Sexual morality. Debating Stupid. Is it worth it?

by pinkagendist

Guilty as charged. I do it regularly. I feel it’s a personal responsibility. We, The Gays, were quiet for much of our history and that silence allowed for the propagation of myths and anti-logic- as can be seen in this discussion. The discussion in question didn’t happen in 1965, it happened yesterday. In it you can see the perversion of reason and the use of a barrage of fallacies including premises that are entirely disconnected from conclusions. It may seem pointless to debate people who have the IQ of a ripe melon, but if we don’t they continue promulgating untruths.

The background to the issue is a historical one. It’s a strange equation (generally religious) that attempts to create a link between sex and morality. It was invented by a patriarchal society in which women were considered property. As the concept evolved through the centuries it was perfected and the men making the rules adapted it to their particular cultures. Christianity and Islam embraced it as a very useful means of controlling their followers. If you wanted to control people, what do you think the most efficient way would be? I would suggest that we identify universal human desires and fears and then use them by creating an ideology that promises to give people what they want and protect them from what they fear. Another useful tool that serves to control followers is another universal emotion: guilt.

Guilt, as we know it, is a societal construct. In centuries past the larger men and women amongst us were equated with wealth. Today we equate being overweight with more negative factors and the result is that by doing so we induce guilt in many people. Guilt of their weight, guilt of eating, even guilt of existing. This tool was particularly well exploited by monotheistic religions. By attaching guilt to normal human desires they hold great power over their followers. Sexuality being of the most basic human desires means it also became a recurrent religious theme. It is to this day. In the religious model, sex which is technically something that gives people pleasure is transformed into something shameful, embarrassing and for the most part negative. Catholics went as far as to make the medically benign act of masturbation into the Sin of Onan (spilling the seed), although now they’ve changed their story a bit to make the ridiculous history of the sin seem (barely) less ridiculous. Women got the short end of the stick. Their sexuality was oppressed and repressed from every angle. Not so long ago even manifesting sexual desire was shameful for a woman, meanwhile the opposite was nurtured in men. The man was expected to be overtly sexual and virile. A married woman who had an affair was shunned from society, the reputations of men who had affairs suffered no losses.

The sexual revolution undid centuries of constraints, irresponsible expectations of female virginity (irresponsible because marrying someone with whom you never had sex is monumentally irresponsible and can lead to lasting disaster) and the debunking of the myths that associated sexuality with morality. It’s fairly embarrassing for humanity that it took us so long- it’s even more embarrassing that there are still people in society trying to make this irrational link. Morality has no relation to sexuality whatsoever. The person who had sex 10 times yesterday may be fantastically moral whilst Tomás de Torquemada (who probably never had sex) was one of the most immoral men of history. Sex and sexuality in and of themselves have no bearing on morality. The consensual sex you have doesn’t affect your morality in any regard, it doesn’t affect your ability to be honest, generous, kind, compassionate, helpful or empathic – and that’s what true morality is all about.

For an even better take on real morality:

How Can an Atheist Be Moral?

For Goodness Sake

By Dan Barker

About these ads