Page 1 of 1

Sexual morality

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:53 am
by Dan~
Hollywood paints a different picture than real life.

Christian theories on what sex is supposed to be, is also crap.

I'd say rid the desire as soon as possible and ignore it.

The whole thing is clumsy and mutating.

I recommend celibacy.
If you are worried about the population, adopt.

This isn't for everyone.
But still, I wanted to say it.

Re: Sexual morality

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 4:20 am
by Mr Reasonable
If I had my way, I would travel the Earth, telling lies to get into the pants of a broad spectrum of attractive hos from across the land, and I would impregnate them and give them a fake name, then disappear.

Re: Sexual morality

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:37 pm
by phyllo
I'd say rid the desire as soon as possible and ignore it.
It's not a disease, it's a part of being human.

Of course, if you want to get rid of it or ignore it in your life, then that's your personal choice.

Re: Sexual morality

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:56 am
by Dan~
phyllo wrote:
I'd say rid the desire as soon as possible and ignore it.
It's not a disease, it's a part of being human.
Of course, if you want to get rid of it or ignore it in your life, then that's your personal choice.

A lot of things are considered human.
Personal choice is reduced by sexuality.
These instincts and feelings change the will.
If you had no sexual bias, you'd think and behave differently.

I think the right and the left have both failed in this issue.

Re: Sexual morality

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:35 am
by Silhouette
Sex is amoral.

You can try and be moral about it, but whatever gets passed down through sex the best in the long term will persist. And it won't just be one way of approaching sex either, nor will it necessarily be a compatible way with other approaches.

There's the Smears approach, quantity over quality (quantity of encounters and quality of child upbringing), which the male can afford and even benefit from because their physical contribution to procreation is minimal. It costs a man very little, physiologically, to do the deed and disappear.
By contrast, it costs the female much more to procreate, using up a great deal of resources in carrying a child, often losing attractiveness and using up a finite number of larger eggs in doing so, and through delivering one and being responsible for one that does not carry the genes of every new potential mate - and of course the bringing up of children, especially when single, is highly resource intensive too. It can cost a woman a great deal to do the deed with someone who then disappears.

Naturally different approaches will emerge that are most definitely incompatible. Further, different approaches will also emerge that at least feign, or genuinely even want more compatibility, hence marriage, responsible fathers or at least serial monogamy.

By being celibate you are ensuring that you pass down none of your genes that in your case reacted with your environment to cause you to want to be celibate, and thereby you take no responsibility for the future, opting instead to only resolve the amorality of sex in the short term. Arguably not very moral.

Whatever works in the long term will endure, whether you like it or not.

Re: Sexual morality

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:18 pm
by phyllo
A lot of things are considered human.
Can't argue with that.
Personal choice is reduced by sexuality.
I was saying that your personal approach and attitude towards sexuality is your choice. It's not necessarily the right approach for others. It's not necessarily what the morality of sexuality ought to be.
These instincts and feelings change the will.
Sure, but that's just the way it is. It doesn't mean that the instincts and feelings are 'bad'.

You have sexuality and you might as well enjoy it.
If you had no sexual bias, you'd think and behave differently.
Yes.

Would that different thinking and behavior be an improvement? Is it worth 'losing' sexuality?