Advertisement
by Free Soviets » Mon May 02, 2011 8:45 pm
by Unhealthy2 » Mon May 02, 2011 8:52 pm
Free Soviets wrote:it spills precious bodily fluids, thereby letting the terrorists win.
by Threlizdun » Mon May 02, 2011 8:55 pm
by The Corparation » Mon May 02, 2011 9:15 pm
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Unhealthy2 » Tue May 03, 2011 10:05 am
by Sunny Marionette » Tue May 03, 2011 10:08 am
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:One time in India, I managed to draw an elaborate battle scene in the sand with my piss. Granted, my friends aided me in this matter, but we finished with Darth Vader force choking a random Jedi. It was one of the greatest achievements of our lives.
by Cosmopoles » Tue May 03, 2011 10:08 am
by Sunny Marionette » Tue May 03, 2011 10:18 am
Cosmopoles wrote:So long as you aren't addicted to it and don't inisist that other people watch you without their asking to see it.
Probably not a good idea to let it replace sex if you're in a relationship.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:One time in India, I managed to draw an elaborate battle scene in the sand with my piss. Granted, my friends aided me in this matter, but we finished with Darth Vader force choking a random Jedi. It was one of the greatest achievements of our lives.
by Soheran » Tue May 03, 2011 10:53 am
Unhealthy2 wrote:I guess no one has anything.
by Unhealthy2 » Tue May 03, 2011 11:00 am
Soheran wrote:Try some natural law theorists--Elizabeth Anscombe, John Finnis, Robert George. Don't try NSG for a serious defense of any conservative philosophical position.
I mean, I can give you a very rough outline. The argument goes something like this:
1. Our bodies are not mere instruments, but an essential part of ourselves: hence, we cannot regard them merely as objects to be used for the sake of our mental sensations, because their good is an inseparable part of our good and well-being. (If you smash my car, my property is harmed--but if you break my arm, you have assaulted me.)
2. The bodily good of sex is fulfilled only in penile-vaginal intercourse (within marriage): only this kind of sex grants due respect to the bodily complementarity of men and women, and to the fact that bodily function of sex, procreation, can only be fulfilled together with another person (and specifically one of the opposite sex.)
3. Masturbation, then, is self-objectifying in that it uses the human sexual faculty merely as a means for pleasure, without regard to its innate unitive and procreative nature; as such, it disintegrates the person (by treating a genuine part of ourselves as merely a tool for our pleasure) and amounts to harming oneself.
by Co Za Asy » Tue May 03, 2011 11:08 am
by Soheran » Tue May 03, 2011 11:15 am
Unhealthy2 wrote:I reject 2. entirely. It's trying to prove an assumption with an assumption.
This argument also seems to be saying that using anything in a way different from it's so-called inherent nature (which seems to be something our natural law friends get to conveniently make up on the spot) is wrong. I fail to see why using something in a different way than it's "inherent function," whatever the fuck that means (hint: It doesn't mean ANYTHING.) is bad. I mean, it all hinges on this extremely vague bullshit notion of "innate nature" that the natural law user can change on a whim to mean whatever they want. It's nothing but rhetorical flourish.
by Unhealthy2 » Tue May 03, 2011 11:20 am
Soheran wrote:I think this criticism, at least as applied to the "new" natural law theorists like Finnis and George, rests upon a misunderstanding. By "nature" they do not mean "nature" in the sense of the laws of physics; they mean "essence", and they mean it in a normative sense. So: an unjust law fails to appreciate the intrinsic orientation of the law toward the common good--which means nothing more than that the business of legislation, considered normatively, is about securing the common good. Likewise, according to the argument, masturbation (and homosexuality, and other kinds of sexual activity they disapprove of) fails to appreciate the good of marital sex, and that's why it is "unnatural": not because it doesn't happen (empirically) all the time among humans and non-human animals.
What is necessary to defeat the argument is to contest their normative judgments about bodily goods.They prefer to think that the problem with liberals is their rejection of 1., and that if anyone rejects the instrumentalization of the body they will naturally come to appreciate 2. and 3., but this isn't the case.
by Soheran » Tue May 03, 2011 11:36 am
Unhealthy2 wrote:But where is there argument that marital sex is the only good?
Further, why can't someone enjoy both marital sex and masturbation? How does having the one make someone incapable of enjoying the other?
by EvilDarkMagicians » Tue May 03, 2011 11:44 am
by Unhealthy2 » Tue May 03, 2011 12:06 pm
Soheran wrote:You should really actually read them: I don't buy this argument, I'm not sure I have all the details right, and I am not going to defend it very far. But it's not that marital sex is the only good in the space of goods, it's that other attempts at sexual goods necessarily fail to appreciate the unitive character of human sexual faculties.
So, there are many ways (factually) to use sex organs, and many of them bring about pleasure, but only a small subset orient the act toward the genuine bodily good of procreative-type sex. The sex organs are not complete unless they are united with the sex organs of a person of the opposite sex; as such, their good cannot be realized except in that context. To use them sexually otherwise is to use them in a kind of counterfeit sex. If there were some bodily function the sex organs (together) could perform by themselves, or with a partner in a different way, matters might be different--but there isn't.
Lying is contrary to truth even though it does not disable me from truth-telling. Likewise, masturbation (the argument goes) is anti-marital even though it does not disable me from marrying. It's not the consequences of the act, it's the character (hence the nature) of the act.
Leaving aside that point, they might add that our capacity to appreciate the good of marital sex (and marriage generally) is weakened insofar as we accept masturbation as a legitimate activity: it runs the risk of making our attitude toward sex within marriage also essentially masturbatory. (This is similarly their problem with same-sex marriage: it undermines people's capacity to understand what "real" marriage is.)
by Vetalia » Tue May 03, 2011 12:10 pm
by Arkinesia » Tue May 03, 2011 12:19 pm
Wikipedia and Universe wrote:Excessive masturbation is insane. Savage Love said even on a really horny day you should max out at 10 TOPS. However as for chafing it depends on the method.Tekania wrote:Masturbation isn't wrong, however excessive masturbation is wrong, as it can lead to painful chaffing.
Disappointment Panda wrote:Don't hope for a life without problems. There's no such thing. Instead, hope for a life full of good problems.
by Grave_n_idle » Tue May 03, 2011 12:25 pm
Sunny Marionette wrote:I have no problem with it, but as a female I don't like to do it. It's just awkward in my opinion. Besides, why be alone when you can make it into a partner activity?
by Flameswroth » Tue May 03, 2011 12:35 pm
Czardas wrote:Why should we bail out climate change with billions of dollars, when lesbians are starving in the streets because they can't afford an abortion?
Reagan Clone wrote:What you are proposing is glorifying God by loving, respecting, or at least tolerating, his other creations.
That is the gayest fucking shit I've ever heard, and I had Barry Manilow perform at the White House in '82.
by Wolny Kraj » Tue May 03, 2011 12:39 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 0rganization, Aadhiris, Battadia, Bovad, Dazchan, El Lazaro, Futurist State of Agladnare, Herador, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Ineva, Kohr, Likhinia, Majestic-12 [Bot], Maximum Imperium Rex, New Temecula, Nu Elysium, Saiwana, Sarolandia, Shrillland, Statesburg, Tesseris, The Kharkivan Cossacks, The Vooperian Union, Tiami, Uiiop
Advertisement