To use a little decontructionist language here, you are unconsciously priveleging Judeo-Christian morality. Look at places that don’t have a Judeo-Christian(-Islamic) morality, like India, China, Africa, Japan, Korea.
Yeah, India came up with the Kama Sutra. 3000 years ago. But India and China and Japan are seriously patriarchal places, with nary a drop of Christianity. How are gays treated in China? How are adulterous women treated in India? How are teenage schoolgirls who sell their underwear online to middle-aged salarymen treated in Japan?
My point is that while Chinese or Japanese or Indian sexual hangups don’t map exactly onto European and American sexual hangups, they still have major sexual hangups. Blaming Jesus for America’s sexual problems doesn’t compute.
Some people find things like setting fires and murder sexually exciting, so if sexual behavior was absolutely free I think the result would be chaos. It wouldn’t take too many unrestrainable pyromaniacs to wreck a city, for example.
The problem isn’t sex, really. It’s that absolutes don’t work well in the real world, including absolute sexual freedom.
I disagree, especially with your earlier assertion of its innate.
They would have that restraint; most folks aren’t attracted to their parnets or siblings; a perosn who is is not normal, that is, sick. SOme things are just by nature, wrong. You don’t think so?
I woulc say: Something is only wrong in so far as it causes harm to other people or society in general. Some forms of sexual unorthodoxy may come into this category, but anyone opposing them needs to present more of an argument than “it’s just wrong”.
Alright, where do we draw the line on “harm?” If two completely consenting adults engage in, say, sado-masochistic practices that cause damage to their bodies that eventually results in various health issues and an ultimately reduced life span, does not the damage to oneself constitute harm to “society in general?”
But, if these are two consenting adults, is this not their choice and their right to do anything to each other that they please? At what point do we say, “Stop, because that’s bad for yourself and, ultimately, all of us.”
And, of course, this same question would apply to any two beings, adult/child, male/female, human/animal, etc.
Are we concluding, then, that human sexuality is somehow inherently warped, and in need of external restraints, even as we have made our good, but lamentably necessary, laws against various forms of murder?
If so, then who decides what should not be allowed, and for what reasons?
I think rape is generally an act of violence as opposed to sexual gratification. There are enough ways for a man or woman who is seriously sexually frustrated to get off without attacking another person non-consensually. Even allowing for cultural bias, I don’t think anyone can view rape on a parity with “disgusting” or “immoral” consensual sex acts. Every culture on the planet has laws relating to non-consensual sexual activity, even if it’s not treated with equal harshness everywhere.
Why can’t we have society without taboos? What is it about us that makes this impossible?
A bold and valid statement, although I might contend that the “sense of victimization and emotional trauma are absent,” entirely, at any rate. Most societies have accepted norms for the victimization of certain groups. These may be accepted as “the norm,” but the victims must feel victimized at least some of the time, even if they, themselves, may have become convinced that they deserve it.
No, I’m saying that in a messy world and dealing with a variable species, absolute principles don’t work. I’m not saying that all - or even most - people need restraint; most will restrain themselves. It’s the few who can’t or won’t that need to be restrained.
As far as who should decide ? I’d say the rest of have a right to protect ourselves, so we can stop someone who hurts others who aren’t interested. Also, I believe most self destructive behavior is due to mental illness; such people should be restrained from harming themselves.
I think we’d see a shift to a more Islamic style culture, with women and children being protected / repressed and not venturing out of the home unaccompanied lest they be raped (which would be ok under the OP) or otherwise molested. Womens’ and children’s clothes would become much more concealing - who wants to rape a skanky diseased old cow? But you couldn’t tell until you’d actually attacked them. Long-term I see women becoming second-class citizens
Sort of like the Free Women of Gor, IIRC.
Actually, the OP’s subject refers to sex, but the text is almost a perfect description of anarchy.
I’ll take a stab and predict that in the scenario proposed by the OP, there’d be an initial period of frenzied rutting, followed by a long period of people Not Really Caring About Sex any more. Instead of sex being some sort of elusive taboo prize, it’d be “just another thing”, with about as much allure and mystery as eating leftovers for lunch.
Put it this way: I support the discouraging of any practices that are known to have detrimental effects on the individual(s) involved. Damage to the individual translates, to whatever degree that it does, into damage to the society. These would certainly include the use of tobacco and alcohol, although some saturated fat may be necessary for our survival. You can get the latter without killing an animal; you just have to look harder in the plant kingdom to find it.
It’s interesting to me how immediately sexual freedom, of any kind, gets interpreted as “anarchy,“ or some close approximation of it. Is this what our sexuality constitutes?
That might explain why every human culture has had some kind of sexual taboos. Sex is such a powerful, anarchic force that everybody, on some level, fears it.
I read once that the traditional Chinese education of a Confucian scholar involved suppressing the student’s sexuality. And that was never a Christian culture. Sex is not “immoral” in Confucian ethics – but it is irrational, undignified, undecorous; it’s something a cultured gentleman should be able to control. This attitude seems to persist in China today, where homosexuality, in particular, is still a big taboo, and deeply frowned on by the state.
The concept of absolute, total sexual freedom is inherently unworkable. If I’m allowed to do anything I want, so long as it has a sexual component, I’m going to start masturbating while I rob banks. Heck, just about any crime becomes unprosecutable so long as the assailant also rapes his victim. I think the OP has created a hypothetical that is so broad as to be useless as a debating tool.
