CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Sexual relations should be surrounded by stigma and taboo.
Though it is lessening now, I have noticed that sexual intercourse and related activities are surrounded by an incredible amount of stigma. This strikes me as odd; as organisms, reproduction is merely one of our processes. As intelligent beings, it is simply a means for acquiring pleasure. The question is, why should something so intrinsic to human life be surrounded by taboo?
It should be surrounded by stigma and taboo (and anything else stupid people believe) because those are the only tools we have for controlling stupid people and keep them from reproducing.
I don't know about you but, every time I have to deal with an idiot (on the rare occasion when I leave my home) I ask myself, "Why did they let his/her parents reproduce?"
Hitler would have won the war if he had advocated killing stupid people instead. ;)
This does not work. Sweeping sex under the rug does not stop anybody from having sex. It just prevents them from being safe and smart about it when they do.
yep!!! relationships don't need to be physical. people don't understand this and end up with a dozen kids in their arms. they don't have to get a child to prove their love. this is the only way to stop these people.
people don't understand this and end up with a dozen kids in their arms.
Curious. People have many children for as several reasons, namely: culture, economy, accident and ignorance. What you are suggesting is that officially suppressing sexual behaviour reduces the likelihood of multiple consecutive pregnancies. This is simply not the case:
Culture & economics
We shall examine Mali, a sparsely populated region of Africa. In Mali, the general mass of men and women are by our standards most deprived and poor. It is, strangely, for this reason that a culture has emerged of having a plethora of children. It acts as a primitive form of insurance; when the parents grow old and feeble, they will be supported by one or more of their proliferate offspring. A possible factor is the scarcity of sexual education in Africa, the dearth of prophylactics and the complete lack of any family planning doctrine.
As to how the situation would be improved one mote by attaching further stigma to sex, rendering it impossible to discuss the safety of associated acts, we cannot conceive.
Accident & ignorance
We shall talk awhile about teenage pregnancy. It is, contrary to popularly voiced opinion, entirely natural for young people to engage in sexual behaviour. It is only for reasons of stigma that it is viewed as immoral. As to why, we again cannot conceive. What is sex? In less colourful term, it is the insertion of an appendage into an orifice with the purpose of conception or eliciting pleasure. What is inherently shameful about that? Why is the idea of two persons of complimentary disposition combining for mutual satisfaction so abhorrent to so many? Answer us that in secular terms and your intellect should be considered marvelous in our eyes.
So much for that; on to the effect of the matter. The very young become pregnant through ignorance. Only very recently has it become acceptable to teach the young of the previously esoteric concept of contraception. Why? Because of the senseless opposition mounted by religious bodies, mainly. If we remove all opposition to widespread education, we can make a great dent in the figures. Removing interdictions on prophylactic sales to minors would help too.
they don't have to get a child to prove their love.
Procreation is not the only reason for which sexual behaviour is carried out.
this is the only way to stop these people.
Who are these people, what are they doing and why do they need to be stopped?
relationships turn sexual when they get physical. this must be eradicated. it usually leads to a new child in the orphanage for people who make such stupid mistakes.
when the parents grow old and feeble, they will be supported by one or more of their proliferate offspring.
but when poor people think of this, the other thought does not cross thier minds(I think) that by doing this they won't be able to feed their children enough. i guess they forget this part and therefore, this leads to under-nourished children. these kids cannot take care of them selves or their parents, which leads to increasing population.
What is inherently shameful about that? Why is the idea of two persons of complimentary disposition combining for mutual satisfaction so abhorrent to so many?
exposing your body to someone u don't know well, but u think U know the best, is the shameful fact. one's privacy is one's own. it is a shame for the whole community as a person has given her/himself off to some other human being. this is why, it is a shameful fact to many.
Procreation is not the only reason for which sexual behaviour is carried out.
okay, but stripping for someone else is no reason to show yopur love for them too.
Who are these people, what are they doing and why do they need to be stopped?
sry, but these people are those who believe that sex is the answer to their love. you get the rest.;);) they need to be stopped because they are violating rules of some societies. and embarrassing others as well.
We are unaware of any philosophy wherein stating the obvious is considered tantamount to wisdom.
this must be eradicated.
As to why, we are unable to submit any reason, nor see one neither.
it usually leads to a new child in the orphanage for people who make such stupid mistakes.
We can only apologise for our ignorance of any statistics which prove this. It was our understanding that the vast majority of pregnancies are betwixt adults. It was also our understanding that species propagation was impossible without some form of reproduction. We suggest that you revise your genocidal goals.
but when poor people think of this, the other thought does not cross thier minds(I think) that by doing this they won't be able to feed their children enough.
We submit that the myopia of impoverished Africans is no reason to forbid sexual behaviour, nor to cease education thereof. In fact, we submit that reducing stigma and allowing education to proceed uninhibited can and will only serve to increase awareness of the detrimental effects of unsafe sex and unplanned reproduction.
i guess they forget this part and therefore, this leads to under-nourished children.
We suggest you educate yourself on the economic and topographical state of Mali. We submit that desertification and extant poverty are the primary reasons for general starvation. As to how those who advocate sexual stigma should contrive to alleviate the situation of over-fertility, we cannot conceive.
exposing your body to someone u don't know well, but u think U know the best, is the shameful fact.
We fail to see how this presumption is an intrinsic fact of every sexual encounter in all the circles of the Earth.
one's privacy is one's own.
We are left incredulous by your apparent determination to contradict yourself. Tell us, do you believe that people should be discouraged form having sex, or do you believe that it is a private affair and open to their own discretion?
it is a shame for the whole community as a person has given her/himself off to some other human being.
Alas, you have written some ill-conceived lines and masqueraded them as a wholesome answer. You have outlined scenarios and called them shameful, yet failed to produce any compelling reason as to why.
But, as to the logic of the above scenario: it is lacking. We cannot conceive as to why a community should consider the conjunction of two of its members inherently shameful. One human being and another human being attempting to enrapture each other through coition is not shameful in any sane estimation. Why should it be? It is a biological imperative, something as intrinsic to being human as thinking and feeling.
okay, but stripping for someone else is no reason to show yopur love for them too.
One loves another, one seeks to pleasure them. What purer way is there to show affection than that?
sry, but these people are those who believe that sex is the answer to their love. you get the rest.
And perhaps it is? We submit that you are guilty of applying your own mentality to others, which is a senseless business. Alas, we get nothing at all, never mind the rest.
they need to be stopped because they are violating rules of some societies. and embarrassing others as well.
We know nothing of any mandate by which a human might contrive to forbid sexual liberty except in the most oppressive dictatorships. We submit that as well as for gratification, sexual behaviour might serve as a way of protest against such regimes, enhancing its value to all free-thinkers.
We submit also that communal embarrassment is a fiction, conjured to provide some limp and fruitless form of resistance against the tide of reason which sweeps inexorably forward, smashing stigma and prejudice asunder and cleansing the Earth of the vile and loathsome filth which previous generations have allowed to accrue. Civilized communities are comprised of individuals who for the most part have sex. It is nonsensical to think that an aggregate of such individuals would rationally frown on it.
We are unaware of any philosophy wherein stating the obvious is considered tantamount to wisdom.
yeah sry, I got it wrong there. what I'm trying to say is, that if sexual relationships are surrounded by stigma and taboo, it will stop other couples from getting into sexual acts, being afraid of harming their status in the society.
As to why, we are unable to submit any reason, nor see one neither.
sry again I didn't state it, but sexual acts have not been considered really great doings since time immemorial. girls with morals are considered to lose their virginity after marriage. it is because, if girls get pregnant with the so n so man's kid, the society won't really be of great help. it would be good if the guy is a real lover, but if not, then the girl has to take on life all by herself. girls who lose their virginity before marriage aren't considered decent.
We can only apologise for our ignorance of any statistics which prove this.
sry..... I hate giving statistics....
but this is one reason as to why children get into orphanages or why they are abandoned by mothers.
It was also our understanding that species propagation was impossible without some form of reproduction.
yeah. but no one ever said that species propagation wouldn't take place after marriage.
We suggest that you revise your genocidal goals.
done... I still think that I am on the right side of this debate.
if sexual relationships are surrounded by stigma and taboo, it will stop other couples from getting into sexual acts, being afraid of harming their status in the society.
This is fundamentally untrue; I hate to keep re-stressing what has been said before, but this will simply cause more couples to do it secretly and without protection, leading to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and STI/STDs.
sexual acts have not been considered really great doings since time immemorial. girls with morals are considered to lose their virginity after marriage. it is because, if girls get pregnant with the so n so man's kid, the society won't really be of great help. it would be good if the guy is a real lover, but if not, then the girl has to take on life all by herself. girls who lose their virginity before marriage aren't considered decent.
Just because something has been the way it is for a long time does not give it credit. Slavery has been practiced since time immemorial. So has rape, pillage, murder, genocide, cannibalism, etc.
Society was of great help to my poor birth mother, who as a Christian likely did not receive the sexual education she should have and was pregnant by 15. I am adopted, and my parents waited on a list for three years to find a child that was available in their area. I, on the other hand, am very well educated about sex and have been enjoying it since I was 15. Have I ever been pregnant or regretted anything that I have done? No. Do the people that care about me think less of me for it? Also no.
And one more thing...who are you to label girls as decent or not?
m in a hurry jus now, bt that last line didn't make sense. i noe m nobody to label someone decent but i wouldn't really like to hang out with u much if u sleep with every other guy on the street every night
Just because I am not a virgin does not mean I "sleep with every other guy on the street every night". If you wish to argue effectively, perhaps you should refrain from broad assumptions?
on the one hand, people with better relations to their parents may not spend as much time with friends/significant others.
More likely, however, teenagers with better relation to their parents feel they can talk to their parents about these kinds of issues.
If stigma/taboo make it more difficult to talk to anybody about something, parents included, then it will take an even stronger relation to have "the talk".
however, if it were not stigma/taboo to discuss, it would be easier to talk about with anybody, parents included, and so it would no be difficult at all to have "the talk"
I could not agree more with your point that relationships do not need physicality. Taboo, however, is one of the reasons that teens do what their hormones tell them to do, rather than have discussions with parents, friends, or significant others about what to do.
Taboo, however, is one of the reasons that teens do what their hormones tell them to do, rather than have discussions with parents, friends, or significant others about what to do.
We submit that it is the business of neither parents, friends or whomever presumes to sway our disposition whether persons engage or coition or not. We submit also that your conception that discussion promotes abstinence is detached from reality. Indeed, such an effect would defeat the purpose of such talks, their aim being to promote safety in coition.
The overbearing reason that anybody does as their hormones demand, is the demand's virtue of being hormonal. It is a suggestion at a chemical level, which is why we oppose any restriction thereof: it is neither healthy nor rational. As to why sexual liberty is not a state desirable to all, we cannot conceive, as to why teenage sex is abhorrent to so many, we are ignorant.
We suggest that the only rational argument against such is teenage pregnancy. This is a self-resolving issue, as removal of stigma will increase education of contraception, rendering any further stigma moot and any opposition without argument.
"We submit that it is the business of neither parents, friends or whomever presumes to sway our disposition whether persons engage or coition or not"
But if the child wants to discuss something, they have the ability to- without needing to overcome large barriers of taboo.
"We submit also that your conception that discussion promotes abstinence is detached from reality"
That is not what I intended to say at all. Discussion promotes education. Education leads to safer sex- not less sex.
"Indeed, such an effect would defeat the purpose of such talks, their aim being to promote safety in coition"
It would appear that I answered your misunderstanding in my previous statement.
" to why sexual liberty is not a state desirable to all, we cannot conceive, as to why teenage sex is abhorrent to so many, we are ignorant."
This is because society craves some restriction. Religion, a definitive viewpoint on what people believe to be moral, labels not only unrestricted lust as a deadly sin, but also
unrestricted hoarding (greed)
unrestricted eating (gluttony)
unrestricted pride
unrestricted anger
teenage sex is abhorrent simply because it is unrestricted. I do not believe it justifies any stigma (if you notice I argue against stigma) rather it answers your question.
"We suggest that the only rational argument against such is teenage pregnancy. This is a self-resolving issue, as removal of stigma will increase education of contraception, rendering any further stigma moot and any opposition without argument."
But if the child wants to discuss something, they have the ability to- without needing to overcome large barriers of taboo.
Yes and that is the scenario we wish to see made manifest. We took issue with the phraseology, little more.
That is not what I intended to say at all. Discussion promotes education. Education leads to safer sex- not less sex.
We apologies for the misunderstanding.
This is because society craves some restriction.
We have for great swathes of time pondered this. We cannot decide whether it is the society which craves restriction, or a part of the society which wishes to restrict the aggregation.
teenage sex is abhorrent simply because it is unrestricted.
We feel there are deeper elements at play. We have discussed this matter at great length with an excellent mind; we have decided envy is an important factor.
Which is what I was agreeing with the whole time.
We know that now. We note a parallel. An intellectual friendship was established thus with aveskde.
"We have for great swathes of time pondered this. We cannot decide whether it is the society which craves restriction, or a part of the society which wishes to restrict the aggregation."
however, if there were no taboo, it would not even be considered an aggregation. Consider ketchup.
It is popular all around the world. Some people do not like it, and view it as low-class. Some people use it excessively. But when it comes down to it, it is a major part of society.
Doesn't that sound familiar?
Yet you do not see people discussing the immorality of ketchup, even though ketchup users are an enormous collection of people. Therefore, I reject your hypothesis that society opposes aggregates in general.
Envy, however, is a distinguishing feature between ketchup-users and sex-havers. I do thoroughly believe that envy is perhaps the defining feature of not only sexuality, but of many of the aforementioned 'deadly sins'
After all, I would be jealous of a person who has a lot of sex.
Just as I would be jealous of a person who has a lot of money
and, when obesity was sexy, I would be jealous of a person who can eat their own weight in cheetos, too.
I am not, however, jealous of people who do not like ketchup. They do not know what they are missing.
however, if there were no taboo, it would not even be considered an aggregation.
We do not accept this reasoning. Society is simply the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. We do not see taboo as a static concept, thus taboo cannot be considered an adhesive.
It is popular all around the world. Some people do not like it, and view it as low-class. Some people use it excessively. But when it comes down to it, it is a major part of society.
Doesn't that sound familiar?
Yet you do not see people discussing the immorality of ketchup, even though ketchup users are an enormous collection of people. Therefore, I reject your hypothesis that society opposes aggregates in general.
That was not the hypothesis we ventured. We simply asked whether society is naturally self-restricting, or whether it has unnaturally been restricted by a minority component. We cannot fathom how you could mistake our meaning of aggregation; we submit that it is impossible for society to oppose the aggregation, as in this context "aggregation" equates to "society". You speak as though we suggested society opposes itself, which was not our meaning.
I do thoroughly believe that envy is perhaps the defining feature of not only sexuality, but of many of the aforementioned 'deadly sins'
We are unaware of any previous mention of "deadly sins".
I am not, however, jealous of people who do not like ketchup. They do not know what they are missing.
How you contrive to use an analogy which you have admitted is separated from the effect of the matter by the most important factor (envy) of the issue, we cannot conceive.
"We do not see taboo as a static concept, thus taboo cannot be considered an adhesive."
taboo is not static. But the underlying implications that give rise to taboo are. Much like the laws of the universe, the laws of taboo are constant (dislike/envy of overindulgence), although society dictates envy.
"We are unaware of any previous mention of "deadly sins""
When I discussed greed, lust, envy, pride- these are all some of the 7 deadly sins.
"How you contrive to use an analogy which you have admitted is separated from the effect of the matter by the most important factor (envy) of the issue, we cannot conceive"
How you contrive to use an analogy which you have admitted is separated from the effect of the matter by the most important factor (envy) of the issue, we cannot conceive"
my analogy was for all aggregations. Envy is the defining difference for why lust is taboo, and ketchup is not.
But the underlying implications that give rise to taboo are.
We feel you have misunderstood our rumination. We simply cannot determine whether society compulsively restricts itself beyond rational boundaries, or whether a small segment of it does so. We see arguments in favour of both sides. We find any further discussion on the effect of the matter to be superfluous.
When I discussed greed, lust, envy, pride- these are all some of the 7 deadly sins.
We beg forgiveness; we had a lapse of memory which we find most disturbing.
my analogy was for all aggregations. Envy is the defining difference for why lust is taboo, and ketchup is not.
We cannot explain religious compulsions thus. We believe that there is an element of erotic masochism in denying oneself sexual pleasures, which is an ironic form of decadence indulged in by clerics. We note with some horror, however, that many clerics fail to adhere to their self-imposed celibacy and commit most unthinkable atrocities (our most detested word).
"We feel you have misunderstood our rumination. We simply cannot determine whether society compulsively restricts itself beyond rational boundaries, or whether a small segment of it does so. We see arguments in favour of both sides. We find any further discussion on the effect of the matter to be superfluous."
I agree.
"We beg forgiveness; we had a lapse of memory which we find most disturbing."
it is perfectly understandable.
"We believe that there is an element of erotic masochism in denying oneself sexual pleasures"
This may be true in some cases, but not all cases. Some people may choose to abstain from sex for some type of erotic gain, but this is not always the case. Why do people find it disturbing to talk about sex then? If it were just a matter of denying one of sexual pleasures, then why would there be any discomfort in discussing the mechanics to young children?
Sex is an important part of the human experience, and research is showing that we are amongst the most sexually active creatures on the planet. We need to stop shrouding the act of sex in stigma and taboo. I believe the main culprit for this is Bronze Aged beliefs that continue to hang around through the Bible and other religious books. Studies show that in predominantly Republican States, which is typically associated with Christianity, there are higher rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. Yet these are also the people that push abstinence in schools. Abstinence is not wrong, but we know that most teens will experiment with sex, and so we should be teaching them how to do it responsibly.
It's a personal decision how many partners a person wants to have, and in a relationship it is the couples decision how open they want to be (with details and also with having more than one partner).
Sexual relations of all sorts have been surrounded by stigma and taboo since the invention of religion,
and none of it has stopped a single illegitimate birth or disease.
So instead of being grumpy assholes and ruining everyone's fun, instead we should do a better job of teaching people about sex at an early age, and about how to have safe sex.
Well, ignoring we're talking about western society, I would bet it hasn't stopped any illigitimate sex between two consenting adults who want to have sex. That they stone the couple after the fact hardly stops the intercourse.
Why, are you suggesting Sharia Law? If I remember you're Christian, so it would not be surprising, that lot is about a decade of poverty and 2 false prophets from Al Qaeda.
First you sneak into power under the banner of "pro-family, anti-condom, anti- anything not white anglo saxon protestant" then you start stoning adulterers. Sounds like the Bible to me, why not?
This post is purely opinion and I could be wrong on this but I reckon the Judeo-Christian-Islamic churches are responsible for this, the lessening, is in my mind brought about by the increasing dissolution with the Church and Increasing numbers of deserters from the church here in the west.
I would suppose it further removed power and control from women by classing natural urges that men and women feel as sinful and their outcomes purely functional.
Anyone would know that males have a stronger sexual appetite, this gives females as in most species the power of selection and control over a man; making it taboo as the religious institutions did serves to tilt that power over to the hands of a man, and subjugate women further by declaring them sluts or whatever derogatory comment was used.
This blanket covering of sexual desire leads to guilt and social stigma, those who wish to carry out their lives in a sexually liberated and biologically sound manner have to do so under intense scrutiny and societal judgment. Others that have strong or "unusual" sexual desires if not addressed can become distressed, depressed and miserable.
