What's the deal with sex?

[boagie]

Fido,

My thinking is much along the same lines as your own reguarding sexuality, sexuality is pretty raw nature, society as the container gives it shape, but, it is the will of nature and thus does not often conform naturally to the shape of society as container. Perhaps the greater tolernance of people outside what is termed the norm is only just, and the more rational approach is greater tolerance. It would be a blessing if sexuality was made safer, and more readly available so that it does not consume so much of a young persons consciousness. People would become naturally more emotionally mature. Sexual selection is the function of the female however, at least where it is not taken out of their physical control. More women should be aware of this as part of their education. Women have a power here which can effect transformation in society, they have begun doing so in earnest just in the last forty years, it is at the same time a civilizing force, and it is right in line with nature.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Fido

People should not be free in the expression of sexuality

I'm trying to come up with words adequate to express the immorality of this view and I'm overwhelmed - there's just too much. So I'll leave it with 'wow'.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by boagie

Fido,

My thinking is much along the same lines as your own reguarding sexuality, sexuality is pretty raw nature, society as the container gives it shape, but, it is the will of nature and thus does not often conform naturally to the shape of society as container. Perhaps the greater tolernance of people outside what is termed the norm is only just, and the more rational approach is greater tolerance. It would be a blessing if sexuality was made safer, and more readly available so that it does not consume so much of a young persons consciousness. People would become naturally more emotionally mature. Sexual selection is the function of the female however, at least where it is not taken out of their physical control. More women should be aware of this as part of their education. Women have a power here which can effect transformation in society, they have begun doing so in earnest just in the last forty years, it is at the same time a civilizing force, and it is right in line with nature.

When we are the results of nature, and the products of culture it is difficult to distinguish between the two as to effects or causes. I don't mean here that the discussion has no merit, simply that the sexual urge can be easily perverted on the one hand, and that if there were no one to tell a youth the meaning of develping sexuality, they would not get it. And I say this upon having read some pretty good evidence that babies are born with a sexual consciousness of sorts, with daughters usually more drawn to their fathers, and sons more drawn to their mothers. You know, that given the unique circumstances of life for barbaric native Americans, surrounded by enemies and with community being the center of existence, that little boys or girls showed their own preference of sexual identity, which because of community caused absolutly no upset what so ever. If a girl wanted to play with a bow, they gave it to her, of if the boy wanted to wear an apron they let him. The only recrimination in the matter fell on the man who took up with a man because it was thought he lacked ambition, and wanted a wife who would both hunt for him and cook dinner. There are environmental factors which affect sexual development and consciousness, and those people who judge others on the basis of a sexual consciousness innate to them are themselves in need of judgement. Homosexual orientation is unnatural for any without the orientation, and that is the end of it. People who want to change the homosexual should try to change themselves and see how easy it is.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Khethil

I'm trying to come up with words adequate to express the immorality of this view and I'm overwhelmed - there's just too much. So I'll leave it with 'wow'.

If it is worth expressing; thanks, but I was not trying to wow you, but only to express what is obvious. People are constrained in every fashion, and some may use this as an excuse to load others with fetters. I do not. I see that among primitives the universal attitude is that society sets the rules of correct sexual behavior, and that the individual willingly submits even at the price of sexual mutilation and constant pain. It is one of the many methods society, -living in nature, and beside nature uses to draw a distinction between the animal and the human when we see little difference from the point of view of animal nature. We rather take for granted what they could not, and end up behaving more as animals and criminals than humans. And they were right to realize that no force coming from individual people could be as destructive of society.

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Fido

If it is worth expressing; thanks, but I was not trying to wow you, but only to express what is obvious.

Hrmm let's see...

... any 'freedom' bestowed can be abused; taken to extremes as to do others harm. If you consider the term 'freedom', as its used, to be absolute to any level of absurdity; then yes, I'd agree. And if this is the case, you've succeeded in stating the obvious (at least, I'd think, to the majority of *this* crowd).

Almost no 'liberty' or 'freedom' given, by any entity, on any basis and for any reason is *absolute* and without qualification. The question for the philosopher, to my way of thinking, is what limits are those? What basis for limits of personal action should there be? For sexuality, what extent of expression is OK, natural, socially acceptable, productive, healthy, etc.

Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but we *are* animals. Intelligent; yes, but animals nonetheless. Accepting this doesn't forgive unacceptable or destructive behavior, but it's a truth well worth keeping in mind.

[midas77]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but we *are* animals. Intelligent; yes, but animals nonetheless. Accepting this doesn't forgive unacceptable or destructive behavior, but it's a truth well worth keeping in mind.

If we are animals, we are at least an animal species that realize that we are, which makes us a special type of animals. Sexual expression although animalistic in nature must be tempered with human control unless we want people copulating like dogs in the street.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Khethil

Hrmm let's see...

... any 'freedom' bestowed can be abused; taken to extremes as to do others harm. If you consider the term 'freedom', as its used, to be absolute to any level of absurdity; then yes, I'd agree. And if this is the case, you've succeeded in stating the obvious (at least, I'd think, to the majority of *this* crowd).

Almost no 'liberty' or 'freedom' given, by any entity, on any basis and for any reason is *absolute* and without qualification. The question for the philosopher, to my way of thinking, is what limits are those? What basis for limits of personal action should there be? For sexuality, what extent of expression is OK, natural, socially acceptable, productive, healthy, etc.

Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but we *are* animals. Intelligent; yes, but animals nonetheless. Accepting this doesn't forgive unacceptable or destructive behavior, but it's a truth well worth keeping in mind.

It is not just freedom that is not absolute; but all concepts which are only tentative, and theoretical. So what freedoms does any individual have? Do you expect that at any point in your life that you can stand apart from society and say: My Freedom? We join, or belong to any organization that support our rights. What is the freedom of an individual apart from his society? Traditionally it has been the freedom of the outlaw, what life one can manage, harried, outcast from place to place. Freedom is a moral, which is to say social concept. It is not a physical concept like a square or a circle. It has the meaning we give to it, and we have the freedom society allows to us. We can dispute the matter, but the matter stands as society sees it. And society has jurisdiction over all that is likely to affect it negatively. Just as with a lazy rake, the owner has the right to leave it on the ground as a hazzard, or to stow it properly, because it has the likelyhood of affecting him negatively, so that is within the province of his disgression. Certainly the same must be true of society if it can see danger and prevent it. And this does not mean that the larger society does not often over step their boundries out of whim or caprice. It is then that the rational argument should be made, and ultimately enforced by the community to which one truly belongs. An example of this is a labor union, or the gay community which set their own standard of conduct and freedom. No one should believe that anyone has the last word on the subject, especially the individual. What do you think

[Fido]

Originally Posted by midas77

If we are animals, we are at least an animal species that realize that we are, which makes us a special type of animals. Sexual expression although animalistic in nature must be tempered with human control unless we want people copulating like dogs in the street.

The traditional morality of the West denies that we are animal in our nature, and is based upon a spiritual conception of mankind as indiviually created by God. Yet, as much as we think of morality as coming from God, it, God, is not the cause, but is the effect; because true morality results in what we consider blessings: health, longevity, peace, virtue, and happiness. Those blessings resulting from the moral behavior of mankind have created a nearly universal conception of a benificent God.
I would like to direct your attention to some of the most sexually immoral people on the planet: The Victorian ruling class of England who showed little regard as to where they put it and who they woke up with whether they were married or not to the one they bedded with. And if memory serves me, one of them said: What does it matter what people do, as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses. Apparently, frightening the horses was the worst they expected by way of consequences, meaning they did not accept the religious morality they supported for all others. And you know, the fact was not lost on those who served them tea. I have in the book, which is on Churchill, if you would like an exact. Best. What do you think