Harumi

Hmmm...

I wouldn't have learned how to masterbate if it wasn't for this board.

It's fun! I wouldn't consider it a sin at all...

Did I say too much?

Viti

Once again you are making women/young ladies out as simpering wimps using their sexuality as a commodity for love. That's not truly "owning your sexuality".

A young lady with a true sense of self worth and personal sovereignty WOULDN'T say to herself "Oh dearie me, if I don't sleep with him he'll leave me for Suzie oh woe". A confidant girl in touch with her own sexuality would say to herself "I don't want to have sex with this guy because <I want to wait/I am not ready/I am pretty sure he doesn't know a clit from a carrot/he doesn't love me and I am looking for a relationship at this point> and if he leaves me because I won't have sex with him then good riddance he wasn't worth my time"...or possibly even say "He's a bonehead; but he's hot, seems to know his way around vaginas, and I'm horny...so I'll fuck him then look for a relationship elsewhere"

Owning your sexuality means you know what YOU want or don't want to do, and nobody can change your mind, coerce you, bribe you etc.

These and similar comments are what led many of us to believe you think the only acceptable sex is within a relationship

Doing a logic puzzle doesn't require me to be attracted to you or in the mood to have sex. If I thought you were hot, thought you might be a good lay and I was horny (and just for the record if I also had an agreement with my hubby that I could accept propositions from strangers ) then sure I would have sex with you.

Harumi

I would say no to the both.

I hate logic puzzles, and I have a boyfriend, so I'll be cheating on him if I did sleep with you. And I don't want to hurt his feelings.

Now if I didn't have a boyfriend though...

Are you cute?

christ-on-a-stick

Well put, LadyShea.
Dangit, why'd you have to go and sum it up all nice & concisely when I had to ramble on and on to try and express this?!?!?

I can't think of anything that could make what it means for a woman to "own her sexuality" more clear than what LadyShea just wrote.

luvluv

Lauri:

All right, let's clear up a few things here. My argument does not consist on totally unfounded assumptions, but realistic ones. I think we can agree that at least one percent of the women in pornography could be being abused by the system, no? If this is an unreasonable assumption, then stop me here in your next post and explain to me why this is so.

Now, given the volume of pornography that someone with a daily porn habit will consume, a person is nearly GUARANTEED STATISITCALLY to have seen hundreds of abused women over a lifetime of watching porn (let's say 20 years, though some obviously have been at it much longer). This is especially true with the advent of the internet. Is this a reasonable, conservative estimate?

So my moral argument simply stems from very reasonable and conservative estimates about the amount of women in pornography who are victims of abuse (I even spotted you an unreasonably low number) and the amount of porn that someone with a daily habit of pornography will go through.

I then POSED THE MORAL QUESTION as to whether or not a person can justify patronizing an industry when you are basically statisitcally guaranteed to have seen the work of hundreds of abused women. I don't think I ever STATED or MADE AN OBJECTIVE CASE that this was wrong, I only stated that I thought it was wrong, and I asked for a justification or a clarification for those who thought it was okay.

The only positive claim I made was that a substantial minority of the women in porn (let's say around 15%) were participating in pornography because of an abusive past or because of the abuses in the system (emotional and financial coercion). That substantial minority is a pretty uncontroversial claim, but it is not even necessary to assume this is the case to ask the question. Therefore, if it bothers you, I can WITHDRAW the positive claim from the argument and ASK YOU A QUESTION (which is all I've been doing, I haven't been making a positive argument) about this particular moral dilema.

1) Given that if even a small percentage of women in pornography were victims of sexual abuse, the amount of pornography consumed by any given individual with a substantial porn habit would still ensure that they would view hundreds of abused women, how can the viewing of pornography be justified?

2) If you knew that a man or woman in a particular porn scene was a victim of abuse, would you have a problem buying and using the scene?

3) Since you don't know that any given man or woman in any given scene wasn't abused, and given that your sexual needs can be satisfied by means other than pornography, what is the moral justification for financing an industry which will manipulate, degrade, and exploit a certian percentage of people every year?

That's basically been my "argument" up to this point, Lauri. To ask people a bunch of questions they won't answer.

And, of course, I explicitly stated I would be against such a tactic. I'm basically attempting to batter your conscience into submission here. My only goal would be to try to show some of you here that what you are advocating is insupportable given your own moral systems. That's what the morality forum is supposed to be all about.

So, to be clear, I do have a right to point out the moral inconsistencies in any position, and to try to make a case for the immorality of any behavior I see fit. Yes, folks, that includes sex. I have the definite right to make and present the best arguments against casual sex I can find, and I have the right to make my case whenever and wherever I deem it necessary or right. The right to hold a moral position does not end at the bedroom door. I do not believe I have a moral right to badger anyone about their personal decisions. But I definitely have a moral right to make an overall statement like "promiscuity is bad for society" or something, so long as I can back it up.

Lady Shea:

At this point, though, you are smuggling in ADDITIONAL values other than just a sense of ownership over one's body and the valuing of sex for the sake of pleasure. The sense of ownership and the sense that sex is valuable because it is pleasurable WOULD HAVE NO BEARING in the young gir'ls decision not to have sex. The "self-worth" that you smuggled into the statement would be the determinative factor. There is no way that a sense of ownership of one's body and a valuing of the pleasure of sex ALONE could lead the young girl away from sleeping with the boy. Furthermore, it is entirely possible to feel that you own your body and to feel that sex is valuable because it is pleasurable and to be totally lacking in self-worth and confidence.

So what this would lead us to believe is that a sense of ownership of one's body and a sense that sex is valuable because it is pleasurable would be totally impotent in aiding good decision making unless it was accompanied by stronger, more fundamental values.

Key word being confident. But simply having a sense of ownership of one's body and placing value on sex because of it's pleasure will not make a person confident. You keep smuggling in values, in my opinion, because the values you are touting as being essential are totally irrelavent in actual decision-making. Girls can believe they own their own bodies and seek sex for pleasure and make incredibly bad decisions.

In point of fact, it is entirely possible that a sense of owning their bodies and a strong desire for the pleasure of sex can make young girls totally immune to good advice. If they own their own bodies, why do they have to listen to anyone else? And if sex is valuable only because it is pleasurable, why not use the body I own to pleasure myself all I want, even if it is with someone else's boyfriend or husband?

I agree that a girl must be confident and have a sense of self-worth in order to avoid making bad decisions. But how would sleeping with a boy who only wanted her for sexual reasons, when she had deeper feelings, conflict with her sense of self worth if the only value of sex was that it was pleasurable? Why would sleeping with him under those circumstances be any different from doing any other enjoyable activity with him? She would still probably go out to dinner with the guy if he asked, even if it was understood by her that the dinner wouldn't lead to anything. So why not have sex with him, since it's only value is that it is pleasurable?

Okay, but you realize the underlying premise is that she is in love with the boy. You would actually consider this to be good advice? For the girl to have her world rocked for one night by a man whom she loves but who does not love her? Does that sound like a good road map to lasting happiness to you?

And again, the confidence that you are smuggling into this girl would not stem (automatically) from her sense of owning her own body or from her valuing the pleasure of sex. She would have to get some confidence and self-worth from somewhere else, or those other two values wouldn't do her any good.

Okay, so let's break this down. It seems to me that the term "owning your sexuality" entails a sense of confidence, self-worth, a knowledge that you own your body and can direct it to means you feel will best attain what it is you want, and a healthy enjoyment of the sex act, correct?

How would these values keep you from sleeping with your best friends spouse? Or your adult children, if you thought they were hot and you were both willing? Or your brothers and sisters under the same circumstances? If sex with any of these people would be pleasurable, why wouldn't you go there?

What is the problem with adultery, if sex is only valuable because it is pleasurable? Indeed, what is the point of committed sexuality at all, if the only value of sex is that it is pleasurable? Why should marriages put limitations on sex anymore than it does on any other pleasurable activities like smoking, drinking, going to the movies, etc. Why does sex enter into marriage vows or into the arrangements of committed partners at all? Is this tendency, too, a by-product of religion?

I would not say the "only acceptable sex" I would say that sex within the bonds of a committed relationship is the greatest expression of human sexuality, and to depart from these bounds lessens sex as a human endeavor (to make it real heavy sounding).

Why would you need to ask your husband for permission to have sex with me and not for permission to do a logic puzzle with me?

Harumi:

No, I'm not particularly cute.

But if I am understanding you correctly, you would feel perfectly fine sleeping with anyone you thought was cute for $50? I mean to say, you wouldn't have a problem with occasional prostitution, if you didn't have a boyfriend?

Viti

luvluv...I never used the "own your sexuality" argument before...that conversation was with COAS. I stated we need to raise girls with confidence, esteem and a sense of personal sovereignty....so you accusing me of sneaking things in is unfounded. Here's my quote on the issue

I would need my husband's permission to have sex with you because we have an agreement not to have sex with others without discussing it and everyone consenting . The sex itself is not unethical, the breaking of my word is.

luvluv

Lady Shea:

How would having sex with the boy conflict with the girl having esteem? Sex is pleasurable, right? Why would acting to increase her experience of pleasure conflict with her esteem? If she was confident, why wouldn't she believe that her sexual technique is so potent that she can make the boy love her? And what if she used her personal sovereignty to trade her body for a prospect (however bleak) of love?

But why is such an agreement appropriate to the activity of sex? It would seem a ridiculously paranoid limitation imposed on your freedom if it were directed at other pleasurable activities (listening to music, going shopping, exercising). Why would you consent to such an absurd agreement to begin with?

Viti

Now you're just getting ridiculous luvluv and building strawmen.

There's nothing absurd about it. My husband and I also have an agreement not to spend money without notifying each other and discussing it, we have agreements about housework, we even have agreements on dealings with each others families, hell I don't make a hair stylist appointment and he won't schedule a tee time to play golf without discussing it with each other...sex is a part of marriage, marriage is a contract, and several issues are addressed in that contract. Each marriage is different, and each couple chooses the level of consent and specifc issues and "negotiate" their agreement.

Having sex with the boy may not conflict with her esteem...a confident person looking for love would want to be loved for who they are (including their sexuality) and not be used for any one selfish purpose. I once had a guy pursue me because he thought dating me would raise his social position, no different than someone just wanting to get their dick wet IMO.

If she chooses to use her sexuality as a means to an end, and has the confidence to do so fine...I was just pointing out that the pathetic lovesick girl you have made up here does not sound like a confident person who holds herself in high regard...confident women don't fall in love with selfish assholes looking for a score.

luvluv

Lady Shea:

Certainly certain aspects of marriage are negotiated, but are there any other morally-neutral activities which you are commanded to totally abstain from doing with others as a result of your marriage contract? I can see moral reasons for agreeing on how to spend money (being that you have a collective income, how you spend money affects each other), housework (you both live in the same house) dealings with each other's families (necessary for you to get along with each other) and even your hair appointments and his tee times (so you can coordinate spending time with each other).

You can see how it would be unreasonable and overbearing for a marriage contract to limit who one could listen to music with, or exercise with, or the amount of partners with which you could enjoy other moraly neutral activities. If sex is morally neutral and pleasurable, why in the world would you agree to limit this to one partner? I'm not asking you to list the other things you have agreed to negotiate you and your husband's access to, I'm asking you WHY you choose to restrain this particular activity.

Can you explain to me how limiting a pleasurable activity to ONLY your partner is essential to your relationship? How is your husband affected if some guy gives you an orgasm while he isn't around? Isn't he just selfishly limiting your pleasure? And you his?

IN WHAT WORLD?!?

Viti

Well, in my world for one...and the worlds of my friends who were also raised to never settle. A girl may be attracted to an asshole...but self worth also involves walking away from people who cannot or will not fulfill our requirements or expectations of them.

And not that it's any of your business, but I stated in that post that our agreement is not to have sex with someone else WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT first. There are moral issues because you cannot control the actions of the 3rd party...what if I had sex with some man who turned Fatal Attraction and threatened to kill me or my husband if I didn't run away with him? Much more than sex is involved in a marriage...I have chosen to spend my life with this man and not bring others into it on that deep of a level (including spending lots of time with others). I value sex as an expression of love, as well as a pleasurable physical act and have freely CHOSEN to share that pleasure with my husband.