• 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
I understand the question but I'm not sure you are understanding my response. Questions of sexual ethics don't concern me. I'm not interested in delineating sexual activity into categories of acceptable and not.

But if I must provide an answer I would say I would follow the dictates of my own conscience as I do with any ethical question. And my conscience agrees that forcing people into sexual activity against their will is wrong.

Glad we agree. But I gotta ask, if sexual ethics don't concern you, why did you come into a thread discussing sexual morality?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
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.

Hi Tiberius....! Ooooo...... sexy subject....... goody..... :D


I think the proposal is screwed up. Whole mindset of the sentence is trending towards un-fulfillment and ultimate lonesomeness. Ill try to explain as briefly as possible.

1. No....... because in many countries, there are strict laws about sexual acts, even amongst consenting folks, and to get enrolled on the sexual offender's register would be a dead end. In my country, parents have a right to know about SOs who live in their neighbourhood.

2. No....... The above sentence is all about taking..... no giving. It reads 'do whatever you want', so the whole affair will be just a mish-mash of selfishness...... leading to an empty feeling after of 'I didn't get enough'. f it had been about 'give whatever is needed' it would have had something about it, I guess.

3. No......... Folks who get stuck in to every kind of sexual practice, with whomsoever consents, can bang on and bang on in some unfulfilled tempo, always wanting that 'something more', and then, one day, some day, they meet this wonderful person, the person they dreamed of but did not believe in, and then, the sexual acxt has nothing, is.... nothing. Means .... nothing.

4. No......... So the more is taken, the more is wanted, the more is needed, the less is gained. This, one of the most beautiful things that folks have to give, is reduced to nothing....... a bit, I'm guessing, how drugs can deplete a person, whp once thought that they were great.


So........ no........ :)
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Hi Tiberius....! Ooooo...... sexy subject....... goody..... :D

Glad you like it.

I think the proposal is screwed up. Whole mindset of the sentence is trending towards un-fulfillment and ultimate lonesomeness. Ill try to explain as briefly as possible.

Okay.

1. No....... because in many countries, there are strict laws about sexual acts, even amongst consenting folks, and to get enrolled on the sexual offender's register would be a dead end. In my country, parents have a right to know about SOs who live in their neighbourhood.

I don't see what this has to do with the morality I suggested in the OP. How can someone be a sex offender if every single sexual act they participate in is with individuals who have consented to being involved?

2. No....... The above sentence is all about taking..... no giving. It reads 'do whatever you want', so the whole affair will be just a mish-mash of selfishness...... leading to an empty feeling after of 'I didn't get enough'. f it had been about 'give whatever is needed' it would have had something about it, I guess.

I never said "Only do things for your own satisfaction." Many people, myself included, take great pleasure from making sure their partners are pleasured as well.

3. No......... Folks who get stuck in to every kind of sexual practice, with whomsoever consents, can bang on and bang on in some unfulfilled tempo, always wanting that 'something more', and then, one day, some day, they meet this wonderful person, the person they dreamed of but did not believe in, and then, the sexual acxt has nothing, is.... nothing. Means .... nothing.

If this is the person who can indeed give them "something more", as you suggested, how would they just be getting the same old thing?

4. No......... So the more is taken, the more is wanted, the more is needed, the less is gained. This, one of the most beautiful things that folks have to give, is reduced to nothing....... a bit, I'm guessing, how drugs can deplete a person, whp once thought that they were great.

I find it hard to believe that participating in a purely sexual act (such as a one night stand as opposed to making love to a long term partner) will lead to greater and greater sexual desires.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Glad you like it.
Well, it's a change from 'Did Jesus speak Aramaic' etc....:D

I don't see what this has to do with the morality I suggested in the OP. How can someone be a sex offender if every single sexual act they participate in is with individuals who have consented to being involved?
You suggested morality? Where? Which words?
Different lands have differing legislation about sexual activity. Consent is not enough.

I never said "Only do things for your own satisfaction." Many people, myself included, take great pleasure from making sure their partners are pleasured as well.
You wrote..... 'do whatever you want'. That's different to 'Give 'em whatever they need'.

If this is the person who can indeed give them "something more", as you suggested, how would they just be getting the same old thing?
I need to ask you questions here. Have you ever loved somebody? Not just 'liked', or 'really good lay', etc.... but, 'couldn't live without them'....? Well? You answer that and then I can try to explain my angle on this....

I find it hard to believe that participating in a purely sexual act (such as a one night stand as opposed to making love to a long term partner) will lead to greater and greater sexual desires.
Ha ha........ I think you're back-peddling! :D
So this was just about one night stands with the odd stranger...? :D And there was me, imagining this person rolling up with a box of sex-toys....:D

A one night stand looks kind of tame, compared with 'do whatever you want'.....:D No probs...... :) I thought this was about room fulls of folks swinging off chandeliers, or whatever. (And no..... I've never swung off a chandelier.....:D)
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
You suggested morality? Where? Which words?

Did you read the thread title?

Different lands have differing legislation about sexual activity. Consent is not enough.

And I'm not talking about what the legal requirements are.

You wrote..... 'do whatever you want'. That's different to 'Give 'em whatever they need'.

But you suggested that what I wrote meant "Take take take and don't ever give." I was pointing out that what I suggested does not say that one is not allowed to give pleasure to one's partner. Just that one is not obligated to.

I need to ask you questions here. Have you ever loved somebody? Not just 'liked', or 'really good lay', etc.... but, 'couldn't live without them'....? Well? You answer that and then I can try to explain my angle on this....

Yes.

I don't see what this has to do with what you said. You were talking about a guy who just goes and sleeps around and has sex for the physical satisfaction it brings. You said he would grow to want something more from sex that he could not get from a series of one-night-stands. You then claimed that once he settles down and has a long term relationship, he still wouldn't be able to get that "something more." I then asked how he would not be getting something more. After all, that something more he desires is the emotional attachment, actually being in love with his partner. If he is in a romantic relationship, then by definition, he is getting it, yes? Or are you suggesting that a long period in which one has many partners with no emotional attachment renders one incapable of forming an emotional attachment?

Ha ha........ I think you're back-peddling! :D
So this was just about one night stands with the odd stranger...? :D And there was me, imagining this person rolling up with a box of sex-toys....:D

Backpeddling from what?

A one night stand looks kind of tame, compared with 'do whatever you want'.....:D No probs...... :) I thought this was about room fulls of folks swinging off chandeliers, or whatever. (And no..... I've never swung off a chandelier.....:D)

Sme old same old. It's all still sex for purely physical fun, without any emotional or romantic attachments to your partners. I hope you note that I specifically said "a purely sexual act" and only used the example of a one night stand as an example, not the definition.
 
Last edited:
Top