Sex and Morality (Just for fun)

[RichLB]

In a dinner conversation the issue of sex and morality was brought up. It got me to thinking (a somewhat rare event).

I'm old enough to remember President Clinton's famed quote, "I never had sex with that women", yet his sexual habits were deemed so immoral it almost ended his presidency. But, if sex is tied to morality, what constitutes "sex"? If, for instance, I am a foot fetishist and off a guy from the bars in order to play with his feet, am I engaged in sex and therefore behaving immorally? If so, is going for a foot massage converting the masseur into a prostitute? If I was a voyeur and offed a boy to watch him masturbate, but never touched him, am I engaged in a sexual act? Similar issues could be created for an array of fetishes.

Is "sex" limited solely to genital contact? At first glance it appears the answer is affirmative, but we attach no moral decision surrounding visits to a urologist or proctologist who may handle our sexual apparatus. Is "sex" defined as genital penetration? If so, does that mean mere touching and mutual masturbation is not "sex"?

I'm guessing the source of the moral dilemma is pleasure, itself, and sex is merely a convenient straw man. The Protestant Ethic, which brainwashed many of us in our formative years, dictated that the pursuit of pleasure was immoral. Many are still burdened by that ethic.

If one rejects the Protestant Ethic, it removes the stigma attached to sex. Masturbation (remember the feelings of guilt when you were a kid?) merely becomes a convenient way to pleasure yourself. Prostitution devolves into a profession which offers pleasure in exchange of payment. Abandoning the Protestant Ethic seems, to me, to remove many of the moral dilemmas we were talking about during that dinner conversation.

What do you guys think?

[Gaybutton]

What do you guys think?

I think trying to create a definition for something that means entirely different things to different people is an exercise in futility. No matter how anyone tries to define sex, plenty of others will dispute that definition. Other than trying to establish a legal basis, I don't see what purpose would be served in even trying to define sex. For me it's very simple - if something gets me off, that's sex.

[RichLB]

For me it's very simple - if something gets me off, that's sex.

Oh no, I'll never be able to enjoy watching you eat a slice of Ritz' blueberry cheese cake again!!!

[Gaybutton]

Oh no, I'll never be able to enjoy watching you eat a slice of Ritz' blueberry cheese cake again!!!

Just bring along a blindfold . . .

[lvdkeyes]

Didn't this whole definition of what constitutes sex get debated ad nauseam during the Lewinsky thing?

[Gaybutton]

Didn't this whole definition of what constitutes sex get debated ad nauseam during the Lewinsky thing?

It probably did. I never paid much attention to it myself. I didn't care about Clinton's sex life. I only cared about how well he was doing his job. I thought then, and still do, that his personal sex life was irrelevant and making an issue of it to the point of impeachment was pointless and ridiculous. Was there an outcome to the definition debate or was it another one of those things that eventually just faded away?

[lvdkeyes]

Just as may well happen here, there was never any consensus of opinion that I am aware of. I grew bored with it very quickly myself.