Jono wrote:
In fact, not even the most religious groups, who think that any sex outside marriage is immoral, associate the act itself with "enormous layers of guilt, shame, and psychological trauma" as you have just claimed, even they regard it as either pleasurable or associate it with reproduction, they just want it done within the bounds of traditional marriage.
Oh? Well,
someone above was arguing that boys shouldn't have coitus with MILFs because of the possibility of experiencing latent psychological trauma during adulthood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c2a6.htmCatholic Catechism wrote:
...Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
...By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose. For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.
...Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
So, what is one to make of all of this talk of being "morally disordered", "intrinsically and gravely disordered", and "intrinsically disordered?" Teenaged boys can generate buckets of sperm every day. Why not let them have a little fun, and go ahead and ejaculate, without calling them "intrinsically and gravely disordered?"
Jono wrote:
However, regardless of whether a society is permissive or conservative with regards to sexuality, they all mostly agree that as bare minimum, consent, (even informed consent, which an immature child or teenager cannot give to an adult) has to be given before any sexual activity takes place.
A teenager
can consent. The only distinction is that his consent has no legal bearing, depending upon the jurisdiction. Albania says that one can consent at 14. In Mexico, one can consent at 12. Are 14-year-old Albanians really such much more mature than 14-year-old Americans, that their consent is meaningful whilst the consent of their American counterparts is not? Laws are purely artificial in this regard.
Jono wrote:
So no, the human species is not different at all with regard to sexuality in that respect to other species, as long as it is done while conforming to the rules of society.
Conforming to so-called "rules of society" is uniquely human.
Jono wrote:
The above video talks about Bateman's Principle which has nothing whatsoever at all to do with adults having sex with children, or whether it should be allowed. Not to mention that Bateman's Principle, at least in it's original form and the way it's described in that video, is actually wrong it especially doesn't apply in that way to humans. In fact, it doesn't even apply in that way to closest relatives, namely the chimpanzees and bonobos (because the is an evolutionary benefit for females to mate multiple males), that's how we know that it probably doesn't apply to humans either.
Scientists are applying Bateman's principle all over the place.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096780/Jono wrote:
Also, just by bringing this up, you are invoking the naturalistic fallacy here, just because something is found in nature, that does not make it right ethically.
And how does one determine what is "right ethically?" If a simple act does no party any harm, then it should be "right ethically."
Last edited by ArrantPariah on 22 Oct 2013, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
22 Oct 2013, 7:37 am
