I Shouldn't be in Philosophy (Warning, Rated R)
Who allowed a science student to enter a class with a bunch of philosophy students anyways?!
I have a pet peeve. Stupid people.
Now I've thought about my operational definition of stupid, and through much contemplation, I have come to a conclusion.
Stupid = people who don't put much thought into what comes out of their mouth (especially in front of a large gathering of people) and / or have oppinions that are dowright ridiculous (another fuzzy definition) or outdated.
So...I'm sitting in my night class "The Philosophy of sex, love, and friendship" and we are having a discussion on promiscuity. Now, this (as with many topics of discussion in this class) is a relatively risky topic to present to a rather large group of young adults from all sorts of backgrounds, but the proffesor proposes a few questions:
1. Is promiscuity a moral issue ? (ie. is it immoral / moral / amoral)
2. Do you want to be promiscuous ?
3. Would you be in a relationship with someone who had a reputation for promiscuity ?
4. would you object to your parter being promiscuous ?
Now, these are again, controversal questions...but this is not my point. Basically, in order to go through these questions for ourselves, she wanted to give us several definitions of proiscuity and some arguments against/for it. Here's where the stupid people part comes in...
We get to a point in our discussion where the definition goes something like this: promiscuity is sex with a series of other adults, not directly related through marriage (ie. partners), with no commitments.
So as far as the argument for/against the morality issue, we decide to make things simple by assuming that the person is not in a relationship, and that there is extensive caution taken to eliminate risk of pregnancy and/or transmission of STDs. Also, the persons are both knowlegable about the intensions of the other (ie. they know that there are 'no strings attached'" so their is no decipt or promise-breaking.
So, why would promiscuity still be immoral (which is what the majority of the class is saying)?
I'll have you know that when the first question was posed at the beginning of the class, I was the only person in the class to put up my hand to "amoral" (in other words, morality should not be in question because it involves a choice, such as your favorite type of ice cream, or what religion you should be). I'm such a rebel...this only-one-in-the-class thing is a favorite of mine in philospophy, only usually the question is "who is a science student"?
But I digress...
So, without considering a significant other, children, STDs or lying...she asked why else it would be immoral (ie. bad)
And people in my class said things like the following....
"It is bad because God sais it's bad"
- umm, God also "sais" if you masterbate he'll kill kittens....this isn't a valad argument. You have know way of knowing what God "sais"...sorry
"It's bad because society sais so"
- umm, hunny...do you realise that you are african american and 50 years ago you would be a slave under that premise? And all your Jewish friends would be dead? Stupid...
"It's bad because it increases risk to society"
- umm, so does the car you drive, and the radiation from your microwave, dumb dumb
"It's bad because it endangers monogomy in marriage"
- ok, decent point, but people are still getting married...and a hundred thousand other things cause this same risk. Like Maxim magazine, double-chocolate-fudge icecream, sex toys, and porn. Deal with it.
"It's bad because you are being inconsiderate"
- umm, we took away the relationship, lying and promise-breaking, children and STDs...so what is inconsiderate? Giving someone sex cause they're horney? It's consentual...we're not talking rape here.
"It's immoral because it shows you can't control your desires"
- what if you don't think it's immoral? then why should you be "controlling" yourself? If you like playing cards, are you immoral cause you give into your desire to play? And PS...if you're going to persuade anyone to sleep with you 'no strings attached' you must be pretty diciplined, and able to control yourslef. Uh...
"It's immoral because it's impossible to love more than one person at a time"
- Umm, I'm really sorry you don't love your family, stupid...
This is what I have to deal with every wendsday night. And to make matters worse, the prof hates me and never lets me talk. But stupid girl next to me, and her friend (There is making love, sex, and fucking...girl) gets to say whatever she wants. Bah! so frustrating.
I'd be happy to hear oppinions. I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I'm certainly not saying that promiscuous sex is good, or that it's right for all people at all times, but I just don't see any harm in two people engaging in consensual sex when they aren't in a relationship, so long as the lying, children, and STDs are taken out of the picture (not that its entirely possible to eliminate all of those things indefinitly...)
If you think it is in fact immoral, what would be your reason (keeping the limitations of children etc. out)?
I have a pet peeve. Stupid people.
Now I've thought about my operational definition of stupid, and through much contemplation, I have come to a conclusion.
Stupid = people who don't put much thought into what comes out of their mouth (especially in front of a large gathering of people) and / or have oppinions that are dowright ridiculous (another fuzzy definition) or outdated.
So...I'm sitting in my night class "The Philosophy of sex, love, and friendship" and we are having a discussion on promiscuity. Now, this (as with many topics of discussion in this class) is a relatively risky topic to present to a rather large group of young adults from all sorts of backgrounds, but the proffesor proposes a few questions:
1. Is promiscuity a moral issue ? (ie. is it immoral / moral / amoral)
2. Do you want to be promiscuous ?
3. Would you be in a relationship with someone who had a reputation for promiscuity ?
4. would you object to your parter being promiscuous ?
Now, these are again, controversal questions...but this is not my point. Basically, in order to go through these questions for ourselves, she wanted to give us several definitions of proiscuity and some arguments against/for it. Here's where the stupid people part comes in...
We get to a point in our discussion where the definition goes something like this: promiscuity is sex with a series of other adults, not directly related through marriage (ie. partners), with no commitments.
So as far as the argument for/against the morality issue, we decide to make things simple by assuming that the person is not in a relationship, and that there is extensive caution taken to eliminate risk of pregnancy and/or transmission of STDs. Also, the persons are both knowlegable about the intensions of the other (ie. they know that there are 'no strings attached'" so their is no decipt or promise-breaking.
So, why would promiscuity still be immoral (which is what the majority of the class is saying)?
I'll have you know that when the first question was posed at the beginning of the class, I was the only person in the class to put up my hand to "amoral" (in other words, morality should not be in question because it involves a choice, such as your favorite type of ice cream, or what religion you should be). I'm such a rebel...this only-one-in-the-class thing is a favorite of mine in philospophy, only usually the question is "who is a science student"?
But I digress...
So, without considering a significant other, children, STDs or lying...she asked why else it would be immoral (ie. bad)
And people in my class said things like the following....
"It is bad because God sais it's bad"
- umm, God also "sais" if you masterbate he'll kill kittens....this isn't a valad argument. You have know way of knowing what God "sais"...sorry
"It's bad because society sais so"
- umm, hunny...do you realise that you are african american and 50 years ago you would be a slave under that premise? And all your Jewish friends would be dead? Stupid...
"It's bad because it increases risk to society"
- umm, so does the car you drive, and the radiation from your microwave, dumb dumb
"It's bad because it endangers monogomy in marriage"
- ok, decent point, but people are still getting married...and a hundred thousand other things cause this same risk. Like Maxim magazine, double-chocolate-fudge icecream, sex toys, and porn. Deal with it.
"It's bad because you are being inconsiderate"
- umm, we took away the relationship, lying and promise-breaking, children and STDs...so what is inconsiderate? Giving someone sex cause they're horney? It's consentual...we're not talking rape here.
"It's immoral because it shows you can't control your desires"
- what if you don't think it's immoral? then why should you be "controlling" yourself? If you like playing cards, are you immoral cause you give into your desire to play? And PS...if you're going to persuade anyone to sleep with you 'no strings attached' you must be pretty diciplined, and able to control yourslef. Uh...
"It's immoral because it's impossible to love more than one person at a time"
- Umm, I'm really sorry you don't love your family, stupid...
This is what I have to deal with every wendsday night. And to make matters worse, the prof hates me and never lets me talk. But stupid girl next to me, and her friend (There is making love, sex, and fucking...girl) gets to say whatever she wants. Bah! so frustrating.
I'd be happy to hear oppinions. I didn't mean to offend anyone, and I'm certainly not saying that promiscuous sex is good, or that it's right for all people at all times, but I just don't see any harm in two people engaging in consensual sex when they aren't in a relationship, so long as the lying, children, and STDs are taken out of the picture (not that its entirely possible to eliminate all of those things indefinitly...)
If you think it is in fact immoral, what would be your reason (keeping the limitations of children etc. out)?
posted by Aimee at 7:40 PM
4 Comments:
Hmmmm...I guess the hate of Stupid people is also an inherited gene!
I can feel your frustration sweetie! Good thing you only have that clas one night a week. Besides, it's good training for when you get into the real world and almost everyone you meet has some of those qualities....
Love you lots Smart Girl! Have a great day!
I'd consider it immoral if you were in a committed relationship. Hopefully though, if you were in one, you wouldn't consider it in the first place...
Other than that, if you want to run around with your legs wide open then it's your choice. Just remember that it's all fun and games until someone gets an STD :P
Aron...way to ruin the fun of bitching...who spell checks someone's blog....get a life, haha.
I miss you guys.
I agree about the stupid people Aim, I deal with many stupid people in my program which is terrifying considering the fact that these are the people who will potentially be moulding the minds of our future leaders (ie teachers) so I totally know how you feel.
About the whole promiscuity thing...it gets hard when there are "no strings attached" but then one person falls in love and its all down hill from there. I'd never do it, but I sure considered it when I was celibate for 5 years...never had the balls though...nor the opportunity. Who knows what people will do, whether or not it is wrong is there problem....I would fail that class.
Miss you sister
XOXO
P.S. I forget my own blog password, username etc...I havent blogged in months...sorry, I do read yours and mom's though, otherwise how else would I know what was going on in your lives?! BYE!!
I applaud you for standing up in the midst of opposition and stating your opinions. That is one of the traits of being a good leader. Well done!!
I do agree with you that morality is in the eyes of the beholder. No one should tell you what is and what is not moral.
Post a Comment
<< Home