I'll bear that in mind next time I read one of your historical diatribes !
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Reply
Fri 5 Feb, 2010 05:20 am
You do that, and bear in mind that i don't go about accusing others of pedantry.
0 Replies
spendius
1
Reply
Fri 5 Feb, 2010 06:34 am
What is sex? A definition would be in order.
0 Replies
joefromchicago
1
Reply
Fri 5 Feb, 2010 09:09 am
@rockpie,
rockpie wrote:
What I am against is as Fresco puts it "sleeping around", which I refer to as sex purely for pleasure;
OK, I think I'm starting to understand you.
rockpie wrote:
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.
You're setting up an ethical rule, so there has to be some basis for that rule. I think your basis for the rule is that the "sleeping-around" kind of sex has profound negative effects on people. But how do you know that? Is that a deductive fact or an inductive fact? And what ethical rule prevents people from negatively affecting themselves?
