Sexual ethics

[Rambozo]

While I'm aware that consent is a required standard for sex to be legal, it isn't the only ethical issue people could postulate.

As an example, if a person frequently engages in casual sex, then they are repeatedly making and breaking bonds with people, and potentially missing out on the chance to form deeper relationships.

On the issue of sex resulting in pregnancy, issues could also be raised, such as if an individual is disabled and unable to provide for the child, though I believe general consensus would be that it would be morally wrong for the state to force disabled people not to reproduce or have romantic relationships. (As an example, we can look at couples with down syndrome):

On the issue of unethical or immoral sexual behavior, I would argue that we can make objective arguments for certain sexual behaviors being immoral. For example, even though child marriage has been practice in ancient times, the objective harm which child rape causes its victims can be pointed out, which is the reason that such behavior is illegal in modern times. It's also a biological fact that sex is linked to procreation, even if people don't have sex solely to procreate. So, naturally, a lot of behavior which is considered to be sexually deviant may not serve a procreative purpose. (Pedophilia, for example, serves no procreative purpose, because a pre-pubescent child isn't capable of procreation. And, as already mentioned, the objective harm which child molestation and rape causes its victims can be asserted, which is why such things are illegal to begin with). People who engage in sexually deviant behaviors such as pedophilia may be statistically deviant, but they are not considered "deviant" simply because they are a statistical minority. They are considered deviant because of the inherency of their behavior, and, naturally, societies tend not to tolerate people who engage in such behavior, just as they don't tolerate individuals who engage in other sexually deviant behaviors, such as rape - which does likely lead to such people being statistically a minority as well.

 

[Airyaman]

 

[Parrish]

What a shameful post, @Rambozo.

 

[Rambozo]

What a shameful post, @Rambozo.

What is shameful? I'm confused.

 

[dseag2]

Way to make an entrance into DP!

 

[Parrish]

Way to make an entrance into DP!

View attachment 67585663

Thank you.

 

[Demon]

Way to make an entrance into DP!

View attachment 67585663

Maybe a return appearance?

 

[dseag2]

Maybe a return appearance?

Yeah most of these Repubes are resurrected just like their Orange Jesus. Maybe regurgitated is a better term.

 

[Parrish]

Maybe a return appearance?

I hope not. Ram it up your ass, Bozo.

 

[Loulit01]

While I'm aware that consent is a required standard for sex to be legal, it isn't the only ethical issue people could postulate.

As an example, if a person frequently engages in casual sex, then they are repeatedly making and breaking bonds with people, and potentially missing out on the chance to form deeper relationships.

On the issue of sex resulting in pregnancy, issues could also be raised, such as if an individual is disabled and unable to provide for the child, though I believe general consensus would be that it would be morally wrong for the state to force disabled people not to reproduce or have romantic relationships. (As an example, we can look at couples with down syndrome):

On the issue of unethical or immoral sexual behavior, I would argue that we can make objective arguments for certain sexual behaviors being immoral. For example, even though child marriage has been practice in ancient times, the objective harm which child rape causes its victims can be pointed out, which is the reason that such behavior is illegal in modern times. It's also a biological fact that sex is linked to procreation, even if people don't have sex solely to procreate. So, naturally, a lot of behavior which is considered to be sexually deviant may not serve a procreative purpose. (Pedophilia, for example, serves no procreative purpose, because a pre-pubescent child isn't capable of procreation. And, as already mentioned, the objective harm which child molestation and rape causes its victims can be asserted, which is why such things are illegal to begin with). People who engage in sexually deviant behaviors such as pedophilia may be statistically deviant, but they are not considered "deviant" simply because they are a statistical minority. They are considered deviant because of the inherency of their behavior, and, naturally, societies tend not to tolerate people who engage in such behavior, just as they don't tolerate individuals who engage in other sexually deviant behaviors, such as rape - which does likely lead to such people being statistically a minority as well.

Yet in Biblical times child marriage was widely accepted. Child marriage continued to be accepted throughout the Christian world until quite recently.

In the present day United States:

• Hawaii: 18 years old; 15 years old with parental and court consent
• Mississippi: 21 years old; 15 years old for females; 17 for males or younger with court approval

Child marriage is still prevalent across the U.S. Here’s why.

Child marriage was legal in all 50 states until 2018. Now, 10 have banned it.

19thnews.org

Nearly 300,000 minors — the vast majority of them girls — were legally married in the United States between 2000 and 2018, the year statehouses finally began taking action. Child marriage, defined as any marriage where at least one of the parties is under the age of 18, was legal in all 50 states until then. Sixteen states have since passed bans to end the practice.

“For some reason, most Americans do not realize that these abuses are happening,” said Fraidy Reiss, an advocate against child marriage. “Most Americans agree that forced marriage and child marriage are terrible and heartbreaking. They imagine this happening on the other side of the world, and I wish there was something we could do to show them it’s happening here, too, largely because we have outdated, archaic and dangerous laws that need to be updated.”

 

[Binary_Digit]

What is shameful? I'm confused.

I guess your post was too scientific and disconnected from emotion. You explicitly stated that child rape is harmful, yet the replies came as if you advocated for it. Sometimes it seems that people browse the S&S forums just looking for an excuse to pounce on someone.

 

[maquiscat]

While I'm aware that consent is a required standard for sex to be legal, it isn't the only ethical issue people could postulate.

Specifically informed consent, meaning that the person has the capacity to consider ramifications to their actions. Whether they will or not is another issue altogether.

As an example, if a person frequently engages in casual sex, then they are repeatedly making and breaking bonds with people, and potentially missing out on the chance to form deeper relationships.

And? As long as they are not being deceptive in dealing with those other people, there would be nothing unethical about it.

On the issue of sex resulting in pregnancy, issues could also be raised, such as if an individual is disabled and unable to provide for the child, though I believe general consensus would be that it would be morally wrong for the state to force disabled people not to reproduce or have romantic relationships. (As an example, we can look at couples with down syndrome):

Given the number of non-disabled people that we have who procreate but are unable to provide for the child, this isn't a strong argument.

On the issue of unethical or immoral sexual behavior, I would argue that we can make objective arguments for certain sexual behaviors being immoral. For example, even though child marriage has been practice in ancient times, the objective harm which child rape causes its victims can be pointed out, which is the reason that such behavior is illegal in modern times.

Sadly, not as illegal as you might think. We have several states that are trying to raise the minimum marriage age to 18 (it's as low as 15, with some even lower if there is parental or judicial consent, except for CA which has no actual law, but I believe that they are trying to make one now), but Republicans are fighting against the raising of that minimum age. SD rejected a bill to raise the age from 16 to 18. MO Republicans are fighting against a bill to ban all marriages under 18.

It's also a biological fact that sex is linked to procreation, even if people don't have sex solely to procreate. So, naturally, a lot of behavior which is considered to be sexually deviant may not serve a procreative purpose. (Pedophilia, for example, serves no procreative purpose, because a pre-pubescent child isn't capable of procreation. And, as already mentioned, the objective harm which child molestation and rape causes its victims can be asserted, which is why such things are illegal to begin with). People who engage in sexually deviant behaviors such as pedophilia may be statistically deviant, but they are not considered "deviant" simply because they are a statistical minority. They are considered deviant because of the inherency of their behavior, and, naturally, societies tend not to tolerate people who engage in such behavior, just as they don't tolerate individuals who engage in other sexually deviant behaviors, such as rape - which does likely lead to such people being statistically a minority as well.

While that logic might apply to some actions, such as rape, or acted upon pedophilia (pedophilia is a disorder not an action), those who call various things "deviant" in the social, not statistical, sense, do not limit their scorn to that which causes objective harm. Homosexuality is a prime example. The vast majority of kinks is another. Further, we can look at other actions that are objectively harmful, such as sex with minors above the pedophilia range, which many who oppose LBGT+ engage in,