Sex and Morality

[Thoreau]

So, here's a question I've been pondering for a while now.

What makes certain sexual acts between two consenting people immoral?

For example, in the U.S., if an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old, it's considered immoral.

Another example is that, to some, ventures in the sexual realm of bondage, role-playing, and other such "subcultures" are considered immoral.

Now, for the sake of this discussion I'd like to stay away from things topics like homosexuality. I think we all know why some consider it to be immora - most of the arguments of which are based in religion. So, again, let's avoid kicking the dead horse.

And the same applies to myself as well. There are things that simply freak me out and tend to make me respect a person a whole lot less if I find they enjoy things like bondage, S&M, the sexual enjoyment of feces, etc. Now, why that is precisely, I'm not 100% sure. My opinions could be based on many things like how I was raised or something like that.

However, I will say that I'm more lenient when it comes to the age factor... within reason. I find it a little hypocritical that we are so willing to throw an "adult" of 18 years of age in jail for many years for simply performing sexual acts to someone even a year below the legal age of consent. And yet, at the same time, we are more accepting of 18 year olds who become involved with 60+ year olds. To me, it's just mindblowing.

We even punish minors for having sexual relations with other minors.

But this is all just my opinion.

So, in summary, I guess we can break the discussion into aspects:

1) Age

and

2) ...dare I say, "Fetishes".

What do you think about these two subjects? Why do you think that somethings are considered to be socially immoral while others are not?

 

[spidergoat]

The age of consent is much lower than 18 in some places.

 

[Thoreau]

The age of consent is much lower than 18 in some places.

I understand that.

 

[wellwisher]

One way to see this is with a parallel example. The objective basis for food is for the energy and nutrient needs of the body. This is true of all animals. Besides this basic objective reason for food, there are also many subjective reasons to eat. Some eat for pleasure. Some eat to self nurture via comfort food. Others eat for social interaction at family dinner, etc.

A purely objective approach toward food would allow optimized body health. It would eat to maintain a healthy energy/mass and nutrient balance; fit and healthy like other natural critters.

The subjective reasons don't always turn out as well, since subjective can't always improve upon objectivity. If you eat for pleasure you might get obese. If you eat for self nurturing this may not turn out in an optimized way, if chocolate cake is your comfort. Immorality would be based on that which deviates, beyond a certain point, from the objectivity of food.

There is no moral law against eating objectively. These laws begin when subjectivity gets the better of objectivity; gluttony.

Sexuality is very similar. Male and female evolved because it was a way to increase the genetic diversity in offspring, via half male and female DNA. All the birds, bees and tree procreate this way. Only male plus female humans, doing a particular act will lead to this objective purpose. The rest of the reasons for sex begin to border on the subjective. It could be pleasure, fitting in, pecking order, pass time, etc.

If you had a food fetish to put food up your butt, this does not optimize the objective reason for eating. It may have a subjective reason for a person or small group, but no objective value. This may not get the nod for being moral since objective is too far away.

Say someone like to have sex with animals. Based on science and objective sexuality, although you need male and female to procreate, one also has to be of the same species. That person may have the male and female correct, but is nevertheless subjective, since it crosses into other species and is no longer objective. This will also not get the moral nod.

One mistake often made is to assume religion picks subjectively and modern culture picks objectively. It is often the other way around. For example, pick a activity and the show how this is objective and not subjective.

 

[spidergoat]

Sexuality among primates is just as objectively important for the purposes of pleasure and social bonding as it is for reproduction.

 

[Balerion]

For example, in the U.S., if an 18 year old has sex with a 16 year old, it's considered immoral.

No, it's considered illegal. There's nothing inherently immoral about an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old. Now, if the 18 year old tricked the 16 year old, or took advantage of them, that's a different story. But you're talking strictly about the fact that the 16 year old--in most places in the US, at least--is under the legal age of consent, and in that sense morality has nothing to do with it.

Another example is that, to some, ventures in the sexual realm of bondage, role-playing, and other such "subcultures" are considered immoral.

Yeah, but to whom? Most people just think it's weird, or gross. Those who take issue with it on a moral level are the same ones who would take issue with any kind of sex that isn't A) for procreative reasons, and B) between one man and one woman in the missionary position. And then we're not talking about real morality, we're talking about religious fundamentalism.

Now, for the sake of this discussion I'd like to stay away from things topics like homosexuality. I think we all know why some consider it to be immora - most of the arguments of which are based in religion. So, again, let's avoid kicking the dead horse.

But so far you've only discussed things that could be found immoral in religious circles.

And the same applies to myself as well. There are things that simply freak me out and tend to make me respect a person a whole lot less if I find they enjoy things like bondage, S&M, the sexual enjoyment of feces, etc. Now, why that is precisely, I'm not 100% sure. My opinions could be based on many things like how I was raised or something like that.

Again, there's a difference between being totally grossed out by something, and judging that thing to be immoral. Being weirded out by something isn't any justification for the latter.

However, I will say that I'm more lenient when it comes to the age factor... within reason. I find it a little hypocritical that we are so willing to throw an "adult" of 18 years of age in jail for many years for simply performing sexual acts to someone even a year below the legal age of consent. And yet, at the same time, we are more accepting of 18 year olds who become involved with 60+ year olds. To me, it's just mindblowing.

And in most cases, the courts (again, at least in the US) are fairly lenient about people this close in age. Technically, someone found guilty of statutory rape is supposed to be included on the sex offender registry, and in some cases you will find an 18 or 19 year old on there who slept with his 16 or 17 year old girlfriend, but mostly they young man will be spared that cruel fate.

What do you think about these two subjects? Why do you think that somethings are considered to be socially immoral while others are not?

Social acceptance and social morality are two different concepts (though I admit to having never heard the term "social morality" before; I can only assume you mean morality, and not some other concept), and something that isn't socially acceptable isn't necessarily immoral. S&M in that sense is hardly different than wearing white shoes after Labor Day.

 

[Thoreau]

No, it's considered illegal. There's nothing inherently immoral about an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old. Now, if the 18 year old tricked the 16 year old, or took advantage of them, that's a different story. But you're talking strictly about the fact that the 16 year old--in most places in the US, at least--is under the legal age of consent, and in that sense morality has nothing to do with it.

I beg to differ. I honestly can't think of one thing that we've made illegal that isn't considered immoral by lawmakers or the population. Can you point out an example?

But so far you've only discussed things that could be found immoral in religious circles.

Umm... I'm not religious and I find don't see anything moral about a 50+ year age difference between partners. To me, that is immoral. But again, that's just me.

Social acceptance and social morality are two different concepts (though I admit to having never heard the term "social morality" before;

I don't see how the two aren't the same.

 

[Balerion]

I beg to differ. I honestly can't think of one thing that we've made illegal that isn't considered immoral by lawmakers or the population. Can you point out an example?

I just did.

We weren't talking about what some lawmaker found to be immoral, we were talking about morality as a concept, an agreed upon standard. This is why you excluded religious belief from the discussion, is it not? Because you wanted to focus on actual morality and not scriptural law?

Umm... I'm not religious and I find don't see anything moral about a 50+ year age difference between partners. To me, that is immoral. But again, that's just me.

Exactly: it's just you.

You keep changing the parameters of the discussion as we go. We were not talking about a 50-year difference in age, we were talking about a two-year difference, between an 18 year old and a 16 year old, when the latter is under the age of consent. Does the 50-year difference in age also have to do with legal consent, or are you now strictly talking about May-December relationships?

Either way, there is nothing inherently immoral about such unions. So it's your job to explain why you think these are inherently so.

I don't see how the two aren't the same.

Because something doesn't have to be immoral to be considered socially unacceptable. Walking around naked isn't socially acceptable, but you wouldn't contend it's immoral, would you? Swearing on broadcast television isn't socially acceptable, but what does that have to do with morality? You act like they're interchangeable terms, but you've never heard anyone call rape "socially unacceptable," have you? No, because that simply would not be enough.