Let's have a calm, polite and substantial discussion about gender and sex

[Person Man]

I think this has taken an interesting turn. The problem is that appeals to ‘personal autonomy’ (which as a classical liberal I strongly support; the idea that it’s some exclusive quasi-libertarian thing makes me think you’ve all spent too much time on the internets ) is what has driven the move towards ‘permissiveness’, not the reappraisal of sexual acts within a moral framework. By permissiveness I mean a move away from the patriarchal and heteronormative view of morality (which granted the heterosexual male free reign in sexual acts; being able to define what is morally ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ concerning them and also being able to roundly ignore them). What I don’t mean by ‘permissiveness’ is over sexualisation. That has always manifested itself regardless of what moral and social norms are in place.

It is of no coincidence that the LGBT rights movement has manifested and sadly at times in the 20th Century, ebbed, with successive waves of feminism. Women have not attained the advances that they have on the basis of people determining they are ‘morally right’ as women, but on the basis of personal autonomy; in part being granted literal control over their own bodies with their own abilities as women being determined by their contributions rather than the limitations placed upon them a priori by men. Gays have not achieved the position in some parts of society that they currently hold because people have determined at first that being gay and committing the sexual acts associated with it is either moral or amoral (because a close examination may lead the heterosexual to find it difficult to disassociate heterosexual sexual norms, potential revulsion of the scatological etc from the homosexual physical and emotional experience) but because of the fact that someone being gay doesn’t affect them or doesn’t threaten them. That comes first (and I know from personal experience with people’s reactions to me) and then any moral re-appraisal comes second. I cannot consider that ‘cowardly’ but merely a stage in acceptance.

I'll agree with this. The point is not that anyone is saying "they're adults. They can do what they want". The point is that people at first realized that having a threesome with two of the sisters at 130 AM on Friday Night in the hot tub at Pike house  or having a jacked up dude take you home from Georgie's just isn't an necessarily an unbecoming activity such as drinking a couple of beers before driving to work because you are nervous about asking your partner for a raise or reporting on your taxes that you lost $1000 at the Hard Rock when you know that it was more like $400. That's phase one of acceptance. Phase two is just knowing that the little ones won't be picked on because they have two dads or won't not do well if they've been with several men/women by the end of HS or dozens of men or women by the end of college. So, I wouldn't say its a strict libertarian argument as in the argument  that " an eye for an eye" should be more correctly interpreted as "no more than an eye for an eye".

[Beet]

The issue is I don't see morality in any area as entirely personal or subjective and am really not willing to make an exception just for sex,

This seems strange. Surely you don't think the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream cannot be entirely personal and subjective, but is imbued with moral meaning?

[Person Man]

The issue is I don't see morality in any area as entirely personal or subjective and am really not willing to make an exception just for sex,

This seems strange. Surely you don't think the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream cannot be entirely personal and subjective, but is imbued with moral meaning?

Maybe people can "hate" ice cream?

[Kitteh]

I disagree that that is how the gay rights movement has made progress. Actually I think its the opposite: people coming to realize that gay equality does affect them, albeit indirectly. It's pretty generally acknowledged that the strongest force behind increasing acceptance of lgbt people has been greater visibility; enough people coming out that mainstream society begins to realize that lgbt equality isn't something limited to some fringes in San Francisco, that it affects their own friends, family, children, people in their community even in small towns and rural places, etc. By making the issue personal, rather than something not relevant to them directly, it becomes a lot harder to believe that being gay is sinful or whatever because that means looking people you know and like[d] in the face and calling them sinners. That doesn't really seem like an example of people learning to not care because it doesn't affect them.

Also by "libertarian" I didn't mean like affiliated with the Libertarian Party or that ideology, more of like a general term. Same way some people use "liberal" in that situation with a very different meaning from how its commonly used (esp in the US). Maybe "laissez-faire" would have been better? idk that general kinda thing, you get what I'm trying to say.

[Person Man]

I see what you are trying to say. More permissive sexual mores became acceptable as more people "that could be you" were into it. One could argue that's how marijuana is becoming more and more accepted while the debates around abortion and guns have and will be controversial for decades to come. In a way, both the dedemonization and humanization had to happen at the same time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The issue is I don't see morality in any area as entirely personal or subjective and am really not willing to make an exception just for sex,

This seems strange. Surely you don't think the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream cannot be entirely personal and subjective, but is imbued with moral meaning?

I...don't generally view choice of ice cream flavor as a moral category? What I meant is that if I do view something as a moral category I don't view that morality as entirely personal or subjective (also note that I'm trying to be assiduous in saying 'entirely')--so the difference between personal standards and broader norms that Franknburger was articulating is a bit harder for me to apply.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I...don't generally view choice of ice cream flavor as a moral category?

Then you aren't a real American, Nathan... if that is your real name (and it doesn't sound very American either, ifyouknowwhatimean).

[King]

I mean, penises certainly have their merits and uses. But the vagina is definitely my personal preference. 

[Beet]

Ah, thanks for the clarification Nathan.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sex is nice.

[Franknburger]

Nathan - I recognise that you are addressing morality from a specific - the writer's - perspective. This implies the possibility for indirect and nuanced statements. Still, I do not yet fully understand your point. Which ethical norms do you think should- or, to put it softer - could in certain cases supersede respect for another person's autonomy?

But probably I have also not made my perspective fully clear. I see three morale values being in play here: (respect for) autonomy, authenticity, and fairness. In other words: There is nothing wrong with having sex with a bunch of people, as long as this is o.k. for you, and for the people you are having sex with. As stated in my first post, I even go a bit further: In a certain phase of life, the early / mid-twenties, people often tend to be pre-occupied with sorting out their own issues and plans for life, and casual sex can actually be more healthy than focusing on a "permanent relation", which lacks base, namely a clear and shared direction for life.

But I also know "sand-box relations" (in fact, they rather start in high-school, but nevertheless) that are still intact after decades. Moreover, there is the typical German word creation of "Lebensabschnittspartnerschaft" (life stage partnership): You go together with a partner through a certain stage of life (usually (a) high school (b) the initial "wild" college years; (c) the more focused final college years; (d) first job(s); etc.) and switch to the next partner for the next phase. Some people choose one model, others another, and they are all morally acceptable, as long as they are generally o.k. for all partners (I say "generally", because things like changing from one partner to another always leave wounds, but that is another issue).

[Person Man]

Sex is nice.

Sex is nice.

Indeed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan - I recognise that you are addressing morality from a specific - the writer's - perspective. This implies the possibility for indirect and nuanced statements. Still, I do not yet fully understand your point. Which ethical norms do you think should- or, to put it softer - could in certain cases supersede respect for another person's autonomy?

But probably I have also not made my perspective fully clear. I see three morale values being in play here: (respect for) autonomy, authenticity, and fairness. In other words: There is nothing wrong with having sex with a bunch of people, as long as this is o.k. for you, and for the people you are having sex with. As stated in my first post, I even go a bit further: In a certain phase of life, the early / mid-twenties, people often tend to be pre-occupied with sorting out their own issues and plans for life, and casual sex can actually be more healthy than focusing on a "permanent relation", which lacks base, namely a clear and shared direction for life.

But I also know "sand-box relations" (in fact, they rather start in high-school, but nevertheless) that are still intact after decades. Moreover, there is the typical German word creation of "Lebensabschnittspartnerschaft" (life stage partnership): You go together with a partner through a certain stage of life (usually (a) high school (b) the initial "wild" college years; (c) the more focused final college years; (d) first job(s); etc.) and switch to the next partner for the next phase. Some people choose one model, others another, and they are all morally acceptable, as long as they are generally o.k. for all partners (I say "generally", because things like changing from one partner to another always leave wounds, but that is another issue).

My concern for and belief in monogamy is more of an outgrowth of my concern for and belief in loyalty and constancy in one's personal relationships than an independently derived value, although it's one I often find myself defending in a fairly specific manner because of the circles in which I move (the Atlas Forum, for example) and their general liberalism about such things. I realize that it's technically possible to be loyal and constant without being monogamous but I would call monogamy a synecdoche or a sign; a discipline--for those for whom it is a discipline or difficult--to which one subjects oneself in order to communicate and reinforce the extent to which and way in which one is devoted to that particular person. My viewing non-monogamous sexuality negatively takes the form of viewing it as a falling-short from that rather than something that actively makes things worse unless there's dishonesty or coercion involved, but what can I say, I have high standards. There's also, obviously, a religious angle for me (some of the turns of phrase I've used so far in this paragraphs are modifications for secular purposes of theological terms), but that's my secular presentation of the argument. I understand it's probably not all that convincing as a moral argument, especially since I know that the argument from autonomy that it would have to outweigh is a very powerful and deeply subscribed-to one for a lot of people, but my hope is that it's coherent enough as an aesthetic concept (I don't view aesthetics and ethics as entirely separate, though of course they're not exactly the same either) to make clear why this is something that I'm interested in putting forward in my writing.

Does that make some degree of sense?

Thank you for making your perspective clearer as well!

Sex is nice.

You know, I can think of a lot of positive adjectives that could be appended to sex, but somehow 'nice' just doesn't really seem to apply.

I...don't generally view choice of ice cream flavor as a moral category?

Then you aren't a real American, Nathan... if that is your real name (and it doesn't sound very American either, ifyouknowwhatimean).

Well of course the only flavor for Real Americans is cookie dough.

[Kitteh]

I...don't generally view choice of ice cream flavor as a moral category?

Then you aren't a real American, Nathan... if that is your real name (and it doesn't sound very American either, ifyouknowwhatimean).

Well of course the only flavor for Real Americans is cookie dough.

I hope we can all agree on this.

[Link]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people.

Two things... 1) People are busy.  If something doesn't affect me I don't give it any more thought.  We don't have time to ruminate over every single thing that doesn't affect us.

2) Sleeping with a bunch of people was scientifically proven to be a bad idea decades ago.  Where are people taking sex ed?!

[Kitteh]

yeah, I don't like when leftist people resort to this libertarianish argument of personal autonomy. like when people argue against anti-gay social conservatives with "how does someone being gay affect you?". you shouldn't support lgbt equality because you "don't mind people being gay, it doesn't affect me". you should support it because there is nothing morally wrong with being queer, or, in this case, nothing morally wrong with choosing to have sex with a bunch of people.

Two things... 1) People are busy.  If something doesn't affect me I don't give it any more thought.  We don't have time to ruminate over every single thing that doesn't affect us.

People evidently do pay some attention to this issue, it seems.

2) Sleeping with a bunch of people was scientifically proven to be a bad idea decades ago.  Where are people taking sex ed?!

Somewhere that doesn't greatly overhype the dangers of pregnancy and STDs from safe sex to scare kids into abstinence.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I like vaginas.

You monster.

Sex is nice.

You know, I can think of a lot of positive adjectives that could be appended to sex, but somehow 'nice' just doesn't really seem to apply.

Fair enough. This is, of course, your personal opinion and you are free to have it and live your life by it without the interference of others.

[King]

So I guess what you guys are saying is, even though I may like vaginas personally, my personal preferences aren't universal and therefore we should not legislate based on them.

Very interesting, thank you.

[traininthedistance]

This comic has been making the rounds among my friends; seems apropos for this thread.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This comic has been making the rounds among my friends; seems apropos for this thread.

Excellent point. Feminism is basically about stopping to tell women how they should or shouldn't act.

(and while, as I said, there are a few social injunctions on men as well - let's face it, they aren't nearly as significant in their scope and oppressive in their nature)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Feminism means nothing and everything. It means whatever a feminist wants it to mean.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Sex is nice.

You know, I can think of a lot of positive adjectives that could be appended to sex, but somehow 'nice' just doesn't really seem to apply.

Hm, what are those terms?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Feminism means nothing and everything. It means whatever a feminist wants it to mean.

You have posted a few times in this thread but I'm still not sure what the essence of your critique is. I apologize for not having found the time to address your longer post, though I fully agree with BK's remarks, which you have quite unfairly dismissed.

But seriously, why the animosity against feminism? What is it of its ideology or agenda which you actually don't embrace? It's easy to attack the label and talk about "egalitarianism" instead, but these are little battles over semantics. Feminism is, in fact, a movement dedicated to advance gender equality. It actually already encompasses much of the "critiques" directed toward it "men's rights" advocates (opposing gendered conscription or biases in dealing with divorce cases, for example). Now, the point is that, in 95% of cases, patriarchy works to the benefits of men and to the disadvantages of women. Would you deny this? IMO, this provides a fairly logical reason why the movement would call itself feminist.

[traininthedistance]

Feminism means nothing and everything. It means whatever a feminist wants it to mean.

It certainly doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[barfbag]

Feminism means nothing and everything. It means whatever a feminist wants it to mean.

You have posted a few times in this thread but I'm still not sure what the essence of your critique is. I apologize for not having found the time to address your longer post, though I fully agree with BK's remarks, which you have quite unfairly dismissed.

But seriously, why the animosity against feminism? What is it of its ideology or agenda which you actually don't embrace? It's easy to attack the label and talk about "egalitarianism" instead, but these are little battles over semantics. Feminism is, in fact, a movement dedicated to advance gender equality. It actually already encompasses much of the "critiques" directed toward it "men's rights" advocates (opposing gendered conscription or biases in dealing with divorce cases, for example). Now, the point is that, in 95% of cases, patriarchy works to the benefits of men and to the disadvantages of women. Would you deny this? IMO, this provides a fairly logical reason why the movement would call itself feminist.

Feminism in regards to 21st century politics really doesn't have an exact definition. However, I happen to be a feminist theologian regarding the New Testament and early Christianity. There have been a lot of negative stereotypes about women in the church going back to the earliest sects of Christianity. Women were more accepted among those who became labeled as Gnostics who eventually were labeled as heretics.