Is it morally OK to sexually explore yourself as long as you don't endanger yourself or others(STDs)? I am not sure on this one, what does /his/ think?
Pic unrelated
It is morally mandatory.
is it morally ok to do something that isn't a danger to yourself or others?
well gee i don't know, but i suppose you'd have to start by showing how any sort of exploration isnt dangerous.
>>1384009
No, it is not. Sexuality is the root of all evil. You should strive for higher goals in life, and not lower yourself to the level of a female. Only females are epitomally anti-intellectual, the embodiment of purely sexual materialism, the rejection of culture, the denial of everything mental we evolved which separates men from animals. As a man you should always be aware that you are a human being, better than an animal.
>>1384047
allahu akbar
>>1384047
i agree, we should have higher aims in life, we are human beings after all
I do it but in a wierd way
Chastity is a strange fetish
>>1384047
Your muslim is showing.
>>1384009
Better yet, why would it be morally wrong? Justify that without bringing in religion to the argument.
>>1384327
even if it isn't immediately damaging, it could lead to behavior that is.
sexual exploration->drugs and alcohol->kidnapping and murdering gentile children
>>1384344
> sexual exploration ~> drugs and alcohol
How? I can see how it would be other way around, but there is no point doing drugs if you can just do sex.
>>1384047
She didn't call back huh?
if you are asking whether something is moral removed from any form of harm to yourself or others you are severely fucked aka spooked
it's not moral and its not immoral. its something you do or don't. you may learn and experience new things you find valuable that route, you might not.
>>1384327
Basically it sets the "precedence" that sex is not a big deal, leading to things like the sexual liberation movement, and the eventual degeneration of society through slutwalks and shit.
My opinion anyway, I'm sure some view it as a good thing.
>>1384354
What he's trying to say is it encourages more promiscuous behaviour.
>>1384390
promiscuous behavior is what is being asked about. there's no necessary correlation between sexual promiscuity and other "promiscuity," and possibly not even evidence for it.
>>1384372
> leading to things like the sexual liberation movement
The cause of liberation is mythology of sex being a big deal at the first place. You are trapped here between unnecessary restrictions and senseless revolutions. Trying to uphold status quo is always the first symptom of degeneration, anyway. Truly healthy society is growing one in a size and inner complexity.
>>1384399
Promiscuous behaviour can certainly be argued as a detriment to society.
What kind of environment does it cultivate when everyone just wants to fuck each other and not raise stable families?
Oh wait...
>>1384413
Sex is certainly a big deal to some people, more so women than men, but definitely both. Obviously there are plenty that think it isn't, but it's not so much the act as what is accompanied with it.
As I said in >>1384421 it's generally not healthy for a society.
Unless you can make a case for open relationships being a stable environment for raising children...
>>1384421
>What kind of environment does it cultivate when everyone just wants to fuck each other and not raise stable families?
I don't know, you tell me and try not to presuppose another heap of bullshit.
>sexual promiscuity with yourself and others precludes stable relationships and healthy child-rearing
wowee
>>1384446
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say since you didn't really make an argument.
I got that you found my statements ridiculous, but could you point out the flaws? Do you think it's a good idea for grown men and women to be purely sex driven and not care about the continuation of society?
>>1384463
>exploring sexuality = being purely sex driven
Is everything this extreme to you?
>>1384476
There's a difference between being a teenager and learning your sexuality, and being an adult and knowing your sexuality while still living a promiscuous life.
You also seem to rely heavily on ad homs.
>>1384436
My case here is mostly about how lack of the sexual exploration leads to delusions about a nature of sex. These delusions leading to the revolution as delusions tends to do. Properly speaking, you wouldn't have revolution about something that isn't big deal. To truly have a revolution, your system need to be the poorly understood for position of common participant, working against it interests or both. Threre are quiet little need to promiscuous behaviou as a some modus operandi for everyone, but sexual exploration is a more broad category than that.
>>1384491
Oh I see what you mean, certainly sexuality was repressed before, but do you not agree the pendulum has swung too far into territory of social acceptance and normalcy of "sluts" (both male and female)?
>>1384009
>Is it morally OK to sexually explore yourself
It's imperative. Intellectual laziness is one of the greatest sins.
Imagine a society where you didn't have to participate in costly capitalistic mating rituals and could just openly ask if someone else is as interested in fucking you as you are in them without being labeled a sex offender for the rest of your life.
>>1384009
Depends on your system of morality.
>>1384490
>There's a difference between being a teenager and learning your sexuality, and being an adult and knowing your sexuality while still living a promiscuous life.
Demonstrate what this difference is. You seem to think sexual exploration is necessarily tied to age, a sexuality which is "discovered" once and for all, and thus the presupposition that promiscuity is inherently immature. OP never suggested his age or how long one ought to explore their sexuality. Let us even assume stable marriage is morally preferable and mature: if "promiscuity" and "sexual exploration" can then be having an open relationship with partners of different genders, then there's no reason why that would damage a stable family relationship or society as a whole. If stable families are a good, then the people who are not not understanding or connecting with their partners are to blame.
>You also seem to rely heavily on ad homs.
If ideas that you assume for no good reason makes you you, then sure dummy.
>>1384009
>>1384519
It could be. I wasn't sure. Are sluts trully accepted today? Slut is still kind of the derogatory term and even if some are okay with sluts... How significant that is?.. I personally doesn't care who is slut and who isn't because of lack of interest in people life. Some people have weak moral compass like from birth, etc. Was there some sort of glorification for the sluts in action if pendulum now swung too far? I am against that because it isn't really something that should be glorified, instead of more important achievements and styles of life.
>>1384372
>sexual liberation movement
In a society that values freedom I don't see why you're opposed to it in this instance
>and the eventual degeneration of society through slutwalks and shit.
Slutwalks are a bit gay but the point of them is usually to highlight rape issues, they're not just for fun
>>1384436
>it's generally not healthy for a society.
Have you got any evidence for that?
>>1384610
How about collapse of Roman Empire because of degeneracy?
>>1384557
In theory this all seems well and good, but you know very well open relationships are absolutely caustic to a relationship, jealousy will take hold of the couple one way or another and it will eventually deteriorate, not to even mention what it would do to a family unit. Can you imagine seeing your mother walk in the door with another man that isn't your father? What the fighting between the two of them would do to a child?
I realize that there will always be exceptions to this rule, but it's childish to assume that everybody would be open to such a concept.
Your operating under the assumption that sex is sex, and that's it. And again, there is a difference between simple exploration of sexuality and ring an adult with no higher motivation in life other than sex. It's just not healthy for a society.
I am going to firmly take the stance that a stable marriage is the morally preferable and mature option. If for nothing else than the continuation of a healthy society.
>>1384009
In what moral canon? In christian one is not.
>>1384588
That is exactly the position I am trying to argue here for, people should have higher callings in life.
At least in my view, I've seen a massive glorification of sluts in the media in recent years. Miley Cyrus being one of the most popular examples.
>>1384635
> Can you imagine seeing your mother walk in the door with another man that isn't your father?
What if your father is dead?
>>1384327
But religion is the root of our morality. Morality existed before christianity but not our morality.
>>1384629
I forgot that the consensus among historians points to "degeneracy" as the primary factor in the collapse of the Roman empire
>>1384600
I'm definitely not opposed to sexual freedom, what I'm saying is the pendulum has swung too far, where it is socially accepted to live a very promiscuous lifestyle. Not acceptable, but encouraged.
>>1384610
Society starts with the family unit.
In western society today, you can certainly agree that the majority of upcoming adults are more focused on sex than raising a family.
This could go quite a few ways, I'm just spitballing here but we could have a serious drop in birth rate which has sort of happened already, a lot of seriously mentally ill adults who have no higher calling in life, and possibly(?) rampant stds.
>>1384650
It would absolutely be acceptable to have another male role model in the child's life, but again, it should not fluctuate (unless it's a shitty father of course).
>>1384659
> encouraged
How exactly it is encouraged?
>>1384683
Celebrities like Miley Cyrus, Iggy Azalea all dressing very skimpily on stage and promoting such lifestyles.
Most of rap music encourages young men to fuck whoever they want and not give a fuck.
Etc...
It's not that hard to see in the media.
>>1384635
>In theory this all seems well and good, but you know very well open relationships are absolutely caustic to a relationship,
And monogamous relationships between people who do not belong together have caustic relationships and comprise most divorces. This is not theory but reality. If the goal is creating stable family units then there is less to fear from open relationships and sexual exploration than personal immaturity and weakness in any nth number of other categories. Again, granting that family units are preferable, you cannot assume sexual promiscuity would doom more relationships than are already doomed, and certainly cannot assume promiscuity is inherently bad for a society.
>Can you imagine seeing your mother walk in the door with another man that isn't your father?
Not without assuming a lot about how the child and its circumstances. You might as well ask "can you imagine having two daddies?" and assume that will fuck a kid up.
>Your operating under the assumption that sex is sex, and that's it
No, I'm assuming sex is a) not inherently immature and harmful to relationships and b)sexual exploration does not equal being a neurotic sex addict.
>And again, there is a difference between simple exploration of sexuality and ring an adult with no higher motivation in life other than sex
Yes, and?
>It's just not healthy for a society.
Which one? Sex in general?
>I am going to firmly take the stance that a stable marriage is the morally preferable and mature option.
good for you
>>1384731
>open relationships
Did you just say monogamous couples comprise most divorces? No shit?
It isn't personal immaturity that gets in the way of an open relationship, it's the emotional investment that is put into a relationship, and the seeming betrayal that sex with another partner would bring.
I can very safely assume sexual exploration outside of a committed relationship is harmful, even if mutually agreed upon. Are you being willfully ignorant here? It's not like there is much debate over this. Ask a committed couple if they'd let their SO fuck someone else.
Promiscuity is certainly bad for society. Like I said, it degenerates the family unit and promotes selfish tendencies that do not involve the betterment of society (raising a family).
>two daddies
Not even slightly similar, what I'm arguing for is a stable environment, a gay couple can provide that (most times) as well as hetero parents.
Sex is obviously not harmful for a society, but like I've said a thousand times, grown adults with no awareness of the betterment of society will fill the void of a family with more sex. I'm not calling them sex fiends, I'm just saying without any purpose in life sex provides gratification.
>>1384354
>there is no point doing drugs if you can just do sex.
Dude, have you ever tried heroin.
>>1384658
Not that anon, but would you accept confucianism as a valid advocate for a strong family unit. The state echoing the nature of the families it is made of and so on?
The problem with promiscuity, to me, is that sexual attractiveness isnt really linked to important modern day skills. I know a guy who is the most useless piece of shit but he can fuck every women because he has the divine mojo. If we d live in a village with open sex life all the women would fuck him, then if he rejects them they would fuck me. That would make me and the other males in the village kill that guy. Sexual morals prevents such things from happening because we implicitely own our partners and dont have to be in endless competition with some guy who looks like e dude from the latest twilight movie. I'm exagerrating but i guess you get what im saying.
>>1384669
>In western society today, you can certainly agree that the majority of upcoming adults are more focused on sex than raising a family.
Also, if not more true of highly restrictive Muslim societies. In general westerners can control themselves and balance their desire for sex as pat of a moderated lifestyle. Arabs are simply sex-crazed. Try go to the middle-east with a female friend. (I did)
>serious drop in birth rate
This trend maps to economic development rather than sexual liberation. Saudi Arabia has a similar birthrate to the west despite arguably being hte most sexually restrictive country on earth
>a lot of seriously mentally ill adults
Mental illness is something that we have only begun to measure in any real sense. Suggesting a link between mental illness and sexual liberation is pretty tenuous.
>who have no higher calling in life
I think that's a problem with our culture but sex has nothing to do with it. People aren't content to live simple lives any more, for one reason or another. The idea that someone needs a "higher calling" is in itself an issue, though it is this competitiveness that has kept our culture on top so I'm happy to accept this drawback.
>rampant stds.
Not really. This is a common misconception. We've actually come a long way, a couple of hundred years ago before antibiotics were discovered Syphilis was a very real, very dangerous epidemic. We're fine nowadays, AIDS was a shock but the worse of that is over (Africa aside)
>>1384925
Excellent points.
Probably the one I've been arguing for most in this thread is the continuation of a stable family unit. Do you think society encouraging promiscuity damages this?
Divorce rates have never been higher, sites like Ashley Madison aid cheating, celebrities and music shamelessly promote those lifestyles, etc...
I'm not suggesting a link between sexual liberation and mental illness, I'm suggesting a link between grown men and women in their 40's who haven't had children. Having children is biologically rewarding and satisfying to humans, most find happiness from it, but you always hear of the ones that end poorly (dog bites man, man bites dog). The point I was trying to make was that the sexual liberation movement went to far, into a society that promotes promiscuity.
I categorized raising a family as a "higher calling". When I say that I don't mean some altruistic bullshit, just goals for the betterment of society.
Do you think Arabs are sex crazy because they are so repressed? Why wasn't the west like that in say, the 20's?
