atlashead

Sexual Ethics

Recommended Posts

I read something like "Men's sexuality-dictated by nature.  Women's-dictated by man.", supposedly by Rand.
I read an analysis which I found to be totally incorrect.  It said that women's PURPOSE is defined by man.  This is not what Rand meant, I contend.  It is the WOMAN who carries a child.  Thus, in any toxic relationship, only the woman can totally control whether a baby is born.  Thus, a relationship between any man and a woman can be moral, as long as a child is not created.  A relationship between a man and a woman where the child is born into slavery is immoral.  A relationship between two who are capable of not hurting the child, and the child's not born into compulsion, is a moral one.

Thus, it is WOMEN, by nature, who can use sex as a weapon, but men cannot use sex as a weapon, because it is immoral to an unborn child; which objectivists believe to be potentially good in all cases, because objectivists do not believe that one's parentage=a person.  There are other points to be made, but they are not in concretes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A woman does not have total control over whether a baby is born.  That is dependent on many factors - where she lives, how old she is, the culture in which she was raised, her ability to conceive, her ability to carry a pregnancy to term if she chooses, her access to a facility where an abortion could be performed if she chooses that.  Probably others.

I assume when you say "use sex as a weapon" you are referring to the refusal of sex.  In which case, weapon is probably not the right word.  I can see how a man would feel punished by being rejected, but the act of rejection in this sense is passive-aggressive.  On the other hand, rape is explicitly aggressive, and would most definitely qualify as using sex as a weapon.  Most rapists are male, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what Atlashead means. I grant that it is difficult to say it all in a few paragraphs, even for someone who writes for a living.  But what was offered was internally disconnected.

1.  "Thus, in any toxic relationship, only the woman can totally control whether a baby is born."

That would make a "toxic" relationship the default. The loaded word "toxic" opens many doors of discussion.

2. " Thus, a relationship between any man and a woman can be moral, as long as a child is not created."

That does not follow from any premise. The word "thus" is misleading. 

3. "A relationship between a man and a woman where the child is born into slavery is immoral.  A relationship between two who are capable of not hurting the child, and the child's not born into compulsion, is a moral one."

The "slave" status of infants and children is much debated here an elsewhere in O-land. As an infant matures into childhood and beyond, it gains more rights by its nature. 

4. "Thus, it is WOMEN, by nature, who can use sex as a weapon, but men cannot use sex as a weapon, because ..."

I agree with DLL that this is confused, at best, and mostly just wrong.  I do point out, however, that rape is not about sex. It is about violence. Sex is just a part of that, much of it cultural. When you are punched in the nose, you do not suffer a special kind of "nasal assault."  Maybe if we were elephants, you would...  Some feminists argue cogently, that our Puritanical foundations make rape something other than physical assault. We are just irrational about sex.

5. "... an unborn child; which objectivists believe to be potentially good in all cases, because objectivists do not believe that one's parentage=a person."

Again, that is not a logical statement. The premise "parentage does not equal person" does not mean that unborn children are all potentially good. All unborn children - all newly born infants; and probably most teenagers; and many adults - are "potentially" all manner of alternatives, from good to bad.  Moreover, as an Objectivist, I assure you that parentage can indeed define the person, both genetically and culturally.  It need not be so in every case; and it depends on the person, probably in every case.  However, as a card-carrying criminologist who finds the "rational choice" theory of crime most explanatory, some people do seem to be beyond all remediation: they are born criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2017 at 10:10 PM, atlashead said:

Thus, in any toxic relationship, only the woman can totally control whether a baby is born.  Thus, a relationship between any man and a woman can be moral, as long as a child is not created.  A relationship between a man and a woman where the child is born into slavery is immoral.  A relationship between two who are capable of not hurting the child, and the child's not born into compulsion, is a moral one.

 

 

You overlook one matter:   Rape

When rape occurs a woman might not have her birth control apparatus intact or inserted.

Then the is sexual enslavement of women by men.  That is slow motion rape.

In either case, wrong is being done to the woman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Rape is an accusation first

And sometimes it is a fact second.  There are real rapes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

And sometimes it is a fact second.  There are real rapes. 

And sometimes there is the accusation without the rape, which is a weapon women can use against men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

And sometimes there is the accusation without the rape, which is a weapon women can use against men.

Sometimes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Rape is rape first.

--Brant

If it happened.  A false accusation can be very damaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

If it happened.  A false accusation can be very damaging.

Now we are on about two different things.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Now we are on about two different things.

--Brant

This wikipedia article is saying the percentage of false allegations is relatively low, 1.5%-8% depending.  I'd guess the false accusations that aren't reported to police would be higher, but still low.  Didn't have a strong argument either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 7:10 PM, atlashead said:

  Thus, in any toxic relationship, only the woman can totally control whether a baby is born.

Fetusnuffing is only a consequence of immoral behavior... not a cause.

It's popular with immoral females because it gets rid of the evidence of their immoral behavior so that they can continue to be what they are.

It's the immoral female who freely chooses to grant her sanction to be in a toxic relationship with an immoral male. Immoral females CHOOSE immoral males who MATCH their immoral values and the result is that each gets the misery they deserve.

The government today is the result of the failure of males to be men. The government responds to the failure of males to be men by acting as the default husband to single immoral females as well as acting as default father to their immoral deliquent spawn. Huge government programs have been created for the millions of immoral females who demand them.

 

Everything I just described exists completely outside the world of men and women.

 

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, moralist said:

The government today is the result of the failure of males to be men.

And females to object to that.

--Brant

I have spoken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

And females to object to that.

Yes, Brant... and that's just one consequence of the failure of males to be men...

... which accounts for much of the bitter ugly anger of single/divorced females towards males. It's the responsibility of a man to set the moral tone in a relationship. The failure of a male to be a man is what sets into motion all of the other ills of society...

...drug abuse, mental illness, leftism, crime, perversion, abortion, government dependence... and big government itself.

 

Greg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual ethics derive from morality. Like metaphysics, and epistemology, morality rests on absolutes.  Alone on his island, Robinson Crusoe needed morality.  Proper ethics are objective, but not absolute. Subjective thoughts and actions, and arbitrary thoughts and actions are destructive.  A business dress code is not absolute, but it does define a kind of ethical conduct.  So, too, with sex, are the moral rules absolute, and the social rules objective. The worst outcomes are the result of subjectivism and intrinsicism.

Socially, we trade value for value. Sexually, your pleasure is primary and as a consequence you find pleasure in your partner enjoyment and celebration.  The business rules of creating and delivering the best at the highest price the market will bear have sexual analogs. Getting it done and over with is an expression of failure within, a lack of self-esteem, even a consequence of self-loathing. Again, it is similar to the way people slog through jobs they hate.

If a male birth control pill were invented, it would be incumbent on the man to accept primary responsibility for the consequences of sex with a woman, though her own responsibility to herself still exists.  Each has a primary responsibility to themselves, from which comes their responsibility to their partner.  Not to recognize that and live it, would be like short-changing a customer, or weighing goods with your thumb on the scale. 

A schoolmate of mine from a social psychology class said that sex is what is between your legs, gender is what is between your ears, and orientation is what goes on between the sheets.  That seems like a nice vernacular summation.  It addresses some of the errors that have been posted here as claims of truth.

On the subject of rape, the claim that women use the false accusation of rape as a weapon against men is completely inadequate. I doubt that in a discussion of business ethics, Dallas Korben would have opened with an assertion that businesses routinely use false accusations of fraud as a competitive strategy, though, historically, you might find some examples of that.  Moreover, the other tet-a-tets failed to include male-on-male rape which is more common than most people consider.  Male-on-male rape brings into sharp relief that fact that rape is primarily about dominance and control, not about sex. Sex is just the modality of expression.

Moralist's traditionalism is likewise unworkable as an approach to understanding and defining sexual ethics. We think of men as hunters.  But in an anthropology class, we read about a tribe where the men had long ago convinced the women that fire is a dangerous demon. So, the women leave the men at home to tend the children who are (1) off the breast and (2) too young to be gendered and therefore (3) go hunting with their mothers, while the men tend the home fires and get dinner ready.  People have a wide range of possible behaviors and within the bounds of objective good, can choose many paths.  The claim that "males must be men" is hollow for lack of objective meaning.  

On a positive note, a friend of mine who is sexually active told me a time when she picked up a guy and was shocked when he entered without a condom. It stopped right there.  "I felt violated," she said.  And I agreed.  Our society is at a point, personally, where I would be hesitant to have sex with a stranger unless I were wearing a frogman suit. Myself, I think that it is that bad out there...  It has always been the case that the best behavior is to get to know someone before you open up to them.  In some traditional Jewish culture, the betrotheds were housed together for a month, but, supposedly, without sex. They were to get to know each other while waiting for the woman to have a menstrual period to show that she was not already pregnant, and therefore marriageable. It seems like a workable theory.  In our society, while "dating" you learn about your partner, including, and especially, their commitment, at least to to serial monogamy -- while  you wait to see if they break out in herpes or something...   

Interviewing the owner of an manufacturing company that sought Tier 1 contracts with the automotives, he referred to "doing the mating dance" with a potential customer.  It did not work out, and they called it off before a contract was signed. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, moralist said:

Yes, Brant... and that's just one consequence of the failure of males to be men...

... which accounts for much of the bitter ugly anger of single/divorced females towards males. It's the responsibility of a man to set the moral tone in a relationship. The failure of a male to be a man is what sets into motion all of the other ills of society...

...drug abuse, mental illness, leftism, crime, perversion, abortion, government dependence... and big government itself.

Greg

Women seem to have a lot more power than you credit.

--Brant

I like 'em on top

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, syrakusos said:

Moralist's traditionalism is likewise unworkable as an approach to understanding and defining sexual ethics.

Traditional Judeo Christian morality doesn't belong to me. I did not create it. I only chose to subjectively agree with the objective reality of moral law. However you are partially right in that traditional morality is unworkable...

...but only for the indecent.

 

Greg

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Women seem to have a lot more power than you credit.-

You're talking about females, Brant... not women.

And it's not the strength of females... it's the weakness of males.  nodder.gif

The two political parties in America are archetypes of the dysfunctional immoral loveless relationship between females and males, where females are hysterical shrieking lunatics... and males are weak pussywhipped doormats.

...but of course the situation is completely different for men and women.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, syrakusos said:

On the subject of rape, the claim that women use the false accusation of rape as a weapon against men is completely inadequate. I doubt that in a discussion of business ethics, Dallas Korben would have opened with an assertion that businesses routinely use false accusations of fraud as a competitive strategy, though, historically, you might find some examples of that.  Moreover, the other tet-a-tets failed to include male-on-male rape which is more common than most people consider.  Male-on-male rape brings into sharp relief that fact that rape is primarily about dominance and control, not about sex. Sex is just the modality of expression.

Correct, in a discussion of business ethics I would not have opened with an assertion that businesses routinely use false accusations of fraud as a competitive strategy.  This is because I have a degree in business and there were discussions of business ethics, so I do know what I would actually do in those situations---not some strawman setup like you tried here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the lessons of my time in the Memory Wars was that sexual crimes were seen as most heinous, especially heinous in the case of children. The great satanic daycare scare was accompanied by multiple prosecutions, the prosecutions supported by the very ugly nature of the crimes that were alleged.  

Outside the daycare cases, prosecution and penalties resulted from allegations of forced incest upon children made by those children in adulthood. Awful suggested crimes wherein vulnerable children were made sexual objects for a parent, sometimes in the context of multi-generational ritual abuse cults.

The problem here was false accusations, false allegations, elements of 'mass hysteria' --  and irrational and unjust rushes to punishment. 

The lesson is that grave crimes are of course treated with gravity.  And that false accusations can carry the weight of judgement in some situations by the very gravity of the alleged crime.  That contempt for rapists and sexual offenders is rooted in a view of sexual ethics as subject to the rules on self-honesty, 'initiation of force,' individual autonomy, and freedom from coercion.

Why a false rape charge can do such damage is because the crime is grave. You offend when you use force or fraud to achieve sexual satisfaction, to abuse an unwilling or vulnerable person.  You offend when you utter a false accusation, and more so when you aim to exact punishment on an innocent person.

How to tell between the two offences is the the function of justice, applied justice. It rules in favour of both kinds of innocents, and punishes both kinds of offender. In Objectivish Valhalla there would be little rape and scant false accusations of rape.

 

Regarding sexual access arrangements and sexual access control and sex-as-trade-good, we primates seem to have become more peaceable in our arrangements over the course of civilization. Where women and children are still chattel or trade-goods, and where sexual-access is traded in war, we don't yet have Western civilization.  Child-marriage, child prostitution, unpunished abuse, control and supervision of female sexuality by state/religion/convention ... these are the  not fully rational hangers-on from our hominin past.

On 1/16/2017 at 7:10 PM, atlashead said:

Thus, it is WOMEN, by nature, who can use sex as a weapon, but men cannot use sex as a weapon, because it is immoral to an unborn child; which objectivists believe to be potentially good in all cases, because objectivists do not believe that one's parentage=a person. 

This can now be updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2017 at 0:42 PM, KorbenDallas said:

... I have a degree in business and there were discussions of business ethics, so I do know what I would actually do in those situations---not some strawman setup like you tried here.

My degrees are in criminology (BS) and social science (MA). In any arbitrarily "large" business, about 20% of the employees are criminals. In addition, many enterprises are criminal by nature, with 100% participation by the employees. The suburbs suffer as much crime as the inner cities, only that the worst crimes are often different, being worse in the suburbs. For a close analogy to inner city crime, you need to go to rural areas. 

Quote

The two political parties in America are archetypes of the dysfunctional immoral loveless relationship between females and males, where females are hysterical shrieking lunatics... and males are weak pussywhipped doormats.

 

That statement expresses a criminogenic attitude. It is a version of the cultural foundations of Sharia Law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now