Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ancientregime, Feb 2, 2009.
Incest is sexual relations with a family member.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I think your train of thought has merit, but with one caveat- incest is -not- defined as exclusive to the realm of sexual intercourse between family members. It is defined as sexual -activity- between family members. What constitutes a sexual activity is a truly messy discussion. I think the whole thing is a terrible waste of time personally, and would much rather focus on what is right and wrong. If your argument that only reproduction between family members should be considered -wrong-, I think you'd have a much more defendable argument. I don't think you'll win any prizes for logical reasoning in this society, but there have certainly been many societies where even reproduction by siblings, say, wasn't necessarily taboo, especially if it was royalty and even today, there are places where cousins can be legally married.
Wikipedia says sexual activities. Both terms seem to be rather vague.
This post is in response to the 1st part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
I have no idea what you're talking about, but sounds good Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I assume you say that because journalists should always refer to themselves as simply 'center' and therefore unbiased? Personally I wouldn't go for that; I can easily imagine that he could argue that center-right is the only unbiased view, while journalists who identify themselves as center left or just plain left could also argue that theirs it the only unbiased view. Personally, I think that wikipedia is quite wise in its introduction to the term:
A journalist (also called a newspaperman) is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues, and people while striving [emphasis mine] for viewpoints that aren't biased.
I've actually been having something of a disagreement with StrangerInAStrangeLa over a certain definition, laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
How does a rhetorical trick defy itself Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!? Anyway, when it comes to certain definitions, such as God, I can accept that others have different definitions of the term then I do; but no one is going to change -my- definition of God just because they don't like it.
This is precisely the disagreement that I've been having with Stranger- I have a feeling you may have been watching ;-).
Personally, I think he's provided enough evidence for it to have merit. However, I think that -everyone- is getting away from the -real- point; what is -moral-. I don't give a fig how one defines a sexual act; what I care about is what's right and wrong.
I haven't followed everything that he's said; I simply believe that he's trying to say something that may well be valid but is frequently using the wrong words.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This post is in response to the 2nd part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
What do you mean by specifically-framed, specficically-lit, specifically-composed?
I don't share your optimism.
I can certainly agree that that person is the only one who should receive censure. However, like I said, I don't share your optimism that that's the only person who would receive it.
Did you read my post right?
It's primarily a bonding hormone, not a sexual hormone.
Obviously, you bond with someone when you fuck them, or one hopes you do.
How do you get from there to 'All human interactions where oxytocin is produced, must be sexual?'
It is not negative subjectivity, it is a counterpoint to the trash you keep insisting is fact.
Let me reiterate a point which I think was made by James R.
You also produce adrenaline while having sex.
Does it follow from there that adrenaline = sex?
Hell, if you want to take that viewpoint, any of the neurotransmitters involved in being at all normal or energetic - adrenaline, noradrenaline, dopamine - are sexual, since you release them before or during sex.
According to that logic, every act would be sexual, except falling asleep, or having a seizure due to lack of all those neurotransmitters you had sucked out so you wouldn't be producing horrid sex chemicals all the time.
This post is in response to the 3rd part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
Sometimes painfully so Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
I wonder. Wikipedia begings its entry on pornography thusly:
Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
The above definition kind of makes me laugh a bit; it's akin to artistic movies that clearly have elements that could be seen as pornographic but hey, can't be pornographic because hey, look, artistic merit Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
However, the idea of a more wholesome porn isn't a bad one...
I know that I've definitely come under the sway that pornography is somehow 'bad'. Perhaps it's a relic of this whole original sin concept. In any case, I certainly believe that many times, sexual desire can be combined with love. I absolutely detest the way many try to isolate sexual desire from love. I generally dislike a fair amount of commercial porn precisely because it seems a lot of it tries to do this. I suppose you could say that I try to go for the more artistic stuff, hoping to find images that depict love as well as things that sexually arouse.
In other words, I think the definition of pornography should be 'something that sexually arouses'. The bad porn should be defined as something that may go through the sexual motions but lacks loving depictions, and the good porn would include those loving depictions, or wholesome porn.
This post is in response to the 4th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
It seems to me that the 'knowledge' in question is simply words; as in, that pleasure is sexual. I don't think we need to know certain words to describe things in order for them to be nice.
In my particular case, I don't think so. However, while I would argue that I know when I first masturbated, I certainly admit that it 'felt' nice to hold the item in question when going to sleep years before I actually set it in motion, if you will.
Tiassa, I would argue that you, like myself, suffer from what might be called the 'original sin' complex. When not taken from a legal/societal perspective, why should it matter whether an act was 'overtly sexual' or not?
This post is in response to the 5th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
James started that post by defining incest as follows:
Sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry (as between a parent and a child).
James' definition of incest would certainly make it easier to know what it is. However, many people don't go by it. I think my response to James' point in post#9 bears mentioning:
I personally think that wikipedia's definition of incest is more thorough:
Incest refers to any sexual activity between closely related persons (often within the immediate family) that is illegal or socially taboo. The type of sexual activity and the nature of the relationship between persons that constitutes a breach of law or social taboo vary with culture and jurisdiction. Some societies consider it to include only those who live in the same household, or who belong to the same clan or lineage; other societies consider it to include "blood relatives"; other societies further include those related by adoption or marriage.
Sexual activity, in turn, is very loosely defined and I could certainly see it including breastfeeding. This wouldn't even be a problem if our society wasn't so obsessed with the idea that children should have nothing to do with sexuality; unfortunately, this is not the case and so we frequently have to deny that this, that or the other is sexual when it may well actually have sexual components to it.
Bells brought up various points, but I didn't see that she knocked out the idea that breastfeeding could be seen as sexual.
Laladopi says that hugs release chemicals and that there's nothing wrong with hugs. I think most people would agree with that; however, when it comes to breastfeeding, I think that most people in society believe that after, say, 2, it's 'innapropriate'. I personally think that the fact that it's a genital area has a lot to do with it.
Those last 2 are countered by my #9.
Bells brings up a good point in #45 actually:
There are limits. I think if a parent is becoming aroused when bathing an infant.. in that the act of bathing said infant is the direct cause of the arousal and attraction to said infant, then that parent obviously has some issues and the child can be in danger if the parent acts out on those feelings.
In essence, she makes the argument that if a parent finds bathing their child arousing then the that parent 'obviously has some issues'. The idea being that parents (and probably anyone else) should find absolutely nothing arousing in their child and that a parent or anyone else that did has 'issues'. The only issues I think such a person has straight off the bat is with society, which has deemed that such arousal is wrong. It is for this reason that I think that ancientregime makes an excellent point- some mothers feel sexually aroused when breastfeeding; and why the heck not? Nipples are genitals and more sensitive then most skin, after all. You have tried to argue in the past that if the breasts aren't producing milk that it should therefore not be good to let a child suckle a breast; I think that's as close as you or anyone here has gotten to the fact that breastfeeding can easily be seen as sexual; the only thing that staves off society from labelling it as such is that breastmilk is generally the best food a baby can have.
The thing is, the more that I've thought about it, the more I think that ancientregime has a point; that is, that breastfeeding can be seen as sexual. Either that or virtually nothing but sexual intercourse can be seen that way. I think the best example remains that if breastfeeding is not seen as sexual, then neither should sucking a non lactating breast; something that I think most people would have a hard time doing. To me, it reminds me of the issue of pornography- the idea that it's something that is -only- for sexual excitation; that if it's combined with anything else, it can't be pornography. To me, this idea is rather silly, both with pornography and with breast sucking, but it's one that our society -can't- give up because of our original sin complex which dictates that since sexuality is seen as somewhat sinful, we can't allow anything sexual into the lives of young children.
I agree that ancientregime may have gotten side tracked by issues that aren't really all that relevant. I personally think that my angle is much more relevant (but then, ofcourse I would, since it's my thought processes I'm talking about here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). However, I think that while I may be controversial, I'm not as controversial as ancientregime, atleast in this area. While he may have left this thread, he would like to start a debate thread regarding pedophilia over in Formal Debates:
Proposal: Is Pedophilia Pseudoscience?
I had somewhat suspected from the beginning that this was what he was really getting at; that is, the restrictions of childhood sexuality and adult/minor interactions. It seems that he personally thinks the solution is to label a bunch of things as non sexual. To me, however, I find it more truthful to simply say that, actually, many things can indeed be sexual; the real issue is if that makes them wrong.
This post is in response to the 6th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
As I mentioned before, while I think his view concerning the importance of oxytocin is misplaced, I think there is certainly an argument to be made that religious right wing types would like to further police not only our actions but our very ways of thinking.
I'm actually not as confident on that count. Not that it particularly worries me, but between defense lawyers demanding exacting interpretations of law and principle and the ongoing societal shift toward a restricted but "fulfilling" definition of freedom, it does seem possible that we could, at some point, become so ridiculous. It's a long way off, and requires catastrophic precursors, but it's not entirely impossible.[/quote]
I can go for that; while I doubt it, I admit that it's possible Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. However, I think that the focus of the future has already made itself rather clear; on what we -think- not on what chemicals are released in our bodies. To a large extent, I think there's merit in this- I think that our thought processes have much more control over what we do then chemical reactions in our body. However, I know that the extent to which we right wing elements are already policing our lives in regards to sexuality is cause for concern. Have you read Harmful to Minors? It was a real eye opener for me anyway.
Perhaps. I remember an argument was made that minors shouldn't have sex before marriage because oxytocin would get them to bond even if they weren't compatible. As far as I know, however, it would still happen when they're older as well and you can certainly break up even if this is the case. When looking for something, I found an interesting article on oxytocin here:
This post is in response to the 7th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
I think what you're trying to buttress your argument that breastfeeding isn't sexual- that's it right? I simply don't buy it though. I can certainly agree that it's usually not -seen- as a sexual activity, so long as the milk is flowing, but that's about it. I contend that the problem here, however, is not whether it's sexual or not, but the fear our society has of engaging in anything that could be seen of as sexual with minors.
I agree Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Good stuff Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In other words, if it's labelled as sexual, then its sexual and therefore bad? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And who should get in trouble? The people who snapped the pics? The people who posted them to the forum in question? My vote is for neither.
An exploitative or sexual context- I believe you're blurring the lines between exploitation and sexual here and I think that is a very dangerous thing to do. I would argue that there is a -vast- gulf between sexual and exploitative and I find it sad that the 2 are so often confused. I also believe that pornography should be divided, atleast into 2 categories:
wholesome pornography and unwholesome pornography. I think we should work to curtail the unwholesome pornography, no matter the ages of the participants.
Lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. I don't know about that though; there's going to have to be some really serious changes in our society if we're to survive at all- we are living in a way that's simply not sustainable.
I can agree with that anyway Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
This post is in response to the 8th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
I'd like to think that in some ways, he's trying to say what I'm trying to say, but simply doesn't use the best approach to go about it.
Well, if he doesn't change his mind, it looks like he will no longer do so in this particular thread. However, I created a new one in response to him and he is trying to get a debate going regarding whether pedophilia is pseudoscience over in Formal Debates; again, I think he has his wording off, but I think James is trying to get him to clarify his position.
This post is in response to the 9th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
I certainly admit that ancientregime's posting style could use some polishing ;-).
Ofcourse, he never argued that there was; he said that -others- could make the claim Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. For now though, it seems to be relatively safe, although ofcourse there is the case where a mother was arrested because of a picture found wherein she was breastfeeding. I think it's these types of people that ancientregime had in mind.
Ofcourse. The worry is when people in positions of authority are the 'basket cases' in question, such as the Richardson police who arrested the mother in the article above.
This post is in response to the 10th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
What do you mean by the expectation of differentiation?
Cool Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think the real issue is, should it be illegal for consenting adults to engage in familial sexual practices? While I can certainly agree that -reproduction- should be controlled so as not to produce children with genetic difficulties, I see no harm with other sexual activities, when removed from societal and legal perspectives.
You're confusing me with this 'differentiation' term Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Holy crap, Scot.. lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
This post is in response to the 11th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
I agree. -However-, I think there's something to be said about breastfeeding being seen as -sexual-. And the older the person doing the sucking, the more prevalent this becomes:
Mother ordered to stop breastfeeding boy, eight
Honestly, I think that ancientregime is more interested in issues other then breastfeeding; I think he simply thought that it would be good to -start- with the issue of breastfeeding, but then got bogged down in it.
I would argue that it's being done because of some of the people in control of the the mainstream media; as to why they're doing it, perhaps they wish to undermine Obama's presidency.
Laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. What can I say, Tiassa brings up a lot of good points in a civilized manner- that's rather rare and I'm not going to pass many of them up; and ofcourse I have my own points too Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
This post is in response to the 12th and final part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.
What ludicrous injustice are you speaking of here?
I agree with the argument that more detailed laws are necessary. I think that part of the more detailed laws should differentiate between what I call wholesome pornography and unwholesome pornography. Personally, I think that wholesome pornography may not need to be barred at all, but I understand that our society is still very stuck in its original sin complex.
Laugh Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.
Sounds good Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If a woman becomes sexually aroused and masturbates when breastfeeding a baby or child she is a pedophile and should be arrested just like men who are pedophiles. Becoming sexually aroused to orgasm when in physical contact with a child no matter what kind of physical contact it is, is sexual contact with a child and pure pedophilia and the government should have it banned. If men were to become sexually aroused and masturbate by some kind of legal touch from a child, he would be arrested and labelled a pedophile and maby even murdered in jail, but women get away with being a pedophile
HOW CAN YOU SAY BREASTFEEDING IS NOT SEXUAL AND PEDOPHILIA WHEN A WOMAN ACHIEVES A FULL CLITORAL ERECTION WHICH IS IDENTICLE TO A PENIS BEING FULLY ERECTED AND BECOMES WET AND SEXUALLY AROUSED TO ORGASMS. OF COURSE THIS IS WOMEN HAVING SEX WITH A CHILD WHO FONDLES AND SUCKS ON THEIR TITS AND HARD NIPPLES, THUS THAT MAKES THESE WOMEN PEDOPHILES AND THE LAW SHOULD RECOGNISE THIS. What would the law do to a man who became sexually aroused to erections and orgasm if a child gave him a shoulder massage? He would be murdered in jail.
Separate names with a comma.