LGBT Relationships "Fake", According to Belarus

[New haven america]

Essentially the question is, "What is the *point* of sex?"

Bonding, pleasure, reproduction (For people who are capable of doing so), physical and emotional connection, etc...


Next question.

[The East Marches II]

Christian "philosophers" are memes.

Philosophy is a bad meme

[Dogmeat]

Oh, I do think the transcendent experience of sharing ones being with another is real. It's one of my favorite things about sex, in fact. I'm just skeptical of the claim that this was only possible because my partner had a vagina.

I think your pet philosopher is taking one of the best things about sex, and clumsily twisting it into a brute cudgel out of sheer bigotry.

I don't think it's just a matter of genital difference from his perspective, but the full differences between a man and a woman as sexual counterparts

If ridged categories of sexual difference were accurate descriptors of the world, then homosexuals would not exist at all. The fact that they do exist is proof that there is variance within men and women, sufficient that one's sexual counterpart might fall within their own gender.

[El Hamidah]

"happiness" I guess would count as pleasure. As does a feeling of transcendence of your self.

Define happiness

Feeling happy.

[El Hamidah]

Christian "philosophers" are memes.

Philosophy is a bad meme

Some are alright.

Anyone who unironically follows scholasticism tho

[The Parkus Empire]

Define happiness

Feeling happy.

Scruton would observe that happiness can be either self-absorbed, or self-transcendent

[El Hamidah]

Essentially the question is, "What is the *point* of sex?"

Bonding, pleasure, reproduction (For people who are capable of doing so), physical and emotional connection, etc...


Next question.

Sounds hedonistic.

No, you see, Sex is about having an out of body experience.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't think it's just a matter of genital difference from his perspective, but the full differences between a man and a woman as sexual counterparts

If ridged categories of sexual difference were accurate descriptors of the world, then homosexuals would not exist at all. The fact that they do exist is proof that there is variance within men and women, sufficient that one's sexual counterpart might fall within their own gender.

Technically it couldn't by definition, since "counterpart" here does not mean an individual, but a sex as counterpart to another sex

[El Hamidah]

Feeling happy.

Scruton would observe that happiness can be either self-absorbed, or self-transcendent

It can just as easily be self transcendent when it's with another guy/girl, if you care about them enough.

[Jelmatt]

Perhaps you could post some passages, to encourage discussion.



I suppose you’ve already read it then? Or are you dismissing it entirely based on the politics of the author?

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

Just because a person is the same sex as you doesn't mean that you can't have sexual encounters with them in a way which still treats them as a different, self-directing person (or I suppose an "Other"). Homosexual sex is still interpersonal, no less than heterosexual sex.

[Dogmeat]

If ridged categories of sexual difference were accurate descriptors of the world, then homosexuals would not exist at all. The fact that they do exist is proof that there is variance within men and women, sufficient that one's sexual counterpart might fall within their own gender.

Technically it couldn't by definition, since "counterpart" here does not mean an individual, but a sex as counterpart to another sex

You just established that you're not merely talking about the physical differences of gender, and I've just established (and you did not challenge) that psychological differences could be sufficiently counterpartual within one's own gender, so what are we talking about? Metaphysical differences?

[The Parkus Empire]

Scruton would observe that happiness can be either self-absorbed, or self-transcendent

It can just as easily be self transcendent when it's with another guy/girl, if you care about them enough.

Love and yes, physical contact, can be. As with brothers. But in the realm of the sexual, Scruton argues, Other is defined first, foremost, primarily and crucially, as the Sexual Other

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't have it on me, but the basis is that sex is about transcending the self, and that homosexuality, lacking sexual difference, really can't do that and so it basically is just about self pleasuring, like masturbation, which makes it narcissistic (which the author asserts is unethical).

Just because a person is the same sex as you doesn't mean that you can't have sexual encounters with them in a way which still treats them as a different, self-directing person (or I suppose an "Other"). Homosexual sex is still interpersonal, no less than heterosexual sex.

Scruton would say that is not an encounter with the Sexual Other. It is with the Other as a distinct person, but not the Sexual Other

[El Hamidah]

It can just as easily be self transcendent when it's with another guy/girl, if you care about them enough.

Love and yes, physical contact, can be. As with brothers. But in the realm of the sexual, Scruton argues, Other is defined first, foremost, primarily and crucially, as the Sexual Other

But there's no reason why another guy or girl wouldn't be a sexual other to you. They're a different person with a different appearance and character than you.

It's just a stupid argument.

The argument that sex is for procreation is the only sensible objection to it I can think of. And even then, only in comparison to the other ones.

[The Parkus Empire]

Technically it couldn't by definition, since "counterpart" here does not mean an individual, but a sex as counterpart to another sex

You just established that you're not merely talking about the physical differences of gender, and I've just established (and you did not challenge) that psychological differences could be sufficiently counterpartual within one's own gender, so what are we talking about? Metaphysical differences?

The physical differences of the sexes (which are not merely genitals) are the fundamental basis. The rest is really too moot for discussion here

[The Parkus Empire]

Love and yes, physical contact, can be. As with brothers. But in the realm of the sexual, Scruton argues, Other is defined first, foremost, primarily and crucially, as the Sexual Other

But there's no reason why another guy or girl wouldn't be a sexual other to you. They're a different person with a different appearance and character than you.

It's just a stupid argument.

The argument that sex is for procreation is the only sensible objection to it I can think of. And even then, only in comparison to the other ones.

That's Personal Other, but not Sexual Other

[El Hamidah]

You just established that you're not merely talking about the physical differences of gender, and I've just established (and you did not challenge) that psychological differences could be sufficiently counterpartual within one's own gender, so what are we talking about? Metaphysical differences?

The physical differences of the sexes (which are not merely genitals) are the fundamental basis. The rest is really too moot for discussion here

There are physical and emotional differences between two men and two women as well.

[El Hamidah]

But there's no reason why another guy or girl wouldn't be a sexual other to you. They're a different person with a different appearance and character than you.

It's just a stupid argument.

The argument that sex is for procreation is the only sensible objection to it I can think of. And even then, only in comparison to the other ones.

That's Personal Other, but not Sexual Other

Personal other is what matters in transcending your self.

[The Parkus Empire]

The physical differences of the sexes (which are not merely genitals) are the fundamental basis. The rest is really too moot for discussion here

There are physical and emotional differences between two men and two women as well.

Correct, but we are talking about sexual difference, not simply personal difference

[The Parkus Empire]

That's Personal Other, but not Sexual Other

Personal other is what matters in transcending your self.

In some cases. Scruton would argue in *sex*, Sexual Other is necessary. The transcendent nature of sex, he argues, hinges on encounter with the sexual other.

[Dogmeat]

You just established that you're not merely talking about the physical differences of gender, and I've just established (and you did not challenge) that psychological differences could be sufficiently counterpartual within one's own gender, so what are we talking about? Metaphysical differences?

The physical differences of the sexes (which are not merely genitals) are the fundamental basis. The rest is really too moot for discussion here

No. It's not moot, because he's drawing an arbitrary line. There are some pretty masculine women out there physically, and some pretty feminine guys. And since genitals don't matter, what does? Am I engaging in immoral narcissism if my wife is taller than me? What if she's strong too, and has small breasts?

This whole things is such a contrived reason to oppose homosexuality that you should be embarrassed for presenting it seriously.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

What's the problem with masturbation?

For Scruton it's self-absorbed sex. It's taking a self-transcendent activity and using it purely as a self-pleasuring one. Similar to taking a pill that makes you feel like you gave money to charity, just to indulge the feeling.

Ok, but that's Scruton's take. Masturbation has quite a few health benefits: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn ... sturbation

[The Parkus Empire]

The physical differences of the sexes (which are not merely genitals) are the fundamental basis. The rest is really too moot for discussion here

No. It's not moot, because he's drawing an arbitrary line. There are some pretty masculine women out there physically, and some pretty feminine guys. And since genitals don't matter, what does? Am I engaging in immoral narcissism if my wife is taller than me? What if she's strong too, and has small breasts?

This whole things is such a contrived reason to oppose homosexuality that you should be embarrassed for presenting it seriously.

Reductionism and very weak at that if you're actually suggesting it's not simple to make a qualitative distinction between a homosexual encounter and a heterosexual one

[The Parkus Empire]

For Scruton it's self-absorbed sex. It's taking a self-transcendent activity and using it purely as a self-pleasuring one. Similar to taking a pill that makes you feel like you gave money to charity, just to indulge the feeling.

Ok, but that's Scruton's take. Masturbation has quite a few health benefits: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn ... sturbation

>plannedparenthood

[El Hamidah]

No. It's not moot, because he's drawing an arbitrary line. There are some pretty masculine women out there physically, and some pretty feminine guys. And since genitals don't matter, what does? Am I engaging in immoral narcissism if my wife is taller than me? What if she's strong too, and has small breasts?

This whole things is such a contrived reason to oppose homosexuality that you should be embarrassed for presenting it seriously.

Reductionism and very weak at that if you're actually suggesting it's not simple to make a qualitative distinction between a homosexual encounter and a heterosexual one

Whats the qualitative distinction?