Legitimate pleasure

[otseng]

When is pleasure for self bad? When is it good? How can one tell the difference?

[Lux]

Pleasure is niether good nor bad, it is just a sensation. Good or bad lies in the motivation of the individual.

I agree that pleasure is not itself inherently good or bad, but in addition to the motivation of the individual I would add on consequences. The motivation may be relatively innocent, but if the consequences are negative and foreseeably so, but the individual overlooked them then the activity could still be considered a bad one.

I also agree that pleasure itself is not good or bad, or perhaps it's more that there is no objective good or bad, in my opinion.

However, I don't see how one could have innocent motivations and at the same time foresee that the consequences of their actions will be negative. If you're able to tell that there will be bad repercussions for what you're about to do, and you do it anyway, you can't really claim that your motivation was good.

[ChaosBorders]

Pleasure is niether good nor bad, it is just a sensation. Good or bad lies in the motivation of the individual.

I agree that pleasure is not itself inherently good or bad, but in addition to the motivation of the individual I would add on consequences. The motivation may be relatively innocent, but if the consequences are negative and foreseeably so, but the individual overlooked them then the activity could still be considered a bad one.

I also agree that pleasure itself is not good or bad, or perhaps it's more that there is no objective good or bad, in my opinion.

However, I don't see how one could have innocent motivations and at the same time foresee that the consequences of their actions will be negative. If you're able to tell that there will be bad repercussions for what you're about to do, and you do it anyway, you can't really claim that your motivation was good.

One example: Sex outside of marriage is pleasurable. May have the relatively innocent motivation of 'it's fun' or 'I want to please my partner' or whatever. Can have seriously negative repercussions which are easily foreseeable but regularly ignored.

Drug use is another big one on this.

[Lux]

One example: Sex outside of marriage is pleasurable. May have the relatively innocent motivation of 'it's fun' or 'I want to please my partner' or whatever. Can have seriously negative repercussions which are easily foreseeable but regularly ignored.

Drug use is another big one on this.

Interesting, thanks for clarifying.
But sex inside of marriage can also have negative consequences, depending on the situation. So would you consider all sex as bad pleasure, since it has easily foreseeable possible bad repercussions?

[ChaosBorders]

One example: Sex outside of marriage is pleasurable. May have the relatively innocent motivation of 'it's fun' or 'I want to please my partner' or whatever. Can have seriously negative repercussions which are easily foreseeable but regularly ignored.

Drug use is another big one on this.

Interesting, thanks for clarifying.
But sex inside of marriage can also have negative consequences, depending on the situation. So would you consider all sex as bad pleasure, since it has easily foreseeable possible bad repercussions?

Inside marriage has far fewer of the negative, assuming neither partner has been doing it outside and gotten a disease. Main negative consequence would be unintended pregnancy. Some of the negative consequences are lessened and others are reversed (such as relational issues) such that inside marriage the good overwhelmingly outweighs the risk.

So no, I'd say inside of marriage it's usually a very good thing, so long as you're taking care not to get pregnant if you can't afford another kid.

[Lux]

One example: Sex outside of marriage is pleasurable. May have the relatively innocent motivation of 'it's fun' or 'I want to please my partner' or whatever. Can have seriously negative repercussions which are easily foreseeable but regularly ignored.

Drug use is another big one on this.

Interesting, thanks for clarifying.
But sex inside of marriage can also have negative consequences, depending on the situation. So would you consider all sex as bad pleasure, since it has easily foreseeable possible bad repercussions?

Inside marriage has far fewer of the negative, assuming neither partner has been doing it outside and gotten a disease. Main negative consequence would be unintended pregnancy. Some of the negative consequences are lessened and others are reversed (such as relational issues) such that inside marriage the good overwhelmingly outweighs the risk.

So no, I'd say inside of marriage it's usually a very good thing, so long as you're taking care not to get pregnant if you can't afford another kid.

But in that case, it's bad when not taking precautions and good when you do take them. Marriage has little to do with it.

[ChaosBorders]

But in that case, it's bad when not taking precautions and good when you do take them. Marriage has little to do with it.

Can't take precautions against the relational effects. And marriage is a good screen against less than honest individuals who may have diseases and may not care about spreading them. Certainly proper precautions can very greatly minimize the negative effects, but statistics would indicate a great many people don't even bother with the most basic of them.

It should also be noted that the inverse can also be a situation of having innocent intentions but negative repercussions. Someone in a marriage might avoid sex (or different kinds of sex) for fairly innocent reasons such as having a prudish attitude, but not having intimate relations or having only an extremely repetitive kind that grows dull can have a foreseeable detriment on the marriage. In this case, not seeking pleasure is what would more likely be considered a bad thing.

[Lux]

Can't take precautions against the relational effects. And marriage is a good screen against less than honest individuals who may have diseases and may not care about spreading them. Certainly proper precautions can very greatly minimize the negative effects, but statistics would indicate a great many people don't even bother with the most basic of them.

It should also be noted that the inverse can also be a situation of having innocent intentions but negative repercussions. Someone in a marriage might avoid sex (or different kinds of sex) for fairly innocent reasons such as having a prudish attitude, but not having intimate relations or having only an extremely repetitive kind that grows dull can have a foreseeable detriment on the marriage. In this case, not seeking pleasure is what would more likely be considered a bad thing.

Well how about this? A married couple can't afford to have any more kids, so the man gets a vasectomy - they are taking their precautions. They have a healthy, emotionally and physically fulfilling sex life, but the wife starts cheating and gets an STD. She doesn't realize in time, and passes it on to her husband too.

Precautions? Check. Married? Check. Consequences? Bad and foreseeable, since the number of married people that cheat is quite high (Wiki says a worldwide survey indicated 22%, if you count those that won't admit to it even on an anonymous survey it's probably even higher).

[ChaosBorders]

Can't take precautions against the relational effects. And marriage is a good screen against less than honest individuals who may have diseases and may not care about spreading them. Certainly proper precautions can very greatly minimize the negative effects, but statistics would indicate a great many people don't even bother with the most basic of them.

It should also be noted that the inverse can also be a situation of having innocent intentions but negative repercussions. Someone in a marriage might avoid sex (or different kinds of sex) for fairly innocent reasons such as having a prudish attitude, but not having intimate relations or having only an extremely repetitive kind that grows dull can have a foreseeable detriment on the marriage. In this case, not seeking pleasure is what would more likely be considered a bad thing.

Well how about this? A married couple can't afford to have any more kids, so the man gets a vasectomy - they are taking their precautions. They have a healthy, emotionally and physically fulfilling sex life, but the wife starts cheating and gets an STD. She doesn't realize in time, and passes it on to her husband too.

Precautions? Check. Married? Check. Consequences? Bad and foreseeable, since the number of married people that cheat is quite high (Wiki says a worldwide survey indicated 22%, if you count those that won't admit to it even on an anonymous survey it's probably even higher).

Probably closer to 30% in total. But if they have a healthy, emotionally, and physically fulfilling sex life that percentage drops dramatically for women. Of the top reasons for cheating, only a couple would happen regardless of having a good relationship with her husband. Not good on the wife's part since she should know there's a risk of having gotten an STD, but the husband has no reasonable expectation to think his wife would cheat on him, or that she would be stupid enough to get an STD if she did. But not maintaining the fulfilling sex life would give her plenty of reason to cheat, and create a vicious cycle as far having to worry about whether she had gotten an STD. The logical choice for him would be to continue having sex with his wife until he finds out she cheated.

[Lux]

Can't take precautions against the relational effects. And marriage is a good screen against less than honest individuals who may have diseases and may not care about spreading them. Certainly proper precautions can very greatly minimize the negative effects, but statistics would indicate a great many people don't even bother with the most basic of them.

It should also be noted that the inverse can also be a situation of having innocent intentions but negative repercussions. Someone in a marriage might avoid sex (or different kinds of sex) for fairly innocent reasons such as having a prudish attitude, but not having intimate relations or having only an extremely repetitive kind that grows dull can have a foreseeable detriment on the marriage. In this case, not seeking pleasure is what would more likely be considered a bad thing.

Well how about this? A married couple can't afford to have any more kids, so the man gets a vasectomy - they are taking their precautions. They have a healthy, emotionally and physically fulfilling sex life, but the wife starts cheating and gets an STD. She doesn't realize in time, and passes it on to her husband too.

Precautions? Check. Married? Check. Consequences? Bad and foreseeable, since the number of married people that cheat is quite high (Wiki says a worldwide survey indicated 22%, if you count those that won't admit to it even on an anonymous survey it's probably even higher).

Probably closer to 30% in total. But if they have a healthy, emotionally, and physically fulfilling sex life that percentage drops dramatically for women. Of the top reasons for cheating, only a couple would happen regardless of having a good relationship with her husband. Not good on the wife's part since she should know there's a risk of having gotten an STD, but the husband has no reasonable expectation to think his wife would cheat on him, or that she would be stupid enough to get an STD if she did. But not maintaining the fulfilling sex life would give her plenty of reason to cheat, and create a vicious cycle as far having to worry about whether she had gotten an STD. The logical choice for him would be to continue having sex with his wife until he finds out she cheated.

That's kind of my point. It's logical to have sex with your spouse, but the number of adulterers is as high as 30% of all married people, so it follows there's a substantial risk of contracting an STD from your wife or husband. So there's no winning with sex as far as "good or bad" goes.

[ChaosBorders]

That's kind of my point. It's logical to have sex with your spouse, but the number of adulterers is as high as 30% of all married people, so it follows there's a substantial risk of contracting an STD from your wife or husband. So there's no winning with sex as far as "good or bad" goes.

The scenario you presented though was devoid of the main factors that lead to cheating. Many of those factors result from not having a good relationship and poor sex life. So yes, there is winning. Have more, good sex and it decreases your odds of being cheated on significantly. Doesn't eliminate it entirely, but if they have a personality more prone to cheating anyways that should have been at least somewhat forseeable and probably shouldn't have married them in the first place.