Philosophical Scenario: A Future of Diverse Reproductive Mechanisms and Sexual Orientations

[fantome profane]

Would this include all the alien species as well?

 

[Quintessence]

Would this include all the alien species as well?

See, you're asking the right questions here. Because for what the OP proposes to be a possibility there would have to be a fundamental breakdown in species barriers.

I could finally be the literal plant person I've always wanted to be. HUZZAH!

 

[fantome profane]

Discussion Prompt: Envisioning yourself within this hypothetical future, would you modify your sexual preferences to accommodate the extensive diversity in genders and sexes, essentially becoming pansexual? Or would you maintain your current sexual orientation (assuming you're not already pansexual), potentially limiting your range of potential partners?

Remember, this scenario presumes that individuals can consciously modify their sexual orientation through training or conditioning, making the choice a matter of personal preference rather than innate disposition. Let’s delve into the philosophical and moral implications of such a choice and the societal impacts of this hypothetical future.

I think I would choose to be asexual from Monday to Friday, but pansexual on the weekend. Is that allowed?

Oh, and of course a big beautiful hermaphrodite with beautiful wings.

 

[dybmh]

I think I would choose to be asexual from Monday to Friday, but pansexual on the weekend. Is that allowed?

How about asexual, but Pan only after midnight? Ooh-la-la.

 

[Echogem222]

@Echogem222 ,

Sorry for posting early before you had a chance to reply. But, I feel like I need to make an important distinction.

I am not, repeat, not denying false dichotomies. These definitely exist. If they actually are contrived harmful rubbish, I think they should be abandoned.

Thank you,

What I'm saying isn't a false dichotomy though, but if someone were to divide people into different groups based on even race, or attractiveness, those wouldn't be false dichotomy's either depending on the reason. So, let's say it was because this person was surrounded by people who would strongly reject them having a relationship with someone who isn't white and attractive, in fact they'd get killed for doing so. Naturally, they'd be very prone to not form a relationship with such a person who does not fall into that category. But the reason why they're doing it is not because those things actually matter when it comes to a relationship, but because of the circumstances they were raised in. Likewise, categorizing people by sex or gender is like liking a pretty gemstone over other gemstones, if a gemstone was like us, if it had awareness, it would likely see that as offensive.

Yes, I know you said that you don't have an issue with different sexes and genders, but when it comes to a sexual preference, why is it suddenly different? If you're like me, and you can't just lust someone that isn't the right gender or sex according to your sexual preference alone, then that's not actually an issue. The trick to it is learning to accept someone in the intimate sense of any sex/gender (so like imagine the most wonderful person you can think of, someone who you would have no issues with other than their sex/gender, and learn to intimately care for them not because of their sex or gender, but because of who they are to you. Once you get past that point, it become possible to lust them in a way you won't reject. It can take a bit of mental training to learn to let go of sexual and gender preference, but because you're doing so to make more meaningful relationships (in other words, because you're gaining something from it), it's possible to eventually reach that point, assuming you don't have certain mental disorders, or can't handle the stress of doing that)

 

[Echogem222]

I think I would choose to be asexual from Monday to Friday, but pansexual on the weekend. Is that allowed?

Oh, and of course a big beautiful hermaphrodite with beautiful wings.

Sure, you could do that, not sure why though.

 

[Orbit]

No. People for the most part aren't having abortions because sex is easy, but rather because of fear they focused heavily on women by the media and education that if they have kids at the wrong time, they will screw their financial lives up, and so the nesting instinct for more money overrides the maternal instinct to raise kids.

I'll give you a example.... ducks have no issue adopting the flocks of other ducks once hatched and orphaned. Why? Just a few weeks of effort. It isn't enough of a social pressure to get them to trigger a evolutionary response to weed out what isn't theirs. They don't lactate either.

In your scenerio- compatible sex partners still exist.... so merely complicating the sexes doesn't count.... they will still be able to find each other and have sex.

And science short of reprogramming won't create new genders. It's a academically made up concept that didn't exist 15 years ago. You can program college kids destined to be ideologues to believe it, but like the test of chopping off the tails of rats for 15 generations to see if tailless rats emerge, don't hold your breath that new gender types will hold. That's not how ideas work.

I'd suggest reworking this theory so it makes more sense. I'm remaining male and just gonna put myself on a dating app and screw every female without protection in a effort to subvert the expectations of the ruling liberal caste of this society who thought inventing sexes and enforcing synthetic gender education was a good idea. There will be a flood of my seed upon the streets. I don't care. I'll do it out of spite.

You say: "I'd suggest reworking this theory so it makes more sense. I'm remaining male and just gonna put myself on a dating app and screw every female without protection in a effort to subvert the expectations of the ruling liberal caste of this society who thought inventing sexes and enforcing synthetic gender education was a good idea. There will be a flood of my seed upon the streets. I don't care. I'll do it out of spite."

Wow. Does this mean you're an incel?

 

[dybmh]

What I'm saying isn't a false dichotomy though

I know. I was concerned that maybe what I had posted could have been interpretted in a way which made it seem that I would support all dichotomies.

if someone were to divide people into different groups based on even race, or attractiveness, those wouldn't be false dichotomy's either depending on the reason. So, let's say it was because this person was surrounded by people who would strongly reject them having a relationship with someone who isn't white and attractive, in fact they'd get killed for doing so. Naturally, they'd be very prone to not form a relationship with such a person who does not fall into that category. But the reason why they're doing it is not because those things actually matter when it comes to a relationship, but because of the circumstances they were raised in. Likewise, categorizing people by sex or gender is like liking a pretty gemstone over other gemstones, if a gemstone was like us, if it had awareness, it would likely see that as offensive.

This analogy is not landing, for me. I don't quite get it. If I soften it and generalize it, I start to understand it. But I could be wrong. Are you saying, basically, it's rude to have a sexual preference and exclude people from my, let's call it, dating pool?

Yes, I know you said that you don't have an issue with different sexes and genders, but when it comes to a sexual preference, why is it suddenly different?

It's not. It's not different at all. I don't have an issue when it comes to different sexual preferences. See below:

Because of this, I have no doubt there are versions of me that are any and all genders and gender preferences. And as a consequence of enternalism, all of these versions are concurrent. It is literally impossible for me to judge negatively regarding this.

When I said "gender preferences" that's the same as a sexual preference. It is physical attraction. Animal magnetism. Chemistry.

If you're like me, and you can't just lust someone that isn't the right gender or sex according to your sexual preference alone, then that's not actually an issue. The trick to it is learning to accept someone in the intimate sense of any sex/gender (so like imagine the most wonderful person you can think of, someone who you would have no issues with other than their sex/gender, and learn to intimately care for them not because of their sex or gender, but because of who they are to you. Once you get past that point, it become possible to lust them in a way you won't reject. It can take a bit of mental training to learn to let go of sexual and gender preference, but because you're doing so to make more meaningful relationships (in other words, because you're gaining something from it), it's possible to eventually reach that point, assuming you don't have mental disorders, or can't handle the stress of doing that)

This seems to be criss-crossing sexual preference with romantic attachment. But skipping that. Are you proposing that everyone should be pansexual and panromantic, and that the other combinations of sexual preference and romantic attachment are somehow wrong?

 

[Yokefellow]

As a Christian, I am looking forward to being recreated into a body that has evolved passed the need for reproductive organs, gender preferences, procreation and all of the primitive aspects associated with your OP.

After I receive my Glorified Body, I will have no desire to change it.

You folks can live in Confusion all you want. I am done with it.

 

[Echogem222]

I know. I was concerned that maybe what I had posted could have been interpretted in a way which made it seem that I would support all dichotomies.



This analogy is not landing, for me. I don't quite get it. If I soften it and generalize it, I start to understand it. But I could be wrong. Are you saying, basically, it's rude to have a sexual preference and exclude people from my, let's call it, dating pool?

Like if you decide to date someone, yes, but if you decided to be with no one, then no (so yes, you need to soften and generalize it because my skills with analogies is lacking, sorry)

It's not. It's not different at all. I don't have an issue when it comes to different sexual preferences. See below:



When I said "gender preferences" that's the same as a sexual preference. It is physical attraction. Animal magnetism. Chemistry.

Yes, but through the training method I mentioned, it's possible to change chemistry in that sense since I've actually done that. Yes, I still lean towards the female gender, but it's something that's slowly going away. So I'm currently pansexual, but I'm not a strong pansexual (if that makes sense)

This seems to be criss-crossing sexual preference with romantic attachment. But skipping that. Are you proposing that everyone should be pansexual and panromantic, and that the other combinations of sexual preference and romantic attachment are somehow wrong?

You could use a Venn diagram of pansexual and panromantic and there'd be an overlapping part, that's what I'm focusing on (the overlapping part). I'm not saying that everyone should be the overlapping part, but they just shouldn't discriminate who they decide to date (form an intimate relationship with) if they are able to do the training I mentioned (so they don't have certain mental disorders that prevent that, or are too overwhelmed with stress to even work on that.

Other combinations of sexual preference and romantic attachment aren't inherently wrong, but in our society where to have those views is to ignore someone else, as well as to openly express what gender or sex you are to complete strangers, is a problem. The reason being that there will be people who desire you only because of your sex or/and gender, instead of through the method that I'm referring to, so it's to say that everyone should trust everyone with such information when you don't know if they're trustworthy or not. And aside from that (since I guess it could be debatable), it's to express that there is a value in a person's sex and/or gender which should be a determining factor of dating them if you feel a certain way (so you have a certain gender/sexual preference). But by saying that's correct for those reasons, is to say that if you feel a certain way about other matters, then that means you're right. In other words, that could encourage racism, sexism, etc.

 

[Echogem222]

As a Christian, I am looking forward to being recreated into a body that has evolved passed the need for reproductive organs, gender preferences, procreation and all of the primitive aspects associated with your OP.

After I receive my Glorified Body, I will have no desire to change it.

You folks can live in Confusion all you want. I am done with it.

Though I'm not a Christian, this is exactly the point I'm trying to make, that sex and/or gender shouldn't be a determining factor in who you decide to be with or/and date/marry/etc.

 

[dybmh]

Like if you decide to date someone, yes, but if you decided to be with no one, then no (so yes, you need to soften and generalize it because my skills with analogies is lacking, sorry)


Yes, but through the training method I mentioned, it's possible to change chemistry in that sense since I've actually done that. Yes, I still lean towards the female gender, but it's something that's slowly going away. So I'm currently pansexual, but I'm not a strong pansexual (if that makes sense)


You could use a Venn diagram of pansexual and panromantic and there'd be an overlapping part, that's what I'm focusing on (the overlapping part). I'm not saying that everyone should be the overlapping part, but they just shouldn't discriminate who they decide to date (form an intimate relationship with) if they are able to do the training I mentioned (so they don't have certain mental disorders that prevent that, or are too overwhelmed with stress to even work on that.

Other combinations of sexual preference and romantic attachment aren't inherently wrong, but in our society where to have those views is to ignore someone else, as well as to openly express what gender or sex you are to complete strangers, is a problem. The reason being that there will be people who desire you only because of your sex or/and gender, instead of through the method that I'm referring to, so it's to say that everyone should trust everyone with such information when you don't know if they're trustworthy or not. And aside from that (since I guess it could be debatable), it's to express that there is a value in a person's sex and/or gender which should be a determining factor of dating them if you feel a certain way (so you have a certain gender/sexual preference). But by saying that's correct for those reasons, is to say that if you feel a certain way about other matters, then that means you're right. In other words, that could encourage racism, sexism, etc.

Hi Echogem, I'm sorry for this rushed reply. I'm typing fast to get all my thoughts in this post. I read what you wrote this morning, I wanted to ponder it, and then reply later in the day. But, sadly, I got distracted.

This is what I think.

Regarding excluding people, in theory, you're right. It's rude and foolish, IF, the context of the relationship is assuming physical intimacy AND the individual who is rejecting has never tried it. ( It's much worse, of course, if it's only friendship, much worse than just rude. )

This is the children's argument, from Dr. Seuss, "Green Eggs and Ham".

In practice, in the real world, I think this is well known and utilized by many people who are attracted to those who do not share their sexual preference. It happens. A gay person is attracted to a straight person. They become friends, the straight person initially isn't interested, but the Gay person is patient and gentle and eventually makes advances. Those advances aren't initially welcome, but, the gay person says, "I feel something towards you, it seems like maybe you feel something for me, can you deny it? How do you know until you've tried it?"

This is a logical argument. And I think probably couples get together this way all the time. The same probably happens with couples adding a third or others. "Have you tried it? How do you know?"

The same thing probably happens with nonconforming non-conventional body types. One person is interested in the other, and they become friends.. one thing leads to another. Poof, it's a love connection.

But! None of this is valid IF the person has tried and has confirmed they literally cannot have physical intimacy with that other gender. For men this is easy to test. For women, I can't comment. They're beyond my apprehension. If you are saying, "I don't believe you've tried it. I have a method to convert you to pansexuality, You should try it." I think that's wrong. No means no. Someone says they're sure, that's it. Anything else is wrong. I'll get to that.

Regarding the pansexual/panromantic ideal. Pansexual is ideal for those with a very high libido. Panromantic is ideal for those who are "in love" with giving and/or receiving love. If a person is not either of those things then neither is the ideal, and I don't think it makes sense to project those values on others especially a high sex drive.

And it's the same for your own experiences shifting your own sexual preference. You were able to make the change, I don't think it makes sense to try to project that success on others. It's certainly possible in these successful transitions, a person actually has latent attractions of which they are not aware. Or it's possible some can transition and some can't. I don't think it makes sense to apply this conversion therapy onto people UNLESS they consent to it. Informed consent.

All of that said, the only time it becomes unethical or immoral to encourage people to shift their preferences is if it coerced or in an act of deception. A cross-dresser pretending to be the opposite gender, then goes to a bar, and seduces someone who is intoxicated. The next morning, surprise, surprise? That's wrong that's deceptive. Coercion is much more difficult to pin down. it's a spectrum. The gold standard of consent is enthusiastic approval. Yes! Yes please! Come here and get some! Anything less than that, anything which is convincing, or persuasive crosses into coercion territory. And, yes, that means "Green Eggs and Ham" can be coercive, and that's wrong. It happens? Sure, is it wrong? Maybe. That requires a case by case evaluation.

And I'll note that encouraging people to experiment is different than trying to change a person's brain chemistry via a DIY self-tested method. And that sounds like what you are mildly considering. Not advocating, just questioning. That sort of thing requires much stronger consent. Informed consent. Encouraging experimentation has a lower standard which is simply enthusiastic approval.

That's what I think.

 

[Echogem222]

Hi Echogem, I'm sorry for this rushed reply. I'm typing fast to get all my thoughts in this post. I read what you wrote this morning, I wanted to ponder it, and then reply later in the day. But, sadly, I got distracted.

This is what I think.

Regarding excluding people, in theory, you're right. It's rude and foolish, IF, the context of the relationship is assuming physical intimacy AND the individual who is rejecting has never tried it. ( It's much worse, of course, if it's only friendship, much worse than just rude. )

This is the children's argument, from Dr. Seuss, "Green Eggs and Ham".

In practice, in the real world, I think this is well known and utilized by many people who are attracted to those who do not share their sexual preference. It happens. A gay person is attracted to a straight person. They become friends, the straight person initially isn't interested, but the Gay person is patient and gentle and eventually makes advances. Those advances aren't initially welcome, but, the gay person says, "I feel something towards you, it seems like maybe you feel something for me, can you deny it? How do you know until you've tried it?"

This is a logical argument. And I think probably couples get together this way all the time. The same probably happens with couples adding a third or others. "Have you tried it? How do you know?"

The same thing probably happens with nonconforming non-conventional body types. One person is interested in the other, and they become friends.. one thing leads to another. Poof, it's a love connection.

But! None of this is valid IF the person has tried and has confirmed they literally cannot have physical intimacy with that other gender. For men this is easy to test. For women, I can't comment. They're beyond my apprehension. If you are saying, "I don't believe you've tried it. I have a method to convert you to pansexuality, You should try it." I think that's wrong. No means no. Someone says they're sure, that's it. Anything else is wrong. I'll get to that.

Regarding the pansexual/panromantic ideal. Pansexual is ideal for those with a very high libido. Panromantic is ideal for those who are "in love" with giving and/or receiving love. If a person is not either of those things then neither is the ideal, and I don't think it makes sense to project those values on others especially a high sex drive.

And it's the same for your own experiences shifting your own sexual preference. You were able to make the change, I don't think it makes sense to try to project that success on others. It's certainly possible in these successful transitions, a person actually has latent attractions of which they are not aware. Or it's possible some can transition and some can't. I don't think it makes sense to apply this conversion therapy onto people UNLESS they consent to it. Informed consent.

All of that said, the only time it becomes unethical or immoral to encourage people to shift their preferences is if it coerced or in an act of deception. A cross-dresser pretending to be the opposite gender, then goes to a bar, and seduces someone who is intoxicated. The next morning, surprise, surprise? That's wrong that's deceptive. Coercion is much more difficult to pin down. it's a spectrum. The gold standard of consent is enthusiastic approval. Yes! Yes please! Come here and get some! Anything less than that, anything which is convincing, or persuasive crosses into coercion territory. And, yes, that means "Green Eggs and Ham" can be coercive, and that's wrong. It happens? Sure, is it wrong? Maybe. That requires a case by case evaluation.

And I'll note that encouraging people to experiment is different than trying to change a person's brain chemistry via a DIY self-tested method. And that sounds like what you are mildly considering. Not advocating, just questioning. That sort of thing requires much stronger consent. Informed consent. Encouraging experimentation has a lower standard which is simply enthusiastic approval.

That's what I think.

So, if someone just can't become pansexual or panromantic in a way they can handle, then that's fine. Eventually I think science will find a way to get around this issue without problems (but that obviously hasn't happened yet). My religious belief, Flawlessism naturally goes in the direction of encouraging pansexual or/and panromantic, however, only if the pros outweigh the cons, this is because my religion is also a philosophy, so anyone who truly believes in it, would naturally come to the same conclusion as myself. The reason why I brought this up to you and others who don't believe in my religion, is because it does apply outside of my religion, however how it applies outside of my religion is still a bit different.

So, if someone outside of my religion decided they didn't want to be pansexual/panromantic even though they could do so without much issue, that would be something I would accept, this is because I don't believe people have free will. But if someone within my religion could become pansexual/panromantic without much issue, they just would become pansexual/panromantic, so there would be no "forcing them" involved.

Still, if someone outside of my religion decided to not become pansexual/panromantic even though they could (with the pros outweighing the cons), this isn't something I would be angry at them for, but something I would pity them over. Because I would still view it as discrimination, but it would also be themselves devaluing not only others, but also themselves.

 

[Echogem222]

Hi Echogem, I'm sorry for this rushed reply. I'm typing fast to get all my thoughts in this post. I read what you wrote this morning, I wanted to ponder it, and then reply later in the day. But, sadly, I got distracted.

This is what I think.

Regarding excluding people, in theory, you're right. It's rude and foolish, IF, the context of the relationship is assuming physical intimacy AND the individual who is rejecting has never tried it. ( It's much worse, of course, if it's only friendship, much worse than just rude. )

This is the children's argument, from Dr. Seuss, "Green Eggs and Ham".

In practice, in the real world, I think this is well known and utilized by many people who are attracted to those who do not share their sexual preference. It happens. A gay person is attracted to a straight person. They become friends, the straight person initially isn't interested, but the Gay person is patient and gentle and eventually makes advances. Those advances aren't initially welcome, but, the gay person says, "I feel something towards you, it seems like maybe you feel something for me, can you deny it? How do you know until you've tried it?"

This is a logical argument. And I think probably couples get together this way all the time. The same probably happens with couples adding a third or others. "Have you tried it? How do you know?"

The same thing probably happens with nonconforming non-conventional body types. One person is interested in the other, and they become friends.. one thing leads to another. Poof, it's a love connection.

But! None of this is valid IF the person has tried and has confirmed they literally cannot have physical intimacy with that other gender. For men this is easy to test. For women, I can't comment. They're beyond my apprehension. If you are saying, "I don't believe you've tried it. I have a method to convert you to pansexuality, You should try it." I think that's wrong. No means no. Someone says they're sure, that's it. Anything else is wrong. I'll get to that.

Regarding the pansexual/panromantic ideal. Pansexual is ideal for those with a very high libido. Panromantic is ideal for those who are "in love" with giving and/or receiving love. If a person is not either of those things then neither is the ideal, and I don't think it makes sense to project those values on others especially a high sex drive.

And it's the same for your own experiences shifting your own sexual preference. You were able to make the change, I don't think it makes sense to try to project that success on others. It's certainly possible in these successful transitions, a person actually has latent attractions of which they are not aware. Or it's possible some can transition and some can't. I don't think it makes sense to apply this conversion therapy onto people UNLESS they consent to it. Informed consent.

All of that said, the only time it becomes unethical or immoral to encourage people to shift their preferences is if it coerced or in an act of deception. A cross-dresser pretending to be the opposite gender, then goes to a bar, and seduces someone who is intoxicated. The next morning, surprise, surprise? That's wrong that's deceptive. Coercion is much more difficult to pin down. it's a spectrum. The gold standard of consent is enthusiastic approval. Yes! Yes please! Come here and get some! Anything less than that, anything which is convincing, or persuasive crosses into coercion territory. And, yes, that means "Green Eggs and Ham" can be coercive, and that's wrong. It happens? Sure, is it wrong? Maybe. That requires a case by case evaluation.

And I'll note that encouraging people to experiment is different than trying to change a person's brain chemistry via a DIY self-tested method. And that sounds like what you are mildly considering. Not advocating, just questioning. That sort of thing requires much stronger consent. Informed consent. Encouraging experimentation has a lower standard which is simply enthusiastic approval.

That's what I think.

Something interesting I've also realized is that this type of discrimination doesn't just apply to sex and gender, it also applies to other animals. I mean just think about it, the idea of having physical intimacy with a pig (like just assuming full consent and everything) would cause many people to say, "I don't want that, because a pig is a pig!" Well, that is actual discrimination against all pigs, isn't it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Something interesting I've also realized is that this type of discrimination doesn't just apply to sex and gender, it also applies to other animals. I mean just think about it, the idea of having physical intimacy with a pig (like just assuming full consent and everything) would cause many people to say, "I don't want that, because a pig is a pig!" Well, that is actual discrimination against all pigs, isn't it?

 

[dybmh]

So, if someone just can't become pansexual or panromantic in a way they can handle, then that's fine. Eventually I think science will find a way to get around this issue without problems (but that obviously hasn't happened yet). My religious belief, Flawlessism naturally goes in the direction of encouraging pansexual or/and panromantic, however, only if the pros outweigh the cons, this is because my religion is also a philosophy, so anyone who truly believes in it, would naturally come to the same conclusion as myself. The reason why I brought this up to you and others who don't believe in my religion, is because it does apply outside of my religion, however how it applies outside of my religion is still a bit different.

I see nothing wrong with encouraging it in general. But in particular encouraging someone to experiment sexually can become coercion. That's a version of rape. Mixing the sexual preference shift with the religion is dangerous in my opinion from a moral perspective depending on the promises made as part of the religion. The missing ingredient in the discussion, imo, is consent.

Also, in general, it's a very one-sided perspective. Then this one-side, the desire to have physical, intellectual, and emotive intimacy with everyone and everything is being projected on all others. "Why wouldn't you want to have what I have? You don't want to be rejected, so why are you rejecting?"

Here's the thing. In particular, for me, there is no bigger turn off than if my partner is not into it. That means, "YES, I want to be rejected." I hate the idea of forcing someone or even convincing them to be involved with me. Ew. I think it's gross. And even typing these words, I got a pit in my stomach, just thinking about it. So, projecting this idea onto others is... one sided. I'm certain, there's people like me who would rather be rejected, and it's difficult for me to imagine that there's not a lot of people who would want to maintain the right to exclude.

My opinion is, adopting this model of "in general" vs "in particular" would be a very useful tool for you. It's somewhat easy to make general statements and rules which are agreeable. It's much harder to apply those to a particular instance: who, what, when, where, why, and how. That's why societies need Judges and Justice systems. If you recall, this is how I deciphered the "gemstone" analogy. I softened it and applied it in general. Then I understood and we could proceed.

If you can come up with an idea that is true in general AND in particular in all cases.... ding-ding-ding. That's a winner.

So, if someone outside of my religion decided they didn't want to be pansexual/panromantic even though they could do so without much issue, that would be something I would accept, this is because I don't believe people have free will. But if someone within my religion could become pansexual/panromantic without much issue, they just would become pansexual/panromantic, so there would be no "forcing them" involved.

Still, if someone outside of my religion decided to not become pansexual/panromantic even though they could (with the pros outweighing the cons), this isn't something I would be angry at them for, but something I would pity them over. Because I would still view it as discrimination, but it would also be themselves devaluing not only others, but also themselves.

This is a bit of a problem for me as written. There's a contradiction.

1st paragraph:	"I would accept, this is because I don't believe people have free will."
2nd paragraph:	"I would pity them over. Because I would still view it as discrimination, but it would also be themselves devaluing not only others, but also themselves

Can you see the problem I would have with this? The first paragraph is denying freewill. The second paragraph is assuming freewill. If there is no freewill, then there is no reason for pity, they are not devaluing anyone. The only reason to have any regret at all is if things are not predetermined and a different outcome is possible.

Lacking freewill, It is just they way things have been pre-determined. Everyone's value is preset, everyone's partnerships are predetremined, everyone's sexual preferences are predetermined. That's it. There should be no regret for any outcome. It just is.

So, I'm wondering if one of the paragraphs is "in general" and one of the paragraphs is "in particular". This could potentially resolve the contradiction or further refine your ideas? In general you are dissappointed, but if it happens in particular you accept it? That makes sense to me. I don't really agree with it, but, it makes sense.

The other thing that I have a problem with, is again, this one sided projection. A person's value is not defined by your standards. If a person is exclusive, that might increase their value. You perceive it differently because you are imagining them being excluded which you project as devaluing. But, that's not your choice to project your own feelings and values onto them.

In general, I agree that intimacy of all sorts should be freely available to anyone and everyone regardless of their appearance, gender, orientation, inclination, etc... in general. That is generally a sort of universal global version of PAN-everything. When I consider it globally, the global population is certainly PAN-everything, in general. That's the zoomed-out bird's eye view.

In particular I think each individual should choose with whom to be intimate or follow what ever is biologically / spirititually predetermined for them. That's zooming in: who, what when, where, why, and how.

How do I resolve this conflict? I consider the potential for harm. There is more potental for harm forcing someone to be intimate in all forms and in all ways. This over-rules the less damaging potential for rejection. The individual, in particular, has priority over the general population which desires freedom and universal inclusion.

Something interesting I've also realized is that this type of discrimination doesn't just apply to sex and gender, it also applies to other animals. I mean just think about it, the idea of having physical intimacy with a pig (like just assuming full consent and everything) would cause many people to say, "I don't want that, because a pig is a pig!" Well, that is actual discrimination against all pigs, isn't it?

This is projecting the desire to be intimate with someone ON the pig. The argument against beastiality is due to a lack of CONSENT.

In general, no one should be excluded from opportunities for intimacy, even a pig. In particular, it is virtually impossible to obtain consent from a pig. Perhaps one could let it freely gratify itself ON themself without any sort of coercion. There's also breeding programs where the animal's seed is collected manually. I think that was on an episode on the TV-show "Dirty Jobs" or something.

In general, I hear what you're saying. I understand, I think the only problem, morally, is, it seems like you have a set of values and desires which are being projected on others. But, in general, it's not that big of a problem. It's just a little inappropriate in the context of intimacy. It's invasive.

In general, people have ideas, they think are good, so they talk about them, and see if other people agree. It's planting a seed to see if it takes root. In particular, in a religious context, it gets much more complicated if promises are being made. If there is actual intimacy being sought, it gets much much more complicated. Virtual / online intimacy is not excluded.

In general? that's pretty easy. In particular? who, what, when, where, why, and how, all need to be considered.

In particular in a religious context there's a definite risk of coercion without the intimacy.
In particular in an intimate context there's a definite risk of coercion without the religion.
If both religion and intimacy are combined, now the potential for coercion has greatly increased.

The issue becomes complicated because coercion is rape, and I don't think you've considered it, at least, in particular.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In a speculative future, advancements in science have resulted in humans evolving to possess over one billion distinct biological reproductive variations (i.e., “sexes”) and an even more diverse range of gender identities. This unprecedented diversity originated from an intention to complicate procreation slightly, aiming to reduce the necessity of abortions. However, it evolved into something more intricate when scientists enabled humans to produce varying humanoid species—creatures with human semblances but fundamentally not human—via artificially-created reproductive methods.

Given the vast array of genders and sexes, it has become nearly impossible for individuals to comprehend the full spectrum, leading to a societal shift where disclosing one’s gender/sex is avoided. However, relationships flourish and procreation continues unimpeded by these complexities.

Within this future, individuals can consciously adapt their sexual preferences, potentially opting to be pansexual to encompass the vast array of existent genders and sexes.

Discussion Prompt: Envisioning yourself within this hypothetical future, would you modify your sexual preferences to accommodate the extensive diversity in genders and sexes, essentially becoming pansexual? Or would you maintain your current sexual orientation (assuming you're not already pansexual), potentially limiting your range of potential partners?

Remember, this scenario presumes that individuals can consciously modify their sexual orientation through training or conditioning, making the choice a matter of personal preference rather than innate disposition. Let’s delve into the philosophical and moral implications of such a choice and the societal impacts of this hypothetical future.

Just stop trying to analyze the hell out of people, and just accept them as they are, instead. Sheesh!

 

[Echogem222]

I see nothing wrong with encouraging it in general. But in particular encouraging someone to experiment sexually can become coercion. That's a version of rape. Mixing the sexual preference shift with the religion is dangerous in my opinion from a moral perspective depending on the promises made as part of the religion. The missing ingredient in the discussion, imo, is consent.

Also, in general, it's a very one-sided perspective. Then this one-side, the desire to have physical, intellectual, and emotive intimacy with everyone and everything is being projected on all others. "Why wouldn't you want to have what I have? You don't want to be rejected, so why are you rejecting?"

Here's the thing. In particular, for me, there is no bigger turn off than if my partner is not into it. That means, "YES, I want to be rejected." I hate the idea of forcing someone or even convincing them to be involved with me. Ew. I think it's gross. And even typing these words, I got a pit in my stomach, just thinking about it. So, projecting this idea onto others is... one sided. I'm certain, there's people like me who would rather be rejected, and it's difficult for me to imagine that there's not a lot of people who would want to maintain the right to exclude.

My opinion is, adopting this model of "in general" vs "in particular" would be a very useful tool for you. It's somewhat easy to make general statements and rules which are agreeable. It's much harder to apply those to a particular instance: who, what, when, where, why, and how. That's why societies need Judges and Justice systems. If you recall, this is how I deciphered the "gemstone" analogy. I softened it and applied it in general. Then I understood and we could proceed.

If you can come up with an idea that is true in general AND in particular in all cases.... ding-ding-ding. That's a winner.

"coercion"??? Did you not read the part when I said, "only if the pros outweigh the cons"? If the pros outweigh the cons, why would that be coercion for someone to do that? I have a feeling you think my religion is a certain way, but you don't actually know it well enough to come to that conclusion.

This is a bit of a problem for me as written. There's a contradiction.

1st paragraph:	"I would accept, this is because I don't believe people have free will."
2nd paragraph:	"I would pity them over. Because I would still view it as discrimination, but it would also be themselves devaluing not only others, but also themselves

Can you see the problem I would have with this? The first paragraph is denying freewill. The second paragraph is assuming freewill. If there is no freewill, then there is no reason for pity, they are not devaluing anyone. The only reason to have any regret at all is if things are not predetermined and a different outcome is possible.

Lacking freewill, It is just they way things have been pre-determined. Everyone's value is preset, everyone's partnerships are predetremined, everyone's sexual preferences are predetermined. That's it. There should be no regret for any outcome. It just is.

So, I'm wondering if one of the paragraphs is "in general" and one of the paragraphs is "in particular". This could potentially resolve the contradiction or further refine your ideas? In general you are dissappointed, but if it happens in particular you accept it? That makes sense to me. I don't really agree with it, but, it makes sense.

The other thing that I have a problem with, is again, this one sided projection. A person's value is not defined by your standards. If a person is exclusive, that might increase their value. You perceive it differently because you are imagining them being excluded which you project as devaluing. But, that's not your choice to project your own feelings and values onto them.

In general, I agree that intimacy of all sorts should be freely available to anyone and everyone regardless of their appearance, gender, orientation, inclination, etc... in general. That is generally a sort of universal global version of PAN-everything. When I consider it globally, the global population is certainly PAN-everything, in general. That's the zoomed-out bird's eye view.

In particular I think each individual should choose with whom to be intimate or follow what ever is biologically / spirititually predetermined for them. That's zooming in: who, what when, where, why, and how.

How do I resolve this conflict? I consider the potential for harm. There is more potental for harm forcing someone to be intimate in all forms and in all ways. This over-rules the less damaging potential for rejection. The individual, in particular, has priority over the general population which desires freedom and universal inclusion.

There's no contradiction, not unless you misunderstand what I'm saying. Not having free will does not suddenly mean discrimination doesn't exist. A person can say that they hate someone because their black and genuinely mean it, but because they don't have free will, means they are not at fault. However, acknowledging it is discrimination can cause such problems to be stopped. I pity them because they're saying that someone else is lower than themselves, even though they're not, which means they see their own value as being something that it isn't, devaluing themselves as a result because they don't understand their true value.

This is projecting the desire to be intimate with someone ON the pig. The argument against beastiality is due to a lack of CONSENT.

In general, no one should be excluded from opportunities for intimacy, even a pig. In particular, it is virtually impossible to obtain consent from a pig. Perhaps one could let it freely gratify itself ON themself without any sort of coercion. There's also breeding programs where the animal's seed is collected manually. I think that was on an episode on the TV-show "Dirty Jobs" or something.

In general, I hear what you're saying. I understand, I think the only problem, morally, is, it seems like you have a set of values and desires which are being projected on others. But, in general, it's not that big of a problem. It's just a little inappropriate in the context of intimacy. It's invasive.

In general, people have ideas, they think are good, so they talk about them, and see if other people agree. It's planting a seed to see if it takes root. In particular, in a religious context, it gets much more complicated if promises are being made. If there is actual intimacy being sought, it gets much much more complicated. Virtual / online intimacy is not excluded.

In general? that's pretty easy. In particular? who, what, when, where, why, and how, all need to be considered.

In particular in a religious context there's a definite risk of coercion without the intimacy.
In particular in an intimate context there's a definite risk of coercion without the religion.
If both religion and intimacy are combined, now the potential for coercion has greatly increased.

The issue becomes complicated because coercion is rape, and I don't think you've considered it, at least, in particular.

That isn't what I meant by "assuming consent", I meant it in the sense of if the pig did genuinely give consent in a way that would be "healthy" for both sides (so understanding the situation from a wise perspective).

I think based on everything I've read from you, you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying, that's why you have an issue. So, whether you realize it or not (I'm assuming not) what you're doing amounts to using the strawperson argument.

 

[dybmh]

"coercion"??? Did you not read the part when I said, "only if the pros outweigh the cons"? If the pros outweigh the cons, why would that be coercion for someone to do that? I have a feeling you think my religion is a certain way, but you don't actually know it well enough to come to that conclusion.

Nope, it has nothing to do with your religion.

Here is what I said:

In particular in a religious context there's a definite risk of coercion without the intimacy.
In particular in an intimate context there's a definite risk of coercion without the religion.
If both religion and intimacy are combined, now the potential for coercion has greatly increased.

It is religion in general which makes promises and tries to persuade people. If your religion is trying to convince and persuade people, AND part of that includes convincing them to deviate from their sexual preferences, then consent and coercion needs to be considered, because, the risk of coercion is higher than normal. For any religion that is trying to "get people" to have sex with more people "religiously", there is an issue with consent and coercion that needs to be addressed.

The fact that your reaction is: "you're prejudiced against my religion" shows that you have not considred this properly. You should be able to answer very clearly and easily regarding prevention of sexual coercion in your religion since it "sex" is included in the religion. "I would never! How dare you!??!" Is not a proper answer.

It's totally normal for Amab ( assigned Male at birth ) Americans to be completely ignorant about sexual coercion. What it means, and how to avoid it. I mentioned it earlier. The gold standard is enthusiastic approval. Anything less than that, anything that involves convincing a person to be intimate is walking into coercion territory. It's rape. The "Yes" may not be "Yes" if they were persuaded.

It seems clear to me yoou have not considered this.

Sexual coercion is unwanted sexual activity that happens after being pressured in nonphysical ways that include:1​

​

Being worn down by someone who repeatedly asks for sex​

Being lied to or being promised things that weren’t true to trick you into having sex​

Having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors about you if you don’t have sex with them​

Having an authority figure, like a boss, property manager, loan officer, or professor, use their influence or authority to pressure you into having sex​

In a healthy relationship, you never have to have sexual contact when you don’t want to. Sexual contact without your consent is assault. Sexual coercion means feeling forced to have sexual contact with someone.​

Sexual coercion | Office on Women's Health

www.womenshealth.gov

In general, it's different. The standards are lower. In particular, if there are two people, and one of them has something to gain, if they make promises, are persuasive, convincing them. That's borderline, it could be rape.

​

Sexual coercion is when a person pressures, tricks, threatens, or manipulates someone into having sex. It is a type of sexual assault because even if someone says yes, they are not giving their consent freely.​

Sexual coercion

Sexual coercion is when someone pressures a person into having sex through harassment, manipulation, or threats. Learn the signs here.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

“No” always means “No,” and “Yes” may not always mean “Yes.” Anything but a clear, knowing and voluntary consent to any sexual activity is equivalent to a “No.”​

Consent and Coercion Discussed

www.uncp.edu

There's no contradiction, not unless you misunderstand what I'm saying. Not having free will does not suddenly mean discrimination doesn't exist. A person can say that they hate someone because their black and genuinely mean it, but because they don't have free will, means they are not at fault. However, acknowledging it is discrimination can cause such problems to be stopped. I pity them because they're saying that someone else is lower than themselves, even though they're not, which means they see their own value as being something that it isn't, devaluing themselves as a result because they don't understand their true value.

You just did it again. "can cause such problems to be stopped". <------- that assumes free-will.

I gave you an out. I tried to understand what you said, and avoid the contradiction. This knee-jerk reaction is not productive.

That isn't what I meant by "assuming consent", I meant it in the sense of if the pig did genuinely give consent in a way that would be "healthy" for both sides (so understanding the situation from a wise perspective).

And how do you inform the "pig" what you intend to do TO it, so that it can understand? How you establish the "yes/no" paradigm which is clearly stating the "pig" has consented to the "act".

You actually haven't thought this out properly. It's OK. it's nothing to be ashamed or embarrased about. I had to be taughtt this stuff too. Every Amercian, quite honestly, regardless of gender should learn this stuff. But especially anyone with a penis.

I think based on everything I've read from you, you're just misunderstanding what I'm saying, that's why you have an issue. So, whether you realize it or not (I'm assuming not) what you're doing amounts to using the strawperson argument.

No. You seem to be in denial that you have some missing pieces regarding the morality of sexuality. And that denial is producing this.

If you do not understand the complications surrounding getting a pig to consent, then you definitely have not approached this subject matter in to the extent necessary to be persuading people to be intimate with someone even thought their desire, inclination, poternitally their moral compass is saying clearly "No".

Anytime "No" is not accepted as the answer. There's a problem. Even claiming "there's benefits" Benefits? Pros? Like a monetary reward? A payment? Do you see the moral implications of what you're saying?

 

[Echogem222]

Nope, it has nothing to do with your religion.

Here is what I said:



It is religion in general which makes promises and tries to persuade people. If your religion is trying to convince and persuade people, AND part of that includes convincing them to deviate from their sexual preferences, then consent and coercion needs to be considered, because, the risk of coercion is higher than normal. For any religion that is trying to "get people" to have sex with more people "religiously", there is an issue with consent and coercion that needs to be addressed.

The fact that your reaction is: "you're prejudiced against my religion" shows that you have not considred this properly. You should be able to answer very clearly and easily regarding prevention of sexual coercion in your religion since it "sex" is included in the religion. "I would never! How dare you!??!" Is not a proper answer.

It's totally normal for Amab ( assigned Male at birth ) Americans to be completely ignorant about sexual coercion. What it means, and how to avoid it. I mentioned it earlier. The gold standard is enthusiastic approval. Anything less than that, anything that involves convincing a person to be intimate is walking into coercion territory. It's rape. The "Yes" may not be "Yes" if they were persuaded.

It seems clear to me yoou have not considered this.

Sexual coercion is unwanted sexual activity that happens after being pressured in nonphysical ways that include:1​

​

Being worn down by someone who repeatedly asks for sex​

Being lied to or being promised things that weren’t true to trick you into having sex​

Having someone threaten to end a relationship or spread rumors about you if you don’t have sex with them​

Having an authority figure, like a boss, property manager, loan officer, or professor, use their influence or authority to pressure you into having sex​

In a healthy relationship, you never have to have sexual contact when you don’t want to. Sexual contact without your consent is assault. Sexual coercion means feeling forced to have sexual contact with someone.​

Sexual coercion | Office on Women's Health

www.womenshealth.gov

In general, it's different. The standards are lower. In particular, if there are two people, and one of them has something to gain, if they make promises, are persuasive, convincing them. That's borderline, it could be rape.

​

Sexual coercion is when a person pressures, tricks, threatens, or manipulates someone into having sex. It is a type of sexual assault because even if someone says yes, they are not giving their consent freely.​

Sexual coercion

Sexual coercion is when someone pressures a person into having sex through harassment, manipulation, or threats. Learn the signs here.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

“No” always means “No,” and “Yes” may not always mean “Yes.” Anything but a clear, knowing and voluntary consent to any sexual activity is equivalent to a “No.”​

Consent and Coercion Discussed

www.uncp.edu

You just did it again. "can cause such problems to be stopped". <------- that assumes free-will.

I gave you an out. I tried to understand what you said, and avoid the contradiction. This knee-jerk reaction is not productive.




And how do you inform the "pig" what you intend to do TO it, so that it can understand? How you establish the "yes/no" paradigm which is clearly stating the "pig" has consented to the "act".

You actually haven't thought this out properly. It's OK. it's nothing to be ashamed or embarrased about. I had to be taughtt this stuff too. Every Amercian, quite honestly, regardless of gender should learn this stuff. But especially anyone with a penis.



No. You seem to be in denial that you have some missing pieces regarding the morality of sexuality. And that denial is producing this.

If you do not understand the complications surrounding getting a pig to consent, then you definitely have not approached this subject matter in to the extent necessary to be persuading people to be intimate with someone even thought their desire, inclination, poternitally their moral compass is saying clearly "No".

Anytime "No" is not accepted as the answer. There's a problem. Even claiming "there's benefits" Benefits? Pros? Like a monetary reward? A payment? Do you see the moral implications of what you're saying?

Now you're just ignoring everything I've been trying to say in a rather deliberate seeming way. My religion is not the way you're thinking it is, in the sense that you're assuming the word religion means something it actually doesn't. The word religion means something vague, not something specific like you're thinking it does. You're assuming not having free will means something it actually doesn't, you're assuming that I need to explain why a pig could give consent in a reasonable way in order for me to prove my point when I don't. You've been trying to find every way you can to prove me wrong instead of thinking about how I could be right, that's a bias, and clearly a waste of my time.