Consensual, Safe and [B]Ethical[/B] Sex?

[WCEforeverman]

I am not sure if another thread has been created on this issue, if so I apologise.

Last week on the Mornings Show on 720 perth they had a guest on who works in some official capacity with the NRL. I cannot remember the exact day (I think it was Thursday) or the guests name so maybe someone can help me out.

She was employed by the NRL to help educate the players on dealing with women and the players relationships with women.

She made it clear that she was not employed during the Johns scandal in 2002, but had been hired since then to help with attitudinal changes.

She stated that they strive to install three ideals with the players when it comes to sex. To make sure the sex is consensual, safe and ethical.

Ethical, let us think about that word for a moment and what it means.

The definition at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethical is:

pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

Without getting into a philosophical discussion, we can boil "ethical" down to what we personally consider to be right or wrong.

So how do we judge personally what we consider to be right or wrong?

Most people use the law as a guide, but it is not definitive. For example many people break the law everyday driving to a from work by exceeding the speed limit, and claim that they are not doing anything wrong. I know I certainly have and I expect the overwhelming majority to aswell.

Our morals are what we use to judge right from wrong and our morals are instilled upon us by usually three things: Our family, our religion and our culture/friends. These each have different weightings depending on each individual.

Seeing as we live in diverse society, it is not unreasonable to assume that everyones factors that influence their morals would be different. Therefore everyone would have different morals.

So how do we define ethical sex? The short answer is we can't. Ethical sex is entirely up to the individuals judgement. Is it up to society to try an define ethical sex anyway? If all parties are consensual, safe, legal and enjoying themselves, is that not enough?

Some people define homosexual sex as unethical. Is this a correct view when both parties are consensual, safe and willing participants?

So how would the NRL define ethical sex? They can't.

They should make sure they educate the players to ensure sex is consensual, safe and legal because trying to make sure sex is ethical is impossible, and in the long run discriminatory towards peoples sexual preferences.

So did Johns do anything illegal?

No.

Did he do anything wrong?

Well, you will have to be the judge of that.

What do you think?

 

[Sportman1987]

For me, if sex is consentual it's by definition ethical...since the issue of consent is what my sexual ethics are based on. The waters become muddy when it comes to age, but for me sex is not as big a deal as we make it out to be.

Young people are treated like "Omg, they don't know what they're getting into!" as if it's some kind of huge step.... It isn't. Maybe I'm just jaded, but I treat it as just another pleasurable activity you can do with someone. Sure there's risks, but I risk a staph infection whenever I'm on the mat...a broken leg whenever I ski down a hill...etc

For me around 16+ is old enough to consent, and the law happens to back me up.

 

[pmad87]

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Most people regard cheating as unethical but it's certainly not against the law to cheat on a partner. I would imagine the ethics referred to are things like cheating. And then it's the whole "footy players are rolemodels" argument that I completely disagree with but seems to have convinced most on here.

 

[Dean3]

I think you can attach "ethics" to the issue of consent.

Contracts that are signed under duress can be considered to be void. I think you can put a strong argument in the Johns case that the woman's "consent" might well have been given under extreme duress. Therefore - is it ethical to take initial consent as consent to anything you then add to the initial contract?

 

[WCEforeverman]

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Most people regard cheating as unethical but it's certainly not against the law to cheat on a partner. I would imagine the ethics referred to are things like cheating. And then it's the whole "footy players are rolemodels" argument that I completely disagree with but seems to have convinced most on here.

Who then reserves judgement over what is ethical? Is group sex unethical? Im sure you would find men and women who would argue that it isn't.

People in 'open' relationships would also argue that polymory is ethical.

 

[BigBadCam]

Personally, I consider homosexual sex more unethical, more unsafe and more disturbing than group sex.

 

[Chops_a_must]

Personally, I consider homosexual sex more unethical, more unsafe and more disturbing than group sex.

Hard to spot the difference.

 

[pmad87]

Who then reserves judgement over what is ethical? Is group sex unethical? Im sure you would find men and women who would argue that it isn't.

People in 'open' relationships would also argue that polymory is ethical.

People are always going to attempt to impose standards on others and try to teach their children what is right and wrong. And I think that a vast majority of people out there would say that cheating is wrong. (Of course there will be some that don't, but there's people that think pedophilia is ok too).

Polyamory is perfectly ethical (I happen to be a practitioner) because it's not cheating. Cheating is wrong because you are dishonest with your partner or partners.

To answer the OP, I think the NRL can teach ethical sex by teaching that being honest with your sexual partners is ethical and being dishonest with them is unethical. And if someone's "sexual preference" is to be dishonest, then bad luck. I'm perfectly happy to discriminate against dishonest people, pedophiles etc because what they are doing is wrong - and I'd say the majority of the community would agree with me.

Of course, I doubt very much that the NRL or indeed most of Australia would be this enlightened and I'm sure whatever they end of teaching will be influenced by religion, misguided feminists and hack tabloid journalists.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Everyone has a right to find what Johns and the other players did as disgusting or unethical.

But its important to remember that Johns and the other players also have a right to make their own choices about what they consider unethical, as long as its legal.

And I would expect our legal system to protect the identity of someone in Johns situation, unless he was convicted or at least charged with doing something wrong.

The public/society/whatever you wish to call the tabloid media's influence and rage-addiction etc. is trying to pressure people against being arseholes. You can't legislate against arseh*le behaviour.