Posted by figleaf
| Tags:
Mon, 2009-03-30 23:04
Another pretty crucial but little-often-discussed point from that post by Sungold Kittywampus
[T]here’s a pesky little Kantian ethical issue with regarding sex, and by extension one’s partner, as a mere means to an end. I don’t much care whether the end is “getting some pussy” or “getting married.” Either way, it dehumanizes and disrespects one’s partner.
Call me a prudish libertine if you like, but promising or using sex to get commitment (a la “The Rules” ...or the last 2000 years of patriarch) is ultimately as invalid as promising or using commitment to get sex.
Not least because each exploit demeans both seeker and sought. And, for that matter, overloads both sex and commitment.
Submitted by 2809 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-04-02 07:15.
The thing with the whole sex/commitment thing is that there are all kinds of good reasons to have sex only with a level of commitment (fudging for the moment what that level might be): emotional comfort (e.g., you don't feel happy if your sex life doesn't include monogamy), comfort level with risks (e.g. pregnancy, especially if you wouldn't abort in the event of birth control failure), etc. But the Rulesy, "you've got to hold out for this long to preserve your market value" reasons are the wrong reasons to do this. And don't lead to drawing those lines in ways that actually get you what you want.