Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Right, but one of the stipulations given by Cyber was that the sex be by definition safe. So, one must assume that any of the problems incest might cause, can be avoided with a condom. I agree with you precisely because I disagree that harm is the sole determiner of right and wrong. Having sex with your mother seems wrong, and a violation of human nature, even if no one is harmed in the process.
It's interesting that you say that having sex with your mother seems contradictory to human nature. I'm not sure of how you view the veracity of the claims of Genesis in the literal sense, but would incest with a mother or sister not have been necessary to bring about a third generation since the human race started with two specimens?
Yeah, certainly. Probably not with a mother, but definitely sisters and cousins.
Although, certain omissions of the narrative are possible, considering that Cain went to go live among the people of Nod, whose creation is never showcased. Perhaps the excuse is that other beings were created to avoid incest. I guess Lot's daughters didn't get the memo.
I agree that incest is not immoral, even if the thought makes me uncomfortable. Assuming it's consensual and all involved are legal adults, have at it. None of my business what you do in the bedroom.
Sex in itself should be unrestricted beyond the basic rule of age and consent. How about everybody just, mind your own god damned business, and fuck off? Sex is just sex. It's not special, it's not evil, it symbolizes nothing, and it's not anybody's business. Virginity means nothing, a bathroom is just a fucking bathroom, prostitution is just a job, there are no such things as 'sluts', trans people aren't just confused, and nobody is going to hell. So please, for the love of a good blowjob from your gay brother Ashley, stop worrying about it!
Great post, Jared!
Where the blue fuck is that 100,000 likes button?
You go, boy! Very nicely put!
"Sex is just sex. It's not special, it's not evil, it symbolizes nothing, and it's not anybody's business."
Having read through your respose again, I'm curious as to why you made the basic rule of age and consent the exception?
Consent is obvious, but what are your thoughts on a father having sexual activity with his 12-year-old daughter? If sex is just sex, and it is not evil nor special, then nothing bad is occuring between that father and daughter. Generally speaking, child molestors are not physically harming the child; they themselves often view their behavior as a loving act. The child often doesn't resist, nor neccesarily views it as traumatic, until years later when they look back at the events. There are also situations in which the child does want sex with the parent (incest), and continues their sexual relationship into adulthood.
So, assuming you are against this, what would be your reason? Let me preface that question by saying that if you point towards potential psychological problems then, in my opinion, you are admitting that sex is more than just sex and more than denotation. Thoughts?
The reason I include age as a restriction is because a mind as young as twelve is not developed enough to make a decision like consent. They are more easily manipulated into thinking they want something unhealthy for them. Medically speaking, a child is unfit for sex due to physical barriers like the durability of their body. This is much the same reason I am against sex change operations under the age of maturity, added that a change such as that is more or less permanent, and ruins a possibility for a future that the child may grow to want.
So I don't think psychological issues are the problem. Even so, psychological trauma is still affected by connotation of the act. A woman who views sex as a pleasurable act wouldn't be quite so uncomfortable being a prostitute as a woman who views sex as shameful, I don't imagine. Neither views change what sex is.
Let me put it this way: A cat, be it an indoor or outdoor cat, young or old, groomed or mangy, is a cat. For this scenario, just imagine any cat. Now imagine two people look at this cat. One is a child, bubbly with mirth, and she looks at this cat and just dies of joy at its purring and playfulness. The other is a grown man, and he automatically hates this cat because it's going to shed all over and chew up furniture and scratch everything all to hell. Even if the cat does none of these things, both the little girl and the man have preset ideas about the cat. But the cat is still just a cat.
So to you, maybe sex means something. I'm just saying it shouldn't. Especially not somebody else's sex. Your views on my sex should stay in your head, because your opinions don't mean anything on the subject. Nobody can change what sex is just by thinking about it negatively.
Intuitively I know what you mean when you say sex is just sex; but I think it would be helpful if compared to something else instead. Do you view sex as just a more intimate hug; a more personal handshake?
As far as consent is concerned, I honestly don't think an adolescent is unable to make such a decision. Even a 12-year-old is beginning to learn moderately advanced things in school, in science, math, etc. Not only do I remember having sex-ed classes at that age, I was in a leadership club that, looking back, required me to do and make some pretty intense decisions. I wouldn't say such a person is fully developed cognitively speaking, but I do think they are developed enough to understand what sex is, and what consent is. Not to mention that most of the issues that they could possibly encounter, are solved with a condom. I think this is evidence by the fact that most people are apaulled at the thought of a 30yo sleeping with a 13yo, but not so much at a 14yo sleeping with a 13yo.
As far as their bodies not being fully developed, I honestly don't know if a good answer exists. That stage in life is marked by rapid changes of every kind, some are late bloomers, others are early. I do know however, that most incestual child molesters (father/daughter, uncle/niece) are not by definition pedophiles. That is to say, they are not attracted to children, they are still aroused by mature women. The issue however, is precisely that 12/13-year-olds, are beginning to look and be mature. They are beginning to have a "woman's body" in other words.
So far in the conversation, I haven't been interested in what sex "means" to a person, per se. Instead I've ben talking about the psychological effects of sex. You're not just naked physically, you're naked mentally. However, when you brought up what sex could mean to a person, it made me think of the opposite. Not just the psychological effects of sex, but the psychological precursors to sex. A lot of the sexual issues arise later in life, precisely because of abuse as a child. I mean, in many instances pedophilia is one giant vicious cycle, in which the abused becomes the abuser. In other cases an abusive partner can send someone down a sexual spiral with others. Prostitution isn't just a job, often time a person lands at such a position because of other issues, such as drug addiction.
Does knowing what leads a person to have sex, like a potentially negative experience, change your view that sex is just sex, even if the sex they are having is safe and consensual?
You may have been a bit precocious for your age, but I think you would be the exception, not the rule. Either way, from a scientific standpoint, twelve years old isn't mature. Some people never truly mature.
I don't disagree that sex can lead to and stem from psychological disposition, but I merely think it does this because of how humans view sex. For me, sex is just an act. It's no different than any other act we do for pleasure, like playing videogames or eating dessert food. When an animal mates with another, there are no moral implications attached with it. The animals just do as they normally would. Why is it different for us? Why do young women get labeled as sluts for enjoying a natural process?
But I suppose that's always been a huge question. Why is sex so different for us? Why, out of the millions, if not billions, of species of animals are we the only ones that don't just have sex for reproduction. Bonobos and dolphins, those are the closest species to resemble our sexuality, and still fall short. Most animals can't even have sex if they're not in heat.
I think the answer is precisely because we are psychologically distinct from every other species out there, and as a result, there are psychological precursors and consequences to sex, that are absent in the rest of the animal kingdom.
I see where you're coming from. I used to think mostly the same as you, but when I considered what sex actually is, those psychological factors disappeared. We create the importance. It's like pareidolia. A cloud that looks like a person is a cloud. We assign undue importance on things. Who can say why we chose sex? I suspect that the precursors of religion are to blame, but I am without proof. Either way, we can agree to disagree. After all, these are opinions we're exchanging.
@ John 6IX Breezy "Why, out of the millions, if not billions, of species of animals are we the only ones that don't just have sex for reproduction."
In fact, it seems not only dolphins and bonobos, but quite a few other species have sex just for sex.
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions (Paperback)) Kindle Edition
by Bruce Bagemihl
I went ahead and got the book because it looked interesting.
However, just from the description I'm wondering if you can be more specific and give an examples. Because I have to assume that animal homosexuality is still driven by a reproductive instinct. I mean just look at it the opposite way, we can override our reproductive cycles and choose not to mate; I don't know if any other animal can do that.
P.S. I'm assuming that when you said having sex just for sex, you meant independent of reproduction, and not independent of psychological factors.
Then when you do actually research this subject (sigh) you will find some antelope, fish, and other large mammals choose not to engage in sexual activity for a variety of reasons.
It was something I had to research and damned if I am doing your work for you.
There's not much I can do with the vagueness of this comment. Attached is an excerpt from my human sexuality textbook, although, I did find that my psychophysiology textbook says female chimpanzees do have sex during their infertile periods, its just that they are far more selective during their fertility period.
"Quoth the snark"
"When you actually start to research this subject" instead of making a remark intended to be read as fact as you did in the previous comment.
You have started, now when you have done some more you will find several species that have been observed to contradict your statement.
Research it. I'm not doing your work when you make unfounded claims. Even if they are prefaced by "I am not aware of" .
My comment, almost by definition, was not unfounded; I just showed you its foundation. Moreover, given the similarites and overlap between bonobo chimpanzees and common chimpanzess, I cannot say the example I found is much of a contradiction.
Part of me wants to call out your bluff due to your vagueness; yet the way you speaks makes me think that, after months of trying, you finally have something of substance. You refrain from presenting it due to the power-dynamic it creates for you, which is fine. Still, you would need to account for the source I gave you. If it is wrong, you will have to explain why. If it is not wrong, then you would have to explain how your finding fits in to the picture.
Do some work instead of running round the christmas tree.
The research is all there,open to anyone looking, and as you know, the young unformed mind retains knowledge that it has ferreted out for itself in a much more efficient way than if presented on a platter pre digested.
I meant a direct answer to your statement that humans are the only animals that have sex not for reproduction. There are several species that have sex not only for reproduction. If it is not for reproduction is for bonding, fun, control, etc. just like us. There are animals that do not have a specific reproductive cycle, they do any time as those in your own example like bonobos and dolphins.
"In fact, it seems not only dolphins and bonobos, but quite a few other species have sex just for sex."
I didn't know that. That's interesting. Thanks for the book link.
@John 6IX Breezy
Would you agree for *harmless* conversion therapy, to change your personal sexual orientation?
Please give a simple answer.
For myself I would not because I am very happy and comfortable with my sexual orientation. If others are unhappy with my choices, tough luck, I am not here to bow down to the agendas of others.
Because no one willingly asks for such treatment, it is done to placate others. Once again, it is about power and control over others.
John, you wrote, “I'm probably among the youngest member that actively post, and yet, I remember all through grade school that being gay was viewed as a negative thing. Up until recently, homosexuality was taboo culturally, not just religiously.”
You probably are younger than my children. I’d say you grew up in a neighborhood way different than mine. Where I live, it’s been openly accepted by most for decades.
“ Moreover the harm you mentioned, was directly caused by the therapy and not the religion.”
However, the reason for forcing my friend into this ‘therapy’ was rooted in religion. And the ‘therapist’ was referred by their church.
“That said, this is a great example of why harm cannot be the guide. If conversion therapy is harmful, it is only because it's methods need improvement.”
I completely disagree.
“By and large such methods are now antiquated, particularly shock therapy. Currently, people use cognitive tools when they want to get rid of a phobia, forget a traumatic event, or overcome some addiction.”
Conversion therapy is still in use. Fortunately, saner heads are prevailing in some jurisdictions and it is being outlawed for use on minors.
“So then my question for you would be, if a new method is constructed, which can successfully change a person's orientation, without any harmful effects, would you be opposed to such a procedure?”
Merely asking someone to change their sexual orientation, IMO, communicates that the asker thinks the askee is not okay. That is harmful. Additionally, I suspect that if the bigotry against non-heterosexuals goes away, there would be no customers for conversion therapy.
I'm not aware of conversion therapy being still in use. I know the underlying mechanism of shock therapy, though controversial, still exist. For example, putting vomit-inducing substances in alcoholic drink, to help people with alcoholism.
Still, it doesn't seem like you have any objections to such a change based on any direct harm that it causes. I'm not sure I'm understanding your point, it seems very indirect. Society asks a thousand things from us, such as whitened teeth, that harms no one in it's compliance. If orientation is one such social mandate, where is the harm?
Define ‘society’. All people in a community? What size community? A continent or country? A neighborhood? Is ‘society’ the majority? Voters? Adults? The educated? Only straight people or those with teeth?
Idk, any group of people to which you belong or identify with.
You wrote, “Society asks a thousand things from us, such as whitened teeth, that harms no one in it's compliance. If orientation is one such social mandate, where is the harm?”
If society is just the group of people to which one belongs, then does a non-heterosexual not belong to it? Ergo the harm in asking a non-heterosexual to comply with the behavior typical of a heterosexual - exclusion is one resultant harm, gay-bashing is another.