Paying for sex and morals

[CannibalMan]

I wish someone explained me the morals behind those that bash people for hiring prostitutes. Is it right to seduce a non-escort girl into sex and dump her on the day after? I find that so sick. Most guys hate intimacy, so paying for sex seems to me like a good way to balance it out.

But don't you dare saying that out loud, or people will look down on you. The funnier part is that those same people have no problems with hurting girls feelings with casual sex.

Anyone else find that ironic?

[SarahG]

I wish someone explained me the morals behind those that bash people for hiring prostitutes. Is it right to seduce a non-escort girl into sex and dump her on the day after? I find that so sick. Most guys hate intimacy, so paying for sex seems to me like a good way to balance it out.

But don't you dare saying that out loud, or people will look down on you. The funnier part is that those same people have no problems with hurting girls feelings with casual sex.

Anyone else find that ironic?

Well you have to remember, at the time when our country decided to criminalize prostitution, our country had a major problem with women being enslaved and forced into prostitution.

The fundies, anarchists, socialists, feminists all joined together in the later half of the 19th century because the practice was so widespread.

When women were being shipped over from China by the cargoship load so that they could be forced against their will to be prostitutes for American cities, it caused a backlash and during that backlash the reformers simply enacted reforms excessively sweeping so as to also encompass the freelance sex workers who had legitimate businesses of their own, and of their own free will.

Many of these reformers were so militant and radical they didn't care about free will, consent or anything else- they looked to the bad elements of the industry and condemned the field for it. Just as the old ladies on a war against alcohol looked towards the most extreme cases of alcoholism and used that as the battle cry as they used hatchets to tare down American saloons & bars all over the country, eventually leading to the disaster known as prohibition.

[CannibalMan]

Well you have to remember, at the time when our country decided to criminalize prostitution, our country had a major problem with women being enslaved and forced into prostitution.
You're right, I forgot that aspect. Even today there are women unfairly explored and forced to prostitution. But there are those who do it by free will, right?


What I can't stand is when guys waste my time with bullshit game because they're too cheap or broke to pay someone else for sex, when that's all they want.
Exactly, it's all we want. Are you bothered by the fact that sex is all some of us want?

[sucka4chix]

I wish someone explained me the morals behind those that bash people for hiring prostitutes. Is it right to seduce a non-escort girl into sex and dump her on the day after? I find that so sick. Most guys hate intimacy, so paying for sex seems to me like a good way to balance it out.

But don't you dare saying that out loud, or people will look down on you. The funnier part is that those same people have no problems with hurting girls feelings with casual sex.

Anyone else find that ironic?

No. This isn't irony. You're looking at 2 sides of the same coin. It's like asking who has morals, an embezzler at a charity or the guy who takes home business supplies from his job. The answer is neither.

[Stoked]

Well you have to remember, at the time when our country decided to criminalize prostitution, our country had a major problem with women being enslaved and forced into prostitution.

Ummm, not exactly.

SarahG is referring to the Mann Act of 1910. There was NOT a big problem with women being enslaved and forced into prostitution...
rather it was the Progressive Era social reformers that came into social and political power who sensationalized that story line to push their agenda.

More detailed explanation here
http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblackness/knockout/mann.html

The Progressives and progressive movement received support mostly from college educated middle class not from "The fundies, anarchists, socialists, feminists " as SarahG purports.

You cannot go back and judge history through todays prism.

[SarahG]

SarahG is referring to the Mann Act of 1910.


If I had been referring to the Mann Act I would have said the Mann Act.

I was talking about the reforms decades -before- that where prostitution was being criminalized on a local and state level; i.e. cities waging a war on prostitution, states making it illegal, etc.

It wasn't an overnight transformation going from being legal in most states to getting the Mann Act. You go back to the Civil War era or earlier prostitution was legal in most of the United States, and at times the federal government even encouraged it.

During the CW the Union tried experimenting with legalized, but regulated (through licensing) prostitution in some of the occupied CSA territory. Totally different world from the environment of 1910.


There was NOT a big problem with women being enslaved and forced into prostitution...

That's just not true, it would be a historical fiction to deny that, especially in the case of the west coast where Chinese brothels were filled with such women.

The state archives & libraries of every state to have a large chinese immigrant population during the 19th century have plenty of documentation to that effect- in CA you can find a great many contracts that had been used to enslave chinese women to make them prostitutes in the new world. It's just not a topic that gets a particularly large amount of attention.

Like the human traffickers of today that scheme went like this "want to make it rich in America? I'll pay your way if you work for me." Then once a girl takes the bait, she signs onto a contract binding her to those who were offering her passage. The contract would go something like the girl agreeing to serve 4-5 years doing whatever is asked of her, but then the contract would be filled with technicalities that would make that last in all practical purposes, forever- i.e. "if you get sick more than 15 days during this 4-5 year span, you have to work an additional amount of time," "if you get pregnant you have to work an additional amount of time," -in the end the girl would be unknowingly agreeing to indenture herself for life. I've seen these contracts with my own eyes, it was one of the focal arguments for the Chinese exclusion acts, second only to the concerns over chinese male labor devaluing the labor of white Americans.


rather it was the Progressive Era social reformers that came into social and political power who sensationalized that story line to push their agenda.

That's not true, Chicago started waging a war on prostitution as early as 1870- before the Chicago Fire, and they were hardly the first major city to do so.

The progressive era is the tail end of the movement when it managed to succeed on the national platform. There's a good forty or so years between the two where this was a state and local government issue, and a major one at that.

If you go and look at cohabitation laws aimed at curtailing the operation of brothels, in cities, most of those statures were added far before the progressive era. As an example in Buffalo NY the city's ordinances make it a crime to have more than 4 females unrelated by blood living in the same address, as any such address to have more than 4 unrelated females was defined as a brothel and therefore criminalized- going by memory that ordinance predates the Mann Act by an excess of twenty or so years.

[CannibalMan]

No. This isn't irony. You're looking at 2 sides of the same coin. It's like asking who has morals, an embezzler at a charity or the guy who takes home business supplies from his job. The answer is neither.

In that case, neither has morals because they're both harming a party. In the case of paying for sex, no one's harming no one. Would I be wrong to assume that?

[sucka4chix]

No. This isn't irony. You're looking at 2 sides of the same coin. It's like asking who has morals, an embezzler at a charity or the guy who takes home business supplies from his job. The answer is neither.

In that case, neither has morals because they're both harming a party. In the case of paying for sex, no one's harming no one. Would I be wrong to assume that?

You're questioning morals-- just because you're not harming anyone doesn't make it moral. I don't think many people are gonna call recreational sex of any kind a moral activity. If so then being a slut would make you a virtuous woman, hell almost a saint!

[CannibalMan]

I thought we were quite past that era when recreational sex was immoral.

[Ben]

I wish someone explained me the morals behind those that bash people for hiring prostitutes. Is it right to seduce a non-escort girl into sex and dump her on the day after? I find that so sick. Most guys hate intimacy, so paying for sex seems to me like a good way to balance it out.

But don't you dare saying that out loud, or people will look down on you. The funnier part is that those same people have no problems with hurting girls feelings with casual sex.

Anyone else find that ironic?

An interesting book is called: The Johns: sex for sale and the men who buy it... by Victor Malarek
http://www.amazon.com/Johns-Sex-Sale-Men-Who/dp/1559708905

[Ben]

Also:
http://www.amazon.com/Not-Sale-Feminists-Prostitution-Pornography/dp/1876756497/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258304424&sr=1-1
And:
http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Off-Pornography-End-Masculinity/dp/089608776X/ref=pd_sim_b_7

The Robert Jensen book is a critique of the entire sex industry. He points out that female prostitutes suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. And 90 percent of FEMALE prostitutes wanna get out of the sex trade industry.
And Noam Chomsky's critique:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNlRoaFTHuE

[sucka4chix]

The problem is unless everyone uses a set, unchanging standard for morals, someone is always gonna argue moral points. If everyone lives by their own set of morals, and they're all being brought up with their own values, you basically have anarchy. There has to be some authority that defines what is moral and what isn't, or you have billions of people living by a billion different sets of rules.

[Stoked]

The problem is unless everyone uses a set, unchanging standard for morals, someone is always gonna argue moral points. If everyone lives by their own set of morals, and they're all being brought up with their own values, you basically have anarchy. There has to be some authority that defines what is moral and what isn't, or you have billions of people living by a billion different sets of rules.

You are 100% correct. A very large percentage of people in this country do not believe in morals because they do not want to be held accountable for their own actions. They ridicule and hold accountable others who do not live up to their self professed morals, while having none of their own, then claim the moral high ground because they themselves never have a break of morality.

[CannibalMan]

You are 95% correct. I agree that we can't have each individual create his own morals, but I don't think morals are set by one individual (or small number of individuals) over society. Morals are rather set by what most people agree and believe as a group, more like a democracy than a dictatorship, I guess.

Morals aren't immutable, you know. In the past, it was immoral for women to show their shoulders, their ankles, and it was immoral for them to work. In some countries, it's immoral for them to show their faces in public, and it's still immoral for them to work, or to have an equal-to-equal conversation with their husbands. Morals can vary throughout time and between regions.

How can you both enter HA today and say that recreational sex is immoral? HA of all forums...

Now Ms SarahG pointed out the revolting exploration of females through prostitution by their employers. While true, the immorality is located at the employer-employee relation, not in the client-prostitute relation.

So the question is still on the table: what's immoral in paying for sex?

[sucka4chix]

1st, to veer off topic, the government set up in the US was built on principles that most of the governing bodies agreed to and most of them were based on a big book that's very unpopular on HA. Whether all of the forefathers believed in that book is irrelevant. They understand that their government would not work without some kind of authority to look to. That's why forcing our government on other cultures will never work and why this country will ultimately fail, because we do not have that unity of thought. We have a bunch of people who believe freedom means nobody can tell me what to do! Ultimately, you have to have someone who says "it's wrong because I say so!!!"
2nd. I never said anything about sex being immoral. The point is it's not MORAL. Its like eating cake-- is it bad for you, not really. But is it healthy? Hell no!
You said you thought we were past the days that people thought recreational sex was immoral. So answer this, if you were running for president would you be bragging about having lots of recreational sex? Not unless you're an idiot!! And that's because you know having sex doesn't score you any moral points, and more often than not people will give you moral demerits. Don't play ignorant.

[trish]

The U.S. constitution was written largely by deists who did not subscribe to the big book and in fact designed a government that would allow for a wide variance of individual conscience. Forcing this principle onto a more restrictive culture is like trying to fit a size 8 girl into a size four dress. Diversity of belief is the strength of modern western cultures and fundamentalist designs to constrain our diversity only weaken us.

Sadly the elements of the Victorian attitude toward sex persist in our culture today. Still, recreational sex with your spouse or even your intended is considered the norm. Indeed you would be thought somewhat outside the norm if you weren’t having recreational sex with your spouse. Even if you’re single, you’re expected to score a few times a year, otherwise you’re a bit outside the norm. In spite of what counts as normal behavior, sex outside of marriage always spells the ruin of an American politician; not because it’s immoral, but because Americans are so sexually repressed we can’t leave a juicy story alone until the life has been squeezed out of all the parties involved.

If you’re running for president I really don’t see how your sex life is relevant. I want to know where you stand on the issues, what grasp you have on political realities and do you have a record of making practical, non-ideological judgments.

Is there anything immoral about paying for sex? Depends on who you pay and where you get the funds. Is it understood that your earnings and your spouses earnings are to be put in a common pot for the family. Are you withholding money from that pot to buy sex? Then maybe that's immoral. Are you paying a pimp to have sex with an immigrant who's being coerced into prostitution. I'd say that immoral. Are you single and paying with your own funds an independent businessperson for her or his sexual services? I'd put that in the OK category. If you aren't single is sex outside of marriaged okay with your spouse?

[CannibalMan]

if you were running for president would you be bragging about having lots of recreational sex? Not unless you're an idiot!! And that's because you know having sex doesn't score you any moral points, and more often than not people will give you moral demerits
No, I wouldn't brag about that, because, although times have changed, there is still hypocrisy traces in the air that state recreational sex is immoral, although it's still what the enormous majority of people seek regularly. Since immoral is supposed to mean something that isn't practiced by most of the society, it is ironic, to say at least, to call immoral something so widely practiced by almost everyone.


I never said anything about sex being immoral. The point is it's not MORAL.
Yes, it's neither immoral or moral, it's amoral. Which means it's neutral like lots of things we do every day. So wouldn't you agree with me there's nothing wrong with it, no reason to be looked down or criticized for doing it? By the way, recreational sex isn't exactly the point here, because those who bash sex for money don't bash recreational sex if it's not for money. Again ironic if you ask me.

[sucka4chix]

Contrary to modern belief, you can't govern letting "diversity" be the lynch pin of government. Unless there is some entity to go to to get the basis behind your rules, you'll always have people saying "I don't believe in that". There has to be a line drawn in the sand, someone to put there foot down.
Aren't you confusing normal and moral. I'd probably so that on average most people don't have high morals and therefore having morals is not normal.
My point is that arguing whether a guy who pays hookers has higher morals than a womanizer is, to quote Mike Tyson, ludicrous.

[CannibalMan]

Are you single and paying with your own funds an independent businessperson for her or his sexual services? I'd put that in the OK category.

Finally someone gave me an OK... you guys are hard to break!

[sucka4chix]

I think the point is that sex is something that is done with parts of the body that we keep hidden most of the time. I would guess that most people who consider themselves having high morals don't think it proper that you let just anyone discover your nakedness. I don't think it should be frowned upon, just nothing to put on your resume. So like I said, to answer the original question, neither one is moral. Whether one is immoral and the other is not is irrelevant. Both are involved in a private almost down-low activity that they wouldn't talk about in mixed company (around kids).

[trish]

Are you single and paying with your own funds an independent businessperson for her or his sexual services? I'd put that in the OK category.

Finally someone gave me an OK... you guys are hard to break!
I['m] happy to speak as a moral authority. :) Just think of me as that entity behind the rules. :lol:

[edits in square brackets]

[sunairco]

I think there's another element that needs to be interjected into this conversation. Morality is a concept that's based on social contract and some ultimate codification of laws that are rooted in the first estate to exert temporal control of a population. Here in the west, it's primarly been Judeo-Christian values enforced by the church and the aristocracy/gentry. The other side of this coin is the relatively new Victorian concept of deference to females as the bearers of virtue and modesty. Women are nice,good,virtuous. Women have also exerted silent control in recent history by the denial of sex and especially in the last 50 years now have the legal means and empowerment to exert that control on society. No man dares challenging that publically for fear of social ostricism. Feminist/female empowerment has hijacked the legal system in favor of protecting female/maternal biological needs and values. These so called "Family Values" have supplanted a moral code. Sexual immorality is now influenced and defined by feminine values as social mores.

Back to reality. I'm not going to take an issue with the trafficing and abuses of the sex trade, that's not the issue here. The main issue in today's society is prostitution or extramarital/extrarelationship sex breaking the grip of women's sexual control over their men. Men are biologically predisposed to mate with as many females as possible. That's hard wired instinct. Women are hard wired to protect their children and do that by exerting a monogamous control over their men with whatever means possible. Prostitution in effect breaks that control and diminishes the female's sexual worth...and her control. That same sexual power has over the course of two centuries by increasing female rights and their subsequent power and control over their men to bias a moral code in favor of females.

[trish]

Considering that up until the twentieth century all political power rested with men, the hijacking of the legal system was more of a legitimate insistence on shared governance than a hijacking.

Just let me say: Down with Demon Alcohol, Whoring and Gambling.

[TsVanessa69]

I wish someone explained me the morals behind those that bash people for hiring prostitutes. Is it right to seduce a non-escort girl into sex and dump her on the day after? I find that so sick. Most guys hate intimacy, so paying for sex seems to me like a good way to balance it out.

But don't you dare saying that out loud, or people will look down on you. The funnier part is that those same people have no problems with hurting girls feelings with casual sex.

Anyone else find that ironic?
THANK YOU!!!!!!
I have found that men will say anything to get in ANY woman, tg, or gg;s panties and have nothing to do with her afterwards.
So yes, pay me, lets not get feelings involved and both be mutually satisfied.
Thats why I am not ashamed to be an escort. I faced reality and made it work for me.
Men will fuck anything they desire, given the chance, no matter how beautiful the wife is, or how long they have been together. So why not get paid???

[nfs44]

Are you single and paying with your own funds an independent businessperson for her or his sexual services? I'd put that in the OK category.

Finally someone gave me an OK... you guys are hard to break!

I find your original question and some of your statements flawed. As I understand it, you're saying that most people in general do not consider recreational sex immoral but they do consider paying for sex immoral, and you back that up by saying that virtually everyone wants casual sex all the time. That's a very broad, unfounded statement and I don't find that to be the case in my observations. It seems to me that the people that mostly are against prostitution are also against "illicit" casual sex and porn, and anything overtly sexual in general. On the other hand, most of the people I know who like and pursue casual sex don't seem like they would object strongly to the idea of prostitution. Mind you, I'm simply going by the impressions I get from knowing people for a while; there's very few people I've actually discussed the theme with.

As for Trish finally giving you an OK, I think a lot of people on this forum are OK with paying for sex, and even the ones who mentioned the immorality of recreational sex may not feel that way themselves, but rather are referring to the beliefs of society in general. Of all people, we here on a TS forum are probably pretty far from center and are more likely in the vanguard of sexual progressiveness. To sum up my response, while I don't feel that paying for sex is wrong or immoral, I believe that most people who do feel that way also feel that way about recreational sex, with probably just a small minority in the middle that only approves of one and not the other.

[trish]

nfs, you and I seem to roughly agree on the moral issue and disagree on the anthropological question of how people might divide between the moral categorization of prostitution versus recreational sex. My post only reflects my experience. I confess, I don't know what the studies say.

[CannibalMan]

It seems to me that the people that mostly are against prostitution are also against "illicit" casual sex and porn, and anything overtly sexual in general.
There is some true in what you're saying. But you're referring to the puritans, who I'm not targeting. Puritans condemn both practices, sure, and I would find that coherent and take back everything I've said. That is, if I believed in them (if they didn't secretly feel attracted to recreational sex with hot women).

I'm targeting the average modern guy/girl, who go out at night "scoring", but have no respect for prostitution activities. There is a lot of that, I'm sure, since several of them are my friends.

[sunairco]

How many people are against something simply because everyone within their peer group is? Many of those people simply go with the flow to prevent a backlash against them and risk social ostracism. Lets face it, you're not going to throw your hat in the ring publicly in favor of something group think is against. In terms of sexual morality, how much of this is driven by women protecting their interests? How much is driven by a few demagogs within a group imposing thier pious ideology that they themselves don't follow, nonetheless preach. How many of these pulpit moralists we've seen fall from grace in the last few years? The anonymity of net has laid bare many of the popular misconceptions about women,sex,morality,and pornography. I seriously doubt that many men that espouse a moral positiion wouldn't act differently given an opportunity. There's many church deacons that will attend a titty bar, get drunk,and employ the services of a sex worker on a busines trip out of town, yet condem and vote against the same activities in their community.

[CannibalMan]

True.

[yosi]

I wish someone explained me the morals behind those that bash people for hiring prostitutes. Is it right to seduce a non-escort girl into sex and dump her on the day after? I find that so sick. Most guys hate intimacy, so paying for sex seems to me like a good way to balance it out.

But don't you dare saying that out loud, or people will look down on you. The funnier part is that those same people have no problems with hurting girls feelings with casual sex.

Anyone else find that ironic?


the ironic part is that if sex wasn't considered forbidden and dirty as it is because of religion , it was not so sweet and tempting to do something forbidden or unmoral :wink:

if sex was meant only to make babies , our sexual organs were not so sensitive and...........enjoyable.

[CannibalMan]

And there would be too much babies in the world.

[brickcitybrother]

Seeking confirmation or intelligence is often an unsatisfying endeavor. The sex business is way too complicated to explain in a sentence, paragraph or webpage.

[zorga]

{didn't read the answers. just original post.}

sounds like you reaaaaly want to hear things, that will make good your actions. sounds like you are the one who thinks, that there are something wrong [buying sex, etc.].

not judging - im teh same - paying for sex, as i have done, seem to me wrong. difference is - i dont search for exuses.

[zorga]

and, OMG, that's how my "drunken" english "sounds" like....

[hippifried]

Well, I'm sorry I missed this last week, but here goes.

Morality's not hard to understand. The powers that be withing our social structures just keep muddying it up to hold that position, & all too often, to justify their own immorality. Sexual morality is mostly myth.

Morals are about how we respect & treat each other.

There's a single ethic that's universal throughout all societies & cultures, & allows us to live in close proximity to one another within a society. It's the Universal Code of Human Interaction, AKA the Principle of Reciprocity or the Golden Rule. There's some argument over whether it's learned. Personally, I think it's innate. That's our conscience. That's what tells us whether our actions are right or wrong. We always know when the code's been violated, especially when we're the violator.

The code permeates all of our religions & philosophies. Even when it's not directly mentioned, they're all talking about it. The first rule that the burning bush gave to Moses was "Love thy neighbor as thyself!". Jesus repeated it. (Of course Moses had to go back a couple of days later & say: Hey. They either don't or won't understand, so I need details.) The Rabbi Hillel (circa 100BC) put it very succinctly when asked to define the law. He said: "That which displeases you, do not to others. That is the whole Torah. The rest is explanation. Go & learn." The mentions go back beyond any written history & maybe even any of our lore. Karma's an aspect of the code.

Whether you call it empathy or self interest, egoism or altruism, the code is neutral & requires no codification or authority. Reciprocity is the basis of all morality & ethics. I've argued this a lot over the years & been told I'm full of shit many times, but I have yet to have anyone show me something else to base moral standards on that isn't just somebody writing a book &/or pulling arbitrary rules out of their ass. If you can't relate it to the code, it's not a moral issue. Way too much of this crap is just somebody saying "I don't want or like that so you can't have it.".

The only moral issues I can find in sex for pay relate to respect for privacy & perhaps the violation of promises made to a 3rd party. The rest of the social taboo is arbitrary & mostly memetic. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[rockabilly]

Prostitution , Honest work done by liars. :)

[CannibalMan]

Aren't you confusing normal and moral. I'd probably so that on average most people don't have high morals and therefore having morals is not normal.
That's a good point, sorry for missing it earlier. Confusing normal and moral? I can only answer that after we defined morals. To me, the definition of morals is what Hippifried said:


Morals are about how we respect & treat each other.
Not more, not less. You said in a previous post that the fact that I'm not harming anyone doesn't mean it's not immoral. I disagree with that. The whole point in morals is preventing people from harming each other. If it's not that, it's pointless. I mean, what other purpose does it serve?

[CannibalMan]

sounds like you reaaaaly want to hear things, that will make good your actions. sounds like you are the one who thinks, that there are something wrong [buying sex, etc.].

not judging - im teh same - paying for sex, as i have done, seem to me wrong. difference is - i dont search for exuses.
I don't think I'm searching for excuses, because I have that mindset even before I started considering paying for sex.

If you say you find that wrong, and you have done it yourself, you don't regret it? You don't even search for an explanation? It's just "I did it and I don't care if it's wrong"?

[CannibalMan]

The sex business is way too complicated to explain in a sentence, paragraph or webpage.

Things aren't really that complicated. Those who want to make it seem complicated are the ones who have stuff to hide. I'm more interested in putting things clearly on the table.

[Nicole Dupre]

Men are biologically predisposed to mate with as many females as possible. That's hard wired instinct. Women are hard wired to protect their children and do that by exerting a monogamous control over their men with whatever means possible. Prostitution in effect breaks that control and diminishes the female's sexual worth...and her control. That same sexual power has over the course of two centuries by increasing female rights and their subsequent power and control over their men to bias a moral code in favor of females.Human beings break too many rules for you to hang your hat on genetic predispositions. Human beings make choices, and are more than capable of thinking outside the cave. Procreation is well beyond antiquated courting and mating rituals. The world suffers from an overpopulation problem, and any "hard-wiring" that contributes to the problem needs to be re-wired for practicality's sake. But a man with a sperm count problem can spend their trust fund money on in vetro fertilization. Hunter/gatherer activities can be accomplished by making sound financial investments.

Let's stop with the lofty notions about what's "normal" for human beings. We're the most atypical and out-of-sync animals on this planet. Our reality is based on what we can get away with in a practical manner. Prostitution is essentially another form of stress relief for us, not unlike getting a back rub, eating a delicious meal, or listening to soothing music. Prostitution is the ultimate service industry. It's the world's oldest profession, and is the model which all others are based on. Enforcing a victimless crime amounts to other people controlling an individual's intellectual freedom and amount of physical pleasure.

Let's be honest here. Thinking for one's self leads to unpredictability, and an unpredictable population is nearly impossible to govern or control. However, anything but anarchy is truly an illusion. In actuality, people police themselves all the time, which is currently far more of a basic human instinct than procreation.

[buckjohnson]

It is ignorant and naive to ignore "hard-wired instincts". Most so called choices and other control behavior are societal driven, not real genetic predisposing behavior but just a choice to get along with others.

I always felt that without societal controls and laws, men, and maybe woman would be fucking all the time. I know I would. How can we be productive if all we are doing is fucking?

[fred41]

I always felt that without societal controls and laws, men, and maybe woman would be fucking all the time. I know I would. How can we be productive if all we are doing is fucking?

You're kidding ..right?

[hippifried]

Aren't you confusing normal and moral. I'd probably so that on average most people don't have high morals and therefore having morals is not normal.
That's a good point, sorry for missing it earlier. Confusing normal and moral? I can only answer that after we defined morals. To me, the definition of morals is what Hippifried said:


Morals are about how we respect & treat each other.
Not more, not less. You said in a previous post that the fact that I'm not harming anyone doesn't mean it's not immoral. I disagree with that. The whole point in morals is preventing people from harming each other. If it's not that, it's pointless. I mean, what other purpose does it serve?
You're right that morality is preventative, but it's more than just preventing harm. It also prevents misunderstanding & promotes cooperation. It's THE social rule.

Through the years, the concept of morality has been deliberately twisted into an authoritarian tool, with rules being delivered from on high, regardless of how high. I'm especially disturbed by the current trend toward rude behavior becoming an admirable trait, & being politic or tolerant in words & deeds being seen as a sign of weakness.

I see no way to make or support the idea that mutual pleasure can possibly be immoral. The moral question is personal. It's this:

Would I be willing to accept being on the receiving end of the action I'm about to take toward someone else?