Pat Kelly

“What’s Wrong With Sex?
Applying some simple logic…”

I just finished writing this article and had a lot of fun doing it.

We live in a world that seems to say there is everything wrong with sex unless you find yourself attracted to the opposite sex of roughly the same age and are willing to restrict your sexuality to what others define as ok. We have learned to call pictures showing people enjoying their sexuality "dirty" along with a host of other negative concepts that generally paint sex with broad dark brushstrokes. This is likely one of the greatest forms of irrationalism humanity has ever perpetrated upon itself as we seek to define, control and categorize the mysteries of being human.

Philosoft

There's nothing wrong with sex. The imposed limitations of which you speak are intended to prevent the exploitation of those who are incapable of understanding the consequences of, and thus rationally consenting to, a sex act.

But you already know this, because it has been explained to you on this very board.

ju'iblex

I'm going to send this to Moral Foundations and Principles. Although I know full well what you're talking about, we might as well give it a shot at civil discussion.

Monkeybot

There's nothing wrong with sex, as long as there is informed consent on the part of all participants.

meritocrat

I feel very few people possess a genuine problem with sex per se. I'm sure most people who believe that society should have more of a moral fibre engage in sexual activity, even if they denounce some forms of sexuality.

Pat Kelly

There is no more "consent" necessary for sex than there is consent necessary to scratch an itch. Your premise is irrational and without a logical foundation. Sure scratching an itch may lead to an infection once in a great while but in the far greater majority of instances, it does nothing more than relieve the itch. Would you propose we restrict everyone from scratching until they fully understand all the possible ramifications?

Do you believe it would be rational or morally correct to restrict a 30-year old man from engaging in sex because he is retarded and mentally equivalent to a ten year old? You seem to aspire to some concept that in order for one to qualify as ready to make some alleged informed decision regarding sex they must have either obtained a certain amount of experience and knowledge or have achieved a certain level of intelligence. But intelligence, acquired knowledge or maturity have no direct relationship to sex or the ability of one to respond appropriately to sexual stimuli.

Your premise also seems to suggest that maturity is somehow equated with an increased ability to not make wrong decisions. If sexual relations are premised upon the idea no one should engage in sex unless they have a greater potential of making the right decisions, I would be curious how you would define this list of right decisions and how it would differ from a list of wrong decisions. I would also like to know if you believe it would be right for you to be bound by my list if it reflected the view of the majority even though it differed for your list? Further, do you believe the rights of the individual, when those right have no harmful affects upon others, should be protected from the will or beliefs of the majority?

I highly suspect if you looked closely at your premise that sex should not be engaged in until one fully understands all its potential consequences, you will find it actually stems from an idea sex should not be allowed until one fully understands all the current rules of the game. While you run all the bases to reach home you might highly resent someone who hits a home run without bothering to run any of the bases. Your concern, like many others appears founded in a concept you want everyone who plays the game, to only play according to the rules you have learned to accept. If they do not know the rules, you would rather they do not play the game at all until after they have been fully indoctrinated by those rules preparing them to make the same decisions you have learned are the correct decisions to make. You do not want anyone agreeing to engage in sex with a homosexual partner until after he or she is old enough to understand such a decision goes against acceptable sexual practices. After all, if everyone started playing the game of sex according to the rules of nature we fully possess at birth, your silly game of socially acceptable sex would not last too long. Would it?

If you want to discuss rape, forced sex, STDs and the reality a few people are willing to take advantage of others against their will, that is a different subject than the one I am speaking to.

yguy

Then what's wrong with rape?

yguy

How is having sex with a person against their will different from doing it without their consent?

keyser_soze

While we're at it, why not go ahead and speak up about what you "really" want to talk about? Everyone already knows, you might as well stop beating around the bush and say it. I don't think you will find support for child molestation on this board, no matter how you wrap the argument. You'd think you would figure it out already.

And as to the superficial level of your question...There is nothing wrong with sex, as long as both parties CAN make an informed choice in the matter. And finding one instance in a thousand, where the child agrees to sex with an understanding of what it entails, is not going to make us ignore the other 999 cases where some poor kid was raped and brutalized, and some killed...so that they could provide titillating material for freaks.

Shadowy Man

The only thing wrong with sex is that I'm not getting it.