dekoi said:
loseyourname: It seems that you have a misunderstading of what a human is. A human is more than just a body filled with emotion and the strive for pleasure. A human in its simplest definition is the unity of a body and soul.
Can you find me a reputable source for that definition? I've never heard it before.
Contrary to that, by using the human body as a means to get pleasure, you are completely ignoring the human soul -- and thus, degrading it as well.
Well, I've asked numerous times if using the human body as a means to get pleasure in other ways was immoral and so far you haven't answered in the affirmative. Receiving a massage, or having someone suck on your finger, and many other acts unrelated to sex are using that person for self-pleasure. If using another person for pleasure is the reason you give for sex being immoral, then these acts are also immoral. If not, then there is some other reason that you think sex to be immoral, and I'd suggest leaving behind the notion that it's because you receive pleasure.
If a married couple has sex with say, a condom, that is "immoral" (im scared to refer to immorality, because many do not know what that is). They are ignoring human life -- or rather, rejecting it.
What about people that are infertile? Is it immoral for them to have sex?
Now, continuing the example of premarital sex --> When one has sex with their partner (who they are not married to), they are doing it for the sole purpose of gaining pleasure from the partner. NOT giving pleasure; but GAINING it. That is what one means when they say "degrading the soul"; we are not only ignoring the soul, but rejecting it.
I'll address your the former argument first. You say the sole purpose of sex is to receive pleasure, but what kinds of sex are you considering? What about oral sex? If I perform oral sex on a woman, which is obviously for
her pleasure and not mine, is that still immoral? What about anal sex? Many women who do not enjoy anal sex are still willing to do it because their partner enjoys it. In this case, they are doing it solely for
his pleasure. Is this now moral, or would you still consider it immoral? If you would, then there has to be some other reason than "because they are receiving pleasure."
In regards to the degradation of the soul: I'll assume for our purposes that a "soul" exists, something that is not exactly a proven or even entirely coherent notion. You claim that sex ignores the soul because it is used for purposes of bodily pleasure. THEN WHAT ABOUT OTHER ACTS THAT ARE ALSO SOLELY DONE FOR BODILY PLEASURE? What about kissing? Fondling? Masturbation? Asking your wife to get you another beer out of the refrigerator? All of these asks are done solely to promote bodily pleasure and none of them do anything to acknowledge the fact that the wife in question has a soul. So are they immoral?
Most important of all, we are using sex for the wrong reason. The purpose of sex is the unity of the male and female, out of which the natural product is a newborn. If we have premarital or marital sex with a condom, we are rejecting this human life from coming into existence. A massage is not like that. Nor is eating a cake.
Now we're beginning to get somewhere. Perhaps now you can see that your belief that premarital sex is immoral has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it entails bodily pleasure. It is because you think it is a denial of the basic purpose of sex: procreation. Then I ask you this: If an unmarried couple has sex with the intent to procreate, is that immoral?
Perhaps we should address some other bodily functions that are used for purposes other than what nature intended (although the assumption that nature
intended anything or that, if it did, we know the intention is presumptious to say the least). The best we can tell, nature gave us feet to walk on. So is a person with a foot fetish, who endulges in the adoration of feet, immoral for using them for another purpose? The best we can tell, nature gave us armpit hair to alleviate skin chafing caused by the constant friction between arm and chest. Is a person who shaves her armpit hair immoral for ignoring that purpose? The best we can tell, nature gave us an opposable thumb to make tools. If a person is using it in a thumbwar, is he immoral for ignoring that purpose?
What is so difficult to understand?
It is becoming apparent that you are having difficulty understanding the fact that arguments have forms, and the form of your argument results in nonsensical conclusions when extended to actions other than sex. Best I can see you have two:
1. x is being performed purely for physical pleasure.
2. It is immoral to perform any consentual act between two or more people purely for physical pleasure.
Therefore, x is immoral.
Replace x with "sex," and you seem to agree. Replace it with anything else (massaging, kissing, toe-sucking), and you don't. You're contradicting yourself.
1. Nature intended x for a certain purpose.
2. Using any action for a purpose other than what nature intended is immoral.
3. x is being used for a purpose other than what nature intended.
Therefore, x is being used in an immoral fashion.
Again, replace x with "sex," and you seem to agree, but replace it with anything else and you don't. You've again contradicted yourself.
Addendum: To you people making the "soul" argument. You are the same people who are arguing in other parts of this forum that the mind, and conscious experience, is entirely non-physical and a thing of the "soul." This entails all feeling, including feelings of pleasure, and so to say that pleasurable activity is neglectful of the soul - when it is the soul that experiences this pleasure - is yet another direct contradiction in your argument.
