What does sexual morality mean to you?

[EveHarrington]

Sexual morality is the relationship defined by consenting adults, with respect to each individuals' boundaries.

I don’t think it’s sexually moral for a man to beat a woman simply because she consents and it makes him horny.

Take away the “it makes him horny” part. It’s then ok for a man to beat a woman because she says she consents?

This is a hill I am willing to die on. I told my ex it was ok for him to hit me, that I WANTED him to hit me, but he wouldn’t do it outside of sexual gratification. Funny how the lines aren’t so blurred when someone isn’t getting off sexually. (Why am I crazy for wanting to be hit for non-sexual reasons? The idea of anything being ok when you “consent” falls apart when you consent for non sexual reasons.)

 

[intothelight]

I don’t think it’s sexually moral for a man to beat a woman simply because she consents and it makes him horny.

That is you opinion and since it violates your boundaries, then it isn't "moral". There are individuals that engage in BDSM that consent and abide by a set of rules...is BDSM immoral? The problem with carving out every little exception is the exception may apply to one or a few and not be relevant in terms of other relationships. As individuals, we are responsible for our own choices and how we act upon them. Over our lifetimes, those choices may change as we deal with trauma, illness, death, etc. The important thing is to be true to ourselves and do no harm to ourselves or others.

 

[EveHarrington]

That is you opinion and since it violates your boundaries, then it isn't "moral". There are individuals that engage in BDSM that consent and abide by a set of rules...is BDSM immoral? The problem with carving out every little exception is the exception may apply to one or a few and not be relevant in terms of other relationships. As individuals, we are responsible for our own choices and how we act upon them. Over our lifetimes, those choices may change as we deal with trauma, illness, death, etc. The important thing is to be true to ourselves and do no harm to ourselves or others.

Think deeper.

You’ve been brainwashed into thinking that any behavior is ok as long as “consent” is given. Oh, but wait, why can’t I “consent” to being killed in a sexual game?

This is the problem with the “sex positive” notion that it’s 1000% about consent.

I think that people are demented if they get hot at beating their partner and causing them pain. This is sick, and disgusting, and no, I do not condone BDSM in any shape or form.

I’m glad to know that it’s your opinion that it’s ok to beat a woman if she “consents”…..sad that you can’t think any deeper to wonder what is wrong with someone for wanting to be physically harmed.

BDSM harms women and I will not ever believe that it’s ok for a man to lay hands on a woman for any reason. (Nobody should be laying hands on anyone to harm them.)

 

[intothelight]

I’m glad to know that it’s your opinion that it’s ok to beat a woman if she “consents”…..sad that you can’t think any deeper to wonder what is wrong with someone for wanting to be physically harmed.

Do not make assumptions about someone's opinion, as there is a big difference in beating someone versus sex play. I stated that to "do no harm to ourselves or others", and that is where the line is drawn in my opinion.

 

[somerandomguy]

The idea of "morality" is very black and white. Something is either moral or it's not. If something is morally wrong, it must be wrong for everyone at all times. Case closed. A very tempting viewpoint for those of us living with trauma, especially sexual trauma.

But it's very difficult to live life, even a small part of life, in the black and white. Real life exists in a continuum of grays. And this is why boundaries are so important to people like us. Boundaries aren't moral, affecting everyone at all times - they're very personal.

To me, "morals" are pretend things that religion peddles - well-defined and ultimately useless. I'd rather decide for myself what I can and cannot accept.

 

[Weemie]

The idea of "morality" is very black and white. Something is either moral or it's not.

I fall into the camp, possibly because I am religious but I've viewed it like this even when I was atheist (yeah, wrap your head around that logic), that morality is definitely something that's objective. It's just situational. In my brain the idea that there is a right answer, or at least a "least wrong" or "least worst" answer, is something that's been with me for ages. But as I've gotten older and come to see that in reality life doesn't have a lot of actual existential meaning, and that we choose what we value, the fact still exists that everyone's moral code is going to be different.

Personally, I just say that their morals are either right or wrong, and cast myself as the arbiter of morality (because why not? It doesn't mean anything anyway, this is my circus and my monkeys). When it comes to boundaries, they can't be moral because it's not immoral to enforce a boundary since it doesn't harm anyone to do so. They can only be reasonable and unreasonable (which lowers the amount of people you can agree to interact with).

In some ways I agree with @EveHarrington, and this is something I saw often when I was on the scene. That people would reach out to me and want me to hurt them and it was clear they were working through trauma that they hadn't dealt with, and were attempting to use BDSM as a tool to do that. I was not comfortable with harming anyone, so I rejected them.

Thus I made the decision for them not to engage and removed their agency from the equation (partially because my boundaries superseded it and partially because I viewed it as morally wrong). But on the other hand, does a person actually have the agency to make these decisions? I think on some level they must, even when it comes to death, because people should have the agency to be able to kill themselves if they choose.

(But of course, doing this at the hands of someone else, I would say is morally wrong, because both of the parties involved are failing to understand the consequences of actually taking a life, regardless of if "consent" is given, and especially if the person was healthy prior to this. But let's say the person wanting to die had a terminal illness? Then it's morally correct for them to receive medical assistance in dying, if they so choose, yeah? And usually that's at the hands of a medical doctor, or these days it can actually be self-administered.)

So there's a lot of nuance even within "objective" morality.

 

[intothelight]

Both my sister and I have PTSD due to the abuse we were subjected to by our mother. However, even though it was the same house, same parent; our responses are almost polar opposites. With never knowing "who" we were going to wake up to in the morning and chaotic environment that was our childhood home, I crave control and cannot stand feeling that things are out of my control. My sister is the opposite, where she wants someone else to take control and wants the clear cut rules they define. When symptoms flare, she finds comfort in being a submissive and I find comfort in spreadsheets.

For a long time everything was "black and white", but as I replaced the PTSD glasses, the world is full of gray.

 

[Friday]

Take away the “it makes him horny” part. It’s then ok for a man to beat a woman because she says she consents?

Martial Arts & any number of Contact Sports would say, yes.

Even though there are a great number of sports (and careers) that discriminate against women participating at all, or segregate based on sex.

I don’t think things actually start getting crazy, until one is dealing with abusive assholes who attempt to blameshift “If you’re okay with _______ in this context you should be okay with _____ in every context.”

Nope! That’s not how life works.

Just because I’m okay getting beat up from the street up sparring, or fighting, or on accident as I’m learning various acrobatics? Or with being screamed at on the pitch, or in training, or at a distance? (And in point of fact will fight for my right to participate in all of those things). Does NOT mean It’s okay to raise your voice or hand to me because I dried the can opener “wrong”, or it turns you on, or any other reason under the Sun. What’s next? Table dancing at church? Hymns at job interviews? Demanding a paycheck & health insurance coverage from friends?

Just because something is accepted or even desirable in one context, does not make anything except completely wrong, in another.

ETA …Which is not to say that you cannot find it immoral for anyone to hit anyone for any reason at any time. Or at any point preceding that. Fine in combat, not for sport. Fine for sport, not for pleasure. Whatever. I & others may disagree, and draw our lines elsewhere, but that’s the privilege of agency. Being able to make our own choices.

 

[Sideways]

Morality is about what we consider right and wrong, good and bad. It's an incredibly personal and nuanced concept, influenced by all sorts of different factors. Philosophers have been debating things like "what is moral", and "is there a universal morality" since, at least, ancient Greece.

So, sexual morality, for me, is about "what do I consider to be right and wrong in sexual relationships?" My concept of what is right and wrong is going to be different to the person next to me. Of course it is. And that's okay.

It's also okay that there will be grey areas for all of us. For example, to me? Beating your partner isn't okay. But I'm a lot less clear when you ask me about "what about some playful, consensual spanking?" Right and wrong, and a big grey area in the middle. That's how much of life is. It's okay to be uncertain.

I think (I could be very wrong) it's going to make for a much more successful intimate relationship if your concept of morality aligns with your partner. Not exactly, but relatively closely. If you don't have that innate, gut-deep agreement on things like "is porn okay", or "is a dominant/submissive dynamic okay", or "is consensual violence okay", it's going to be incredibly difficult to have a mutually satisfying intimate relationship.

If you and your partner are in opposition over something that one of you needs to feel sexually fulfilled, that's going to be even harder to navigate successfully.

To me, what that means is that getting to know your partner's views on sexual morality questions is as essential as getting to know their opinions on morality questions generally, in order to determine whether the relationship will survive intimacy long-term.

If you are morally opposed to porn, that's okay. But not everyone is going to be okay with a ban on porn by their partner. Porn has been around even longer than the concept of morality. Probably, not all porn should be lumped into the same group. There's a huge spectrum of what people consider good and unacceptable when it comes to porn, and it makes a lot of sense to me that it's a necessary conversation to have with your partner, like all big and personally relevant morality questions that are going to influence whether or not your intimate relationship can work.

 

[Freddyt]

If you are morally opposed to porn, that's okay. But not everyone is going to be okay with a ban on porn by their partner. Porn has been around even longer than the concept of morality. Probably, not all porn should be lumped into the same group. There's a huge spectrum of what people consider good and unacceptable when it comes to porn, and it makes a lot of sense to me that it's a necessary conversation to have with your partner, like all big and personally relevant morality questions that are going to influence whether or not your intimate relationship can work.

Yes yes yes. There are boundaries and expectations that need to be set in your relationship.

I used to get asked "you let your partner...........?" (non sexual stuff...) No, I don't "let" her do anything. When its inside the boundaries we agree on its fine. We are both people and just because we are married? Only means we need to conform to whats within our boundaries. As long as we do that and meet each others expectations and fulfill our responsibilities, then she is an independent person. In my world there are things that would affect our relationship, we both know what they are, and as long as you stay inside the lines - all good.

And if the line isn't where one of us wants it to be, then we talk, not fight. My partner deserves my respect.

Agree on expectations. Give and take.......find the balance that works for you both. I owe a lot on that balance as in the last couple years - my partner has given a lot......

 

[EveHarrington]

Deleted

 

[abovedown]

For me sexual morality is like 'treat others like you would like to be treated'. I like this because you can use this advice whether or not you are religious/spiritual or not. And maybe as lyrics of one savage garden song 'I believe trust is more important than monogamy'. Although I personally tend to prefer monogamous relationships I think that trust & mutual respect are more important than following external moral codes