Isn’t Sellick just saying that Health Consequences are no substitute for some serious ethical thinking?

And, if we are going to think ethically about sex, he is just suggesting a place to start. (Mind you, I agree with his starting place.)

Sellick, I think you made a mistake mentioning liberalism. A burrow that almost everyone has disappeared into.

I think Sellick is just trying to encourage the embracing of ideals. When did you last hear the word “ideal”? What would be an ideal way of viewing sex and practising sex? I think it’s worth enquiring.

I’m waiting for someone to propose an alternative view, even a better one. We could, for instance, imitate chimpanzees. Or, even assuming we evolved from chimps, or that we enjoy some similar pedigree, we might consider ourselves free to behave differently from them if we think it's a good idea.

boxgum, you fall into the same slack habits as Sells when it comes to building an argument. Perhaps because the subject matter itself is so light as to be almost frivolous, but they also may be just habits that Christians lapse into when proselytizing.

>>Liberalists have trouble seeing any good coming from the human wisdom passed across generations because they were of times where God was a priori in general day to day thought and practice across social strata<<

A true liberal can accept historical wisdom without feeling that it is eternal and unchanging.

That's why they are called liberals, remember, "free from bigotry or unreasonable prejudice in favour of traditional opinions or established institutions". The key words being unreasonable prejudice; this does not imply automatic rejection.

Nevertheless, you try it on for size:

>>The group is the social... The individual, must be - to be in communion with the Risen Lord... Of course this is beyond utilitarian liberal thought<<

That's simply arrogant. It is not at all "beyond liberal thought", merely considered, and rejected.

You further posit that these liberalists see no good in "human wisdom", simply because it came from a period in history when God was somehow more important than today.

You offer no evidence for either i) that God was back then (when, incidentally?), in your words, "a priori" to a greater extent than today or ii) that this is in any way a reason for the liberalist's dismissal of the "wisdom of the ages".

Which, by the way, you also fail to identify.

But this does not prevent you from claiming...

"The consequences of liberalist licence, "if it feels good, do it" or "What's in for me?" or promoting licence as freedom..."

...as if these are somehow given truths.

You use the Sells definition of liberalism, which conveniently switches around cause and effect. First choose the effect - "licence as freedom" - and then name it "liberalism".

As I said to Sells, I find this vaguely dishonest.

"I’m waiting for someone to propose an alternative view, even a better one. We could, for instance, imitate chimpanzees. Or, even assuming we evolved from chimps, or that we enjoy some similar pedigree, we might consider ourselves free to behave differently from them if we think it's a good idea."

Well Goodthief, if you are intellectually curious, reading about the
habits of bonobos, is not a bad idea. They are very similar to
chimps, only evolved a little differently, due to their isolation
in Central Africa. There are only a few thousand left, sadly.

Whilst chimps, much like humans, form warring parties and are pretty
aggressive towards other tribes, bonobos make love not war. They
are seemingly the original hippies :)

If they meet another tribe in the forest, everyone has sex, so the
males are pretty content and buggered I guess, so no need to start
wars and fight with the others :)

In that sense they clearly are ahead of us in conflict resolution
skills. When did you last hear of bonobos starting a war anywhere?

Clearly thats not a bad strategy, compared to "Onward Christian
soldiers, marching on to war"

Did you know that prostitution, along with modelling, are the only two 'professions' where women earn more money than men?

The greatest danger for prostitutes are those who exploit them (pimps), often men. If the market wasn't there, prostitution wouldn't exist. Clients are men. So, if this is a problem for society it can only be solved by you blokes fixing up your need for sex without commitment or intimacy.

During World War Two when women out numbered men in the workforce and jobs were plentiful and female employees were in demand, prostitution was at it's highest in Australia, Great Britain, United States and Canada. The continuing industrial demands ensured there was no "need" for the increase in the numbers of prostitutes. And a lot of married women threw over their husbands who were away at war for the man next door who was not going to war. However, being a time of world conflict and an unsure tomorrow the grey area between right and wrong expanded dramatically. Morality is as flexible or as strident and oppressive as the people and the times.

There are also plenty of women in business who earn more money than men. Honestly, the sexist rhetoric really must be brought up to date.

Oliver, thank you for your post. I don't believe many Christians actually believe the stories in the Bible are true as in, "handed down directly from God". Most Christians believe the Bible was written by man in the presence of God. Being that God was with in them, not dictating each and every word. The stories place God and man in confrontation with good and evil. One of the most poignant stories of the pervasiveness of the dichotomy of good vs. evil is the story of the fallen angel, Gods right hand man, who is cast out of heaven to become the devil. Actions and consequences. Religion is not necessary for morality but, Church/Temple/Mosque is a good place to be reminded about the consequences of our decisions in this hurley burley life. It's unfortunate that the human element is forever destroying our idealisations. We damn each other by our imperfections as if we ourselves would never trespass into the realm of immorality. Our perfect little sectarian selves. Men are this, Christians are that, Muslims are even worse, women are something else and lets not forget the Jehovah Witness, and on down the endless line of recriminations that are to place us above someone else. I'm different. I'm special. i'm not like you.

Sells

Your article suggested that it is insufficient to reduce ethical considerations to a discussion of 'medical consequences' and that theological reflection might reveal the real 'moral' issues pertaining to the business of prostitution.
Your subsequent post, however, simply added some emotional and psychological consequences worthy of consideration. Your points might be valid but they dont add any 'theological' dimension to the discussion merely more 'para-medical' consequences.
Having initiated this discussion it is incumbent upon you now to develop a genuinely theological response to the issue.
I generally find your articles theologically engaging even,or perhaps particularly, when I do not agree with you. This article falls a long way short of your usual standard and to my mind exemplifies well the Church's inability to deal with sex as a common, everday human experience. By elevating sex to a 'mystical, spritual', 'out of the ordinary' experience the Church is doing more harm than good and so far you are not helping!