play on boy sex

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

    Sexual Morality

    "I suggest one rule that eliminates the need for all others: 'Think for  yourself."

    SexuaL Totalitarians

    Formerly, we were told by moralizers that propagation was the only purpose of the Sex Education.  Today's liberal clergymen have a new party line:  love is the raison  deter of the sex act; it is  good when it takes place   within the context of a meaningful relationship and bad when it is casual or promiscuous or when the sexual partner is considered a mere object for one's gratification.

    These  liberals are  actually sexual totalitarians.  Their  moralizing attitude is basically the same as it was in the old days; they've  just  discovered a new set of reasons for saying, "Don't."  The acceptance of their    views will leave everyone frustrated, except  those  whose  main passion in life is control of others.

    Morality of Casual Sex

    PLAYBOY'S  treatment of sexual matters is a welcome change from the trite moralisms of conventional thinkers  -or pseudo thinkers.  If the "sexual revolution" is to achieve lasting  success, it will have to have a rational  ethic to replace the deposed ethical system.  I think that  Hugh Hefner  and PLYABOY  have done much to provide  a rational  ethic;  I hope it is adopted before our  folly destroys us,  physically and spiritually.

    The main fault of   much contemporary thinking on Sex And The Law(and other subject) is that it is more concerned  with abstract philosophical, theological  and moral ideas than with real human beings.  Nowhere is this  more evident than in the traditional attitude toward casual sex relations.  Conventionally., casual sex is condemned  because, since  it is primarily focused  on one's own  pleasure and self-exploration and sine it is rather  impersonal in character, it  tends to make an object  out of one's  partner.   From the conventional ethical point of view, using people as a means to an end is both selfish  and exploitative and,   therefore, is  immoral.  I suggest,  however, that if the sexual relationship, or,  for that matter, any relationship, is between two responsible,  consenting Prison in Sex who understand its nature, it cannot,  by rational standards,  be  judged dehumanizing , degrading or exploitative.  All human sex  action  is motivated , in a complex industrialized society, by the mutual  cooperation of all members of the society.  Exploitation  results not from the use of man by man but from the use of one man by another  without his  sex knowledge    or consent.

    As long as mutual  consent is a precondition for a sexual relationship, casual sex is not exploitative.  In such a context, the  only logical purpose  of the words impersonal would be to indicate the depth of the relationship.  In this sense, an impersonal sexual  relationship would be one were  neither person is deeply involved with or strongly committed to the other.  The word impersonal should not  imply a moral judgment.  A deep relationship is preferable because it gives greater  satisfaction; if the desire is mutual a sexual relationship  is moral regardless of the depth.

    But the best defense of casual sex  does not lie in the realm of words and abstractions.  Words can be  misinterpreted and  arguments can be refuted.  The most eloquent defense of casual  Sex in Marriage the fact that such relations do exist  in many situations that are not degrading  or exploitative but are  perfectly wholesome

     NEXT