About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John: "I.e. Jon, can you provide some personal information for Ted to use to attack you with and to psycholigize you because personal information is actually more important than the actual arguments you are putting forth. Maybe he can even accuse you of beating up your mother."

Exactly, John. I'm very glad someone else recognized that for what it is. But don't worry; it's not gonna happen.
(Edited by Jon Trager on 7/27, 3:17pm)


Post 41

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 4:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I want to know your approximate age, occupation, education, whether you consider yourself an Objectivist and what books you have read.

Post 42

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 6:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

Thanks for noting the spelling error, I've probably made that exact mistake before.

Strange, are you suggesting that rights can be spoken of outside legal context?  Law, justice, rights, are all primarily moral concepts. Politics is a specialized sphere entirely encompassed by the moral realm.

Are you sure that masturbation might not divorce "the physical aspect of sexual relationships from the mental aspect (i.e., shared values)"?

This is the last I'll say on these points.  I don't wish this tangent to snowball.


Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 7:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We are not human without the capacity to reason. Reason is the primary value of Objectivism. Proscribing acts for others which harm no one which they may do in order to preserve their sanity and capacity to reason is in itself immoral.

Post 44

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin, I appreciate your posting a link, which I assume is a good faith effort to provide a controversial concrete exemplar for the sake of argument. But I don't like following blind links. Could you give a brief synopsis?

Bill, I still don't think statements like "what about pedophilia" are concrete enough to be helpful. My example of the Mexican boys who learn to use calves as a form of masturbation from other boys is an example which I think shows that wholesale condemnation of bestiality as immoral (as opposed to distasteful or juvenile) is problematic.

Here is an example I find concrete and immoral. Bukk@ke (a Japanese term which I intentionally misspell to avoid hits for this site on web searches) is sexual gratification by seeing a woman masturbated upon by a group of men. What if you had a male who found he was only able to climax by watching bukk@ke porn where the woman cried and seemed humiliated? There is no physical harm. The film was made consensually, the woman was an actress, not a rape victim. What does this tell us about the male who enjoys this?

I would say that it would not be possible for an otherwise normal happy healthy male to find this a preferable sort of sexual expression. There would have to be some cause for a man to enjoy the abuse of a woman by several males. In itself, it is not abnormal for a male to be stimulated by seeing other males engage is sex. But what would there be in a man's spirit that would make him enjoy seeing a woman essentially ganged up upon by a group of males and then covered in bodily fluids? You would suspect the man had been abused, that he hated women, that he was reacting to some trauma. You would expect him to feel guilt mixed in with any pleasure when he first observed this sort of pornography.

The question of morality would then lie in how he treated his blossoming perversion. Would he find a woman who perhaps enjoyed some aspect of this activity, but who did not encourage his being stimulated by her appearing traumatized? Would he, through time and practice, come to enjoy other activities with his partner that were more life-affirming and fulfilling? Would he find a woman he could respect as the mother of his children, and with whom he could learn to enjoy activities that he did not see as degrading the woman? Or would he embrace the nasty aspect of the perversion? Would he say, "yeah, all women are sluts" and move on to violent rape and snuff films? Would he join a club of men who told each other that this was perfectly acceptable, never form a healthy mutual relationship, and die a lonely old man with a nauseating porn collection?

This is how I see applying morality to sexuality. Examine the individual case. If the individual has desires which are problematic, can he overcome or rechannel them? For those of us who are not interested in bukk@ke or sex with calves, there may be some minor gratification in knowing that we don't engage in such behaviors. But as far as useful practical moral advice goes, I find incrementally channeling the troubled individual towards healthy happiness much more ethically rewarding than passing judgment on the morality of categories of behavior.

Post 45

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 10:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We are not human without the capacity to reason. Reason is the primary value of Objectivism.
Tell us something else we didn't know. :)
Proscribing acts for others which harm no one which they may do in order to preserve their sanity and capacity to reason is in itself immoral.
By "proscribing acts for others which harm no one" are you referring to legal prohibition, or just to moral disapproval? If the former, no one on this list is going to disagree with you. If the latter, then it's not clear what acts designed to preserve sanity and the capacity to reason you're referring to? Could you be more specific?


Post 46

Monday, July 27, 2009 - 10:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote, "What about pedophilia? Even if the person doesn't act on it -- doesn't molest children -- but simply fantasizes about doing so, the sexual orientation may have its origins in a retarded or unhealthy psychology. Ditto for the man who has rape fantasies and enjoys interpersonal sex only with an unwilling partner. Even if he doesn't act on it, his sexual orientation could be considered inappropriate." Ted replied,
Bill, I still don't think statements like "what about pedophilia" are concrete enough to be helpful.
Okay, just to be clear, let's define "pedophilia" as a sexual interest in prepubescent children. What I was asking is, should this orientation be judged as psychologically unhealthy or inappropriate, even if the person doesn't actually go out and molest children, but simply fantasizes about doing it? A similar question could be asked of the man for whom rape is a sexual turn on. If he doesn't actually go out and rape anyone, but simply fantasizes about it, is his sexual orientation psychologically unhealthy or inappropriate?

I think most of us would disapprove of these sexual orientations, even if they're not acted on, but how do we justify our disapproval ethically and philosophically?

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/27, 10:53pm)


Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 - 3:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I really liked Mike’s short post #43, which Bill responds to in #45.

Mike wrote:
“We are not human without the capacity to reason. Reason is the primary value of Objectivism. Proscribing acts for others which harm no one which they may do in order to preserve their sanity and capacity to reason is in itself immoral.”

Reason is the primary value for human life, and reason resides in individual human beings. Reason is volitional and is personal. Someone else thinking for you is not you thinking. When I read Nathaniel Branden writing in The Objectivist that homosexuality is a mental illness or that romantic love is only possible between a man and a woman, I had already found Jerry (with whom I continued to his death a couple of decades later) and already learned first hand what was sex with another person who was a man and what country of love was there. On reading those pronouncements, I thought: Lucky I already read The Fountainhead. Lucky I live by my own first-hand rational values.

One common proscription of a non-legal nature that has often been put forth by Objectivist writers and speakers goes like this: Anyone who would do such-and-such must be a person defective in self-esteem. That is a claim of psychology, but for Objectivists, it is also a moral evaluation. Self-Esteem is a cardinal value in Rand’s ethics, and such a pronouncement is naturally taken as pronouncement of a moral flaw.*

On his death bed, I reminded Jerry Crawford of something he had repeated to me with good effect in so many of our dialogues through the years. We had come to call it Crawford’s Law: That which exists is possible. He smiled and said Yes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~

*It might be worthwhile to recount what Rand said about self-esteem and pride.

“Man knows that his desperate need of self-esteem is a matter of life or death. As a being of volitional consciousness, he knows that he must know his own value in order to maintain his own life. He knows that he has to be right; to be wrong in action means danger to his life; to be wrong in person, to be evil, means to be unfit for existence.” (AS 1057)

“Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value . . . —that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice. . . .” (AS 1021)

Pride is one of the seven virtues Rand crafted for her ethics (AS 1018–21). These virtues are said to be necessary means for a life whose “supreme and ruling values” are: reason, purpose, and self-esteem (AS 1018). Those three values are together “the means to and the realization of one’s ultimate value, one’s own life” (OE 25).

The virtue pride corresponds with the value self-esteem, corresponds as necessary means to end (OE 25). Pride is the process of achieving self-esteem by thinking for oneself (AS 1057), by “unbreached rationality” (AS 1059), “by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected” (OE 27; see also “Selfishness without a Self” and Tara Smith’s ARNE 236–47).

More here.



(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 7/28, 5:34am)


Post 48

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 10:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Humiliation isn't sexy, even if it's by consent.

If you're talking about how you personally react, Teresa, then, sure, I can see that.

If you are saying that role-playing sexual humiliation by loving, consenting couples isn't ever sexy for anyone, you are so very wrong.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 7/29, 10:25pm)


Post 49

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 10:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Evasion is always immoral.

To ignore, or to never examine the cause of what gives one pleasure is evasion, and is thus immoral.

Bill isn't talking about contractual relationships, Jim. That isn't the issue at all, but if it were, I'd say that having an affair is essentially an act of evasion, especially if it involves lying to your spouse or partner.


Evasion can sometimes be the most moral course of action possible, Teresa. To give an extreme example -- during WWII, giving evasive answers to Nazi thugs seeking out Jews to send to concentration camps -- moral. Straightforwardly and honestly telling them where the Jews are hiding -- immoral.

Marriage is a contractual relationship, among other things. At the end of a wedding, the couple generally goes and signs a document explicitly outlining their legal obligations as a result of that voluntary relationship.

You seem to be conflating a religious sense of morality, versus the much narrower issue of NIOF morality I was addressing. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you saying that consenting adults engaging in mutually satisfying sexual encounters is a NIOF violation? Or are you saying that they offend your private sense of morality without being a NIOF violation? If so, perhaps you can explain the basis for your belief that consensual acts between willing adult participants are immoral.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - 11:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim wrote,
Evasion can sometimes be the most moral course of action possible, Teresa. To give an extreme example -- during WWII, giving evasive answers to Nazi thugs seeking out Jews to send to concentration camps -- moral. Straightforwardly and honestly telling them where the Jews are hiding -- immoral.
That's not what Teresa is talking about, Jim. Aren't you familiar with the concept of "evasion" that Objectivism regards as immoral?
You seem to be conflating a religious sense of morality, versus the much narrower issue of NIOF morality I was addressing.
These are not the only two alternatives.
Perhaps I misunderstand you. Are you saying that consenting adults engaging in mutually satisfying sexual encounters is a NIOF violation?
No, she isn't.
Or are you saying that they offend your private sense of morality without being a NIOF violation? If so, perhaps you can explain the basis for your belief that consensual acts between willing adult participants are immoral.
This point has already been addressed in previous posts. Objectivism does not confine morality to NIOF violations. Voluntary, consensual acts can indeed be immoral if they involve activities that are against the self-interest of the participants.

- Bill

Post 51

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 3:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you are saying that role-playing sexual humiliation by loving, consenting couples isn't ever sexy for anyone, you are so very wrong.

I'm not wrong, Jim.   "Consent" isn't a magic moral pill. Not everything done by "consent" is moral. Surely you know this?

"Loving humiliation" is a contradiction in terms.







 


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 10:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If "sexy" means sexually stimulating by whatever means imaginable, then sure, the masochist finds humiliation "sexy," but I doubt that's what Teresa meant by the term. She evidently meant sexually desirable.

Sexual humiliation, however exciting to the masochist, is not sexually desirable from the standpoint of his self-esteem, psychological health and well being. The sadist is "enabling" the maschochist's neurotic self-degradation by catering to it, just as the masochist is catering to the sadist's neurotic enjoyment at seeing his partner humiliated. In that respect, each is a co-dependent of the other.

If this relationship is morally appropriate, then I suppose anything that's non-coercive is morally appropriate, including consensual dueling with swords and pistols. But if so, then what grounds are there for saying that coercion is itself immoral? None, as far as I can. The reason that coercion is immoral is that it is against our objective self-interest, which means that the latter, not the absence of coercion, is the standard of moral value.

- Bill

Post 53

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
She evidently meant sexually desirable.

Yes.


Post 54

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 5:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If you are saying that role-playing sexual humiliation by loving, consenting couples isn't ever sexy for anyone, you are so very wrong.

***

I'm not wrong, Jim. "Consent" isn't a magic moral pill. Not everything done by "consent" is moral. Surely you know this?

"Loving humiliation" is a contradiction in terms.


Really? So a loving couple engages in an activity that both enjoy, both find thrilling and exciting and sexy, and tell each other that afterwards, and you still find that immoral?

For example, a lot of high-powered executives (usually male, but not always) have a psychological need to bring balance in their lives by being dominated. They pay big bucks for this, or perhaps this is provided by their girlfriend or wife. Both parties enjoy this. The high-powered executive manages to function better on the job -- is objectively more productive -- because their psychological needs are being met.

And you label this immoral?

I could give some other, less extreme, examples, to illustrate how such things can be a mutually satisfying and beneficial transaction or relationship, but this IS a forum where underage minors have access.

OK, I'll bite, Teresa (pun not intended). Give me an example of a mutually satisfactory, consensual transaction that is immoral in your view.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim, what Teresa and Bill are saying is just because one may find something enjoyable and the people they engage in that activity with find it enjoyable, does not intrinsically mean it therefore must be moral, because there may be other undesirable long-term consequences. If we didn't make that distinction, Objectivism then would be no different than hedonism. Hedonism disregards the long term consequences. Whether that applies to any number of sexual kinks I have no idea, but you should try to understand what Bill and Teresa are trying to say here.

Post 56

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 6:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Really? So a loving couple engages in an activity that both enjoy, both find thrilling and exciting and sexy, and tell each other that afterwards, and you still find that immoral?

Possibly, yes. 

 For example, a lot of high-powered executives (usually male, but not always) have a psychological need to bring balance in their lives by being dominated. They pay big bucks for this, or perhaps this is provided by their girlfriend or wife. Both parties enjoy this. The high-powered executive manages to function better on the job -- is objectively more productive -- because their psychological needs are being met.

For me, this falls into the realm of evasion, and has nothing to do with "balance."  If one is unhappy with one's position, there is no need to punish oneself for the sake of "balance."
There is no "balance" that comes from sacrificing integrity and pride.

If one is happy with one's position, all the more reason not to seek a punishing "balance."

Psychological "needs" stem from philosophical premises. The premise in your example is "I don't deserve this power. Take it from me. I'll even pay you to pretend to take it from me."   This is how he actually views his life. Without it, the rest of his day is just a lie. With it the rest of his day is still a lie.

And you label this immoral?

In fact, I do.

I could give some other, less extreme, examples, to illustrate how such things can be a mutually satisfying and beneficial transaction or relationship, but this IS a forum where underage minors have access.
 
Whatever.

OK, I'll bite, Teresa (pun not intended). Give me an example of a mutually satisfactory, consensual transaction that is immoral in your view.
 
"Cut me."  "Punish me."  "Hurt me."  "Shit on me."  Anything that would, or intends to  cause physical or psychological harm. Desiring harm to yourself is immoral. Complying with a partner who desires harm is immoral.  Anything that couldn't possibly add to the value of your life is immoral.   Confusing, or worse, preferring pain over pleasure is immoral.

All the above, and more.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Thursday, July 30, 2009 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted: "I want to know your approximate age, occupation, education, whether you consider yourself an Objectivist and what books you have read."

Yeah, you already said that you wanted to know things about me personally. I responded at length that it doesn't matter in the context of a philosophic discussion, which you just chose to ignore. Honestly, I don't care what you want to know about me on a personal level. It's irrelevant here.

But it's relevant whether I consider myself an Objectivist and what Objectivist books I've read. So I'll answer yes, and all of them.

Doug: "Thanks for noting the spelling error, I've probably made that exact mistake before."

That's a common mistake, Doug, so no big deal. I try not to be a stickler for spelling errors on a discussion board, because typos happen sometimes inadvertently.

Doug: "Strange, are you suggesting that rights can be spoken of outside legal context?"

Yes, of course. Rights are moral concepts, and morality is more fundamental than legality. You're familiar with the Objectivist hierarchy of philsophy, aren't you? First metaphysics, then espistemology, then ethics, then politics/esthetics. Epistemology is the most complex though.

Doug: "Are you sure that masturbation might not divorce "the physical aspect of sexual relationships from the mental aspect (i.e., shared values)"?

Yes, because masturbation isn't a relationship. A relationship consists of more than one entity.

Bill: "Objectivism does not confine morality to NIOF violations."

True. That's a problem with some people who call themselves Objectivists but seem to think moral judgment is only proper in the case of physical aggression. It should be crystal clear after reading "The Objectivist Ethics" that there's more to morality than that.




(Edited by Jon Trager on 7/30, 6:52pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Friday, July 31, 2009 - 1:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
puuuhhhh - that was a long read-through - but I'm not complaining ;) Many exciting retorts come to mind.

Just a few points that got stuck til the end:

- consenting adults: Where do you place the age of adulthood? Few people I know waited to explore their sexuality (whether moral or immoral) until they were 18! And I'm not talking about legislature this time, but about the morality of the act. And why do certain acts only become moral after we've matured some more? Not to mention that some people grow faster than others: does Suzy have to wait until Mary is old enough to have sex? The limit would be somewhere around 100yo :D
So what's the moral age of consent - and for which act?

- consenting damage: If I consent risking being a quadriplegic when playing pro football would that also be immoral? And not just half our fun activities would be immoral by such standards (e.g. I love free-climbing), but also most of the work I've done to earn a living. And I'm not talking any high-risk job: I'm sitting all day in front of a computer while my back degenerates into sth resembling a fetus in it's early stages because I'm not allowed to bring my own back-supporting chair into my customers' computer-rooms.
You'd probably (and rightfully) point out that we are responsible for ourselves to protect ourselves in fun and work, so why not in our sexuality as well? Why is one moral, the other immoral? Why am I allowed to deem such risks worth the values I gain in work but not in play?
I hate the assumption that any so-called 'deviant' sexuality is based on lack of maturity, introspection, ego, whatever: most of them are even more mature, selfaware and have a much stronger ego or they would not be able to engage in such sexuality for long!
Or are we simply judged by the (sensationalized) standards of those who do indeed use such sexual practices to indulge their weak egos, their whims, their inferiority complexes, etc.?

- moral evasion: If I'm forced into an immoral situation where my moral behavior would lead to more immorality, it would be immoral of me to support it. If an act of immorality on my part would stop or at least hinder that immorality to continue, whithout inflicting my immorality on other innocents, then I would consider myself morally justified in commiting it. However I'd have to have a very strong ego with a high standard of values, to survive such immorality on my part whithout becoming totally immoral myself.

That is the crux when most people define sexual acts based solely on the (very few) visible aspects of said sexuality. They see sth that in their world, in their morality, can only happen in depraved circumstances without investigating into the meaning, the values, the motive, the premises for such acts.
And I'm not saying they can only happen in immoral circumstances, I'm saying that few people are open enough to rationally, objectively, investigate other peoples 'morality'. Thus a football-player or a soldier is a hero when he get's hit, a masochist is a depraved weakling. A long line of aristocrats inbreeds genetics defects over generations for the glory of family and country, a brother who loves his sister is sentenced to jail. A monogamous couple who can love only once are saints, a family of many are just whores and pimps. Says who? Based on who's values?
Of course you don't have to do an indepth investigation of each and every sexuality. Some aspects you wouldn't even be able to understand because not everyone has the same premises, values, motives. But if you want to label it moral or immoral you should do them the justice of not evading their values.

Unless of course you say it's immoral for me, based on your own standards, your own values, premises, etc. :)

VSD

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Friday, July 31, 2009 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All good questions, Vera. I'll see if I can address some of them. You write
- consenting adults: Where do you place the age of adulthood?
According to some neurologists, the human brain doesn't reach full maturity until around the age of 23, but people are granted adult rights and responsibilities before then. We have to draw lines, obviously. We don't allow five-year olds to drive cars or pilot planes. Nor do we allow them to consume recreational drugs or be used by adults for sexual purposes. Parents who permit such conduct can properly be charged with child neglect or endangerment.
Few people I know waited to explore their sexuality (whether moral or immoral) until they were 18! And I'm not talking about legislature this time, but about the morality of the act. And why do certain acts only become moral after we've matured some more? Not to mention that some people grow faster than others: does Suzy have to wait until Mary is old enough to have sex? The limit would be somewhere around 100yo :D
So what's the moral age of consent - and for which act?
Full maturity confers full autonomy; less maturity, less autonomy. Since parents are responsible for the welfare of their dependents, they must govern their activities within certain reasonable limits. Should parents allow their 12-year old daughter to have sex with an 18-year old boy? Or even with a 14-year old? What are the likely consequences? Some reasonable standards have to be set and enforced, based on these considerations. Just because borderline cases arise and precise standards are difficult to pinpoint does not mean that we throw up our hands and abandon all attempts to define appropriate behavior, sexual or otherwise.
- consenting damage: If I consent risking being a quadriplegic when playing pro football would that also be immoral? And not just half our fun activities would be immoral by such standards (e.g. I love free-climbing), but also most of the work I've done to earn a living. And I'm not talking any high-risk job: I'm sitting all day in front of a computer while my back degenerates into sth resembling a fetus in it's early stages because I'm not allowed to bring my own back-supporting chair into my customers' computer-rooms.
All life involves risk; you have to balance the risk against the rewards. Foolish risks are immoral, e.g., spending beyond one's means, drunk driving, promiscuous or irresponsible sex, neglecting one's health for the sake of some physical addiction like drugs or alcohol, etc. Playing professional football? Not so clear. It may depend on the player and his physical condition. Professional boxing? Probably not a good idea, considering the brain damage that often results (e.g., Muhammad Ali).
You'd probably (and rightfully) point out that we are responsible for ourselves to protect ourselves in fun and work, so why not in our sexuality as well? Why is one moral, the other immoral? Why am I allowed to deem such risks worth the values I gain in work but not in play?
Well, it's not entirely subjective, as you seem to be suggesting. Yes, you're entitled to deem such risks worth the values that you gain, but that doesn't mean that your judgment can't be mistaken or distorted by emotional bias.
I hate the assumption that any so-called 'deviant' sexuality is based on lack of maturity, introspection, ego, whatever: most of them are even more mature, selfaware and have a much stronger ego or they would not be able to engage in such sexuality for long!
Doesn't follow. A sexual practice can be neurotic or developmentally retarded and still be sustained because it is so strong and compelling. This has nothing to do with ego strength or mature self-esteem.
- moral evasion: If I'm forced into an immoral situation where my moral behavior would lead to more immorality, it would be immoral of me to support it. If an act of immorality on my part would stop or at least hinder that immorality to continue, whithout inflicting my immorality on other innocents, then I would consider myself morally justified in commiting it.
Whoa! Moral behavior cannot, by definition, lead to more immorality; if it did, it wouldn't be moral.
. . . few people are open enough to rationally, objectively, investigate other peoples 'morality'. Thus a football-player or a soldier is a hero when he get's hit, a masochist is a depraved weakling.
Getting hit by itself is not the issue. It makes all the difference in the world why one is getting hit. Unlike the football player or the soldier, the masochist seeks to be demeaned and humiliated; his participation is neurotic and is based on low self-esteem.
Of course you don't have to do an indepth investigation of each and every sexuality. Some aspects you wouldn't even be able to understand because not everyone has the same premises, values, motives. But if you want to label it moral or immoral you should do them the justice of not evading their values.

Unless of course you say it's immoral for me, based on your own standards, your own values, premises, etc. :)
Are you saying that values are subjective and cannot be judged by an objective standard of morality?

- Bill

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.