shopify analytics tool

from crux № 3 — Shame & sex

Pardon, but why should they feel shame?

Are they not freely consenting adults?

It doesn't look like they are cheating on spouses or significant others. It doesn't look like someone is using theft or fraud.
It's not really all that different from what's been going on for ages.



You're stretching the definition of prostitution.

What next? Will you forbid single teachers from dating?

Do you want ankle monitors so you can make sure they don't stray?

Shall we restrict them to dorms so we can watch them even closer?

Maybe the dorms should have nice strong steel doors and bars on the windows…



So it's okay for the woman to sleep with who she is dating, just not if she accepts payment?

So much for a dinner date.



But how many of the couples from SeekingArrangement.com have someone leaving a c-note on the nightstand?

On the other hand, there are plenty of "virtuous and moral" people who do exactly that.

If you really want to tout the virtues of a "public indoctrination system" I won't stop you.

It doesn't have much to do with freedom or liberty though.



Oddly enough, the most moral people I know of don't have to brag about it.



Who decides what is moral and what is immoral?

Personally I think it's immoral to convict an individual when they haven't committed a crime because of how you disapprove of their off-time.



"For the children" justifies some immoral behavior.

If you can't show that all teachers molest their students, or that all schools have conspired to hide that from parents, then maybe you shouldn't make blanket accusations.

That's self-control.



What I have said is what people do in their off time is nobody else's business. I did throw in some obvious bits: consenting adults, no cheating on significant others, no theft, no fraud.



Of course sexuality and relationships are important. I never said they weren't.

Again, I stressed:

• Consenting adults

• No cheating on significant others

• No theft

• No fraud

Those are pretty good rules no matter how a relationship starts.

The people using the service were just a lot more upfront than most folks these days.



Of course sexuality and relationships between consenting adults ARE NOT society's business.

Do you get a list of officially sanctioned positions and techniques from the Federal government?

Do you get a list of eligible candidates from your city elders?

Do you file for permission from your state before intercourse?



I never said lack of harm. I've also never said that people should escape responsibility for their actions.

Guess what. That's any activity, not just sex. Freedom to choose means responsibility for the results.

And in case you haven't noticed, I abhor the word "pervert." I've seen it destroy innocent lives way too often.

I don't believe you should police people's sex lives. I don't think you should police people's lives, period. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be accountable for what they do, I just think the costs of tyranny far outweigh the illusion of safety.



Look again at the original article that began this thread. It was about people selecting companions and partners in an unorthodox way.

Not illegal, but unusual.

There was nothing except comments from readers like you to link that to pedophilia or homosexuality.

To me, it's immoral and perverse that you've taken it on yourself to pass judgement when there is nothing to show that these people did the things you say that you oppose.

Would you accept them passing judgement on you?

Obviously not, from your response to me. And all I've done is defend their right to make their own choices.



I'm defending the right of people to make their own choices without society policing them for the "greater good."

If you take a harder look, you'll see that what the women in the article have done isn't all that far removed from what some ladies have done for centuries. It's part of civilization.

It also isn't all that different from what goes on in American society today. The only reason that the article was written was because some of the women were public school teachers.

Which means that you think people should have fewer rights if they have certain jobs.



I like that, being a good neighbor is more important than their sexuality. Sort of brings it all home.



If they are consenting adults, why is it anyone else's business?

Do I want to hear about it? Not particularly. But there are a whole bunch of heterosexual celebrities I don't want to hear about either.



Ah, you don't get to sidetrack the argument that easily.

My point was that you can't use Science to denounce homosexuality absolutely because it doesn't. Some people like yourself keep yelling that it does, but that isn't science and should not be treated as such.

As I told you before, most of your arguments read remarkably like the ones against interracial marriage in the first half of the 20th Century.



Okay, I guess I'm going to have to point out the obvious.

If a behavior can be seen "in the wild" among more than one species, the chances are there is a biological cause. It may be the environment exposure. It may be genetics. The one thing it can't be is psychological.

You may find it personally repugnant and you may call it perverted, but that is your opinion and not science.



No one has ever been born homosexual…

The jury is still out on that one. There have been some studies on animal and bird homosexuality. One of better overviews is Biological Exurberance by Bruce Bagemihl.



Because science doesn't denounce things. Science doesn't work like that.

You're confusing two points that I've made. First, that there is probably a biological basis for homosexuality. Notice how I said probably? That's how science works. You can make conclusions, but those conclusions may change when more data is included or experiments show new directions.

Second, that your language and attitudes against homosexuals is similar to that taken against interracial marriage in the first half of 20th Century America.

In this case I can infer and work backwards. Given that your attitudes and objectives are similar, what conclusions should I draw?



If he was past the age of consent, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Unless you are willing to submit to another "for your own good?"



I'm sorry, but I disagree.

Laws against pornography and obscenity are certainly about controlling other people, usually in the name of a "greater good."

Obscenity is in the eye of the beholder. That's another example of morals changing. Take the Rule 5 link posts on this site. When I was a kid some mumbly-mumble years ago, pictures of naked ladies were certainly obscene. Nowadays you can't really even call it pornography unless there is some sexual act going on.

I'm not saying we should abandon laws. I do believe that laws should protect us against force, fraud, and theft. I'm willing to add "don't mess with kids" because I think solves more problems than it causes.

Anything else though, and I think it crosses the line.




You made a choice of your own free will. You find this behavior disgusting, so you chose not to do it. That's part of your moral code, part of who you are. For your choice to mean anything, Marucci must have that same choice.

Otherwise, he may only make those choices you approve.

For the rest of his life, you will have to watch him. You will have to control him. You will bear the responsibility. Everything from how and when he has his hair cut to the change in his pocket. What jobs he can get, where he goes out for a few drinks, what songs he sings in the shower, all that is now up to you. That's the price of forcing your "decency." It will cost his freedom and your morality.

If you chose and accepted the consequences, so should Marucci.

You may not like the choice he made. You may even tell him so. But it is his choice.

If your beliefs have to be forced onto other people, well, we know how that goes. It's downright progressive. Show him a better way. Tell him if you want. But don't you dare control him "for the greater good" or "for his own good."

Unless you want someone to do the same to you.



I'm sure you see it that way. More's the pity.

Did I ever tell you about the first flash mob I ever saw? It was an amazing version of the "Hallelujah Chorus" from Handel's The Messiah. I'd never heard of flash mobs before. That marvelous music was in my head for the rest of the week.

You want to look in a sewer for society, that is your choice. I will not stop you.

I will say you should look somewhere else. Someplace that can bring you joy. Someplace that's worth fighting for.



Just to save time, let me say that people's rights exist with or without society's sanction or approval. At it's most basic, the only reason a society or a nation should exist is to defend those rights. For the sake of argument, I'll agree that one person's rights stop when they infringe on another's, but you and I won't agree on what "infringe" means. You've already brought "society" in as a player, and I'll tell you that it's none of society's business.

That is, unless you agree to always apply 90 days before having sex using only approved positions 1, 4, & 5. With a doctor's signed certification, you might attempt position 7. With a letter from your minister and countersigned by your local Department of Intimacy, your might get a special wavier for position 3. You must wait for permission. No unauthorized sex now, society must sanction it. Oh, and remember that position 2 is strictly forbidden.



With my very first post on this thread, I pointed out that 50 years ago a sizable part of American society refused to "sanction" interracial marriage.

As long as they are consenting adults, it's none of society's business. Just as you don't care what a mosque in Chicago thinks about your relationships, or if T.D. Jakes approves of your shoes.

It's not what society sanctions. It's the freedom people have.



It's not about perpetuating the species. It's not even about enjoying the sex.

It's about power. Specifically you have to give up your stuff so they can have their stuff. And yes, you have to sacrifice. That's how they prove themselves.

Of course if they could earn the power, it wouldn't cost your freedom.


You're assuming that infidelity led to the divorce in the first place.

If you want to blame everything on promiscuity, you need to go much further back than the 'Sexual Revolution."

I do think that emphasizing marriage as "all or nothing" has done some terrible things to people.


I can think of several things that would be much more destructive towards kids than a divorced parent's sexual activity.

Not paying your debts, not keeping your word, consistently lying, chemical addiction, not keeping a clean home, not providing healthy food, living in an unsafe home, environmental exposure, these are just some of the things.

I don't think sex makes the top twenty.



Alright, let's talk about emphasizing marriage as "all or nothing."

You imply that marriage and only marriage grants the privilege of sex. Fine if someone shares your belief system, but what about everyone else? According to some people on this thread, anyone not married and sexually active is guilty of "infidelity" even though there are no vows to honor.

You keep confusing sex with love. I agree that if you promised to be someone's one and only you don't fool around. Other than that, consenting adults are consenting adults and it's none of your (or society's) business. Sex will happen with or without your approval.

You yourself go on and on about how easy divorce has become, but you don't talk about how easy marriage has become. It's the flip side of the same issue. People don't take your version of marriage seriously because of how easy both marriage and divorce have become.

Then there is the whole bit of what marriage is. Odd how you believe that your particular beliefs define it for everyone else. You say it's about raising kids, yet I've known marriages that never had kids. I also know unmarried couples that raised kids quite well.

You can't define society by marriage, and you certainly can't define it by your oh so carefully approved version of marriage.



I'm not Progressive or Left.

I haven't said anything about the worth of fidelity one way or the other. So far it doesn't seem to have much to do with a conversation about divorced parents.

I also didn't say anything about how important marriage and family are.

I don't mind debating, but it would be much easier for you if you focused on what I said instead of what you think I said.



Ah, so sex outside of marriage is slavery to one's glands and sex within a marriage is slavery to one's dogma. Interesting point. I don't think I agree.



These are two different issues. The only one that I'm denying is that libertarians pander to pedophiles.

You want to use it as the modern political equivalent of blood libel.

It's probably because I am pagan, but I've found keeping minors at an arm's length when it comes to religion and sexuality solves more problems than it causes. It's one of those necessary compromises that keeps neighbors.



There are things I would call morally wrong, but I don't think those things are sins. Long story short, I don't believe in sin. That's also a discussion I try not to have with Christians because that's an area where we will never agree.

Are they capable of making their own choices? That raises a huge red flag. I've known some 14 year olds who I would trust to make a responsible choice, and I've known some 40 year olds who I would not. And that is without sex. "Consenting adults" is a workable compromise.



I know that it makes people here upset, but again can we qualify and say some lesbian relationships are abusive, or even most?

To imply or say "all" just isn't true.

Now look carefully at what I'm saying. I am not sweeping this incident under the carpet. I'm not denying that abusive lesbian incidents exist. I'm not saying that lesbians probably don't have abusive partners way more than average, even though I disagree with most of you as to why.

What I am saying is that not all lesbian or homosexual relationships are abusive.

The abuse and the sexuality are two completely different things. I see only one as a problem.

I do think that when conservatives continually link abuse with homosexuality, you drive away more people than you should.

Deal with the abuse first, prove that you are compassionate and can be trusted. Then over time, if it still bothers you, convince people that their sexuality is wrong.

I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.

blog comments powered by Disqus
2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005