• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Sexual morality

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Here's an idea regarding what is an acceptable sexual practice and what is not.

As long as all individuals involved in the particular sexual act are consenting, do whatever you want.

Anyone have thoughts about this?

NOTE: By "being involved", I mean either directly or indirectly.
 
Last edited:

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
Here's an idea regarding what is an acceptable sexual practice and what is not.

As long as all individuals involved in the particular sexual act are consenting, do whatever you want.

Anyone have thoughts about this?

Sounds fine to me, so long as they're consenting throughout as well.

If two consenting adults fall into mutual cannibalism, so be it, as long as one doesn't chicken out halfway in.
 

Boyd

Member
Here's an idea regarding what is an acceptable sexual practice and what is not.

As long as all individuals involved in the particular sexual act are consenting, do whatever you want.

Anyone have thoughts about this?

I think there are problems with such an idea as the issue of consent can be sketchy. Consent can be coerced. It can be given under intoxication. It can be given under a lack of maturity.

If either party is underage, I do not think that they are mature enough to really give consent. If the person is intoxicated, I do not think they really can give consent. So there are problems. However, if both individuals are of sound mind, of maturity, and are aware of the exact circumstances (does either one have an STI they know about and are not divulging, etc), then yes, let them do what they will, as long as it is safe (as in, there isn't a risk of someone being strangled to death, have the right to quit at any time, isn't in risk of death, etc).
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Sounds fine to me, so long as they're consenting throughout as well.

If two consenting adults fall into mutual cannibalism, so be it, as long as one doesn't chicken out halfway in.

Lmao. The cannibalism may be mutual, but the dead person may not have consented to being eaten alive or after being killed or dead. :p
 

Thana

Lady
Here's an idea regarding what is an acceptable sexual practice and what is not.
As long as all individuals involved in the particular sexual act are consenting, do whatever you want.
Anyone have thoughts about this?


Mm, So consenting to be choked to death is acceptable?
Autoerotic asphyxiation aswell?

What about people who are drugged or drunk and are consenting because they're to high or drunk to think clearly?

What about children who consent because they don't have enough understanding?
Or people with mental disabilites?
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
On the other hand sometimes there may be larger issues, such as sexually transmitted diseases and close family relations. Irresponsible sexual actions are immoral, even if they are mutually consensual.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
I would make similar arguments based on consent and self-sovereignty and that included arguing for consensual incest, necrophilia, murder and cannibalism. Because if you base it on consent, then logically those behaviors would be allowed, too.

As for now, I don't know. I think there's more to being healthy and fulfilled than that.
 

mycorrhiza

Well-Known Member
I would make similar arguments based on consent and self-sovereignty and that included arguing for consensual incest, necrophilia, murder and cannibalism. Because if you base it on consent, then logically those behaviors would be allowed, too.

As for now, I don't know. I think there's more to being healthy and fulfilled than that.

How do you consent to necrophilia? :confused:
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
I find this logic simplistic and truthful at its core.

Although this raises questions on how would you justify the effects of incest upon the future offspring. Although it may be consensual sex most often, it leads to negatives effects on others.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
मैत्रावरुणिः;3572236 said:
What stumps me is the "do whatever you want" part. May you kindly, por favor, expand on that?

It means if you want to have gay sex, then go ahead. If you want to have an orgy with your neighbor, then go ahead. Just as long as every individual who is affected by it is involved willingly.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
I think there are problems with such an idea as the issue of consent can be sketchy. Consent can be coerced. It can be given under intoxication. It can be given under a lack of maturity.

I am, of course, referring to actual consent. As in the person made a choice to be involved without any coercion, and the person is legally able to give that consent. So, getting a girl drunk so she'll say yes is wrong. A ten year old who says yes is also not giving consent because they are not legally able to do it.

If either party is underage, I do not think that they are mature enough to really give consent. If the person is intoxicated, I do not think they really can give consent. So there are problems. However, if both individuals are of sound mind, of maturity, and are aware of the exact circumstances (does either one have an STI they know about and are not divulging, etc), then yes, let them do what they will, as long as it is safe (as in, there isn't a risk of someone being strangled to death, have the right to quit at any time, isn't in risk of death, etc).

Agreed. For the most part, at least.
 
Last edited:

mycorrhiza

Well-Known Member
Before death.

If the consent is by an individual capable of fully consenting (a sane and sober adult with the mental capacity required), then I don't think it's immoral to put it your will that someone will be allowed to have sex with your corpse. Really gross, but not immoral. Murdering someone is something completely different as that causes harm, both to the murdered individual, but also to his/her friends and family.

It seems like a non-existing scenario, though. Has it happened even once in recorded history?

Isn't it pointless to discuss theoretical slippery slope situations?
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Mm, So consenting to be choked to death is acceptable?
Autoerotic asphyxiation aswell?

One could make that argument. However, I;d say that the death of a person would affect their family, so the family is indirectly involved. Since they are unlikely to give consent ("Yes, please kill our family member for your sexual thrills!"), this would fall into the category of involving people who have not given consent.

What about people who are drugged or drunk and are consenting because they're to high or drunk to think clearly?

Then they are not of sound enough mind to give consent, and therefore it is wrong.

What about children who consent because they don't have enough understanding?
Or people with mental disabilites?

Ditto.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
On the other hand sometimes there may be larger issues, such as sexually transmitted diseases and close family relations. Irresponsible sexual actions are immoral, even if they are mutually consensual.

But morality is subjective. How can you say it is wrong if both the people involved think it is okay?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
If the consent is by an individual capable of fully consenting (a sane and sober adult with the mental capacity required), then I don't think it's immoral to put it your will that someone will be allowed to have sex with your corpse. Really gross, but not immoral. Murdering someone is something completely different as that causes harm, both to the murdered individual, but also to his/her friends and family.

It seems like a non-existing scenario, though. Has it happened even once in recorded history?

Isn't it pointless to discuss theoretical slippery slope situations?

There are necrophiliacs as well as people with death fantasies. There are people into all the things I mentioned. If you don't believe me, I could point you to some forums where you can talk to them yourself.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
I would make similar arguments based on consent and self-sovereignty and that included arguing for consensual incest, necrophilia, murder and cannibalism. Because if you base it on consent, then logically those behaviors would be allowed, too.

As for now, I don't know. I think there's more to being healthy and fulfilled than that.

Well, as I've already said, when it comes to death, the family and friends of the dead person are indirectly involved as well. So I don't think the morality I suggest in my OP says that such acts are okay.
 
Top