Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:09 am It seems that everything I start to type is the wrong answer.

Stop typing, start thinking (?)

What I find curious and weird, though I do understand it, is the degree to which both the philosophical and religious (Greco-Christian) theory about sexuality and sexual ethics has been widely rejected. To have mentioned Augustine automatically condemns my attempt to make *sensible* assertions about the need for limits and restrains in sexual practice. Yet what interests me, and what has more convincing power than guilt-slinging Christian morality, which usually calls forth a reaction against it, is to avoid all that by recurring to Platonic (and Aristotelean) theory.

The context of this is those statements put forward shotgun-style by Wizard who, for various reasons, calls forth reaction on these threads. The assertion is that sexuality has become a tool which, if one follows the line of reasoning, seduces and corrupts people. Those who reject the idea from the start will say “Present me with the proof!” and that will require long discursions into Platonic theory about the body of man, and that in relation to the larger social body, and how corruption of the intellectual element in man can be diverted and corrupted, and then also the consequences of veering away from employing sexuality within the family-context (another assertion that provokes reaction against moralizing). However, the same issue can be approached through Vedantic theory just as it can through Christian-Catholic theory. What baffles me is how, so often, the core soundness of the sexual ethics theory, even that proposed by strict Augustine, seems not even to be comprehensible to some. I mean at an intellectual, even a theoretical level.

Augustine wrote (in City of God):

There are lusts for many things, and yet when lust is mentioned without the specification of its object the only thing that normally occurs to the mind is the lust that excites the indecent parts of the body. This lust assumes power not only over the whole body, and not only from the outside, but also internally; it disturbs the whole man, when the mental emotion combines and mingles with the physical craving, resulting in a pleasure surpassing all physical delights. So intense is the pleasure that when it reaches its climax there is an almost total extinction of mental alertness; the intellectual sentries, as it were, are overwhelmed.

The last sentence there is the operative one and it is pure Platonic theory. A body, a mind, a person taken in a general sense, who does not have certain restraints on that powerful function, and who will not accept the restraining influence of his own intellectual capability (a moral power) will not be able to resist seduction. And that “mental alertness” — which connotes so much more than it appears — has endless implications, and of course consequences, when the larger social body is considered. And if one is seduced and has been seduced on one level the implication is that it not only can occur but will occur on other levels. Therefore sexuality, from a critical perspective, can be and is a tool of political manipulation and control. It is offering to the body politic an attraction that the *lower body* cannot resist — unless there are restraints imposed. But if there is no *sound theory* about the proper use of sexuality and a sexual ethics, and if the theory is not understood intellectually, there will be *no one home* to register concern.

Flash — a dedicated sodomite who lusts for boy-bottoms — and Gary, the lonely masturbator who longs for a partner whom he can *bother* constantly to meet his sexual addiction — become emblems of the issue in question. In this sense they represent *disorder* within the social and political body. And yet, to the degree their passions rule them, they take a willed stand against any ethical or moralizing effort. But that is really the point, and it is something everyone understands: the will of a spoiled child is something extraordinarily problematic. The rebellion of that child against *proper authority* is something every parent is acutely aware of. How do you reason with that child?

Again, the idea of an *anchor* — and it is indeed a metaphysical anchor — comes to the surface. There has to be a willingness to surrender what is a lower passion to the authority of a higher, reasoned restraint. And all of this occurs within the body/mind of an individual.

For many of the libertine variety (de sade being its poster-boy) the world is fundamentally fucked, therefore providing no rationale for any sexual restraint.

why not indulge in whatever perversions u have if that is the case?

That's the first step in understanding the problem; switching perspectives and putting yourself in the shoes of the perv.

The second step is addressing the matter of how the pervs become what they are. Not the matter of them simply having the 'freewill' and being morally obligated to abstain from perving out. Neither of these assertions are true so that's a non-starter.

Human sexuality is ugly, ruthless and has no sympathy for the losers. That's why it has always been, and will always be, the engine of the greatest social conflict.

U can address and tryda resolve this conflict in one of two ways. Either u can impose false moral and religious reasons for people to abstain from sexually perverse behavior, or u can alter the way society is structured and see if those changes relieve any of the stress and obsession that leads to sexually perverse behavior.

Being a man of Troof, i prefer the latter method over the former. In fact, I would even argue that it's much of the religious and moral imposition over human sexuality that causes so much sexually perverse behavior.

As it stands now, planet erf his cruising headlong into a future that will be bursting at the seams with all manner of sexual perversion... or abnormality, i should say. The two biggest forces in this process are religion (which represses sexuality) and capitalism/consumerism (which aggravates sexuality).

It has begun...

https://kaotic.com/video/2f4394bd_20240303155834_t

Warning. Viewer discretion advised. Theater of dēcadentia.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 3:38 pm For many of the libertine variety (de sade being its poster-boy) the world is fundamentally fucked, therefore providing no rationale for any sexual restraint.

why not indulge in whatever perversions u have if that is the case?

Had you children, and I suppose (?) you don’t, how would you educate them?

Everything — everything — hinges on how, in troof and in reality, you would actually respond when confronted with that responsibility.

Would you submit your sons and daughters to a de Sade-style education? You could pimp your boy or girl out for big money, and why not? You could introduce your daughter to what we once said were “perversions” and encourage her to •explore• in sexual arenas that are now open and available with a click.

Your boy — Flash would like to meet him and have at his butt-end. He’ll teach him a thing or two for sure. You could video record it (and make tons). Why not? “The world is fundamentally fucked” so anything (technically) goes, right?

There are reasons why Flash became a dedicated sodomite and contracts “rent-boys”. Gary too displays a causal chain of events or choices that led to his present state (complicated no doubt by other factors).

And you? What was your trajectory?

How we have come to our perceptual, existential positions is the philosophical question. How many variable answers are there?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:31 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:28 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 5:26 pm Are all masterbators "good" or "wicked"? It's like asking if all who've read about replacement theory are competent thinkers.

It is less the act itself, though that certainly is relevant, and more the issue of loss of sovereignty because a vice has possession of the man. That is what Augustine (and Plato and Aristotle) refer to.

Can you discern the distinction?

What's wrong with masturbation? Why is it a "vice"?

It's wrong because some people don't like the idea of it, and it is a vice because some people kind of feel that it should be thought of as one.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:04 pm It's wrong because some people don't like the idea of it, and it is a vice because some people kind of feel that it should be thought of as one.

Shallow answer. You are fundamentally ignorant of the philosophical category of sexual ethics. You represent (as I often say) the causal consequence of ignorance.

Do not take this personally. It is not meant as such.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:04 pm It's wrong because some people don't like the idea of it, and it is a vice because some people kind of feel that it should be thought of as one.

Never again shall I put my tackle in a vice.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:08 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:04 pm It's wrong because some people don't like the idea of it, and it is a vice because some people kind of feel that it should be thought of as one.

Shallow answer.

Yet it says all that needs to be said, which is your real objection to it.

You are fundamentally ignorant of the philosophical category of sexual ethics.

I am just as capable of coming up with a code of sexual ethics as anyone else is, and I see no reason why mine should be thought of as any less valid than any other.

You represent (as I often say) the causal consequence of ignorance.

What I represent is the outcome of thinking for myself, and not letting myself be influenced by people like you, or those you recommend.

Do not take this personally. It is not meant as such.

I take it as a put-down, because that is what you meant it as.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:08 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:04 pm It's wrong because some people don't like the idea of it, and it is a vice because some people kind of feel that it should be thought of as one.

Shallow answer. You are fundamentally ignorant of the philosophical category of sexual ethics. You represent (as I often say) the causal consequence of ignorance.

Do not take this personally. It is not meant as such.

HAHA.
Such a fascistic response.
You don't agree with me so you much be ignorant.


PS. Don'd take this personally but you are a C*nt

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:03 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 3:38 pm For many of the libertine variety (de sade being its poster-boy) the world is fundamentally fucked, therefore providing no rationale for any sexual restraint.

why not indulge in whatever perversions u have if that is the case?

Had you children, and I suppose (?) you don’t, how would you educate them?

If he doesn't have children, then there's no need for him to figure out how he would educate children he doesn't have. If you don't know how to pilot an airliner, how are you going to fly one? Go take flight lessons and get back to us then.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:36 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:08 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:04 pm It's wrong because some people don't like the idea of it, and it is a vice because some people kind of feel that it should be thought of as one.

Shallow answer. You are fundamentally ignorant of the philosophical category of sexual ethics. You represent (as I often say) the causal consequence of ignorance.

Do not take this personally. It is not meant as such.

HAHA.
Such a fascistic response.
You don't agree with me so you much be ignorant.


PS. Don'd take this personally but you are a C*nt

He doesn't react well to differences in others, does he?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:36 pm

PS. Don'd take this personally but you are a C*nt

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:44 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:36 pm

PS. Don'd take this personally but you are a C*nt

Well I think AJ is a loveable c~nt.

PS. Keep up the good work AJ.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:35 pmYet it says all that needs to be said, which is your real objection to it.

Your *answer* or *explanation* was that of a child.