long winded fool

Why do you suppose the act of sex is pleasurable? Unless it is a divine test, or simply a divine gift, we can assume that it feels good so that we do it as often as possible. Why would we need to do it as often as possible? Because the species which reproduce the fastest have the best chance of survival in competition with other species. Giving in to the instinct of fear is also pleasurable, or at least it is as strong a desire as the desire for sex. Why is it so easy to give in to our fears? Because the most cautious and alert species have the best chance of survival in competition with other species.

So we have two natural, beneficial instincts designed to propagate the species. If we ought to enjoy and celebrate the instinct of sex as a natural biological function, shouldn't we also enjoy and celebrate the equally natural and biological function of fear? Why am I a coward or a bigot or a racist when I enjoy my natural instinct of fear? What makes the pleasure of this natural instinct bad and the pleasure of sex good? They both have exactly the same purpose. Without fear we wouldn't be here any more than we would be without sex. Do those who promote the embracing of sexuality and the condemning of narrow-mindedness and racism have a double standard? If it's natural, can I enjoy it except when you tell me otherwise? If so, what is the difference between the embrace of sexuality along with the condemning of fears that many of the anti-religious promote, and the condemning of sexuality along with the embrace of fear that many religious zealots promote? Why aren't these equally evil?

Salmon of Doubt

Fear and sexuality have appropriate uses and inappropriate ones. If I want sex with another consenting adult, that's an appropriate use of the instinct to have sex. If I force someone else to have sex with me, I am harming them, and that is inappropriate. The same goes for fear. If I'm afraid of a poisonous snake, that's a totally rational fear, and I'm free to fear the snake. If someone has come up to me with a gun, fear is again an appropriate response. Fearing someone who is black, or gay is an irrational fear, because there is no threat. Fearing someone who poses no threat can be harmful in promoting irrational hatred, so it should be condemned.

No-one ever said that all fear should be condemned, and all sexual acts should be embraced, just that innapropriate uses of both instincts should be avoided, as they can harm others.

long winded fool

Is sex with a consenting adult always an appropriate use of the instinct of sex? If the purpose of sex is reproduction, then isn't it irresponsible to have sex with a consenting adult if one is not prepared to raise a family with the consenting adult? Isn't using contraception irrational because it prevents the sex from resulting in the propagation of the species? Isn't sex outside of marriage harmful because it can promote irrational sexual behavior? (And by irrational sexual behavior, I mean sex without the purpose of reproduction.)

If there is more to sex than merely reproduction, is there then more to fear than personal protection? If my racism doesn't harm anyone, is there absolutely nothing wrong with it? Is racism inappropriate only if it is acted upon? Isn't it wrong, whether I get enjoyment from it or not, simply because it is irrational? Doesn't it harm me intellectually to hold any irrational belief, whether it affects anyone else or not? If so, shouldn't irrational sex, that is, sex without the purpose of propagating the species, be equally harmful and wrong? If my instincts of fear largely have become obsolete with my ability to reason, yet I still experience them, shouldn't the instinct of sex be equally filtered through reason and not acted upon solely out of desire? Because I want to and it won't hurt anyone is not a rationale for succumbing to the instinct of fear, why is it for sex?

And I'm talking about morally wrong, not legally wrong. Racism is not illegal. The majority know that it is wrong simply because it is irrational. The majority seems to have yet to realize that sex not meant to reproduce the species is wrong because it is equally irrational, unless there's a rift in my logic somewhere. "If it feels good do it," applies equally to irrational fear as it does irrational sex. It seems that anyone who uses contraception and condemns racism or homophobia is technically being a hypocrite.

VivaHedone

I don't find fear a 'pleasant' sensation at all; neither succumbing to fear. Sex is a pleasant sensation.

The general rule has to be: do it if you enjoy it as long as it doesn't harm others without their consent.

Why should we only do things for their 'intended' evolutionary purpose? We are conscious beings, and no longer live merely to reproduce our genes (though this is still a strong instinct) - we live for our own pleasure.

long winded fool

Why, then, should I not be a racist? As long as I keep it to myself, how is this wrong? Technically, it's not wrong and no one can legally condemn a private, functioning racist. Yet we still assume that there is a problem with racist people. We assume that they have some fear that they have yet to conquer. Fear itself is not a pleasant sensation. However, neither technically is sexual desire, otherwise we'd be content with the desire and not feel such a strong need to rid ourselves of it. Succumbing to fear is pleasant in the sense that, if I don't want to stand up in class and give a speech, I can just pretend to be sick and stay home. This feels much better than facing the fear and doesn't harm anyone else. Is there anything wrong with doing this? This is not an act that most would consider "wrong." It is merely a common fear that many of us feel we can't face. Is it "wrong" to give in to this instinct and run away? Why is it frowned upon by society as a whole? The answer to this should also be the answer to whether or not it is "wrong" to have sex for any purpose other than reproduction. Reason is the goal of humanity, therefore any human who fails to be reasonable is assumed to be missing the mark. (Some may argue that humanity's goal is not reason, but when they argue they will attempt to construct a reasonable argument to support their position.) Everyone wants to be reasonable, even those that attempt to live solely by their instincts because they "feel good." Even though they don't realize the difference between instant gratification achieved by following instinct and long-term happiness achieved by thinking critically, the fact that they are human beings makes them always attempt to communicate with reason. Only when logic tells them that they must abandon their instincts, do they abandon reason.

The reason sex is pleasant is because it is a survival instinct. The reason it is easier to give in to fear and run away rather than face it is because fear is a survival instinct. As you point out, we are conscious beings. Fear need no longer affect our decision making process. We are conscious enough to know that being afraid of those that are different from us does not significantly increase our chances of survival, and does significantly decrease our society's chance of survival by dividing individuals against one another. The animals with the strongest mating instincts tend to multiply the fastest. A species that multiplies faster than their predators can consume them eventually reaches the plague status in which the strong mating instinct suddenly becomes massively detrimental to the species by permanently stripping their environment of food. The human instinct to mate has served us well by populating us all over the planet, however it is this same instinct that now causes families in Ethiopia with no food and nothing else to do to have twelve children. We have no natural predators, (and our artificial predator of tribal warfare is pathetically inadequate to curb our exponentially increasing growth rate) making sexual desire that much more detrimental to human beings as the population grows. Sure, here in America we don't have to worry about feeding a family of twelve with food for two all that much, but if we exalt sexuality as something to be enjoyed for its own sake more than as a method of reproduction, we are fanning the flames of overpopulation and poverty to those areas with little food and many horny young men and women. Sure we can just use a condom or take a pill. But what about those who don't have access to either? Instead of giving them condoms and pills which is an irrational and ineffectual method of population control, it makes more sense to lead by example and show that sex makes babies and babies eat food and food is a limited commodity. Sex ought to be enjoyed when engaged in for the purpose of reproduction in an environment that can support another human being. (And this includes the presence of a nurturing and responsible family.) Enjoying sex without taking these things into consideration is harmful, if for no other reason than it influences others in less favorable conditions to give in to their sexual instincts without thinking of the consequences.

Therefore, though sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, engaging in the act solely for pleasure without the purpose of reproduction is irrational and harmful and ought to induce shame if the goal of humanity is reason. Compare to the fact that fear is nothing to be ashamed of, but cowardice is. I can't help being afraid. I can control whether or not I engage my fears and hate black people. Similarly, I can't control my strong desire for that member of the opposite (or same) sex, however I can control whether or not I indulge this instinct and have sex with them. In the same way that hating black people harms the person who is doing the hating because he/she is failing to be rational, (which in turn harms any who might look to them as a model for societal behavior) having consensual sex for pleasure harms the people who makes the decision to do so because the couple is being irrational, and harms the young people who look to them to see how they ought to behave.

The AntiChris

Therefore, though eating is nothing to be ashamed of, engaging in the act solely for pleasure without the purpose of sustaining life is irrational and harmful and ought to induce shame if the goal of humanity is reason.

Chris

Bluefire211

Some would say that denying oneself a pleasurable thing is also irrational. Sex without intention to reproduce is only harmful when reproduction occurs, and in our society we can prevent that quite reliably. You are correct in that this is harmful in other societies, but they don't have proper birth control do they? Thus, I'd suggest a reword of your argument: engaging in the act solely for pleasure and without the purpose of reproduction where reproduction is a likely and unpreventable occurence is irrational and harmful.

Over and out,
Bluefire211

long winded fool

A powerful argument against the problem of obesity. Eating more than your fill is gluttony. Hording food prevents those without food from eating. Animals eat solely for pleasure. They aren't intelligent enough to identify food as life sustaining fuel. They eat to avoid the pain of hunger. Humans have the ability to use their intelligence to pull more food out of the environment than they need, but they can also fall back into their irrational instincts, eat for the pleasure of eating, and become obese while others starve. Those who do this ought to be ashamed when there are other humans starving to death in the environments where we drained the food supply to sustain those who eat for pleasure. Obese people shouldn't be condemned. Ignoring reason and eating for pleasure and not hunger should be condemned.

But denying oneself a pleasurable thing, when the pleasurable thing will physically, emotionally, or intellectually, harm another is rational. I'd like to believe that verbally declaring myself a Christian will make me go to heaven when I die, but since this belief is based on instinctual pleasure and not logic, espousing this belief will intellectually harm others who look to me as a role model. Saying you believe something you don't honestly believe is a lie. All lies are intellectually harmful to those who believe them. Birth control will curb reproduction, but it does nothing to prevent the strong desire for sex to dominate over reason, and does nothing to show that giving in to your instincts without using reason is something to be avoided. Birth control is comparable to anti-segregation laws. Anti-segregation does not outlaw racism; it attempts to prevent the bad things that occur because of racism. We still realize that racism is wrong and that racist people are mistaken, even though all races are legally equal. We do not yet realize as a society that entertaining lust is wrong and people who believe that sex ought to be enjoyed solely because of the pleasure it brings are as mistaken as those who eat for reasons other than hunger, and those who hate black people yet treat them with respect solely for the sake of obeying law.

Needless to say, I'm personally guilty of entertaining fear, lust, and gluttony. The difference is, I don't see these things as goals or as perfectly innocent activities that all should enjoy while they're alive. When I run away from a fear, or sexually pursue a woman just because she turns me on, or even eat a piece of cake just because it looks tasty, I don't attempt to rationalize this behavior by comparing myself to others in my shoes. I identify it for what it actually is: My animal instincts overriding my human sentience. I identify it as a mistake. The mistake ought to be condemned, and those who preach that mistakes are anything other than mistakes ought to be corrected. We shouldn't outlaw any of these things, but we should collectively identify them for what they truly are. Devolution. Ignoring the very advantage which solely seperates us from the instinct-ruled animals: Sapience.

Loren Pechtel

So sex should not happen when there's no possibility of pregnancy? Surgical sterilization is a sin? Sex with a post-menopausal woman is a sin?

Are you going to give up sex when your wife hits menopause?

Loren Pechtel

BAN DIET SOFT DRINKS!