|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Sexual expression: your opinion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
IRH writes: So let's hear your opinons, and we can get a really interesting thread going. Is it wrong? Is it right? Is it a gift from the gods? What about fetish porn, hentai, Greek nudes, lapdancing, whatever? How do you feel about human sexual expression? Sexual expression? I suppose it's like any form of expression. One can express oneself physically and range from lovingly stroking a baby to punching someone in the face. Vocally it can range too: soft words whispered to a baby to screaming abuse at a motorist. If my world view contains no room for a God-ordained plan against which to evaluate and control self-expression, then I am left in the position of deciding it for myself. There is no absolute right and wrong as such. It is my own belief regarding right and wrong which operates - influenced to greater or lesser extent by the norms of the society I live in /nature of my upbringing etc. Society may have different views than me and it has the power to impose it's collective will on me (putting me into jail when I abuse a child, for example). In that case, it is simply a question of majority rule, with society deciding, arbitarily, that the action is 'wrong'. Whilst I may be locked up, I am under no compunction to agree with societies norms - and am free to maintain the view that I am right. And free to continue to act as I see fit once released. Right or wrong? Its up to me alone. In the case that my world view recognises God's ultimate authority to instruct on matters of self-expression, then the situation, although not laid out in detail, is reasonably clear. No sex before marriage and monogamous relationship for life with one spouse. No room for adultery,lust,fetishes etc. Naturally few attain this ideal. But there is room made for failing to achieve it. The goal is to reach for this ideal in so far as one can. Thus, whilst porn is wrong, involving amongst other things, lust, one can turn to God and be forgiven for indulging in it. I can accept that it is wrong (in an absolute, "it is actually wrong" sense) and attempt to reach again for the ideal. A fresh start as it were. I, of course, am not left alone in my pursuit of right expression. God assists in the process of repentance (turning away from wrong). But of course I have to know him to be able to listen to him. My own view on the reasoning God has for putting the limits he puts on sexual self-expression et al is less to do with his desire to control for controls sake and more to do with us not causing damage to ourselves and others. There is a natural attribute of humanity that leads them to enjoy excitement. There is nothing I know of in life which gives the same level of excitement, after a period of involvement, as it did in the beginning - when it is first done. First bungee jump, first motorcycle ride, first sexual intercourse. All these things may be continued in and many things found out about them which deepen the interest. But for raw excitement (pleasurable or otherwise), the first time(s) are typically the most exciting. Should one want to sustain the quality and flavour of excitment as originally experienced, one must over time and of necessity, seek a more intensified version of the original. Such is, I think, the mechanism whereby a person ends up molesting children in public parks. They weren't born that way but over time, a step by step series of decisions led them to that point. No one step taken was any bigger a step compared to the previous steps taken - each small step further replenishes and reinvigorates the quality of the excitement experienced at the beginning. It could be drugs, it could be sex, it could be drink, it could be materialism, it could be career. Same thing, same mechanism. Not for nothing is our society locked in an destructive embrace with the concept of MORE. Not everyone will allow things to reach rock-bottom (a term which pre-supposes such a judgement has some absolute validity). People will for various reasons manage to control and hold things at a certain level, not willing to pay the price required in order to gain that offered by the next step. For now. In suspending oneself over the the abyss one is taking a real gamble. To say that I am in full control and that I will never succumb and plumb further the 'depths' and that "a bit of porm" or "a bit wife-swapping is as far as I go" might be the case. It might not. What is true to say with regard to sexual expression, is that hard-core porn, fetishism, orgies, lap dancing and the like are the reserve of the people who have taken many mini-steps and are now far away from their start position. I imagine that like any drug, the need to increase the dosage amount and frequency increases the further I traval along The question God asks is: "why suspend yourself over the abyss in the first place? As with any medication one should always read the label... Edited to tidy up This message has been edited by iano, 25-Nov-2005 06:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1652 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
If recognizing an abnormality as something to be treated is "judgemental", then what's to stop us from demanding that doctors stop treating eczema, or hair loss, or even fatal diseases? If you're positing a non-judgmental socieity, then I guess I don't see why such a thing needs to be stopped. In a non-judgmental society, I guess the choice to attend to some aspect of physiology would be due to its utility in the chosen life? I'm not even sure I can make sense of a non-judgmental society. I don't see a problem with a society demanding that such things be attended to or not. Such a choice will always come from some judgment about what is desired and what is not. That judgment can be made on supposed teleological grounds, utilitarian grounds, religious grounds... I'm not a big fan of any judgment over another on absolute grounds; I felt holmes was trying to justify his argument by using some teleological argument about the purpose and function of a system. That type of thinking is useful in practical sciences. But I felt holmes was using it in defining not only what humans are, but what they should be. In a sense, it's society building. And I think that's overextending the use of practical, ad-hoc ideas developed in medicine. It is not obvious to me that using teleological arguments about the nature of our body makes for good society building. And at this point, that's what I'm all about--good society building. How do we do it? Sorry if that's a really confusing post, or if there's lots of gaps. Ben P.S.
learned a new word yesterday: "cisgendered". It's the opposite of "transgendered". Cool. That's a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6073 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Sure sounds like a judgment to me. I know it sounds that way because... unfortunately... western society has decided to judge things based on the norm of functions. Variation is fine but not truly accurate. I agree that within a functioning sexual system there will be a variety, a spectrum of drives. However it is true that a sexual reproductive system, when it is on and working will provide some sort of sexual drive. That is what they do. There are plenty of other systems which may not function in an individual, or function very slightly. I don't think it is an appeal to teleology to be able to measure when a system is functioning at all, or in very small amounts. Nor is it a judgement call. For example a low or high metabolism is not a judgement call.
Trying to "gain an upper hand" on sexuality isn't obviously bad to me. I see some utility in having control over any urge Self control and moderation is not what I was talking about. I meant people that actually pretend that sex is NOT natural and AGAINST what humans are or should be. Of course people with a totally different metaphysics than mine can say what they want. I was just saying what fit the judgemental dysfunctional definition for me. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6073 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
But I think we should be vary wary of "defining deviancy down", and legitimizing abnormal conditions that prevent a person from experiencing the full range of life's experiences. I disagree with this. As long as a person doesn't feel they want something different, and thus their "deviance" is a "problem" to them, I don't think it matters what range of life's experiences a person will in fact experience.
yes, I would be in favor of a medical treatment that would turn hetero- and homosexuals into bisexuals, so that they would experience the full range of sexual experience. I'd even take such a treatment, myself. But we could go further. Bestiality, Pedophilia, Coprophilia, and plenty other sexual desires exist and add to the full range of sexual experiences. From time to time they weren't really even deviances. Would you be concerned to make sure to have those experiences? And the religious experience (experience of a higher power) is quite widespread. Is this something that you feel you would like to experience or that others are deficient for not having done so? Although I want as many experiences as I can, it is within the range of things I have an interest in. When I find interests that people have but I do not, and would not want, I do not feel I am missing out but instead am refreshed that life is so diverse and glad that others have different experiences. I can learn from them second hand if I wish, what their perspective delivers on the world. I had no heard of cisgendered. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
holmes writes: The religious fanatics at least have the excuse that they say their God says it (adult porn) is bad, which he never did and indeed Jesus defended a prostitute from state sanction in one of the more famous passages of the Bible. But hey, maybe he changed his mind. They say it is immoral, sinful, and so bad. "He who lusts commits adultery" said Jesus. I truly wonder if someone can look at a porn movie without lusting. Like isn't that the very point of it? Your showing all the signs of religiousity yourself there Holmes - "if it ain't written specifically in the rule book then it ain't breaking the law" Spirit of the law anyone? p.s. After saving the prostitute from state sanctioned stoning, Jesus told her to go and "sin no more". He wasn't sanctioning her actions. He was forgiving her her actions. Different thing altogether Religious fanatics? Kettle/pot/black Holmes, kettle/pot/black
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DBlevins Member (Idle past 4030 days) Posts: 652 From: Puyallup, WA. Joined: |
I thought I would chime in with my opinion and an interesting study.
It appears that Monkey's will "pay" to see female monkey butts. Now I don't know if these are professional monkey models, but I guess I can understand how that would be enticing for those monkeys, seeing as how I know plenty of human males more than willing to shell out to view human female butts. As for me, while I admit to enjoying a nicely shaped female monkey--err human butt, I worry about the exploitation of humans, especially young females, by some in the porn industry. I don't see anything wrong with pornography and enjoy some pornographic forms. I have long thought of humans as sexual creatures. Bar exploitation, abuse or any number of harmful abuses of humans, pornography should be left to the beholder to decide what is right or wrong for them. (to clarify: I don't see anything wrong with fetish porn and other fantasies such as "masachism" style porn as long as it is done safely and by consent of all parties involved.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Sexual expression involving consenting people is nobody's business, except for the people involved. The government should keep out of it, the newspapers should keep out of it, the politicians (as in Monica-gate) should keep out of it. An interesting point of view. 1- What about when sex violates other existing laws such the sexual cannibalism that occurred in Germany in 2002?(Cannibalism - Wikipedia) Both were consenting people, do you think the government was wrong to prosecute Armin M. Meiwes? 2- What about BDSM? If a male 'master' beats his female (consenting) 'slave' so badly it leaves bruises, burns, etc, should the government prosecute him for physical abuse? 3- If you had a friend, family member, or co-worker who appeared to be the victim of physical abuse - black eyes, broken nose, burn marks, yet she told you in confidence that it was OK because she consented to it and it was part of her sexual expression would you then consider it none of your business?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
There is nothing which can be exhibited, no matter how odious to anyone, which can actually hurt the exhibitor. There is nothing which can be read (or viewed), no matter how odious to anyone, which can harm the audience. Snuff flicks. Care to refine that statement a bit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
I am skeptical as to whether there was consent in all of those cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6073 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
"He who lusts commits adultery" said Jesus. Even for one's own partner? Some porn is made by married people of themselves. And a growing percentage of porn is watched by couples, specifically to spice up their own sex lives. Yes people lust when watching porn. But if you are interested in the spirit of laws, is using lust to make life with one's partner better really adultery? Indeed are you trying to say that Jesus was suggesting that ALL lust is adultery? Don't people lust for their partners during sex?
After saving the prostitute from state sanctioned stoning, Jesus told her to go and "sin no more". He wasn't sanctioning her actions. He was forgiving her her actions. Different thing altogether I didn't say he sanctioned her actions. That was not my point at all. I was pointing out that Jesus, no matter what he thought of what people ought to do personally, specifically stated and set examples that people should not PUNISH or RESTRICT what others do. This thread was looking at state repression of sexual expression, not simply moral rules about such things. One might also mention he repeatedly admonished people not to judge one another. That is like the one thing I've never seen fundies put into practice. Is it too hard to remember? He derides this more than lust.
Religious fanatics? Kettle/pot/black Holmes, kettle/pot/black I'm sorry, when did I say you could not have sex the way you want to, or express your sexuality the way you want to? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6073 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Snuff flicks. Care to refine that statement a bit? Hey, long time no see. No I don't care to refine it, but I'll repeat it. There is nothing which can be exhibited, no matter how odious to anyone, which can actually hurt the exhibitor. There is nothing which can be read (or viewed), no matter how odious to anyone, which can harm the audience. In exhibiting or viewing snuff, how is the exhibitor or the viewer harmed? AbE: I might add that snuff isn't sexual expression, it's violence. This message has been edited by holmes, 11-25-2005 06:14 PM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
1- Why do you doubt consent in the Arwin cannibalism case? The partner (Brandes) videotaped his consent. He even tried to participate in eating his own flesh.
2- Not sure if this answers my BDSM question. Are you saying you don't think masochists can give consent? If you agree that masochists are consenting partners, then do you still think physical torture or abuse if involved as part of the sexual act is no-one's business but the participants involved? 3- What about the Sharon Lopatka 'consentual homicide' case? (Killing of Sharon Lopatka - Wikipedia) She kept soliciting men to torture and kill her as part of her sexual fantasy until she found one. Was it right for the govt to prosecute her partner even though she consented to this sexual act?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6484 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
It is outside my experience. Maybe my skepticism is ignorant. Still, for the present I am skeptical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6073 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I think the cannibalism and consensual homicide cases are essentially the same issue. They are fantastic questions for social libertarians like myself. I honestly have not worked out exactly what the best solutions are for such cases, though I could give some opinions that I have right now...
HOWEVER, these cases are not really about sex at all. Although they may have in passing involved some sexual elements, the active issue was power and violence and death. Killing is NEVER a sexual act, even if it may occur within a sexual act. Thus I think it is a bit wrong to throw it into the sexual expression question. Your BDSM question is certainly about sexual expression, though it does play with power and violence issues. Some practitioners may get so deep into it that they end up leaving behind sex to only deal with power and violence, but I don't think that's true for most practitioners. In any case, if the BDSM is consensual I think it shouldn't be controlled by the govt. By the way, you missed sexual asphyxia. That is undoubtedly, wholly sexual, yet may result in death. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Hey, long time no see. Hey man. How's tricks in tulipville? I've been trying to finish my friggin book, sell a house, etc. etc.
There is nothing which can be exhibited, no matter how odious to anyone, which can actually hurt the exhibitor. This statement is clearly not true as performers in all sorts of exhibitions hurt themselves. Athletes injure themselves. Stuntmen die performing dangerous stunts. Assuming we restrict your statement to sex acts, sex performers can injure themselves physcially, and can contract include STDs or other diseases (hep B & C) which can harm them or even kill them(your namesake John Holmes for example).
In exhibiting or viewing snuff, how is the exhibitor or the viewer harmed? The exhibitor is killed. In BDSM the exibitor is physically beaten or tortured in a manner that causes pain, leaves bruises, burns, etc. I think that constitutes physical harm.
AbE: I might add that snuff isn't sexual expression, it's violence. You say tomato. Surely we can both agree that one person's 'violence' is another persons sex fantasy? If we do, I don't see how you can just dismiss snuff films as not harming the exhibitor.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024