oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Agreed.
I can't figure out the differences between seeking sexual harm from partners...and self harm.
We would (mostly) worry about the latter action, so.........?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is the sex rules of your religion or philosophy?
- Thread starter Leahpolitan_icecream
- Start date
I can't figure out the differences between seeking sexual harm from partners...and self harm.
We would (mostly) worry about the latter action, so.........?
I don't have a worked out belief system as to such other than having some observations and general views as to freedoms and rights along with believing consent is important as is the prevention of harms, but this is perhaps not something that one can place hard and fast rules over. Exploitation and/or abuse of another seems to fall into the harm category.Title question
Some do not hate gay people, some forbid trans people, some allow child marriage, some mutilate genitals, some have many wives, some allow masturbation and some try to have sex with incubus
What are your rules?
Another obvious one - as to adult/child sexual relationships - should be illegal since we do know the harms that can come from such relationships, but the AOC isn't something I feel qualified to determine and it does vary around the world. Not sure of current statistics, but here in the UK it used to be that about a quarter of all females had had sex by the time they reached the AOC of 16. So the law has to cater for such or become too draconian - given that most involved in underage sexual relationships are not charged if these are consensual.
Age difference rules apply in many countries (Romeo and Juliet laws) and perhaps these do work where the participants are young - that is, one participant being below AOC. I don't know about that. Mostly the rest is down to consent and not harming others, even if it might harm the sensibilities of some. So no problems with LGBTQ+ relationships or young/old as long as all are above the AOC.
Necrophilia and bestiality both seem to contravene informed consent so these should be banned - some countries have allowed at least one of these I think but perhaps not now. Not sure about number of partners in marriage (or other arrangements), given that marriage to one partner seems not to be set in stone - apart from where it is via religion. Some societies or those in the past will no doubt have different ideas concerning this such that I again don't feel qualified to comment. If there is no harm then why not?
Incest is problematic - given the likelihood of any offspring being damaged in some way (not sure of probability) - but apart from this perhaps there is no good reason to ban it.
Pornography seems to be too freely available, and also from evidence in recent years does seem to be impacting the health and attitudes of children, besides making it easier for those who wish to target children much easier perhaps, and the lack of controls in social media (as in pornography) is not helping. The amount of illegal images of children has apparently risen relentlessly over the past decades so the war on such is not being won, especially when children are being induced to contribute to such.
We also have the issue of even adult pornography often not being safe to view, given that many sites have had to review their content and eliminate much that either was underage or appeared to be underage - and not so long ago. The word 'appearance' is important here, in that this is often how laws as to such are framed, so that anyone even if over 18 but appears to be younger might result in a charge of possession of illegal imagery. And there are many performers who either straddle the line or would be seen as being underage probably by any jury. Something needs to change with regards this I would think.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Title question
Some do not hate gay people, some forbid trans people, some allow child marriage, some mutilate genitals, some have many wives, some allow masturbation and some try to have sex with incubus
What are your rules?
My rule is that there are no rules except for the obvious one: whatever sexual act you engage in, must be with consenting adults.
And by "adults" I don't necessarily mean a specific age, but rather something like sexual maturity. I find that one hard to define tbh. When does a person stop being a child and become an adult?
There's a period there where it is kind of a grey area.
For example, say a 16 year old has a 17 year old boyfriend.
Suppose the actual age difference is almost 2 years. So for a few days per year, their absolute age difference is 1 year and the rest of the year it is 2 years.
They have sex regurarly. Then the guy turns 18. For about 300 days, his girlfriend remains 16.
Now what? I think that "technically", law-wise, it could be said that having sex with her after his 18th birthday, would be "illegal" with him being an adult and her being a minor.
Then, a year later, when she turns 18, they can once again legally have sex?
So yeah, there's clearly a grey area there. I think one would have to look at it on a case by case basis to see if it is reasonable or rather predatory / pedophilic.
Anyhow, having said that, that's pretty much the only line I draw.
For the rest, have sex with whomever you like in whatever way you like it.
If you are in a committed relationship, then there's another party that needs to be brought in into the decision process.
I have no problems at all with couples who, with mutual consent, have an "open" relationship. As long as whatever that happens, happens with mutual consent it's all fine by me.
Myself, I'm not like that. When in a committed relationship, there's no sleeping around.
But that's just me. Other people aren't me. They can do as they please.
Just like I and my wife shall do how we please.
I don't understand people who think they have the right to tell others how, and with whom, they can and can't have sex.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You are more then entitled to your opinion.
But I have a question.
Given the opportunity, would you enforce this opinion / belief of yours upon the rest of society?
To the point that you would in fact have people thrown in jail, or otherwise punished, if they have sex with someone with mutual consent without being married? Say some one night stand after a good party?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
What is disgusting to you might not be disgusting to other people.
What people find disgusting is pretty subjective.
Having said that, please remember also what the actual question in the OP is.
It is not "what kind of sexual behavior etc would you recommend?"
It is what we feel the rules are / should be.
As in: what type of sex acts, or which circumstances, do we feel should be allowed and not allowed.
This is a vastly different question to "what do you find disgusting?"
I think gay sex is disgusting.
I think straight anal sex is disgusting.
I think SM is disgusting.
I think incest is disgusting.
And that is why *I* would never consent to any of these.
But what other people find disgusting (or not) is up to them.
When I say that 2 men can have sex if they want to, I am not saying that YOU should be having sex with a man. Nor am I saying that YOU need to find it "not disgusting".
I am only saying that the 2 men should be free to have sex if they want to. Just like you are free to have sex with your wife and to find sex between 2 men "disgusting".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
False analogy.
Murder and rape doesn't happen with consent meaning that you can fall victim to it also - that makes it your business.
But if you don't like gay sex, you can just not agree to it.
2 men having gay sex with mutual consent, does not affect you in any way.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Well, then, I'm safe. My lover and I use neither, but it is extravagently unlikely that either one of us will conceive.
"Nothing is inconceivable"
I find it to be moral to not let people abuse each other and act like animals
If neither cares and nobody is harmed, it isn't abuse.
Acting like animals? Really? Then don't eat (like animals do) or sleep (like animals do) or do other things that animals do. See how long you last.
We *are* animals with a very thin veneer of civilization on top. Having sex isn't 'acting like animals', it is acting like humans.
I don't know (haven't looked into it in great detail) but I doubt in the example you gave (sex that isn't rape without marriage, and that act only) I would for the general population at least. Can't think of any good reason to do so, not all sins should be crimes to me.
How about an ongoing sexual relationship without marriage? Should that be criminalized?
How about an occasional sexual relationship without marriage? Should that be criminalized?
How about two men in an ongoing sexual relationship? Should that be criminalized?
How about two women in an ongoing sexual relationship? Should that be criminalized?
How about if the previous were occasional?
Should it be illegal to have multiple partners (assuming all consent)?
Should it be illegal to have sex outside of a marriage without the spouse's consent?
Which 'sins' should be crimes?
Some yes, some no, some maybe so. I'm not a lawmaker.
From my perspective, NONE of those should be criminal.
In fact, I find it rather immoral to criminalize any of them, although civil sanctions are a possibility in the case of sex outside of a marriage that breaks a contract.
Now THAT is acting like animals.
Being human, learning to be human, is an immensely complex undertaking. Kids at the age of puberty may have the sexual wherewithall to make babies, but they haven't got anything like the social and moral maturity to choose a life partner, nor to raise children of their own.
Truly a radical difference in perspective. What would you say is the most fundamental reason (like asking yourself "why" until you hit the base) for thinking so? To either statement.
I think that criminalization should be limited to those acts that cause harm. If there isn't a victim, there should be no crime. No, society isn't a victim.
This is different than, for example, traffic laws or standardization of units, which are mostly to keep public safety (preventative laws) or to make the economy more efficient.
Other than those, for the most part, people should have the freedom to do what they wish in a free society.
Disagree with you. It's standards we've put, it has worked for most societies in the past with no problem. This is a new discovery that contradicts our history.
Can I ask you the same question?
What do you think is the most fundamental reason to criminalize those things?
I don't think it *has* worked with 'no problem'. For example, it has kept women as second class citizens (at best) in many societies. it has lead to many unhappy marriages (since people get married before they are mature enough to make good decisions) and leads to more misery than the alternatives.
I think it is a good thing to 'contradict our history' in that way.