Consensual sex:

[cousinbasil]

But in a relative, moral sense, though. Is it not somehow "worse" to dose an unwilling - and maybe even unwitting - third party than to dose oneself?

It is even more immoral to enjoy the pleasures of sex under the pretense of "consent." Either both rape and so-called consensual sex are equally wrong, or they are both equally valid. It depends on whether you are being rational or irrational.

First you say one is more immoral than the other, then you say they are equally wrong (if one is rational.) This sounds like an emotional issue with you, rather than a philosophical stance. You are not responding to my perfectly reasonable questions, such as how one proposes to teach your "rational" truths to children? Would I want a child of mine - or any child - to believe rape and consensual sex are either both equally morally wrong, or even worse (if one is irrational) both equally valid?

You'll note that out of deference, I am presenting my valid objections to your assertions without ever mentioning love. I am guessing it makes you squeamish, and it is really not necessary to my argument, except to point out love often accompanies consensual sex and seldom if ever accompanies rape.

[jupiviv]

First you say one is more immoral than the other, then you say they are equally wrong (if one is rational.

Sorry, I meant equally immoral.

You are not responding to my perfectly reasonable questions, such as how one proposes to teach your "rational" truths to children?

You can't force anyone to know truths. You can only tell them the truth in order to help them find out the truth for themselves. By the way, how is this even relevant to this discussion?

My assessment of consensual sex may seem harsh to you, but you simply can't have your cake and eat it too.

[cousinbasil]

You can't force anyone to know truths. You can only tell them the truth in order to help them find out the truth for themselves. By the way, how is this even relevant to this discussion?

By extrapolation. If everyone were 100% rational, 100% of the time - by your version of the truth - the human race would end in a single generation. If I were to concede this to be a desirable goal, I might agree with you.

My assessment of consensual sex may seem harsh to you, but you simply can't have your cake and eat it too.

And here I thought being taught by nuns much of my early life stunted me. Of course you can have your cake and eat it too---people do it all the time. They swill on it and go out and get more of it, like the manna from heaven it is.

[jupiviv]

By the way, how is this even relevant to this discussion?

By extrapolation.

You haven't even understood my truth, so how can you extrapolate anything from it?

If everyone were 100% rational, 100% of the time - by your version of the truth - the human race would end in a single generation. If I were to concede this to be a desirable goal, I might agree with you.

If that ever happened, and this generation of enlightened sages found absolutely no way of surviving(even though the chances are that they would), then I would say the human race had the best ending it could ever have. From the way we are going now, we are headed for the worst ending we could ever have. But however we may end, there is no doubt about the fact that we will in fact end someday.

Of course you can have your cake and eat it too---people do it all the time. They swill on it and go out and get more of it, like the manna from heaven it is.

You know, when I said "cake", I actually meant "ass," and when I said "your", I meant "my."

:-)

[mental vagrant]

jupiviv - You mean to analogue your anus to your words?

[cousinbasil]

You haven't even understood my truth, so how can you extrapolate anything from it?

I know this is how you think, jupiviv. If I understood your truth, I would necessarily agree. Hate to upset this little tautology, but I understand you perfectly well. Because I do not know you personally, I will have to assume your actions (or lack thereof) are consistent with your views. That is wonderful, I am quite sure. But on my planet, I believe the term "compassion" is reserved for those who are aware that we are all "bozos on this bus" and that absolute truths are fine in a perfect world, which this is not.

You may deny or have total control over your biological urges, but I guarantee you the world at large does not, never has, and never will. The world could no more abstain from sex en masse than you as an individual organism can hold your breath until you die.

If enlightenment means complete abstention from reproductive behavior (aka the old "in-out") then only those genetically predisposed not to become enlightened will reproduce, thereby lowering the overall quality of the common gene pool.

You are being selfish, jup, you and every other enlightened being who refrains from inseminating as many concupiscent young girls as possible.

[jupiviv]

Hate to upset this little tautology, but I understand you perfectly well.

No you don't. If you did then you wouldn't be bringing children, love, my niece and compassion into a discussion about whether consensual sex is possible.

If enlightenment means complete abstention from reproductive behavior

See, this is another example of you not understanding what I am saying. I never said that any act of reproduction or sex is inherently irrational, only that it is irrational amongst human beings. The reason is that we have evolved to breed and not be conscious/rational.

You may deny or have total control over your biological urges, but I guarantee you the world at large does not, never has, and never will.

I don't deny my biological urges, I only deny them any value apart from the part they play in preserving my mind. If the world doesn't do the same, it's the world's loss.

The world could no more abstain from sex en masse than you as an individual organism can hold your breath until you die.

Not having sex won't kill you, I promise!

If enlightenment means complete abstention from reproductive behavior (aka the old "in-out") then only those genetically predisposed not to become enlightened will reproduce, thereby lowering the overall quality of the common gene pool.

The current gene pool is the *result* of people who weren't genetically predisposed to becoming enlightened. The people who do end up being enlightened are extremely rare - freaks of nature, if you will - and their forefathers are as ignorant as anyone else, in spite of sharing the same genes with these enlightened ones.

You are being selfish, jup, you and every other enlightened being who refrains from inseminating as many concupiscent young girls as possible.

Are you enlightened? If not, then why are you judging the actions of an enlightened man?

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: Hate to upset this little tautology, but I understand you perfectly well.
jupiviv: No you don't. If you did then you wouldn't be bringing children, love, my niece and compassion into a discussion about whether consensual sex is possible.

You are simply illustrating the very tautology I am speaking of, which again is this:

If I understood your truth, I would necessarily agree.

I am bringing those things into the discussion fully aware that you don't think they belong. I mentioned them because I knew you would have such a reaction.

The fact is they very much belong, because you are asserting consensual sex is not possible because the activity itself is irrational. I am trying to point out why this position is untenable. That is, I do not agree with it - which does not mean I do not understand it.

Here is the logic, very simply. If consensual sex is not possible, then non consensual sex cannot be possible. However, if non-consensual sex is possible, it then follows that consensual sex must be possible. Therefore, I am trying to focus your attention on acts of non-consensual sex. How old is that niece again?

Right now in the US there is a flap at Penn State University about a former assistant football coach under the revered Joe Paterno who repeatedly dragged young boys into the locker-room shower and forced them to have sex. He was arrested after years of this behavior and more years of investigation. Now I ask you: on what basis has he been arrested? Or better yet, perhaps you can tell me if you think he should have been arrested at all. Or just in general - should society ever judge the sexual activity of an individual? If so, on what possible grounds?

If I can give one counterexample to your assertion, I believe my point has been made.

I never said that any act of reproduction or sex is inherently irrational, only that it is irrational amongst human beings. The reason is that we have evolved to breed and not be conscious/rational.

If this is an example of your clarifying your position for me, you could have done a better job. If it is irrational amongst human beings, then it must be inherently irrational, since it would also be presumably irrational among any other species. Or are you saying that because only humans can be rational, then among only humans would the sex act be irrational? I'd agree with that. But I am not quarreling about whether sexual activity is rational or not!

cousinbasil: The world could no more abstain from sex en masse than you as an individual organism can hold your breath until you die.
jupiviv:Not having sex won't kill you, I promise!

My point was that every species is hard-wired to have sex in order for for its survival to be ensured, the way an individual is hard-wired to breathe. As a whole, it would be impossible for the human race to utterly forgo reproduction.

And I know not having sex won't kill me - otherwise I have used up all nine lives already! But doesn't it necessarily follow that if you can choose not to have sex, then you can choose to have sex?

Are you enlightened? If not, then why are you judging the actions of an enlightened man?

I see my attempt at humor falls flat once again...

[cousinbasil]

If not, then why are you judging the actions of an enlightened man?

But I see you are as funny as ever!!!

[jupiviv]

I am bringing those things into the discussion fully aware that you don't think they belong. I mentioned them because I knew you would have such a reaction.

I'm trying to keep the discussion tight. I'm not saying that you absolutely cannot connect love etc. to consensual sex, but that they are irrelevant given that I'm questioning the logical tenability of the idea of consensual sex.

If consensual sex is not possible, then non consensual sex cannot be possible.

I said in the OP that even non-consensual sex is not possible:

By the way, the idea of forced sex, or rape, is also wrong for the the same reason as consensual sex. It is impossible to consciously decide to force someone into having sex with oneself.

Basically, neither consensual sex nor rape exists, for the same reason that neither a square circle nor a square rectangle exists.

About my niece - I would equally disapprove of both her rape and her marriage, if any/both of them occurred.

If it is irrational amongst human beings, then it must be inherently irrational, since it would also be presumably irrational among any other species.

Nothing is inherently irrational or rational. There may be rational organisms somewhere in the universe who have a similar reproductive mechanism to ours, but who don't also lose their minds in the process.

My point was that every species is hard-wired to have sex in order for for its survival to be ensured

Well, obviously that doesn't work very well, because 99% of the earth's species have gone extinct!

Anyways, if you can *understand* that something is hard-wired, then it means you are already free from that hard-wiring to the extent you understand it.

And I know not having sex won't kill me - otherwise I have used up all nine lives already! But doesn't it necessarily follow that if you can choose not to have sex, then you can choose to have sex?

You are ignoring my basic axiom here, which is that you don't really have a choice in being either rational or irrational. Either you are rational, and will therefore act rationally, or you are irrational and will act irrationally.

[cousinbasil]

By the way, the idea of forced sex, or rape, is also wrong for the the same reason as consensual sex. It is impossible to consciously decide to force someone into having sex with oneself.

I was not talking about oneself. This is what I think you are either not getting or avoiding in what I am trying to focus on. For let's say a person irrationally forces another to have sex, as you say would be the case in a rape. What about that other person? What if that other person is completely rational and would never have had sex if not forced? For this person, the idea of consent means a great deal, wouldn't you say?

About my niece - I would equally disapprove of both her rape and her marriage, if any/both of them occurred.

In other words, if rape is a possible classification of a sexual act, then it should be possible to classify other sexual acts as not being rape. How would you characterize the difference? Presumably you would also equally disapprove if your niece were to engage in this other type as well - the type what most people would call "consensual."

[jupiviv]

What about that other person? What if that other person is completely rational and would never have had sex if not forced? For this person, the idea of consent means a great deal, wouldn't you say?

If the other person were rational, then he would equally disapprove of what you are calling "consensual" sex, since it would be irrational. If he gets raped then that's just bad luck, but if he is rational enough then that won't affect his mind to any significant degree. Of course, he may get killed if it's a particularly violent act of rape. On the other hand, he may fall in love with a woman and marry her, in which case he would lose his rational mind almost completely.

In other words, if rape is a possible classification of a sexual act, then it should be possible to classify other sexual acts as not being rape. How would you characterize the difference?

I would say the difference between consensual sex and rape is pleasure and pain, i.e, the degree of resistance between the man and the woman. Typically, this is very unstable and will vary according to various factors. This famous duet from the opera Don Giovanni demonstrates it pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbXbFq_U ... re=related

Or if you prefer the muppet version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-5lBpkE ... re=related

[cousinbasil]

Thanks, I do prefer Muppet's whenever possible.

Of course, there is rape and there is "rape rape" as Whoopi Goldberg made the distinction on "The View." I never believed the statistic many feminists hold so dear that one out of every three women is raped in her lifetime. Apparently many women don't buy it either. But I submit that "rape rape" does happen and that it neither rises to the level of opera nor would it be made into a Muppet feature, except maybe in a Meet the Feebles* sequel.

It hardly bolsters your main axiom to bring up the murky definition of what a rape actually is. Obviously, since I am male, I am going to agree the term is bandied about and rape itself is treated irrationally. For example, it is okay for a rape "victim" to have her name withheld from the media and the alleged perpetrator to have not only his name and picture but his address plastered everywhere before a trial is even scheduled. You are appealing to the irrational manner society treats rape rather than demonstrating it logically cannot exist in the sense of your axiom that a rational person cannot consent to an irrational act. You were objecting to the term "consensual" when applied to sex. No need to muddy the waters if your point is clear on its own merits. That you have chosen to make things murky shows me you are conceding my point. My point is simple: if a rational person person can be forced into sexual activity without losing his or her rationality at any time, then that would be non-consensual sex. Therefore, if non consensual sex can exist, then so can consensual sex.

I am grateful that you have at least refrained from claiming that rape is not a sexual act, as so many feminists do. The party line is something like it is an act of violence, not passion, not sex. It may not be passion, and it may be violence, but it is certainly sex.

Also, jup, you have not responded to a few particulars I raised, no doubt thinking them extraneous. I cited the recent Penn State brouhaha which has become a lingering national story in the US. There is no need to fabricate instances of non consensual sex since the media - and public taste - is salacious enough. I am reminded of one story where a man kept a woman drugged and imprisoned for days of non consensual sex, then cut off her arms and legs and left her in a trash can to die. Well, he should have done a little more cutting, since she was found. She survived, and went on to "finger" him (no jokes, please). I find it rather easy to believe she didn't consent to much of this. I am sure you have heard of real-life instances that logically make your basic axiom a bit less axiomatic.

*An early Peter Jackson masterpiece of dark humor, two thumbs up

[cousinbasil]

I would say the difference between consensual sex and rape is pleasure and pain,

Hey, this almost slipped right by me! Aren't you conceding that consensual sex can exist by making this distinction?

[cousinbasil]

Basically, neither consensual sex nor rape exists, for the same reason that neither a square circle nor a square rectangle exists.

Every square is a rectangle; I know you know this and you were just getting carried away.

[Blair]

Sex is for morons.

[Blair]

Sex is by definition, unconscious.

A pressing unity of mitochondria.

The mind can eclipse this, can be greater than a bunch of bacterial lego blocks.

[ForbidenRea]

I rub onto a domino. It helps....