Consent, Legitimacy, and Sexual Behavior

[Son of Jack]

I've heard a number of people here claim that as long as it (sexual behavior of all sorts) is consensual, then it is legitimate (meaning that other people should leave them alone). This sort of thinking has been applied to behaviors that have traditionally been stigmatized like pre- and extramarital sexual relationships and homosexuality. But, what about cases of polygamy/andry or incest in which all of the parties concerned are consenting? Should we de-stigmatize those sorts of relationships?

My goal (to be transparent) is to show that consent doesn't always equal legitimacy and to suggest that consent isn't the best litmus test for allowable behaviors.

 

[Sitamun]

Polygamy/andry definitely yes. It's not for everyone, such as myself, but I don't see why not.

Incest is a bit on my iffy list. Simply because I find it icky. I would personally say no, plus there is the increase chance of birth defects due to the close relationship of sexual partners. But mostly I say no cause I find it icky and I am well aware that my reason for saying no wouldn't hold up in court. I would like to think the social stigma of incest won't change anytime soon, but throughout history there have been examples of "in family" relations. Granted I don't think they have ever been in the majority, but it's there.

 

[GFR7]

Good topic. I would agree; consent does not always make a behavior legitimate or morally neutral or good.

 

[TracerBullet]

I've heard a number of people here claim that as long as it (sexual behavior of all sorts) is consensual, then it is legitimate (meaning that other people should leave them alone). This sort of thinking has been applied to behaviors that have traditionally been stigmatized like pre- and extramarital sexual relationships and homosexuality. But, what about cases of polygamy/andry or incest in which all of the parties concerned are consenting? Should we de-stigmatize those sorts of relationships?

My goal (to be transparent) is to show that consent doesn't always equal legitimacy and to suggest that consent isn't the best litmus test for allowable behaviors.

who are you to judge the "legitimacy" of anyone's relationship?

 

[Sitamun]

who are you to judge the "legitimacy" of anyone's relationship?

Well there is that aspect too

 

[shagster01]

I've heard a number of people here claim that as long as it (sexual behavior of all sorts) is consensual, then it is legitimate (meaning that other people should leave them alone). This sort of thinking has been applied to behaviors that have traditionally been stigmatized like pre- and extramarital sexual relationships and homosexuality. But, what about cases of polygamy/andry or incest in which all of the parties concerned are consenting? Should we de-stigmatize those sorts of relationships?

My goal (to be transparent) is to show that consent doesn't always equal legitimacy and to suggest that consent isn't the best litmus test for allowable behaviors.

All of this existed in the Bible. Abraham was Sarah's half-brother, for example. Why was that ok? It's not like Adam and Eve's immediate family, or Noah's, where there were really no other options.

The Bible later did forbid certain relationships, though curiously never between a father and a daughter.

So what would be your biblical argument that a romantic father/daughter relationship should be forbidden?

(Note: for the record, I personally believe that a father/daughter relationship like that is absolutely disgusting, but the Bible certainly does not forbid it as far as I can tell.)

The Bible also had a lot of polygamy.

 

[Son of Jack]

who are you to judge the "legitimacy" of anyone's relationship?

Nobody...what I say about this or that relationship doesn't really matter that much, though I certainly believe that there are legitimate or illegitimate relationships and behaviors.

 

[Son of Jack]

All of this existed in the Bible. Abraham was Sarah's half-brother, for example. Why was that ok? It's not like Adam and Eve's immediate family, or Noah's, where there were really no other options.

The Bible later did forbid certain relationships, though curiously never between a father and a daughter.

So what would be your biblical argument that a romantic father/daughter relationship should be forbidden?

While there may not be a specific "law" against it, one only needs to read the story of Lot and his daughters to see how that might play out.

(Note: for the record, I personally believe that a father/daughter relationship like that is absolutely disgusting, but the Bible certainly does not forbid it as far as I can tell.)

Understood.:thumb:

The Bible also had a lot of polygamy.

True enough. I'd only ask if there is a difference between what is ideal and what is permissible. Moreover, I'd ask if something changed between the principles found in the Old and New Testament because Paul seems to suggest that a biblical marriage is one man and one woman.

 

[fzappa13]

Me? I'm just glad SOJ is back in action ... and I'm guessing something interesting precipitated this thread.

 

[TracerBullet]

Nobody...what I say about this or that relationship doesn't really matter that much, though I certainly believe that there are legitimate or illegitimate relationships and behaviors.

on the one hand you claim you are no one to judge...but then you go ahead and do so anyway.

 

[Son of Jack]

on the one hand you claim you are no one to judge...but then you go ahead and do so anyway.

You don't understand my point. My judgement doesn't really count, but there is a judgement that does matter.

That said, society always...always judges the legitimacy of relationships (either by law or by stigma). My question is simply, what test should be used to judge the validity of relationships? I don't think consent is appropriate.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I am my brothers keeper, who am I not to ?

who are you to judge the "legitimacy" of anyone's relationship?

 

[This Charming Manc]

there are two questions whats moral and what should be legal, just because I believe something to be immoral does not mean i believe it should be ilegal

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I've heard a number of people here claim that as long as it (sexual behavior of all sorts) is consensual, then it is legitimate (meaning that other people should leave them alone). This sort of thinking has been applied to behaviors that have traditionally been stigmatized like pre- and extramarital sexual relationships and homosexuality. But, what about cases of polygamy/andry or incest in which all of the parties concerned are consenting? Should we de-stigmatize those sorts of relationships?

My goal (to be transparent) is to show that consent doesn't always equal legitimacy and to suggest that consent isn't the best litmus test for allowable behaviors.

I deal with what I call "consensual moralists" so often in another thread that I put together a list of things that in their minds should be allowed based on "consent".

*Homosexuality
*Adultery
*Incest (remember that not all incestuous affairs deal with minors, not that minors wouldn't be able to give consent, see below).
*Pederasty (attached is the history of "man boy love"; as you can see, it was westernized civilization, i.e. Judeo-Christian values that put a halt to it's acceptance).
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pederasty
*Group sex/group sex clubs
*Polygamy
*Prostitution, as seen in the 1972 gay rights agenda
*Any type of pornography
*Sadomasochism/sadomasochism clubs
*Assisted suicide, i.e. murder of oneself (for any reason)
*Murder, yes I said murder. Consensual duels/gangland warfare where both parties acknowledge that death most likely will result.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3425948&postcount=305

 

[Nick M]

Liberty ends when people are hurt, not when there is or isn't consent.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Liberty ends when people are hurt, not when there is or isn't consent.

Two football teams go onto a field consensually knowing that one or more players might be injured during the game. Is that wrong?

 

[shagster01]

Two football teams go onto a field consensually knowing that one or more players might be injured during the game. Is that wrong?

No. You are free to put yourself at risk if you choose.

 

[shagster01]

I deal with what I call "consensual moralists" so often in another thread that I put together a list of things that in their minds should be allowed based on "consent".

*Homosexuality
*Adultery
*Incest (remember that not all incestuous affairs deal with minors, not that minors wouldn't be able to give consent, see below).
*Pederasty (attached is the history of "man boy love"; as you can see, it was westernized civilization, i.e. Judeo-Christian values that put a halt to it's acceptance).
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pederasty
*Group sex/group sex clubs
*Polygamy
*Prostitution, as seen in the 1972 gay rights agenda
*Any type of pornography
*Sadomasochism/sadomasochism clubs
*Assisted suicide, i.e. murder of oneself (for any reason)
*Murder, yes I said murder. Consensual duels/gangland warfare where both parties acknowledge that death most likely will result.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3425948&postcount=305

With the exception of pederasty, yes. Age of consent laws make sense (though I believe they should be dropped to 16 years old straight across the board).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

No. You are free to put yourself at risk if you choose.

The correct answer:

Engaging in activities that are moral, even though there is a risk of injury, should not be prohibited by a society (i.e. driving a car, etc.).

Note the word "moral".

 

[shagster01]

The correct answer:

Engaging in activities that are moral, even though there is a risk of injury, should not be prohibited by a society (i.e. driving a car, etc.).

Note the word "moral".

Sure. As long as "moral" is based on my standard, not yours.