prostituting our daughters" and the daughters prostituting themselves. I have no problem with the latter if it is their choice.
Regarding incest: in the modern era where birth control is available, what is the actual harm of incest, as opposed to the harm caused by the censure of society?
My guess is that primitive man, after millennia, got it through his thick skull that doing it with sis made bad babies. So the taboo was formed and later somebody created religion and proclaimed "god" said it was bad. But if there are no children, I don't see a difference between incest and sex with somebody unrelated.
I wrote a science fiction novel in the late eighties, and one of the characters was from a genetically enhanced species that had direct conscious control over pregnancy. She couldn't get pregnant unless she wanted to. Therefore no accidental pregnancies, and no incest taboo. The word didn't even exist in her society.
Close. I believe that unconsentual sex is wrong and unprotected sex is merely stupid.So you believe that consentual/protected sex is right but unconsentual/unprotected sex is wrong.
So there are kinds of sex that are right and kinds of sex that are wrong.Close. I believe that unconsentual sex is wrong and unprotected sex is merely stupid.
I make no restrictions at all on the nature of the sex, which can have any number of participants, in any combination of genders, and can be absolutely any sex act that does not harm someone who does not wish to be harmed.
And again, it is wrong if it breaks a trust, as in a husband cheating on his wife, when the wife expects him to be only with her. On the other hand, if the wife participates in the orgy...
And if these committed relationships of love occur outside of marriage?
Cool, so you agree that premarital sex isn't necessarily sinful... which is basically my point.I don't think the kind of cermony, i.e. church or civil, or even common law makes a lot of differemce.
Cool, so you agree that premarital sex isn't necessarily sinful... which is basically my point.
I think we are saying the same thing.I am not agreeing that sex without commitment is safe from anyone getting hurt. Are we saying the same thing or different things?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?