1sec

I've never understood why they regulate sex through ethics.

Sex and Morality never mix.

Don't do to others what you wouldn't like them to do to you = says the most basic principle of the ethical theory.

Sure, why not.
Don't kill.
Don't opress.
Don't torture.
Don't steal.
Don't lie.
Don't swindle.
and so on

but Don't have sex?

Why do they consider me immoral if I claim that good sex is as good as good music?

Why I am morally suspicious if I demand from sex as much quantity and qulity as I demand from food, let's say?

Why should society interfere with my sex (private) life?

Is it because I might be considered selfish, that is not paying enough attention to the community's problems?

In that case where does selfishness end and where does generosity start?

And isn't there a neutral zone in between that should not concern their rules and regulations?

Why should Morality mix with Sex?

Warren Sinden

There is nothing wrong with sex.It's only the monotheistic religions that recon it's immoral.
What you do in your private life has got nothing to do with anyone else as long as you don't hurt any one else.whether you have a monogmus or polyganous relationship is your business why do you worrie what other people think

Laurentius

There is a great deal to talk about sex in relation to morality. How about checking a site like Sexual Morality FAQ? Here are the first two questions listed there with their answers:
"Why should anyone care what consenting adults do in private?
Private conduct doesn't stay private, especially when it involves something as basic to human life as sex. Among other things, private consensual sex gives rise to babies, family life, knife fights, betrayal, self-sacrificing devotion, and STDs. All these things are of concern to persons other than those immediately involved, so public standards regarding the conduct that leads to them can be a good thing if they help promote some and reduce others.
What is a "public standard"?
A reasonably coherent common understanding of what behavior is right and wrong. Examples include rules of politeness and everyday moral standards (honesty, trustworthiness and so on). Such standards aren't perfectly fixed and in most ways aren't legally enforceable, but in any society that is not in crisis they are definite enough to be used in judging conduct and firm enough to make it awkward to flout them."
Go and see it for yourself.



[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

jpbrooks

Sex/Sexuality is not held to be wrong categorically by the monotheistic religions. (Without sex and sexuality, there would be no people.) They condemn certain contexts in which sex occurs. For certain religious people, sex is a sacred ritual, and is not to be practiced outside the contexts defined for sexual practice by their particuar religion.
For such people, religion impacts (or at least, is held to impact) every area of life, including sexuality. That appears to be the reason for the connection between sexuality and ethics for religious people.

That said, there are, of course, religious zealots who carry things too far and do condemn sex categorically. That practice on the part of religious zealots leaves people confused about sexuality.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

pug846

This would fit better in the morality forum.

scigirl

This question is silly to me because. . .I don't think it's necessarily immoral to be selfish.

scigirl

sullster

I think that the reason for the regulation of sex lies in the past and has many practical reasons. Male uncertainty about who is the father of his woman's baby certainly motivated many of the strict adultery laws that exist in all religions. Women are always punished more severely than men and are always seen as the "temptress" who seduces the innocent male. Yet, men know full well that males are the sex crazed half of humanity and thus in order to more assure their true paternity, they must corral females by making all sex a sin.
In the past before birth control, sex meant babies. Paternity is an ecomomic issue in most societies and has great bearing on inheretance. Sex was never and can never be totally controlled as it is a basic instinctual drive, but its effects, babies, can be attempted to be controlled.

My last reason is disease. In the pre-antibiotic past, venereal diseases were rampant. Upper class young women were sequestered and filled with concepts of the sin of sex for their protection from disease as much as to protect inheretance lines. In the past sex and disease were always associated. If religion made sex evil it was partly to stem the evil of disease.

I am sure there are more reasons. This is acctually a complex area.

ju'iblex

Ok, so the obvious issues have been brought up in a thread like this; babies, STDs, and the question of paternity.

All three, are now in modern society, preventable. (as a whole).

apart from the fact that its relatively difficult to dispell traditional values such as these, is there an actual reason why the sin/sex equation still exists? And is it still necessary to keep it going at all?

emphryio

I always thought the idea of sex being bad came from the idea that true happiness couldn't be obtained from fleeting physical pleasures. Therefore, sex and gluttony are considered bad.

I agree that true happiness might not come from non-continuos physical pleasures, but does that necessarily mean such things will get in the way of finding true happiness?

Hmmm, come to think of it. I guess it could.

phaedrus

Going by the original post, then eating (throwing food) while thousands of people are starving and drinking (and wasting water) while thousands dont have access to clean water and having a huge house when a three bedroom house/apartment would suffice could be "selfish" as well.

I dont think any society looks down upon the act of sex, i think the ancients realised the possible of threat of "open and casual sex" could provide to the cohesivness of a society and hence formulated all the moral laws.

On a side note, apart from procreation and the ephemeral "high" provided by the act (which one could get from hallucinogens, spirits or other crap), what else is so important about the act that the whole frikkin' media and the society turns out to be so "sex-centric"?