What is sexually immoral?

[Father Heathen]

I think repressing sexuality and treating it like it's something sinful or shameful is immoral.

 

[MoonWater]

I'd say it's sexually immoral to cheat on your partner or to have sex with someone who has a partner. I have no problem with open relationships though so if there was an agreement like that then the latter would be fine. Also anything that involves forcing or coersion of any kind. I would also say it's "immoral" to have sex without protection unless you are in fact planning on having kids. And I would say it's wrong for incestuous couples to have biological children simply because of the deformities that result. Basically it's just a matter of making sure your actions don't hurt others physically or psychologically.

 

[zenzero]

Friend FH,

Doesn't karma itself require a sense of good vs. bad? If an action accumulates negative karma, then it must be bad. If an action accumulates positive karma, then it must be good.

About karma.
Any action done out of desire brings back karma as a result.
If the action is desireless then that past karma clears up without coming back.
Its not about good or bad karma; its again consciousness.
Desire comes from the mind which is unconsciousness and this dark area or unconsciousness has to be enlightened which is by bringing in the light or consciousness.

Also, as soon as one tries to bring some sense into his action, again one is back to his mind and desires and the circle of karma extends. All efforts are to shorten the distance by raising consciousness.
Love & rgds

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If you wanted to, I suppose you could consider sexual activity that's irresponsible, risky and/or psychologically unhealthy as immoral.

A good point, but then we get into the issues of judging what qualifies as irresponsible, risky, and unhealthy.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Morality is a socially created thing that, in the end, has power only in the hands of an individual. Perhaps it's the late-night reading of Kierkegaard, but I see the truth of morality lying in how the individual reacts to an observed event, and the reaction of an individual to another actor's reaction to her or his own event.

Sexuality is a powerful force, and will push the boundaries imposed upon it more than maybe any other human moral action. I find some things disturbing, and would call them "immoral." But I know I enjoy some things that others will call "immoral." But this is fairly arbitrary.

I would call non-consensual sex immoral, but that is not due to the sex but rather the psychological and physical harm that is dealt from being forced into an undesired act. In fact, I would consider using something as sacred as sex as a tool for torture and violence (unless it is consensual torture--bring on the nipple clamps!) a sin.

But like all things, this is from my personally-defined observation. I cannot call this a universal morality anymore than I would consider my love for coffee a universal taste.

Edit: Though, in the same way that I would go out of my way to enjoy a good cup of coffee, I would also fight to prevent a rape scenario.

 

[lilithu]

Doesn't karma itself require a sense of good vs. bad? If an action accumulates negative karma, then it must be bad. If an action accumulates positive karma, then it must be good.

All karma is "bad" karma in that all karma binds us to samsara.

 

[tomspug]

I think repressing sexuality and treating it like it's something sinful or shameful is immoral.

I agree. Sexuality is good. Using sexuality in a way that takes advantage of/hurts others is bad.

 

[lunamoth]

What would you deem "immoral" sexual behavior, no matter what?

Sexual behavior which seeks to take without consent, seeks to posess or own, or is used for control or power is immoral. Sexual behavior that shirks responsibility for the outcomes of the action (pregnanacy, disease, relationships) is immoral.

As for what public behaviors which are immoral...only those above even though I personally find anything more than hand-holding or chaste kisses as lacking in good manners.

 

[tomspug]

Sexual behavior which seeks to take without consent, seeks to posess or own, or is used for control or power is immoral. Sexual behavior that shirks responsibility for the outcomes of the action (pregnanacy, disease, relationships) is immoral.

As for what public behaviors which are immoral...only those above even though I personally find anything more than hand-holding or chaste kisses as lacking in good manners.

I noticed that all of those examples describe intent and consequences, but did not describe sexual activity itself. Would you say then that ALL sexual activity is permitted as long as it meets that criteria?

 

[lunamoth]

I noticed that all of those examples describe intent and consequences, but did not describe sexual activity itself. Would you say then that ALL sexual activity is permitted as long as it meets that criteria?

Permitted is different than moral/immoral in my book. What we choose as acceptible boundaries of behavior in our societies are our mores/customs and affect our laws. I think immorality refers to what is wrong in all places and among any peoples, even if they have come to accept it in their laws and mores.

 

[tomspug]

Permitted is different than moral/immoral in my book. What we choose as acceptible boundaries of behavior in our societies are our mores/customs and affect our laws. I think immorality refers to what is wrong in all places and among any peoples, even if they have come to accept it in their laws and mores.

I think that this is the crux of the issue.

Let's face it. Christians are currently wrongly accused of being ignorant sex-phobes, homophobes, whatever and it's just... not... true.

Immorality, within law, is determined based on the interaction between independents, for everyone's own protection. Immorality, within religion, is determined by the self (and, I might add, not supposed to judge OUTSIDE of the self). Religion's role is not to determine the law of the land (that would be theocracy) but to protect the individual.

If you, your family, or your friends are being negatively influenced by the acts of others, you are totally justified, under law, for claiming that it is "wrong"; while you believe someone to be hurting THEMSELVES through sexual activity, a religious person might call that "wrong", but not in a judgmental way. It is for, in their mind, the other person's own good to call such a thing "wrong". Call that homophobic if you want, but it's not.

To allow one realm (law or religion) to directly influence the other in their appropriate circumstances, however... THAT is wrong. It is not religion's role to determine what the law deems wrong and right. That being said, it is also inappropriate for law to restrict religion if it is not infringing on the rights of anyone.

 

[lilithu]

I think that this is the crux of the issue.

Let's face it. Christians are currently wrongly accused of being ignorant sex-phobes, homophobes, whatever and it's just... not... true.

Immorality, within law, is determined based on the interaction between independents, for everyone's own protection. Immorality, within religion, is determined by the self (and, I might add, not supposed to judge OUTSIDE of the self). Religion's role is not to determine the law of the land (that would be theocracy) but to protect the individual.

If you, your family, or your friends are being negatively influenced by the acts of others, you are totally justified, under law, for claiming that it is "wrong"; while you believe someone to be hurting THEMSELVES through sexual activity, a religious person might call that "wrong", but not in a judgmental way. It is for, in their mind, the other person's own good to call such a thing "wrong". Call that homophobic if you want, but it's not.

To allow one realm (law or religion) to directly influence the other in their appropriate circumstances, however... THAT is wrong. It is not religion's role to determine what the law deems wrong and right. That being said, it is also inappropriate for law to restrict religion if it is not infringing on the rights of anyone.

1. You claim that you can call something wrong even when others do not believe it is wrong, because you believe it is wrong. That is true. But then it is also the case that they can call you homophobic even if you don't believe that it's homophobic, because they believe that you're calling it wrong is homophobic. It cuts both ways.

2. Personally, I don't care if you call/think/believe it's wrong - go right ahead. And I won't even call you names for it. Just so long as you agree that the law should treat everyone equally.

 

[tomspug]

1. You claim that you can call something wrong even when others do not believe it is wrong, because you believe it is wrong. That is true. But then it is also the case that they can call you homophobic even if you don't believe that it's homophobic, because they believe that you're calling it wrong is homophobic. It cuts both ways.

2. Personally, I don't care if you call/think/believe it's wrong - go right ahead. And I won't even call you names for it. Just so long as you agree that the law should treat everyone equally.

And the law already treats everyone equally, but that's a different thread topic.

 

[lilithu]

And the law already treats everyone equally,

No, it does not.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

No, it does not.

Not yet...

 

[Father Heathen]

All karma is "bad" karma in that all karma binds us to samsara.

So the karma that results from empathetic, compassionate acts is no more or less desirable than the karma that results from callous, malicious acts?
It would seem that the only way to separate ourselves from the whole karma game and "samsara" would be to disassociate and detach from love, hope and compassion for ourselves and others, and to adopt a stoic indifference and isolation from the world, requiring either self-dehumanization or death.

 

[lilithu]

So the karma that results from empathetic, compassionate acts is no more or less desirable than the karma that results from callous, malicious acts?

If you are bound by desire (and I don't claim to not be), then the karma that results from empathetic compassionate acts is more desirable than the karma that results from callous, malicious acts. But ultimately, one has to understand that all karma binds us to samsara.

It would seem that the only way to separate ourselves from the whole karma game and "samsara" would be to disassociate and detach from love, hope and compassion for ourselves and others, and to adopt a stoic indifference and isolation from the world, requiring either self-dehumanization or death.

No, one can have love, hope, and compassion and still not be bound to the outcome. The vow of the bodhisattva is based on caring about the suffering of others. But a bodhisattva knows that ultimately what reduces suffering is nibbana. Short term fixes are just that, short term.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you are bound by desire (and I don't claim to not be), then the karma that results from empathetic compassionate acts is more desirable than the karma that results from callous, malicious acts. But ultimately, one has to understand that all karma binds us to samsara.

But still: compassion = good, malice = bad, so wouldn't that imply some sort of "good & evil"?

No, one can have love, hope, and compassion and still not be bound to the outcome. The vow of the bodhisattva is based on caring about the suffering of others. But a bodhisattva knows that ultimately what reduces suffering is nibbana. Short term fixes are just that, short term.

So separating oneself from the concerns of humanity and the world is the proper course because trying to change the state of things is ultimately futile? I'm not sure I like that kind of thought.

 

[lilithu]

But still: compassion = good, malice = bad, so wouldn't that imply some sort of "good & evil"?

I didn't say "compassion = good, malice = bad." I said that compassionate acts would lead to karma that the unenlightened would find more desirable and malicious acts would lead to karma that the unenlightened would find less desirable. Karma is not based on a judgment of good and evil. We add that judgment by our deciding that desirable things are "good" and undesirable things are "bad."

So separating oneself from the concerns of humanity and the world is the proper course because trying to change the state of things is ultimately futile? I'm not sure I like that kind of thought.

That's not what I'm saying. Buddhism is not nihlism (that's one of the most common mistakes). It does not say that things are futile. If it did, then why be Buddhist? It's not like it's easy.

I just said that the vow of the bodhisattva is based on compassion for the suffering of others. You can care about others. You can try to change things that cause suffering. What you cannot do (without generating karma) is be attached to the outcome.

 

[Father Heathen]

I didn't say "compassion = good, malice = bad." I said that compassionate acts would lead to karma that the unenlightened would find more desirable and malicious acts would lead to karma that the unenlightened would find less desirable. Karma is not based on a judgment of good and evil. We add that judgment by our deciding that desirable things are "good" and undesirable things are "bad."

Well how else would one define what is good and what is evil? And what else would determine if an act generates either positive or negative karma? How can you say doing this will give you bad karma or doing that will give you good karma without first some cosmic gauge to determine which is what?