BS: Sex and morality

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 11:39 AM

Hey, I was quoting George Carlin!

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:48 AM

Mrzzy - What if it's a visible woman that you pray to? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 07:10 AM

Good posting Patsy


... with one proviso. I do not see promiscuity as immoral in itself. It can be for sure but sometimes it can be a symptom of other things in a very good person. One person's promiscuity is another's open mind on fre relationships. I think to make promiscuity immoral then someone else has to be ivolved who is getting hurt in some way. But, then, often the only person getting hurt in being promiscuous is the person themselves when it is coupled as a behaviour brought about by other's damage.

In short a great many promiscuous people are not immoral and are often very lovely people who may have had a bad deal at some time.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:54 PM

The only cure is regular doses of cosmological sulfa.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Art Thieme
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:28 PM

If, like me, you've ever contracted 'cosmological thunder clap' -- you've been made acutely aware that morality had absolutely no role in the sex act that made it a reality!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:10 PM

indeed - Thou shalt be honest with the provider of thy nookie, and thou shalt try really hard not to kill anybody.

Unless they pray to a different invisible man than you do, he adds. But that's another thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:50 AM

Right on, Patsy.

As far as I'm concerned the only truly accomplished masters in the art of love are people who manage somehow to love everyone....and I'm NOT talking about having sex with everyone when I say that, needless to say. ;-D

Further to that, the one person I think we are all intended, first and foremost, to love unconditionally is....ourself! And I'm not talking about self-centeredness when I say that. I'm talking about genuine self-love and self-acceptance (in spite of facing the fact that one is not perfect and never will be). Out of genuine self-love arises self-confidence, generosity to others, kindness to others, helpfullness to others, high ideals, courage, and every positive form of behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:45 AM

But I don't think that is what it is about, Patsy although I do not want a relationship now...

I think the person who has worked (and IMO and from what I've seen, it takes work, not lust) may be in a very lucky, happy and worthwhile position. As said before, I think it is rare but I have seen it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:14 AM

In an ideal world the one and only lover is a great idea in theory. You can love the one lover with all your mite (if you are unlucky enough to have a bad one) only then to be manipulated and controlled by him or her ruining how you can feel about anyone again. That is not love that is demoralising ownership. Immorality isn't just to do with sexual affairs or promiscuity, the constant mental bullying and the tearing down of a partner's asteem is just as immoral.

If that is what sticking with one lover is all about I would rather be just me, myself and I.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM

Not that they approve of watching or thinking about it, what I meant was that generally people are pretty glad it happened somewhere in the dark and buried past, or they wouldn't have a handy bipedal meatform to drive around.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:58 PM

Mrzzy, what is something causes unnecessary pain but both parties enjoy it so that it adds to the happiness quotient? - Do you mean sadists and masochists getting along? Or did you mean "what IF" insterad of what is?

I hae decided that the only immoral sex is that which you're having when your significant other walks in on you!

What did the late great genius George Carlin boil the 10 commandments down to, wasn't it something like Thou shalt be honest with the provider of thy nookie? I shall have to look that up.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Tom - Swords & Songs
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:53 AM

Homophobic bullcrap, WAV.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:08 PM

"From 20th-Century Sexuality" - http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com/#88

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:57 PM

They're not as stupid as you think, Richard. They, like slaughtered pigs and cows, anticipate danger. They know they've in trouble the moment you approach and grab hold of them, and that causes the bird emotional pain, physical pain quite aside.

Tell you what. Let's chop your head off and see if it causes you any pain. We'll get a couple of big wrestlers to hold you down while the deed is done, and we'll use a large axe and do it in one clean stroke. You can tell us afterward whether it caused you any pain or not. ;-D If you remain silent, we'll assume you were "okay" with the whole thing, and suffered no pain, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

Mrzzy, what is something causes unnecessary pain but both parties enjoy it so that it adds to the happiness quotient?

LH - how do you know that cleanly chopping the neck of a chicken (or cleanly breaking the neck of a chicken) causes it pain?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: kendall
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM

I don't remember thinking about it one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:29 AM

When I was young and very niave I thought because I was an only one my mum and dad only did it the deed once and I was so proud about that until somebody pointed out that the act would have been repeated often in order to try for me in the first place! Innocence,

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Joe_F
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:35 PM

My mommy would never do *that*!

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:14 PM

I'd have been horrified to see my parents having sex too! ;-D I mean, really just horrified!!! I'm glad it never happened that I walked in on them in that situation.

Funny how we can't take that sort of stuff, isn't it? I think it's because sex is so deeply suppressed in this society...and because we are taught by the commercial system to only imagine young people having sex. The Hawaiians (before the Whites came) didn't seem to have a problem with stuff like that. Too bad we're not more like they were.

It would take a lot to make me kill a chicken too, because I'm not used to killing animals, but I have no problem eating chickens that someone else has conveniently killed on my behalf. That too is ironical. Most people nowadays are far apart from a lot of the stuff they depend on...they just pass the buck to someone else. That was not so much the case in simpler times.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM

Eww, gross, no they don't! I walked in on mine once and was freaked...

Right on, Little Hawk, although to get me to kill a chicken would take a lot, and if I were that desperate, maybe the pain to the chicken isn't unnecessary after all...

Nature red in tooth and claw?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:53 PM

But almost everyone approves of sex--at least tacitly--at least, that of their parents...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:09 PM

Yes. And to an empire, war is a useful extension of politics and trade....yet very harmful to those on the receiving end. This is why one person sees heroism and glory in war and another sees waste and tragedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:56 PM

Everything is relative. To a germ, good health is a type of disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:54 AM

And is killing the chicken necessary???? Well, you might think so. Another person might not. The other person might say, why not just be vegetarian and eat tofu instead? ;-)

But the chicken will ALWAYS think it's bad when you kill the chicken!

Think about it, Mrzzy. Are we talking about "good and bad" (value judgements from a personal perspective) or are we talking about "harmful and unharmful" (rational assessments of what's actually occurring to someone or something)?

When is a harmful action also "good"? When someone deems it good, that's when....but someone else will probably deem it bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:41 AM

When you kill a chicken, Mrzzy, it causes unnecessary pain to the chicken. This is bad from the chicken's point of view...good from the point of view of the person who intends to eat the chicken.

Hamlet was correct, because he stepped back and saw the larger picture, rather than just seeing it from his own angle. This would not prevent Hamlet from feeling that it was bad when his uncle plotted the murder of his father. It was "bad" from Hamlet's point of view, and Hamlet's father's point of view. It was "good" from the uncle's point of view, because it allowed him to become the king.

Most people would have thought of it as "bad", because it was murder...but the few who stood to gain directly would have reasoned it as "good", because it was good for them.

To bomb a city is "bad" from the point of view of that city's population...but it's "good" from the point of view of the military high command on the opposing side in a war.

There are a million other examples.

To be able to see what Hamlet saw is not to justify all harmful actions. It is to recognize that some people will always see a specific harmful action as "good", because they derive a benefit from it. This indicates that our notions of "good" and "bad" are, to a large extent, subjective....although there are certain general types of actions that most of us will agree are "bad"...thus we work out various moral codes to deal with it.

Even Hamlet's statement can be seen as "good" or "bad" depending on how you look at it. ;-)

It's easy to assess an action as to whether it's harmful or not. If it damages, it's harmful. To slaughter the chicken, for example, is unquestionably harmful to the chicken! It dies. But is the action "bad" or "good"????? Well, that depends on the viewpoint of the one making the judgement. Some people feel it's "bad" to kill any animal for any purpose at all, including for food. Most don't think that. Whether it is "bad" or not is strictly a matter of opinion....but there's no question that it is harmful to the animal in question.

Human construction and agricultural are harmful to a vast number of plant and animal species, as they are deprived of habitat by those human activities. But is human construction and agriculture "bad"? Well, that's a matter of individual perspective again. To humans, it's "good"....unless they are people fighting to preserve the natural habitat.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:26 AM

Nonsense, Hamlet. Things which cause unnecessary pain are bad, things which add to the happiness quotient are good.

Of course, you can think them into the other way around... but that doesn't make them So.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:26 AM

I think Hamlet was reading the Bible, Kendall:

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
   Romans 14:14

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 09:20 AM

"Nothing is good or bad; thinking makes them so." (Hamlet)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:50 AM

Sex is neither moral, nor immoral. It just is.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:07 AM

Bill, you said a mouthful


It is NOT a good idea to assume that the view YOU take on these matters is a given for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:05 PM

What??? Ain't they bringin' in new young girls all the time? You mean it's the original squad still?   

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:03 PM

Have you seen a close up of some o' them Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, LH??? I mean, yeah, they looks like a million bucks from 50 'er hunnert feet or on TV but a buck waitin' fir change on a dessert island... I mean, these ol' gals make a freight train jump track an' take a dirt road ugly... I mean, if Chongz is plannin' on shackin' up withy them ol' gals I'd seriously recommend him taking a blow up escape boat...

But, hey... Seein' as Jerry Jones ain't gonna let Chongz loose with his cheerleaders this is all kinda, ahhhh, academic...

Maybe Chongz just needs you to take that blockin' thing off his TV...

I donno...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:55 PM

Mrzzy, your logic in that last post is impeccable. ;-)

Bobert, Chongo has always tended to think positively. It keeps him cheerful.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:52 PM

Hmmmmm??? And then Chongz woke up...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:49 PM

In my opinion, it is difficult to get too much sex. Very difficult. Maybe if you was on a ship that sunk and the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders was also on the ship, and them and you was the only survivors for a few months on a little island....

Then maybe.

But short of that, I don't think so.

I am willin' to put this theory to the test if Dallas can spare the cheerleadin' squad for a coupla months...and someone else can provide the island.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:28 PM

Nice thing about gettin' older is that them horror-mones ain't talkin' so loud... Thought it would never happen but sho nuff don't miss 'um and, well, leaves the brain more time fir stuff that matters: like love, living and caring and all that sappy stuff...

I mean, sex ain't the entire ball (no pun intended) of wax... Just nice when it occurs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:21 PM

If I'm having all I WANT, then I'm by definition not too tired or I wouldn't WANT that much, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:14 PM

Old fellow goes to the doctor...

"Doc, I need some help... I can't make love to the wife very often"

"How often do you do it, John?"

"Oh, maybe once every week or 10 days."

"Well, John, you're 74, that's not too bad for that age!"

"But Doc, my neighbor is 81, and he says HE does it twice a week!"

"Well, John, can't you say the same thing?"

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:24 PM

When asked, most people reply they have sex three times a week. However, the number is reduced to once a week, if the phrase, with a partner is added (I recall this from the David Letterman show).

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: bobad
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:21 PM

How to know if you (♂) are getting enough sex.
http://freakybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/funny.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:53 PM

Does anyone besides me gather that 'some' are tending to generalize from their views about male/female relationships and what is 'normal' and usual to a view of what they assume ALL of society does or believes? (Hard sentence to compose)


As to Monserrat's ""No man ever meets a woman without measuring the sexual potential between them. It may be zero, but he still measures it".... that is a pretty subjective analysis.

   I know 3 women that I could 'probably' find today ...long ago and in a far away state... whom I had 'friendly sex' with a couple of times, but who began and ended as just good friends. The brief sexual relationship was lovely and because we understood that's all it was, we remained good friends. I also know 5-6 women who I never had any kind of 'intimate' relationship with, but who were/are also good friends. I suppose the thought crossed my mind ...and perhaps theirs.. as to whether we 'might' be more than friends, but I never dwelled on it and don't remember ever even any 'flirting around the idea' with them. It simply was not an issue. Does that mean that I fall under Monserrat's rule? *shrug*...I don't feel like it.

as to Kendall's remark: "Men are hard wired to have sex with as many women as will have him."...hmm... I just think that's a bit of an exaggeration qua Homo sapiens. I know that male animals DO seek...and fight.. for sexual privileges, and that as primates, we humans are not too far(in anthropological terms) from that situation, but I believe that society HAS in the last few thousand year allowed for exceptions and that, although still common, seeking as many 'conquests' as possible is NOT universal. At the same time, more women are feeling free to safely (as we read above) to increase their 'no committment' relationships, simply for pleasure and companionship.

It is NOT a good idea to assume that the view YOU take on these matters is a given for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:29 PM

We are not responsible for our thoughts; we are responsible for our actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

Of course we're not the same in bed - only women can get pregnant, men have refractory periods, women have, well, periods, and so on.

And while nobody can do anything about urges, all can do a whole lot about behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

Little HAwk:

You can also have multiple orgasms, man.   They just take a lot longer. Be patient...


;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:59 PM

This points out the main difference between men and women.
Men are hard wired to have sex with as many women as will have him. That's just how it is and there is nothing we can do about the urge.
However, as we mature, we get a better picture of consequences and, as my friend Andy says, "Morality gets a lot of credit that should go to cold feet.
Or, I like, definition of virtue; insufficient temptation.

And, Men mature after they have exhausted all other options.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:12 PM

I've been giving this one some careful thought before posting.

From my own perspective I would rather have love without sex than sex without love. Of course, the ideal would be sex in a loving relationship, which I am fortunate to have right now. However, if, for any reason sex was not possible, say for health reasons, I value the relationship that I am in too much to want to abandon it for lack of a physical element.

I have tried sex, just for the sake of it, a couple of times in my younger days but it only left me feeling soiled and missing out somewhere. In the absence of a loving relationship I would prefer to stay celibate. For me, sex for its own sake is not worth the bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM

If you have ALL the sex and orgasms you possibly can, Mrzzy, you get too tired and worn out after awhile and it actually becomes a bit hard (no pun intended) on the system. ;-) Trust me, I know about that.

However, I think having a reasonable amount of sex and orgasms is a fine idea, and beneficial to both health and emotional state. Moderation in all things is a wise practice.

I place no moral judgements of any kind on people's choices to be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, polysexual or whatever other kind of sexual they choose. That's entirely up to them.

I think men and women ARE equal in bed...but by "equal", I don't mean "the same". I mean equal in showing mutual respect, liking, enthusiasm, appreciation, and general consideration of one another. I mean...it would be best if they approached one another on such an equal basis, right? Some don't.

Chongo tells me that even (some) chimps face these complex issues, and I have no reason to scoff at what he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:41 PM

Sure, LH, but doesn't that mean we should all be having all the sex and orgasms we can?

And the one place the genders are NOT equal is in bed, I would think! It isn't sexist to be gay or straight, nor not-sexist to be bi.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:40 AM

The main point, Mrzzy, is to be happy with what you are in this life. And I am. However, don't you think most people are naturally just curious about what it's like on the other side of the fence, so to speak?

Now, if one thinks that the soul is of both genders, and I do, wouldn't that be a great asset to seeing men and women as equals? I've always seen them as equals. It seems self-evident to me, just in the same way as it is self-evident that different races are equals.

I realize you don't believe in "the soul", but that's your lookout... ;-) I talk about what I want to talk about, and so do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:47 AM

Well, gravity being what it is, impregnation from a standing position is less likely. Just not a lot less likely. Indeed I have seen a theory that the female orgasm evolved because it kept women lying down until they got over it - so facilitating the passage of the sperm. I wonder if there are any reliable statistics.