Comment by lo_zamoyski | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lo_zamoyski | Hacker News Reader

"[A] good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but what is worse, as many masters as he has vices.” ― Augustine, "City of God"

“The first two facts which a healthy boy or girl feels about sex are these: first that it is beautiful and then that it is dangerous.” ― G.K. Chesterton

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.” ― Aldous Huxley, "Ends and Means"

Whenever you meet someone promoting free love, look at whether they struggle with sex addiction or guilt over having done something sexually illicit. Margaret Mead serves as another example, now known for her fraudulent studies of Samoan sex life in which she claimed that free love is the state of nature. It turns out that Mead, too, had been having an adulterous affair.

I have yet to meet a single person anywhere in my circle of acquaintances from conservative religious practitioners (who nevertheless endorse some sort of non-monogamy, as believers in the bible who have actually read it would tend to given the apparently blessed non-monogamy within it as a text) to modern non-monogamists through actual literal cheaters ... who does not believe sex carries with it some form of personal restraint or ethical responsibilities to observe.

What those ethical responsibilities might be varies, of course, and it shouldn't be a surprise when people's specific related advocacies might be consistent with their behavior.

I'm all for discussing the merits of monogamous vs non-monogamous conduct or other sexual ethics, but I have little respect for people who seem to be primarily orient their discussion around supposed moral corruption of people who have openly endorsed non-monogamy, especially given how many who have ostensibly endorsed monogamy can similarly provide us with examples of "struggle with sex addiction or guilt over having done something sexually illicit."

There is not much in the way of evidence or argument that the line between good and evil runs neatly down the middle of this debate.

> I have yet to meet a single person… who does not believe that sex carries with it some form of personal restraint or ethical responsibilities

As I understand it, the GP was suggesting that people tend to define the nature of that restraint and those ethical responsibilities around their behavior rather than conforming their behavior to them. That’s not a controversial statement as people tend to rationalize their own behavior to justify themselves in all manners of behavior. Therefore the GP is suggesting that anyone investigating sexual ethics to analyze the lives of who they’re listening to lest they become embroiled in the self justifications of others instead of sober reasoning.

I’d also recommend to be suspicious of oneself around one’s own self-justifications and underlying motivations because we’re all prone to this.

> That’s not a controversial statement as people tend to rationalize their own behavior to justify themselves in all manners of behavior.

When someone advocates for a given ethical standard that permits their activities, how would you tell the difference between:

* post-hoc rationalized personal behavior

and

* real conviction in principles guiding their behavior

Personally, I start with whether they recognize any obligations/responsibilities, and my experience is that people do this across a spectrum of social outlooks. They construct the obligations differently -- there is reason to believe that people actually believe different things -- but there's no outlook on this topic that I've found corresponds to self-justification more than any other.

Rationalization's twin self-deception is nevertheless usually a worthwhile topic. But there's some good reason to suspect monogamists are not exactly in a superior position.

> how would you tell the difference

Well, there’s no infallible way to tell but it would pay to give extra careful critical attention to an ethical principle if that principle is extremely convenient to the lifestyle choices or proclivities of those proposing it or to oneself. Another good hint that something is self-justification or at least some kind of distortion is if there is no requirement for sacrifice, or no responsibility for the consequences, or no acknowledgment of any negative consequences. I.e. if you’re not being asked to give up/take on something you’d really rather not, and especially if you’re being told there’re no costs to these actions then be very suspicious.

> as believers in the bible who have actually read it would tend to given the apparently blessed non-monogamy within it as a text

Just wanted to point out that while the Bible depicts a lot of polygamy, that depiction is not ever given explicit approbation. While polygamy is never banned or explicitly labeled wrong (a fact that many evangelicals are unaware of and get very squirmy about when they encounter it), it is also never praised or labeled as a good thing. Most of the stories featuring it end in agony and tears (Jacob, Leah, Rachel, and the handmaidens produce a lot of offspring, but boy does it sound like an awful environment as depicted).

Finally, in the New Testament, you get Jesus explicitly calling out "one man, one woman" as the intended design for marriage (Matthew 19:4-6):

"'Haven’t you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.'"

So, while not as clear-cut as the average evangelical would like, still fairly consistent.

> Whenever you meet someone promoting free love, look at whether they struggle with sex addiction or guilt over having done something sexually illicit.

What a heap of tosh.

Thankfully it’s the twenty first century, adults are free to enjoy their sex lives how they want without having to endure these puritanical cliches.

Whenever you meet somebody promoting prudeness, look at whether they struggle with sexual traumas or feelings of guilt caused by self-denying religious upbringing.

Sure, I know lots of them and literally none struggle with sex addiction or guilt as you suggest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com