daily pro-degeneracy thread

[Anonymous No.21409399]

The Natural Law arguments for traditional sexual morality don't make any sense.
Basically the general idea is that since the "natural purpose" of the sexual organs is procreation, engaging in sexual acts for their own sake goes against that function (perversion). That doesn't actually follow. Much like an acrobat walking with his hands does not prevent him also using his hands to grab things etc. like everyone else, having non procreating some times is compatible with having procreating sex other times. Additionally, celibacy would turn out to be immoral, because it is incompatible with the natural purpose of the sexual organs, procreation.
(we are assuming teleological virtue ethics is true for the sake of the argument)

[Anonymous No.21409413]

>>21409399
Have you checked Thomas texts on the matter?

[Anonymous No.21409424]

>>21409413
I've read on the topic from contemporary Natural Law moralists, I don't think the argument is different.

[Anonymous No.21409445]

>>21409399
I don’t get natural law arguments for sexual morality. Animals are degenerate. They fuck their siblings and eat poop. My dogs will masturbate and some times engage in sodomy.

[Anonymous No.21409538]

>>21409399
what's stopping you from punching yourself in the face? this is also a possibility for your hands that isn't necessarily their intended purpose. the argument is that hedonistic sex is ultimately contrary to a good and moral life. animals engage in this behavior and man reduces himself to animalistic impulses when he to engages in this behavior. the end goal is to move away from our corrupted nature and towards divinity. there's a reason the jews promote pornography to the goyim. it reduces their mental faculties to pure impulsive behavior and ultimately makes them docile golem.

[Anonymous No.21409553]

>>21409538
>WAAAAAH ITS THE JOOZ FAULT I'M A PORN ADDICTERINO!!!! WAAAAAH!!!

[Anonymous No.21409561]

>>21409399
God makes degenerates to either rise above their degeneracy and inspire others, or to serve comic reliefs before being cast into the eternal fires for their degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.21409566]

>>21409538
What you're saying may be true but it doesn't answer OP's question of how to tell what acts are and aren't teleologically "licit" according to the telos of the organ or capacity (dynamis). There seem to be three classes of activities for any given capacity:
>1 potest et oportet: what it can (dynamis) and should (telos) be used for
>2 potest et licet: what it can be used for incidentally, or as momentarily subordinate to some other telos, and thus MAY be used for
>3 potest sed non licet: what it can be used for but should not be used for
How is it proved, LOGICALLY, that procreation is 1, but sex for the sake of love or pleasure is 3 and not 2?

You are giving an empirical, contingent proof ("sex for love/pleasure DOES, contingently, harm you overall, says I or say some, based on observation"), with an analogy in another domain ("thus, it is like punching yourself"). But this is not an argument deduced logically and consequently from the argument from teleology.

[Anonymous No.21409570]

>>21409553
great argument. this is akin to saying that drug dealers are innocent in that they are simply supplying the drugs. if not for jews then the porn industry as we know it today wouldn't exist. i'm not a porn addicterino but i know people who are and i feel very sad for them.

[Anonymous No.21409572]

>>21409399
The argument you're trying to refute is that sexual organs have a designated natural purpose; using a thing for something other than its natural use is a perversion; therefore using sexual organs for something other than procreation is a perversion. The fact that one can do sex for pleasure is built into the argument already, it's just perverted and unnatural. The fact that someone can procreate at a later date doesn't seem relevant to the question of if non-procreating sex is moral right now. I don't see how you're doing anything other than reinforcing this argument.

[Anonymous No.21409577]

>>21409553
Be that as it may, the guy asked you a question: what's stopping you from punching yourself in the face?
Way to shoot yourself in the dick, fucking idiot. Your argument is self-defeating.

[Anonymous No.21409581]

>>21409561
We're talking about the natural law, not the supernatural.

[Anonymous No.21409582]

>>21409570
drug dealers are innocent, it is the addicts who are guilty

[Anonymous No.21409592]

>>21409566
Nice equivocation, idiot. Sex as a bonding activity between lovers is something also argued for from natural law: pair bonding is necessary because young children need parental care. It's better if dad doesn't act like a nigger and stays with the woman he's mating with. It's telling that you're trying to equivocate love and pleasure, because you know just how salient the argument against hedonism is: pleasure is a signal, not an end.

Go OD on heroin if pleasure in itself is a good to be pursued. Moron.

[Anonymous No.21409600]

The penis is round
the anus is round
the vagina is some weird oblong slit

clearly sodomy is natural

[Anonymous No.21409601]

>>21409570
>>21409577
I'm not op. There's extreme levels of cope on display here one way or another.

[Anonymous No.21409609]

>>21409592
Your internet brain is causing you to miss what I'm saying because you want to have a twitter argument with PRO DEGENERACY MAN because you are ANTI DEGENERACY MAN. If it helps you on an emotional level to parse my post in a more relaxed way, I agree with you morally and spiritually.

To repeat what I already said, and I guess try to make it even simpler: I am interested in Aquinas' actual logical justification, because however much one might morally agree with an empirical, contingent judgement, it's still not a logical judgement, and Aquinas always gives logical judgements. I even made a neat little table of possible actions within a teleological framework to make the potential problem clearer, because I presume Aquinas has an answer, since he is a very clear thinker. I was just wondering if someone who has actually read the text could direct me to it or summarize it etc.

The amount of times I've had to make posts like this on /lit/ is increasing lately.

[Anonymous No.21409612]

>>21409399
>>21409572
Also, just because it's immoral to use something in an unnatural way does not mean that failure to use it is also immoral. It simply does not logically follow from the argument you tried to refute that celibacy would be immoral.

[Anonymous No.21409613]

>>21409566
it depends on the degree of relativism under which you're operating. if we are looking at a universal moral structure then, though the act of sex for pleasure is reaffirmed by the positive feeling of an orgasm, what's the difference of somebody smoking heroin because it feels good? yes, it is a feeling deeply embedded in our animalistic nature that likely dates back to before we were the rational beings that we are today, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should be doing it. i understand the difference between external drugs and the operation of sex organs but the end goal of both acts is essentially the same and based purely in a hedonistic craving. why somebody shouldn't do these things has to do with denying ourselves of that nature and understanding that we are here to rise above that craving necessarily for a good and moral life.

if a good and moral life in a Thomistic/Aristotelian sense doesn't resonate with you then all of this is meaningless and one is free to engage in whatever behavior they please for the purpose of feeling good. which is why i mentioned the point of relativism at the beginning because ones life meaning differs from another, depending on what structure you follow. i won't stop somebody from engaging in these behaviors but i certainly don't see anything great coming from it.

[Anonymous No.21409618]

>>21409413
No but neither have you

[Anonymous No.21409624]

>>21409601
what am i coping with exactly? our fallen nature or the fact that pornography is inherently degenerate? please enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.21409629]

>>21409413
/thread

[Anonymous No.21409643]

>>21409399
congratulations, you just developed autonomy and are bouncing off your traditional christian family values.

this is why we shouldnt get autistic and spaz out at our kids to try and put on "reverse thrusters" on our own traumas. the reverse thrusters become new trauma

[Anonymous No.21409644]

>>21409399
>>21409566
>>21409609
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3153.htm this is what Aquinas says on the matter. if somebody has no belief in a God then have a look at the response in article 2 which is minimally theological.

[Anonymous No.21409652]

>>21409624
Pornography isn't even degenerate. It's actually rather conservative in my estimation.

[Anonymous No.21409653]

>>21409613
to clarify on the drug use comment. no, heroin isn't implicitly a part of our nature, but we have receptors in our brain that respond to the introduction of opiates that makes people feel fantastic.

[Anonymous No.21409663]

>>21409652
conservative compared to what? procuring a prostitute maybe, but it's in no way a moral behavior to view or participate in it.

[Anonymous No.21409701]

>>21409609
My apologies but I speed-read your post (only every other 3rd sentence or so.)

[Anonymous No.21409811]

>>21409663
>conservative compared to what? procuring a prostitute maybe, but it's in no way a moral behavior to view or participate in it.
It quite readily plays the role of repression which is necessary for any kind of sexual morality. The male porn consumer psychologically and libidinally depends on it as a means of implementing his own desire for sexual repression. Porn is extremely conservative, as it is built entirely around male insecurity and scopophillic methods of arousal. Pornographic narratives are also outwardly ridiculous, because they serve the role of essentially sealing away the raw sexual experience and fantasy so that they can be more productive and focus. You can never take porn seriously, and become emotionally or intellectually invested, and at all times have to see yourself as above the fantasy. Men never place themselves within the fantasy except awkwardly, it is always voyeuristially told from a detached perspective. You see the sex act from outside. It is from a static angle. It is deprived of reality, and made subordinate to the edges of the screen. Indeed, you'll find that men explicilty use porn as a means of regulating their libido in order to go about daily life. They maintain a division, where their sexuality is hermetically sealed within pornography. As such, it never really goes as far as it could, as it is basically built around a sexually constrained framework.

[Anonymous No.21409876]

>>21409811
do you think people like aquinas or aristotle, or any reputable men of antiquity for that matter, felt it necessary implement their own desire for sexual repression? there are some fruedian presuppositions here that aren't necessarily rooted in human nature but are more so theories that have since been developed on or disregarded as a whole. to repress sexuality and to indulge in sexual fantasy are very different things. to masturbate to other peoples sexual acts would be considered grossly inappropriate at any time before the modern technological age and to do so now is void of any substance to the person other than a pleasant feeling. to imply that an individual needs to perform these acts to maintain a good and moral life, i believe, is a false pretense.

[Anonymous No.21409912]

>>21409876
excluding the epicuarians and historical hedonists from the reputable men of antiquity, of course.

[Anonymous No.21409915]

>>21409876
>to repress sexuality and to indulge in sexual fantasy are very different things.
It's not an indulgence, as I have already demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.21410047]

>>21409399
>The Natural Law arguments for traditional sexual morality don't make any sense.

Yes, they do.

As a preliminary point, it may be noted that if everything evolved out of nothing, there would be no real, substantive argument against masturbation or homosexual practice.

But if not, if there is a divine Creator, the matter is rather different. Here's why.

In the marital act, a man and a woman become, as it were, co-workers with God in creating a new human soul, made in the image and likeness of God, which will live forever. As such, it is a sacred act.

However, our desires have been knocked all out of true by the Fall, and in particular, and in some special way, our sexual desires.

A man's erection, and the act of ejaculation have a distinct teleological purpose -- to plant the seed, and create new life.

This is a God-given ability, not a chance byproduct of evolutionary processes. When used contrary to that purpose, it is, accordingly, a grave sin. In the case of sodomy, it is an especially perverse action -- almost a mockery of the marital act. In the case of masturbation, it imposes psychological damage -- the sin becomes its own punishment, as it were, in the way it becomes compulsive, and traps the mind in a debilitating, unreal world of impossible sexual fantasy.

[Anonymous No.21410091]

>>21409915
Of course porn is a decadent indulgence, that’s why its use produces such overwhelming feelings of shame.

[Anonymous No.21410096]

>>21410047
He was more focusing on the natural law argument specifically. I think the idea of man as imago dei has to come from revelation.

[Anonymous No.21410099]

>>21409553
Kys tranime shitter

[Anonymous No.21410128]

>>21409399
We live in a time where the morality sticking your penis into a hole that feces comes out of becomes ambiguous. If gay sex is natural how come when you type in “how to have anal sex” a ten step list of healthy ways to have anal comes up? You can get E. coli, rupture of the anus, pain, prolapse, bacterial infection, etc. If you are not careful when performing anal sex. Not to mention the increased risk of stds from homosexuality, it is obvious that gay sex between men is dangerous.
People avoid dangerous activity. For example why don’t you let me shoot an apple off your head with a crossbow? Because you may get hurt. But if I hit the apple you busted a nut… OH, now we’re talking

[Anonymous No.21410156]

>>21410128
to be fair you can get just as many diseases from normal sex, but i do agree with you

[Anonymous No.21410160]

>>21409399
>Natural law
>Needs to make assumptions
Kek

[Anonymous No.21410941]

>>21409413
Yeah, he believed that a thing only has a single telos, assigned to it by Yahweh, and that single telos for human sexuality is reproduction. That doesn't mean that human sexuality isn't a sin, it is, because ideally, you shouldn't be reproducing, but reproducing is the only thing that you can use your sexuality for and not commit an even greater sin. We're going to elide over the fact that Aquinas also believed that the telos of sexuality is reproduction, but held that only Yahweh can actually ever make a human, because that's a different kind of problem.

There's three tiers of problem with Aquinas's view
>Sexuality is inherently bad even when done properly
>Humans don't actually reproduce, Yahweh makes more humans that just happen to appear in some other humans' wombs
>A thing can only have one telos

The first is just "lolchristcucks", the second is a deeper problem in how Abrahamic religions conceive of the soul, and the third is actually not Aquinas's fault but is instead a problem with Aristotelian theories of causality and substance. There's numerous solutions, such as ditching teloses as things that exist outside of the minds of men or Yahweh (the dominant theory in Medieval Christendom), or just taking Aristotle's polytheism to its logical conclusion and arguing that for any given thing there's 47-55 teloses, each one granted by a specific deity. Deleuze did some work on making teloses into a sort of space, thereby allowing for a thing to do infinite things, but it can only do certain things in certain manners, meaning that a "telos" isn't WHAT it's for, but how it can do anything (which slips Natural Law in the backdoor as it means that enforcement of morality is built into reality).

[Anonymous No.21410965]

>>21410156
True, the ultimate thing is one monogamous partner for life according to nature and revelation.

[Anonymous No.21411024]

>>21410941
>>Humans don't actually reproduce, Yahweh makes more humans that just happen to appear in some other humans' wombs
lmfao. i guess christ wasn't that special, then

[Anonymous No.21411027]

>>21409399
do we have a degeneracy chart?

i would love to see the scale of degeneracy as it pertains to literature.

[Anonymous No.21411029]

>>21411027
Start with the French.

[Anonymous No.21412136]

>>21409445
Natural law does not mean nature. 90 IQ, go back etc etc.

[Anonymous No.21412229]

porn is not good for you

[Anonymous No.21412313]

>>21409399
>Much like an acrobat walking with his hands does not prevent him also using his hands to grab things etc.
Using hands as tools is part of their function, so in fact becoming an acrobat, is completely natural, you are better of comparing it to someone letting their hands fall flat against their body and using their teeth to manipulate the environment.

Btw sex does have another function and that is social dominance, so yes OP should submit to me.

[Anonymous No.21412324]

Guys I need some serious help. I can't fucking do it. I downloaded some dating apps so I could find someone to go to the movies with and met a girl who wants to come over to my house. I really don't want to lose my virginity and become a fornicator. I've been crying for the last few minutes and don't know what to do.
On one hand I crave intimacy after such long periods of loneliness but on the other hand I'd never be able to live with myself, even if I went to confession. I need help. Please no shitposting. I plan to visit a priest in the morning.

[Anonymous No.21412368]

>>21412324
It's not either or. Trust me, very few girls will pressure you into sex and if someone at least doesn't recognize that in the first date that is a bad sign to begin with. You can go see a movie and not need to have someone come to your house. Take it slow and still date, but do it in your way.

[Anonymous No.21412783]

>>21409399
Have you checked Thomas texts on the matter?

[Anonymous No.21412795]

>>21409399
You embarrass yourself by these arguments because by them you show your own numbness to sin and moral evil.

That argument is the reality which unpoisoned human consciousness comes up with when sodomy (non-procreative sex) is proposed to it.

Prove that you shouldn’t rape. When you get evil enough, you have to resort to axioms and moral intuition. Which intuition is exactly what sodomy blinds.

[Anonymous No.21412828]

I also think that Thomistic natural law based teleological arguments about catholic sexuality are highly questionable and I've read Humanae Vitae and extensive commentaries on it (janet smith etc). The question is extremely important because catholic sexual ethics are not based necessarily on either scripture or tradition but rather scholastic reasoning. It's important to note Orthodox theology does not subscribe to what catholic sexual ethics says philosophically.

I think the biggest question is why teleological violation is "bad": the Catholic position is not related to unnaturalness but rather immorality. (Catholicism has no problem with bio-technical enhancement, prescription drugs, etc (all "unnatural" bodily interventions))
For example, you violate the telos of your vagina as a woman if you finger yourself. But why does it follow that this is "immoral"? It might be easy to argue against anal sex from a teleological standpoint for health reasons, but catholic sexual morality teaches that foreplay, even things like having a woman run her tongue over your penis, violates the telos of sexuality because it has the potential to "frustrate" the procreative aspect. even if the procreative aspect is not "fulfilled", however, why is this a sin at all? isn't the nature of the sin, in theory, from the violation of a natural "aim" of that bodily part? but, again, whether or not something is "natural" is irrelevant elsewhere. a C-section is very much a violation of natural birth and yet the church approves of this - couldn't it be said that the natural end of this previous pregnancy before was the death of the child? now one could argue this is not a "good end" - yet, by catholic logic, innocent fetuses instantly go to heaven (or at least limbo) and are in the beatific vision. how is this not "good"? the logic does not hold here.

it's very important to emphasize the theological argument is not about "natural" behavior, in the sense that fingering yourself or sucking a penis is very much natural. the idea is that the "violation" of the end is ITSELF an offense against God because it has violated a telos, not because this violation is "unnatural". both critics and supporters of the Church rarely understand the convulated nature of catholic sexual philosophy

[Anonymous No.21412866]

>>21409399
>Much like an acrobat walking with his hands
False equivalence. Because of the specific type of bodily wear potentially inflicted by sex, I don't think it's accurate to equate it to exercise.

It's generally a good idea to abstain from masturbation and non-procreative sex because human sexuality goes can easily astray. Fetishes can begin a runaway cycle and sex addiction is a legitimate concern. There are obvious hazards associated with having many sexual partners. Porn and masturbation can cause desensitization both psychologically and in terms of physical sensation, not to mention the myriad of potential psychological concerns (more relevant data each year).

Because bias is a heuristic technique that reduces the complexity of difficult decisions, I think it's wise to apply bias regarding sex. Don't focus on unnecessary and potentially dangerous activities like masturbation or non-procreative sex. People compare sex to alcohol consumption, in that it can potentially add enjoyment to one's life with minimal hazard, but because of its addictive nature and psychological power, I think heroin might be a more apt comparison.

[Anonymous No.21412875]

>>21409399
>Much like an acrobat walking with his hands
False equivalence. Because of the specific type of bodily wear potentially inflicted by sex, I don't think it's accurate to equate it to exercise.

It's generally a good idea to abstain from masturbation and non-procreative sex because human sexuality easily goes astray. Fetishes can begin a runaway cycle and sex addiction is a legitimate concern. There are obvious hazards with having lots of sexual partners. Porn and masturbation can cause desensitization both psychologically and in terms of physical sensation, not to mention the myriad of potential psychological concerns (more relevant data each year).

Because bias is a heuristic technique that reduces the complexity of difficult decisions, I think it's wise to apply bias regarding sex. People compare sex to alcohol consumption in that it can potentially add enjoyment to one's life with minimal hazard, but because of its addictive nature and psychological power, I think heroin might be a more apt comparison.

[Anonymous No.21412883]

>>21409399
The hands are made for many things, that is their entire purpose, it is general purpose utility. You could go through the entire list if you wanted. One thing they are NOT made for is masturbation. On the other hand, the penis is made for two things: urination and procreation. The vagina is made for one thing: procreation.

[Anonymous No.21412893]

>>21410156
Anal sex is significantly more risky than vaginal sex purely in terms of STIs (and actually you cannot get E. Coli from vaginal sex). Medical literature is already clear in this domain. HIV is much more likely to be present in the rectum than the vagina, partly due to the higher likelihood of bleeding upon penetration.

[Anonymous No.21412903]

>>21409582
Nah it's the government's fault for making drugs illegal and driving up the price. People who have access to legal heroin like self prescribing doctors ar efunctioning members of society without criminal significance.

[Anonymous No.21412904]

>>21409553
by their own admission, yes.

[Anonymous No.21412911]

>>21409876
>masturbate to other peoples sexual acts would be considered grossly inappropriate at any time before the modern technological age
Bullshit peeping was a national sport it is littered all over historical records. In Casanova's bio dudes jerk each other off to peeping.

[Anonymous No.21412914]

>>21410965
By your logic (and recelation) celibacy is the ultimate thing.

[Anonymous No.21412915]

>>21412904
>Al Goldstein, C.E.O. and rep. of All Jews Everywhere™.
Woah, thanks for providing me with this rock solid, irrefutable source of information regarding the actions of every jew who ever lived. Continue 'researching' shitty blogs for things literally who's might have said. Yer savin' the white race, brother.

[Anonymous No.21412919]

>>21412915
how many 'coincidences' would it take for you? cause I have all day

[Anonymous No.21412920]

>>21412915
>jew rushes to defense of jews against accusation that jews act somewhat collectively

[Anonymous No.21412923]

>>21412919
>I have all day
i know you do

[Anonymous No.21412925]

>>21412923
damn straight for the kill