Sex: attitudes and philosophy

If "self" is a committee with no fixed chairman, "honesty" becomes a relative term.

That's meaningless philosophical drivel. Rockpie lies about his motives, and it is sufficient for me to know that he does this, and has done this since first he appeared at this site.

Rockpie appears to be going through his formative years, a period well known for internal religious amd moral debate. It seems to me he is raising a moral and ethical issue of equal significance to atheists and believers alike. Statements about "honesty", as though we were examining the historical evidence you delight in, add nothing to this debate.

Stating dishonestly that one has no religious motives adds nothing to the debate either. Your snide comments about history aside, this member has a track record of dishonesty which he is once again displaying. By being dishonest about his religious motives, Rockpie does not simply fail to add to the debate, he detracts from it. More honesty on his part might well have expanded the debate to embrace religious motives involved in one's attitudes toward sex, but perhaps Rockpie is not comfortable with that degree of honesty.

And perhaps you are not comfortable about unless you are pompously passing judgement on others.

Making personal slights does not alter the case. Joe asked a simple, straight forward question, in what may reasonably be characterized as a guileless manner. Rockpie chose to answer, as far as i can see, dishonestly. He might have answered honestly. He might have said that he didn't wish to answer the question, or that he didn't consider the question germane. Instead, he answered dishonestly.

You know, if he were responding in an honest manner, he has had several opportunities to assert as much since i challenged him. He has not. This is part and parcel with his behavior when first he appeared here several years ago.

Perhaps you can explain how debate or discussion is served when one of the participants, and particularly he who has initiated the discussion, chooses not to respond to the other participants candidly.

I read this thread, but had no comment until this blatant dishonesty on Rockpie's part. This is not a case of hunting him about the site, it is a response to his own failure to be candid.

This inquisitorial nonsense about "what circumstances" completely misses the point. Rockpie, in common with many others, simply doesn't like the idea of "sleeping around". Obviously religion has a handle on this, but not exclusive rights. There are psychological, sociological and medical angles to this as well, all of which arise from our ability to visualize "consequences" in all three domains. Relationships are further complicated by personality changes (committee reshuffles) which occur in all individuals over time. Any "philosophy" which fails to take these factors into account would be short-sighted.

R0ckpie himself is responsible for the "inquisitorial nonsense" of this thread, it's embodied in the subject of the thread. Additionally, Rockpie himself is responsible for bringing the notion of religious belief into the discussion. Joe didn't ask him if he is religious, he asked him if he considers that sex should be for reproductive purposes. Rockpie could have responded yes, or no, or with a qualified response. It was his decision to respond by stating that he is not religious, in the face of all the evidence here, from the time he arrived right up to the present day, that he is in fact religious.

It is a valid assumption based on the original post, unless I am misreading something.

I am not religious. When I first arrived on this site (which was a few years ago now) I was indeed a Christian, but I am no longer. Unless, Setanta, you are saying that people cannot change their beliefs? I have no doubt that my views on certain issues of morality have been influenced by my time in the church; but I am not a religious person. I am sure there are many atheists who are anti-abortion, just as there are plenty of theists who are pro-abortion. Opinions on individual matters do not necessitate any religious beliefs. If I misinterpreted the question of if I think sex should be just for procreation (commonly accepted as a religious belief) as an indirect question about my religious orientation then I apologise profusely for your reaching ridiculous assumptions about my personal life and character. Idiot.

And with regards to my intermitent responses on this thread (and other threads) I would like to point out I am a university student with 3 jobs, a girlfriend, and a life outside of blogging; I only ever come on here when I manage to secure some free time from the above things.

Thanks for actually seeing my point of debate and defending me in my absence.

**** you, idiot. Joe didn't ask if you were religious, although he might have done if he had had a different answer from you. You acknowledge that you points of view may well have been informed by your former religious character. You fail to address completely your continuing obsession with the morality of abortion, which you have pursued in threads until quite recently.

I think you protest too much, and this latests response just convinces me more than ever that you are being fundamentally dishonest.

The use of obscenities is presumably used here to add emphasis to your pedantry.

"Believers" are entitled to doubt their faith. The process may be a painful one involving contradictory thoughts. So what ! We all exhibit contradictory thoughts or behaviour from time to time. Its called "being human".

The next time that your schedule permits, rockpie, perhaps you would like to address my still-unanswered question.

Sorry Joe, I would say it is acceptable that any circumstance in which both people are respectful of each other, the act, and it's psychological and emotional implications.

I'm not trying to be nit-picky or anything, but I just don't understand your distinction here. You said that sex shouldn't be solely for pleasure, but I don't see anything here about pleasure. You want this to be some sort of philosophical position, yet I'm having a very difficult time discerning any kind of rule that you're proposing, or how your qualifications here are consistent with your initial opposition to sex for pleasure.

For instance, if both people are respectful of each other, the act, and its psychological and emotional implications, how does that rule out having sex solely for pleasure? Do these people have to approach sex with some sort of grim determination or perform a solemn ritual that signifies their respect for the act of sex or that, in some way or another, detracts from their pleasure? In short, can two people in a loving, committed relationship who respect the act of sex and its implications still get their freak on?

Ok, I am not saying that sex cannot or should not be pleasurable; it obviously is. And if those two people in a loving and committed relationship want to "get their freak on" then that is fine, because they both know that outside sex they love each other, respect each other, and no negative emotional or psychological issues are being taken into the act of sex or out of it.

What I am against is as Fresco puts it "sleeping around", which I refer to as sex purely for pleasure; that is, there is no love between the participants, there is no respect for each other, they are after all utilising each others bodies as tools for no more than an orgasm. And I believe that this kind of sex has profound negative effects on people. The only two reasons I can see for anyone to participate in such sexual acts is either for 1) self-affirmation, or 2) self-destruction; neither of which are suitable states to enter the act of sex.

do you think the psychological and emotional implications of ******* are the same for all people?

If people agree on the conditions under which they will **** each other - and that is the only relationship they have with each other - perhaps that is a marvellously healthy and sane choice for them.

Is there any benefit to you to judge them not to have made a good choice for themselves?

I think you're assuming an awful lot about a lot of people you don't know - and don't appear to be willing to attempt to understand or appreciate.