addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group Message Board › what is acceptable sexual behavior?

what is acceptable sexual behavior?

Helen
user 5766938
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 112
Bill,
What is the "philosophy of sex", a term being thrown around in the postings. Does a physical "drive" have a "philosophy"? Do you believe that you can integrate animal sex drive and intellect? Can there be a "philosophy of sex"? Can anyone answer that?
If one poster considers me "curt and sarcastic", then she needs to realize that I am very direct, but my motivation in having participated in this discussion was and still is to be able to understand. It is my habit to ask a direct question, to expect a direct answer, and then when I do not get that, to become even more direct, becoming what some want to call "sarcastic". I do not behold myself as "sarcastic", but if you want to engage in a battle of sarcasm, I might find that hard to resist. as a humorous philosophical exercise, of course. :)
I am still waiting for assertive female voices to sign-up for CPDG.
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,532
Bill,
What is the "philosophy of sex", a term being thrown around in the postings.
It would be the effort to understand as deeply as possible what role sex plays in our lives, both individually and culturally, and the effort to arrive at some ethical principles that would help to guide with regard to the motivational states produced by sexual phenomena.
Does a physical "drive" have a "philosophy"?
No. A human would have a set of philosophical ideas regarding phenomena related to the "drives" that are a part of our nature.
Do you believe that you can integrate animal sex drive and intellect?
I think it is essential to attempt to do so. It is what no other species can do, but it is what is essential for us to do, because of the power that the intellect has given us to do far, far beyond what any other species can do. We can do great good, and great harm. We must use our intellect to supervise our basic animal nature.
Can there be a "philosophy of sex"?
There can be efforts to have wisdom and understanding regarding sex and all other aspects of life.
Can anyone answer that?
I hope I have done so.

If one poster considers me "curt and sarcastic", then she needs to realize that I am very direct, but my motivation in having participated in this discussion was and still is to be able to understand.
And I hope that is the effort of everyone participating here. The sharing and comparing of opinions is what promotes deeper understanding.
It is my habit to ask a direct question, to expect a direct answer,
Now that you mention it, I note, Helen, that I have asked you questions earlier in this thread, and have never received an answer. You have made a number of statements, expressing your opinion, and that was good. However, my questions were attempts to find out why you had those opinions, and thus involved going beyond your simply asserting them. I hope that you will go back and take a look at my questions and see what answers you can provide.
and then when I do not get that, to become even more direct, becoming what some want to call "sarcastic".
I am not sure how the word "sarcastic" is being used. My understanding of it is that it is a form of nonverbal hostility accompanying some verbal communication. This gets back to the crucial difference, according to what I believe, between friendly debate and unfriendly debate. I try to advocate as much as possible that people adhere to the basic ethics of the Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group, centered around the desirability, and even necessity, for friendly debate, and the non-optimal nature of unfriendly debate.
I do not behold myself as "sarcastic", but if you want to engage in a battle of sarcasm, I might find that hard to resist. as a humorous philosophical exercise, of course. :)
Yes, I understand that fighting can be fun. And I see no problem with it as long as the fighting is not harmful, does not undermine the goals of the primary activity, and is agreed to on the part of those fighting. I do have some worries about recreational fighting, such as in professional wrestling and boxing, because of wondering how much PSDED such activities cause. I guess if you and someone else wanted to engage in skillful hostile interchange on this message board, the ideal method of doing so would be to agree to set up a thread specifically for that purpose. Then others could watch the match, and even take bets and use polls to establish the winner (in the eyes of others).

I am still waiting for assertive female voices to sign-up for CPDG.
You raise an interesting question by virtue of the use of the word "assertive." Obviously, you are responding to what you consider to be a significant cultural phenomenon, probably one that is not optimal. This indeed is a good philosophical problem. One of the questions that I would have would be whether the word "assertive" implies or does not imply an element of hostility. As you know, people try to make a distinction between "assertive" and "aggressive," but I think the issue is still somewhat obscure.

At any rate, I appreciate your efforts to contribute and your stimulation of our thinking. I hope things are going well for you, and I hope that one day you can join us in our meetings.
Helen
user 5766938
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 113
I am still waiting for assertive female voices to sign-up for CPDG.

You raise an interesting question by virtue of the use of the word "assertive." Obviously, you are responding to what you consider to be a significant cultural phenomenon, probably one that is not optimal. This indeed is a good philosophical problem. One of the questions that I would have would be whether the word "assertive" implies or does not imply an element of hostility. As you know, people try to make a distinction between "assertive" and "aggressive," but I think the issue is still somewhat obscure.

Yes, people obscure the line between "assertive" and "aggressive" because they don't have a good understanding of the English language. Many people suffer from limited vocabulary and unwillingness to go to a dictionary and read definitions. I know the GPDG over the years has been characterized by discussions of the meanings of words. I recall this, specifically, in discussions about Objectivism...but I digress.

Perhaps it is obvious that I do not believe that "assertive" and "aggressive" can or should be used interchangeably. But people often react emotionally to an "assertive" person and label that person as "aggressive", an error they make because they feel intimidated and have to serve a self-protecting need to become defensive and labeling the person as "bad", i.e. "aggressive". Human psyche at work - if someone doesn't like what someone else is saying, then the speaker is "bad" and therefore is "aggressive". All wrong. To be "aggressive" one must be exhibiting or demonstrating intention to use force in order to dominate, to be willing to attack, to be belligerent. To be "assertive", one must be exhibiting boldness and confidence without needing to have affirmation from his audience, without needing to have the approval of his audience; in other words, he is confident, not insecure.

Regarding assertive female voices on the Message Board, I don't see them. Women, unfortunately, are still struggling to shrug off the old cultural expectations that women should always "make nice" and never appear to be like a man, i.e. " assertive". "Assertive men" - good; "assertive women" - bad.
I believe that assertive women pay a price for their enlightenment, and thus some women will choose to continue to "make nice" as it is easier than growing a backbone and finding a voice. They don't want to run the risk of being called "aggressive", that last word often followed by another word starting with a "b", and I don't mean a female dog. /color]





A former member
Post #: 717

Notes From A Polite New Yorker: Legalize Prostitution Already

Like laws outlawing the use of drugs, laws against prostitution are not only an infringement on personal liberty, but are a bizarre relic of puritanical times that stands against human nature and individual freedom.

The places in the western world were prostitution are legal—Nevada and Amsterdam—manage it quite well, and are fully functioning municipalities within democratic societies that have not collapsed into anarchy.

So why is prostitution still illegal in most of the U.S.?
Isn't this the land of the free?
Aren't we supposed to be champions of capitalism? How are contemporary sexual mores improved by prostitution being illegal?

It's your pussy to sell, ladies.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, especially if you like eating pussy.
It's common wisdom that everyone pays for it one way or another.
Why not just pay for it outright?
Wouldn't that make for more honest relationships between men and women?
What's the difference between plunking down beaucoup dollars on drinks, dinner and other things we spend money on when we're trying to get laid, and simply paying a prostitute for the same services but none of the bullshit?

A former member
Post #: 724

You’re Addicted to What? Challenging the Myth of Sex Addiction
Why it matters what you call it
In response to questions such as “Is there such a thing as sex addiction?” and “How should we conceptualize sexual behavior that appears or feels like it’s out of control?”
I’m astounded by the number of professionals who collapse into responding, “What does it matter what we call it?
The goal is to help these poor people.”

When homosexuality was called a mental illness, it mattered.
When women were called frigid or nymphomaniacs or hysterics, it mattered.
When a patient is diagnosed as possessed by the devil instead of schizophrenic it clearly matters: it determines the treatment to be used, and who is qualified to administer the treatment.
How can people who make their living using words say that it doesn’t matter what you call it?

It also matters what you call it because the model of sexuality is built into the model of disease.
In obsessive-compulsive disorder, we don’t say the problem is hand washing, and we don’t send people to hand-washing clinics.
But in sex addiction, the problem is sex, and people are sent to sex addiction clinics.

Finally, it matters because calling this behavior an “addiction” validates the idea that these people are out of control.
Instead, we need to say that feeling out of control isn’t the same as being out of control.
Most “sex addicts” don’t like the consequences of their sexual choices, but they keep making those choices.
We have a word for this behavioral pattern—neurosis; and we have a treatment for it—psychotherapy (sometimes supported by pharmaceuticals).
The addiction model starts with “we admitted we were powerless.”
The therapy model starts with “you’re responsible for your choices;
I wonder why you keep doing what gives you what you say you don’t want?”

What this means for humanists


  • The sex addiction movement exploits people’s fear of their own sexuality. As humanists we oppose anything that exploits fear.
  • Recalling that sex addiction is a fairly new concept, we can observe the historical and cultural context from which the movement emerged—not a sexological context as much as a narrative about fear, danger, powerlessness, and victimization.
  • The sex addiction model inevitably tells us that eroticism needs to be controlled, and that erotica and commercial sex are dangerous and problematic. This means that the sex addiction movement, with the help of the religious right, supports public policy focused on controlling sexuality. Unfortunately it has been very successful in that regard.
  • The sex addiction model tells us that imagination has no healthy role to play in sexuality. This fundamental misunderstanding of human nature is very much our business.


The issue of what to call sexual behavior that is described as out of control is important not just for society in general, but for humanists in particular.
To the extent that the sex addiction movement trivializes science as just one of many different perspectives, it affects us.
To the extent that it tries to squeeze people into a small normative box of sexual behavior, it’s relevant to our cause.
And to the extent that it pathologizes behavior that doesn’t hurt other people, it’s a prime example of what a humanist public policy would replace.

Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,545
It is interesting to try to ascertain exactly why sexuality is not treated exactly the same as all other activities that involve pleasure, with the recognition that all activities that bring pleasure have the possibility of unintended negative consequences and must therefore be engaged in with modifications guided by wisdom. Eating is pleasurable also, and probably produces far more PSDED than sex because of the unwise ways in which we engage in it. So it is helpful to ask, I think, suppose we were able to have 100% protection against both STD and unwanted pregnancy, would there be any reason at all to consider sex to be just another recreational activity, like tennis, chess, dancing, mountain climbing, etc., with the recognition that some people will also place it in the context of a hghly satisfying, caring, intimate relationship, with consequent enhancement of that relationship? If that is not a right way of thinking, then what is the right way of thinking and where does the right way of thinking come from? In other words, how is it legitimated?
A former member
Post #: 762
I am for one am on the journey for an optimal life for myself, for those with me now, and for those who will come into existence after me.

What should be my and humanity's goal of optimal living be?

I don't know; but for me, I'm starting here.. with HomoRationalis.

What types of various ecologies do we have now and how do we want to progress them into the future?

Systems thinking is the process of understanding how things influence one another within a whole.
In nature, systems thinking examples include ecosystems in which various elements such as air, water, movement, plants, and animals work together to survive or perish.
In organizations, systems consist of people, structures, and processes that work together to make an organization healthy or unhealthy.



A former member
Post #: 770


Hjernevask (Brainwash) is a controversial[1] Norwegian popular science documentary series that aired on Norwegian television in 2010.

The series was produced by Harald Eia and Ole Martin Ihle, and was completed in seven episodes consisting of interviews with Norwegian and foreign researchers who have different views on the nature versus nurture debate.

Background
Ihle has stated that the pair initially planned to make a TV program about the biology associated with Darwin year, but Steven Pinker's controversial bestseller The Blank Slate convinced them to "go a little deeper into the biological basis for the difference between people. "[2]


Brainwash (1/7) - The Gender Equality Paradox

Norway: Brainwashed Science on TV Creates Storm, 2010

"What Eia had done, was to first interview the Norwegian social scientists on issues like sexual orientation, gender roles, violence, education and race, which are heavily politicized in the Norwegian science community.

Then he translated the interviews into English and took them to well-known British and American scientists like Robert Plomin, Steven Pinker, Anne Campbell, Simon Baron-Cohen, Richard Lippa, David Buss, and others, and got their comments.

To say that the American and British scientists were surprised by what they heard, is an understatement."

http://en.wikipedia.o...­

A former member
Post #: 771

Brainwash (2/7) - The Parental Effect


A former member
Post #: 772


Brainwash (3/7) -- Gay/Straight


Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy