Consensual sex:

[jupiviv]

I've been thinking about the idea of consensual sex, and it doesn't make any sense to me. If consent is defined as our approval of something, then it must involve consciousness/rationality. Now, the act of sex is irrational, so how can anyone, being rational, approve of something which is irrational? Do we ever seek the consent of a cigarette(an irrational object) before we smoke it to satisfy our irrational addiction to cigarettes? Has any man, while having an orgasm, remembered that the orgasm is consensual?

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.

[Kunga]

Jupiviv...Jupiviv....Jupiviv.....why on Earth do you have a pee-pee ? Just to pee ????
Evolution is rational....no ? Then why did penises & vaginas evolve ?

Vegetables & fruits even procreate.

[jupiviv]

When plants procreate they don't ask for each other's consent do they? They just "do it". That's basically my point - the idea of consensual sex is nonsensical, because consent and sex are simply two completely different things.

[Talking Ass]

Jupe, the Talking Ass can help you with this question. As a matter of fact he 'solved' it within 3 seconds of reading it. Child's play.

Boy: I want to fuck you.
Girl: Ewwww. That's crazy, and messy.
Boy: Still, I want to fuck you. Bad.
Girl: Well, okay.

And the walls tremble with their passion! The girl's screams erupt into the night. She goes comletely cock-crazy (as is woman's wont). The boy also goes mad under the spell of aromatic fluids.

Consensual sex.

[Kunga]

Human society has norms. Being consensual to having sex is the norm.
Life evolved because it's sexy.
The Universe is One big bang !

(I wrote this before I read Alex's reply :) )


Jup, Not all humans think it's irrational to have sex. Most would think you are irrational to think it's irrational.
It's the norm here in the Universe.
Overrated.

[cousinbasil]

Boy: I want to fuck you.
Girl: Ewwww. That's crazy, and messy.
Boy: Still, I want to fuck you. Bad.
Girl: Well, okay.
Afterwards...
Girl: That's it? It was over in two seconds!
Boy: I didn't say I wanted to fuck you good...

[jupiviv]

Human society has norms. Being consensual to having sex is the norm.

Yes, that's why the idea is nonsense, as I say.

[Talking Ass]

Jupe, why did you incarnate in this meaty planet where ovum & sperm rule? Did yout parents fuck their brains out to have you? (Or is there something I don't know about you?)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If consent is defined as our approval of something, then it must involve consciousness/rationality.

Only when you'd define approval or will first as something inherently rational, which will cause areola shaped reasoning. But any state of approval or acceptance might be caused by a variety of things. Rationality is only one of them. In the end it's foremost a legal term. And the law in most cases does not care how one arrived at some mental state, from which motives it might be derived or how consistent it might be. It only concerns itself with evidence of consent or non-consent in a more phenomenological sense. Like "it looks like you don't want this" is taken as "you don't want this" as a conscious decicion. Most things in life cannot be caught with this simple divide though. This is why it's so hard at times to make proper judgements at all.

[Kunga]

Obviously, when you've reached the point in life when you see having sex as the cause of life...
and life is the cause of suffering...you see how having consensual sex is only perpetuating suffering.

But if you were a Bodhisattva (or just a very compassionate person)...and having sex with someone would bring less suffering in their life (because they think
they love you), it would bring pleasure to them, and giving pleasure to someone is a virtue in some circles of philosophical ideals (The Vajrayana.)

[Kunga]

Male Sage : Hey Babe !
Female Sage : Fuck Off !
Male Sage : :(
Female Sage : :)

Later that evening.....they meet again at the local pub.....

Male Sage : Well...HELLO Dolly !
Female sage: :)
Male Sage : Lets go somewhere......more romantic.....
Female Sage: :)
Male sage: You are so beautiful....
Female sage: :)

They finally get to a secluded spot under the moonlight.....the female sage takes off her tight black spandex dress...the male sage removes his tight jeans....they cuddle inside a blanket of grass...and fall asleep holding each other tenderly......under the cherry moon.............

In the morning... two frogs hop into a pond......SPLASH !

Oy, Vey !

[jupiviv]

Only when you'd define approval or will first as something inherently rational

Well, you do need consciousness to approve or disapprove of anything. As I see it, approval means that you are aware that something has value, and disapproval means that you don't.

In the end it's foremost a legal term. And the law in most cases does not care how one arrived at some mental state, from which motives it might be derived or how consistent it might be.

The law is made and practiced by deluded people, so you shouldn't place your trust on legal definitions.

[eyekwah]

I think it all hinges on your definition of "rational." It's rational from an evolutionary standpoint since you're spreading your seed to future generations. It's rational from an egotistical standpoint since you gain pleasure from your actions. It's consensual because both parties will it.

If by irrational you mean that a desire to do something without a reason, that isn't the case since there is a reason, even if one is not consciously thought up for the same reason that eating is rational because one needs sustainance to survive. "Irrational" in this context is "unconscient", meaning it's done without thinking. That doesn't mean a reason does not exist, therefore it isn't irrational.

[Bobo]

Do we ever seek the consent of a cigarette(an irrational object)

Yes we do (seek the consent), as the cigarette may have a lethal dose of nicotine in it. It may not intentionally kill you, but it can violate your consent nonetheless.

before we smoke it to satisfy our irrational addiction to cigarettes?

By what you are saying we can't satisfy irrationals.

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

Let's say someone butt sex you, what would you call that?

[cousinbasil]

I've been thinking about the idea of consensual sex, and it doesn't make any sense to me. If consent is defined as our approval of something, then it must involve consciousness/rationality. Now, the act of sex is irrational, so how can anyone, being rational, approve of something which is irrational?

Consensual means mutual decisions are involved. It has nothing to do with the act. I think not enough rationality goes into the decision whether or not sex should occur, in most cases. I certainly don't agree that no rationality can go into such decisions.

Isn't taking a shit just as irrational, by your definition? Yet most people seem to decide not to go in their clothes and wait until there's a commode available.

Jup, one's whole life centers around imposing order on one's animal nature - surely this counts as some sort of rational activity.

[Gurrb]

based on your logic, why would we maintain existence? why not admit defeat to death and save the energy and effort? humans work on the pursuit of pleasure and happiness. sex fulfills this. why wouldn't it be rational? if we were to talk about what is rational, we'd start an endless debate because the basic definition of the word 'rational' has many philosophical aspects to its meaning.

we are rational beings (well, few of us are, but the idea is there), but we are not asexual.

[jupiviv]

Consensual means mutual decisions are involved. It has nothing to do with the act.

It most definitely does. If I consent to do something then it must be assumed that I consider it to be a rational thing to do.

I think not enough rationality goes into the decision whether or not sex should occur, in most cases.

Well, there is some rationality involved without a question, but it's very far from being "enough", at least in my eyes. If there were enough rationality involved then people would have sex a lot less frequently, and we'd probably have come up with a way to reproduce without having sex, or maybe even conscious AI to replace us on this planet.

Examples of the amount of rationality that goes into such things can be found right here on this thread. It's so nominal that it may as well be absent.

Isn't taking a shit just as irrational, by your definition? Yet most people seem to decide not to go in their clothes and wait until there's a commode available.

If I don't take a shit for a long time, I'd probably die, so it is rational to do it. A person who shits for his own amusement however isn't being rational. For example, sometimes you feel incredibly relieved and happy after having taken a massive shit which you've held off for a while - that feeling is irrational.

On the other hand, if I don't have sex, I won't die.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Well, you do need consciousness to approve or disapprove of anything. As I see it, approval means that you are aware that something has value, and disapproval means that you don't.

In many cases it's just a feeling of approval or perhaps just a sense of need or dislike. It doesn't have to be reasoned through. People wouldn't know how generally.

you shouldn't place your trust on legal definitions.

Your trust doesn't matter at all when the police comes for you after you have activily disagreed with the legal definition of consent in a certain social setting.

If I don't take a shit for a long time, I'd probably die

It sounds like you never really tried. You'd soon find out you don't have that much control at all. :)

[cousinbasil]

On the other hand, if I don't have sex, I won't die.

But if nobody did, the species would die.

What you are using for definitions of consent and rational are misleading you in this case. Your argument is that other animals do not consent to have sex and their species manage to survive.

But mine is that other animals cannot consent to having sex - or to anything else. As humans, we are able to a greater or lesser degree to consider consequences of our actions, whether those actions consist of rational behavior or not. There's where the notion of consent enters, and I see no logical inconsistency about it.

For example, is exercising in a gym rational behavior? Most people will not die if they don't consent to do it - at least not immediately and directly as a result of not doing it. But one decides the results of regular exercise are desirable enough to consent to establishing some type of regimen. The exercise itself is of the physical body, not of one's higher faculties.

Likewise, humans have the capacity to assess the possible consequences of having sex, such as getting an STD or producing children. They then consent (or not) to this behavior, which you describe as "irrational." It is my contention, as I said earlier, that not enough rational consideration goes into this "consent." People know it it going to feel good, so they fail to do their due diligence beforehand. You might even say that people get married to avoid having to do this due diligence each and every time they fuck: they vet their partner's disease-free status and they pool finances to cope with any possible resulting procreation. This is why extra-marital affairs really hurt the marriage, because now the cheated-on partner has to start thinking about things all over again.

You have a need for insights, jup, and you probably have more than your share of them. But this is not one of them. One must be more vigilant, more rational, more discerning prior to engaging in irrational behavior for the very reason that during such behavior those rational capacities are temporarily abandoned.

[cousinbasil]

jupiviv: If I don't take a shit for a long time, I'd probably die

Diebert: It sounds like you never really tried. You'd soon find out you don't have that much control at all. :)

You heard it first here, folks. Diebert, I always said you were anal-retentive...

[Tomas]

jupiviv: If I don't take a shit for a long time, I'd probably die

Diebert: It sounds like you never really tried. You'd soon find out you don't have that much control at all. :)

You heard it first here, folks. Diebert, I always said you were anal-retentive...

Huh. So did Brokenhead.

[cousinbasil]

Rowdy Roddy Piper pipes up again, playing the same old tune...

[Talking Ass]

[This may or not be relevant to Tomas's 'case' but just today I got an email from 'brokenhead'. He asked me how things were here at GF. I have yet to reply. Tomas, should I send your regards?]

[jupiviv]

Well, you do need consciousness to approve or disapprove of anything. As I see it, approval means that you are aware that something has value, and disapproval means that you don't.

In many cases it's just a feeling of approval or perhaps just a sense of need or dislike. It doesn't have to be reasoned through. People wouldn't know how generally.

That's not how I define it.

[jupiviv]

On the other hand, if I don't have sex, I won't die.

But if nobody did, the species would die.

All species will eventually die, as will everything else that comes into existence. What matters is whether the species has served the purpose of truth or not.

As humans, we are able to a greater or lesser degree to consider consequences of our actions, whether those actions consist of rational behavior or not.

If the consequences of our actions aren't rational, then we haven't considered them at all. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

If people did consider the consequences of having sex, then we wouldn't have a population of 7 billion human beings today. People wouldn't kill others, wouldn't pollute the very planet they inhabit for the sake of their families. They wouldn't deprive others of their own wealth because they want their own children to survive. They wouldn't create clubs to abuse and degrade each other for the sake of pleasure. There wouldn't be any single mothers who hang around in bars as "cougars" while their sons play call of duty or sell drugs on street corners, or teenage girls getting knocked up by psychopaths, or STD-ridden 20-something sluts ruining their lives in the company of PUA douchebags. There wouldn't be domestic violence, child abuse, rape....and Lady Gaga. And so on.