What is YOUR definition of PROMISCUITY & How do you FEEL about it....

[UCLAri]

<p>

The problem with moral arguments is that they are an imposition of an outside point of view on behavior that is individual and personal.

</p>

<p>This is not always a bad thing. Rape, in very rare societies, has been almost permitted, yet I don’t suspect that anyone in a modern Western society would be interested in not regulating it.</p>

<p>I think, perhaps, what you mean is morality in situations where people are not necessarily harming another, such as drinking in moderation. Sure, some societies go so far as to ban it for moral/religious reasons, but it’s a gross abuse of regulatory powers on the government’s part (if you believe in more libertarian societies.)</p>

<p>The problem I have with top-down imposed regulations on activities like sex and drugs and alcohol isn’t necessarily that there shouldn’t be regulations (drinking/smoking pot and driving should be absolutely illegal), but that government is oftentimes a poor venue for pushing morality (i.e. Prohibition, anti-contraceptive laws.) There of course is also the fact that legislation based on morality is usually condesdending. It suggests that the population is incapable of regulating itself, so Big Brother has to do it for them. This is particularly troubling with “in the bedroom” issues. Who is a legislator in Sacramento to tell me that I can’t engage in oral sex because he interprets scripture to say that it’s a sin?</p>

<p>Of course, this isn’t to say that we should throw all “morality based” legislation to the wind, as FountainSiren seems to think that the typical libertarian would prefer. Not at all. I suppose that most people are just willing to recognize what a pisher poor job the government usually does at it, so it’s an awful misuse of resources that could be spent it better places. Like sanitation…or libraries or something.</p>

[gnusasaurus]

<p>Emerald and jlauer, you are both young. I was in the third grade at that time. :)</p>

<p>In my late teens, I was a strong proponent of promiscuity. Though that didn’t happen as often as I attempted. </p>

<p>As an adult, I cringe at the thought of my son or daughter acting the way I did.</p>

[dmd77]

<p>FountainSiren, polygamy is public in the small fundamentalist communities where it is practiced. There are public ceremonies. If you’re interested in more information, consider reading Krakauer’s book <em>Under the Banner of Heaven</em>.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Consenting adults engage in:</p>

<p>Prostitution…Illicit Gambling…Drug dealing…viewing and creating “child-pornography” (let us say, where there are no “real” victims—paintings and sculpture of the molestation and erotic dalliances of children, found pleasing by those so inclined), and a great many things that could otherwise be considered “misdeeds” but for the fact that many of the enlightened here seem to have no problem with what is done by, as they say, “consenting adults” in the privacy of their own lives, homes and gutters; in fact, it seems to be a “human-right” to do so.</p>

<p>That it is was, is, or will be illegal is beside the point, we make illegal what we first find morally reprehensible or impractical in a civil society.</p>

<p>As Yeats once said:</p>

<p>“Civilization is the search for self-control”</p>

<p>He’d likely be pilloried with tomatoes and rotten fruit in these quarters for speaking so out of turn…self-righteous libertines fainting in the aisles and arms of the stout-hearted.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>“we make illegal what we first find morally reprehensible or impractical in a civil society.”</p>

<p>sometimes</p>

<p>Our society has made things illegal that should never have been illegal:</p>

<p>where a person sits on a bus
birth control
marriage between “races”</p>

<p>some things were illegal because society chose for years NOT to make them legal</p>

<p>women voting
integrated schools</p>

<p>So to say laws were made to keep society moral is not always true, laws are often made to protect repugnant beliefs</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>And you have the right to decide what is morally reprehensible, FS. As do I.</p>

<p>The problem with <em>some</em> moral issues is the sticky issue of legislating them. Morals and Law are not one in the same, much as the fundamentalists would like to make them so.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>FS,</p>

<p>You’re ignoring the fact that there’s a difference between “libertarianism” (which was one of the key philosophies the US was founded upon) and being a “libertine.” A libertarian merely believes in minimizing the role of the state. A libertine believes in throwing morality to the wind.</p>

<p>They are not mutually inclusive.</p>

<p>So before you go shooting your mouth off, try to understand something: Not all of us are libertines who believe in anarchy. Some of us just don’t want the Fed telling us what to do in the bedroom, as it’s USUALLY none of their business.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>I have no idea what you are alluding to, UCLAri. </p>

<p>Apparently, you consider yourself to be what you term a “Libertarian.” You are what you are, I suppose, but it seems a stretch for you to imply that everyone who is not me on this thread is a “libertarian,” even if, in your view, it would be better if they were. </p>

<p>Most here, I believe, are liberal democrats more or less straight-up, some are perhaps left-leaning Libertarians, some right-libertarians, some conservative, some neo-conservative, and some of all of those express feelings/ideas that are, in their nature and action, libertine, as the term is classically understood; few claim lay claim to the term as a political philosophy, for obvious reasons–it is more a matter of moral convenience, political fashion and group hugging. </p>

<p>In either case, it has nothing to do with the matter…more matter, less art, as the Queen exclaimed to Polonius and I, in this instance, gravely concur.</p>

<p>Few here are even willing to say that it is, in general and as a matter of principal, better to not have many sexual partners, than to have many (though I doubt it is what they would recommend to their own children, for obvious and practical reasons, even on their 18th birthday)…for fear of being too judgmental (even though no one, on this thread, is addressing any specific persons behavior) or not PC enough for the times. </p>

<p>-Can we at least say that it is better for all that individuals at least aspire to having meaningful relationships not reduced to varying sexual practices with multiple partners, male and female?
-If we can, than can we say that it is better to have meaningful relationships than to have merely physical encounters, based on convenience and appetitive desires.
-If we can, we can say that merely physical relationships are <em>less</em> good, or poor…perhaps even, in a fit of sincerity, bad, in principal and general practice.</p>

<p>But, that would be very un-PC, to say the least; so, I expect, sadly, it cannot be said.</p>

<p>.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>FS,</p>

<p>Allmusic said,</p>

<p>

The problem with moral arguments is that they are an imposition of an outside point of view on behavior that is individual and personal.

</p>

<p>You replied with:</p>

<p>

And this is, of course, why we should avoid using “moral” arguments, or “morality” when making social decisions. Better not to have morals in an open society where it’s everyone for themselves–morality is just so judgmental; some morals even lead to Laws and social norms…YIKES!

</p>

<p>But you conveniently ignored the fact that the statement is necessarily right. That is the problem with moral-based legislation, even if the legislation is deemed right. Some think it’s moral to tell people to wear seatbelts, but it is undoubtedly an example of the state stepping in and deciding what is right for the citizens. The same can be said for anti-oral sex laws or anti-fornication laws. While they may be right to a certain society, they are not necessarily without the consequence of imposing the will of a majority (or even minority) on an individual who may not share that view.</p>

<p>This, of course, is one of the issues that the Founders had with democracy, and De Tocqueville mentions as being troubling in the US.</p>

<p>You, however, went off on some odd rant about “libertines” as if to say that those of us who aren’t in favor of having state imposed morality are necessarily for the abandonment of morality. Why does the STATE have to tell us what’s moral? Why can’t the society decide what’s moral instead, free of the ever-so-inefficient tentacles of the federal monster?</p>

<p>

Few here are even willing to say that it is, in general and as a matter of principal, better to not have many sexual partners, than to have many (though I doubt it is what they would recommend to their own children, for obvious and practical reasons, even on their 18th birthday)…for fear of being too judgmental (even though no one, on this thread, is addressing any specific persons behavior) or not PC enough for the times.

</p>

<p>You’re putting words in people’s mouths. I agree that fewer partners is better. I just don’t want someone else IMPOSING a law that makes it so. I don’t want someone else IMPOSING their will on me to make it so. There’s a difference. Hell, I’d probably be better off in the long-run if the state required that I never play video games, never drink alcohol, and never smoke hookah. That doesn’t mean that it should. </p>

<p>See the difference?</p>

<p>

But, that would be very un-PC, to say the least; so, I expect, sadly, it cannot be said.

</p>

<p>Oh get off it already. Your crusade against this invisible monster is getting old.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>Sorry, I forgot the part where are wrote that I want laws to make something, anything, to be so…as you say (if I’m wrong, feel free to cut and paste). What I actually said was that we should be comfortable in saying that one behavior is preferred and therefore better than the other.

@me

That it is was, is, or will be illegal is beside the point

</p>

<p>Get it?</p>

<p>Putting words in peoples mouth, huh?</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

And this is, of course, why we should avoid using “moral” arguments, or “morality” when making social decisions. Better not to have morals in an open society where it’s everyone for themselves–morality is just so judgmental; some morals even lead to Laws and social norms…YIKES!

</p>

<p>Here, it seems that you’re suggesting that it’s not a problem to have laws based on morality, when it clearly can be. Most people seem to be in agreement that having many partners isn’t better than having fewer. What’s bothersome is having people imposing their will in a way that requires you to stop, even if the act is consentual. </p>

<p>And don’t start on the, “Yeah, but prostitution involving a donkey and crack cocaine is consentual!” slippery slope. Sure, it’s your choice to drink in moderation, and of course moderation is always better than being a lush. But why should we make laws that tell someone that they can only drink so much? If they want to drink themselves silly and stay home, what difference does it make? They’re the one who gets to deal with a messed up liver later. </p>

<p>The same thing applies to having sex with more than one partner (or at all.) Hell, every time you have sex, you risk getting a UTI or worse an STD. But we shouldn’t be imposing any sort of legal restrictions on it.</p>

<p>That’s the problem with moral-based legislation/social norms. They can be harmful to the individual. And this doesn’t mean that we’re all libertines. I just don’t want Washington or Sacramento or Albany telling us what we can or cannot do in the bedroom. That’s why moral-based legislation can be much worse than you suggest. That’s why we should usually try to avoid them, as well.</p>

[system]

<p>FS is right on this one; I remember her specifically saying that she was NOT advocating legislation of any kind in this area. She was merely discussing what people feel is moral or immoral, the idea that it might be OK to actually say one thing is better than another.</p>

<p>However, in fact, aren’t most laws based on moral standards of one sort or another? The majority is always imposing its views on the minority; that’s how a democracy works. People only think of it as “imposing someone’s view” when it is not their own view being imposed. (I’m not advocating any laws here myself, just observing that morality is a loose term, and it does affect both laws and social norms, whether the morals being used are conservative, liberal, puritanical, libertine, or whatever other type of principles a person might live by.)</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

FS is right on this one; I remember her specifically saying that she was NOT advocating legislation of any kind in this area. She was merely discussing what people feel is moral or immoral, the idea that it might be OK to actually say one thing is better than another.

</p>

<p>I understand that. But she chided Allmusic for suggesting that we should be cautious with moral-based laws.</p>

<p>

However, in fact, aren’t most laws based on moral standards of one sort or another?

</p>

<p>Actually, most laws I see proposed on Thomas are just financial and market-oriented. Usually really dry economic stuff that really is more “gray” than “moral.”</p>

<p>

The majority is always imposing its views on the minority; that’s how a democracy works.

</p>

<p>And that is why the Founders were so terrified of pure democracy. It’s inherently a form of tyranny.</p>

<p>

People only think of it as “imposing someone’s view” when it is not their own view being imposed. (I’m not advocating any laws here myself, just observing that morality is a loose term, and it does affect both laws and social norms, whether the morals being used are conservative, liberal, puritanical, libertine, or whatever other type of principles a person might live by.)

</p>

<p>Perhaps, but that doesn’t change the objective fact that it is still an imposition of morality/belief on another. Ultimately, it seems that most “moral issues” that do get legislation written for them are just cases where a legislator seeks to pander to his constituency and get votes anyway. Yay for democracy.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>

@the fibber

I understand that. But she chided Allmusic for suggesting that we should be cautious with moral-based laws.

Really?

@allmusic

The problem with moral arguments is that they are an imposition of an outside point of view on behavior that is individual and personal.

Nothing about moral-based laws as I read AM’s post; unless “moral arguments” are in fact necessarily laws and a “point of view” is a legal proscription of the state.</p>

<p>This is the exact problem I refer to: to even discuss morality is to cross the line on political speech. You will be accused of being a moral fundamentalist bent on imposing the laws of Moses on a helpless and happy people, a modern day Savoronola…the inquisition redux.
As done here, by UCLAri.
Look no further. </p>

<p>It is beyond discussion with the PC apparatchiks; to even mention morality is to hurt the feelings of the frightened libertine…and we can’t have that—they are very sensitive people…they have feelings, you know.</p>

<p>edit:
thanks for the clarity, Susantm.
.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>

This is the exact problem I refer to: to even discuss morality is to cross the line on political speech. You will be accused of being a moral fundamentalist bent on imposing the laws of Moses on a helpless and happy people.
As done here, by UCLAri.
Look no further.

</p>

<p>When did I ever say anything like that? I never said that you have a moral fundamentalist bent. </p>

<p>

It is beyond discussion with the PC apparatchiks; to even mention morality is to hurt the feelings of the frightened libertine…and we can’t have that—they are very sensitive people…they have feelings, you know.

</p>

<p>Can you go five minutes without being a rude jerk? I mean, I DARE you to write five posts that aren’t needlessly rude. DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU. </p>

<p>This has nothing to do with “feelings” either. It would just make your points much clearer and more likely to be noticed. You ever wonder why so many people on CC.com don’t like you? Look no further. It’s your bloody attitude.</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>

@It's my party and I'll cry if I want to

This has nothing to do with “feelings” either. It would just make your points much clearer and more likely to be noticed. You ever wonder why so many people on CC.com don’t like you? Look no further. It’s your bloody attitude!

“:…rahhahhh!!”</p>

<p>Time for your nap, Ari. Don’t forget to brush and say your prayers…if you’ve lost any teeth in this exchange, put them under your pillow and the tooth fairy might leave you a clue in the morning.</p>

<p>Sweet dreams…</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Okay, I’m going to stoop to your level for a second just for fun.</p>

<p>FountainSiren, you’re a complete idiot in smart people’s clothing. You hide the fact that you rarely have anything to say by disguising it with big words, quotes from other people (it makes me wonder if you can’t think for yourself), and long drawn out sentences that usually go nowhere. </p>

<p>Not only that, you’re a complete jerkoff. You talk about the sensitivity of the left, yet you are easily affected by a jab here and there to your writing and arguments. Swallow your bitter pill, child, it’ll do you some good. There there, don’t cry. It’s hard to hear about out shortcomings, but I think in the long run you’ll be better for it.</p>

<p>You constantly champion your positions, but I doubt you ever think much about them. You’re like a Bill O’Reilly who uses big words to mask a lack of an argument instead of screaming. I suppose that’s marginally better, but not much. You tell people who don’t automatically agree with you position what they think (telling us that we’re libertines, for example), but can’t stand to have people dissect your thinking.</p>

<p>In the end, you’re a big fat hypocrite, standing loftily- at an apex, even- upon your pedastal up high in the clouds, looking down up us pigs, while you eat from your own trough (that you carefully conceal in with a golden (or as the French say, d’or) veneer. Meanwhile, you sit and brood at the fact that even though the pigs (us normal folk) sit and wallow in their own filth- or in this case, a lack of pretense- they seem to scorn you, upon your pedastal of lofty loftiness with much loft added.</p>

<p>And then, one of the pigs has the audacity to yell at you, “you’re a phony! An imposter! You stand not upon a pedastal, but the shoulders of giants instead! You are not who you claim you are!” But it’s too late, for the vast majority of the filth below you knows that you’re nothing but an insecure whelp, clinging doggedly to the shoulders of giants, never really knowing them, but knowing that if you use their words enough, you may one day also be recognized for greatness; “Words are dwarfs, deeds are giants.”</p>

<p>But still, that one pig won’t let go. He knows that you’re not who you say you are. So you fear him.</p>

[dmd77]

<p>Umm, I’m still back at the public/private debate. Private behabior is private. Selling drugs is not private; using drugs is. Having sex is private (one hopes); marriage is not. Smoking cigarettes is private (and enforced as such more and more); selling them is not. Using birth control is private; selling it is not. Having an abortion is private; providing an abortion is not. </p>

<p>Do I think birth control and abortion should be publicly regulated activities? Yes, because public health is at stake. Do I believe in making all abortions illegal? No. Some? Yes, actually. I think abortion should be free choice the first trimester, then increasingly restricted during the second trimester, and very difficult to get during the third trimester. (Would I condemn a woman who has just discovered her baby is anencephalic to carrying that child to term? No, of course not.)</p>

<p>Birth control is regulated to my satisfaction by the FDA.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>dmd,</p>

<p>Outside of maybe the drug-based birth control, do you think regulation is really necessary?</p>

[FountainSiren]

<p>

@R.I

"you’re a complete idiot"…"you’re a complete jerkoff"…"you’re a big fat hypocrite"…"you’re a phony"… “An imposter”…“You are not who you claim you are"…"you’re nothing but an insecure whelp…”

</p>

<p>Hmmm…no luck with the tooth-fairy, eh?</p>