Sex Industry

March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm (ethics, sex, sociology)


It has been said that prostitution is the second oldest profession (Motherhood the oldest).

It has also been said that a very large proportion (Lies, damn lies and statistics and all that, so I shall omit the statistics quoted) of internet traffic/usage is porn related.

I wonder if society did not prohibit sex between sexually mature individuals (whatever age) (and frown upon exposure of the flesh in a manner that could cause arousal) by law or religious doctrine would people (admittedly mostly men) become so obsessed with the aesthetic side of sexual attraction for example?

I also wonder if prostitutes are switched off psychologically or living with some kind of denial when going about their business.

Advertisements

Permalink 58 Comments

Sexual promiscuity and double standard

March 21, 2007 at 2:24 pm (ethics, feminism, sex)

It’s quite common for society to view women who sleep around less favourably than men who sleep around. It might even be taken to the extreme where the promiscuous woman is frowned upon and the promiscuous man is cheered.

Even as I write this, I feel compelled to say that I am not promiscuous. So even I do not wish to be judged this way.

I recently read The Double Standard by Donald Symons in which he discusses why this is the case:

The male desire for sexual variety may also pay off reproductively if it results in obtaining additional wives, especially young wives, and the strength of the sexual desire for young women may vary with male age. It seems likely that throughout human history in early middle age married men often became able to obtain and to support an additional wife or wives, and hence the sexual desire for young women would be especially adaptive at this age.

As a man never can be certain of paternity, a cuckold risks investing in the offspring of, and having his wife’s reproductive efforts tied up by, a reproductive competitor; as a woman always is certain of maternity, and as her husband’s adultery does not diminish his capacity to inseminate her, a wife may risk little if her husband engages in extramarital sex.

From an evolutionary perspective, however, a wife’s most important sexual attribute by far is fidelity, and this male tendency is less paradoxical

What does everyone else think?

Permalink 72 Comments

To my fans II

March 7, 2007 at 8:50 pm (bizzare, ethics, feminism, general philosophy, Interzis minorilor, literature, philosophy of the arts, politics/law/economy, Rasfrangeri, Raspunsuri, sex, Uncategorized)

I’m not gonna say this twice. This is a blog ment to allow you to express yourself. My posts are not relevant in what concerns MY personality, MY lifestyle, and MY beliefs. Do not, under any circumstance, equalise my posts with ME. And stop sending e-mail on my adress, unless you have something to say. Something relevant, I may add.

Thank you for your cooperation. Tschus!

Permalink Leave a Comment

An eye for an eye

March 6, 2007 at 4:14 pm (ethics)

Permalink 31 Comments

To my fans

March 5, 2007 at 8:01 pm (bizzare, ethics, feminism, general philosophy, Interzis minorilor, literature, philosophy of the arts, politics/law/economy, Rasfrangeri, Raspunsuri, sex, Uncategorized)

As you can see, i am a very, very, very understanding and patient laddie. I am not banning your comments although what you are posting is neither interesting, nor well written, not even original. however, if you will continue to write in this manner, i will delete every comment that doesn’t rise to my expectations. After all, this is not a “my sexual fantasy” forum.
Thank you, Sonia Rott.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Cheating

March 3, 2007 at 1:00 pm (ethics)

Permalink 15 Comments

Atheistic viewpoint

March 3, 2007 at 12:58 pm (ethics)

If I was offered the chance to get a million dollars(or whatever is most valuable to you, maybe you get a 1st class honours degree, a high paid job,a loving wife, the ability to have children when you were barren,another day with a deceased loved one etc), all I had to do is press a red button and I would recieve my wish, but instantly a child in China, who would have otherwise lived, dies. There are no consequences, in the sense that it is untraceble, garanteed, and no prison sentance or punishment etc, you do not know who the child was, so you have no emotional losses.

If you were completley convinced of an atheistic viewpoint, no afterlife, no God, that the universe is big cosmic accident, etc etc,
should you press the red button?

The only issue you could possibly have is guilt in this life.
But from this atheistic viewpoint is guilt not simply just a social construction imposed on you, by your unpbringing, by western societies current viewpoints (just like years ago, you would have felt guilt for pre marital sex, if you were immersed in a fully christian fundamentalist society etc), just a kind of moral relativism.
So reducing morality to this, should you not then simply transcend it, and discard it completely?

Permalink 48 Comments

Atheism entails amorality

March 3, 2007 at 12:55 pm (ethics)

One matter I have been debating is the question of morality in a non-theistic context. Simply put: ?Can atheists act morally??
Perhaps better said: ?Is atheism compatible with ethics??

I have tried to study various cases in my experience, and am as yet unsure. I certainly know atheists who act in a way that I would consider moral; indeed I would say I know atheist who are more moral than me (and a great many other people). So there is no self-righteousness in this query. But what I do wonder, however, is whether or not there is philosophical substance to ethics in an atheistic context. Are atheists inconsistent when they act on moral principals? I don?t know, but I mean to explore it.

In order to find out, I will play a specific role in this thread (which can already be glimpsed by the provocative title). I will be arguing that it is impossible for the atheist to philosophically support and distinction between right and wrong, morally speaking, in a consistent way. Thus I am asking all those who disagree with this position to please challenge me in this task. State your case as best you can, and we shall see if it holds.

For a working definition, atheism is the positive assertion that either (1) there is no God, or (2) the existence of God is unknowable and irrelevant to human affairs, and also atheism is the denial of the value of faith, especially as a means of attaining knowledge.

As for a definition of morality or ethics, I leave that to my interlocutors to provide, since it is their burden to show that ethical behavior is compatible with atheism.

Permalink 182 Comments

Too young

February 21, 2007 at 3:47 pm (ethics)

Recently, a young man of 18 was placed in prison for 3 years for sexually assaulting his girlfriend, who is 16. Throughout the case, the young man vehemently expressed his love for his girlfriend and his firm belief that their relationship was morally justifiable. Furthermore, the prosecution clearly stated that the girl had never claimed to be raped, rather that their sexual contact had been consensual. Most of the evidence produced in this case was provided by the parents of the alleged victim. My quandry is this: was the court justified in convicting an 18 year old boy, who had shown nothing other than love and care for his girlfriend, for sexual assault? Can our justice system tell people, regardless of age, who they can and cannot love? Or was this boy only acting in accordance to his own moral belief and his love for his girlfriend wrongfully accused and sentenced? If he was morally justified in his actions, then what age is too young? Where do we draw the line for love and age?

Thoughts and criticisms appreciated.

Permalink 8 Comments

Homosexual couples and adoption

February 21, 2007 at 3:40 pm (ethics)

Permalink 7 Comments