It is entirely likely, that there will never be a complete agreement reached between us on this issue.
Actually I came away from your post with a much more positive feeling. I think we'll reach some form of agreement.
It seems that this is mainly a semantics problem. I used terms which you took to mean something broadly open, and which I take to mean something not nearly as broad. I certainly can't say it makes you wrong, and I will use it as a check that I should try and be more specific.
In my defense I will say that I was writing that quickly as a side note on a subject to a person I have talked with before and did not feel my words would be seen as broad as you interpreted them.
So let's get back to work...
I do not know of any medical condition that could not be construed to be injurious in a physiological sense; albeit I may be wrong.
I agree with this which is why I collapsed it later to simply one issue which is causing injury. I only started with STDs as separate as your post had listed them separately.
Sorry Holmes I cannot agree, on your basis of using ‘simply cannot’. If you had said ‘there are some sexual activities which usually do not cause sexual harm’, then I would have agreed. However this is again a separate argument, because one then gets into the measurement of harm on a cultural, physical and psychological basis.
To be honest rereading the sentence I don't even agree with it. I guess I was writing too quickly and put in a couple words I hadn't meant to. In fact if someone else had written it I would have asked why there couldn't be other types of harm than "sexual harm". I meant something else.
Agreed they do not cause infection, but they can still be a cause of infection.
Heheheh... you are a stickler for semantics on one subject and I am a stickler on this one. I think most people get confused when "cause" is used and so should not be used unless necessary.
Sexual contact with those who are infected can be the cause of infection, sex in general cannot. From hindsight one can say for this infection sex was the route (or cause of), but it was sex with a particular person. Thus I argue for saying it is a possible path for an infectious disease, and not it is a cause of infection.
A good example to follow how we handle a cold. We would not say breathing is the cause of a sinus infection. What we'd say is contact with a sick person is the cause of the infection.
This makes things more clear and takes away the implication sex is somehow infectious.
your statement implies that there is an absolute of ‘no evidence’, and by saying ‘to anyone’, you apply a standard measurement of harm to all.
Actually I will have to stand by this, there really is no evidence for harm coming intrinsically from sexual acts toward anyone (and that means all). It is the specific conditions of any particular act which may create conditions for harm. I think your argument is really that my general sounding statement must be altered to include the possibility of specific conditions, such that people cannot take it to mean there is no possibility of causing harm while having sex.
I would say, ‘Generally sexual activity does not cause harm, unless inappropriately applied’. Now the measurement of inappropriate is again another argument. However I believe that allows individual measurement to be applied with respect to cultures and the actual individuals, interpretation of ‘harm’, i.e. a culture that allows sexual relations with minors, may only consider it inappropriate if there was harm contrary to that custom, or the rights of the individuals concerned.
I think this is an interesting argument and I would agree the statement would allow different cultures to apply their own standards. I have already said that cultures can very well view something as a harm that another would not, as well as creating harm in order to fulfill expectations.
However that is not what I was trying to discuss at all. I was trying to get at a more scientific/objective point which is irrespective of socio-cultural influence. That is
must sexual activity inherently cause harm, regardless of culture?
That is what I was getting at when I would refer to it as "general sexual activity" or "sex itself".
This objective assessment is important as it does affect how people assign blame or wrong. Homosexuals would argue that despite cultural views of it as harmful, there is no intrinsic harm in homosexual activity, and so should not be considered wrong. To data that might point to a correlation between homosexuality and harm, they would argue that it is culturally created (a cultural artifact) and so not a problem of homosexuality per se.
They would demand that evidence be built up to show that there is an intrinsic harm from the physical acts themselves. This is arguably a more accurate approach, which science is increasingly accepting, which can and should be applied to all sexual acts, including those involving minors.
With this all in mind let me propose another statement...
"There is no evidence that sexual activity inherently causes harm, regardless of age of participants, except through negligent or irresponsible behavior."
The last part refers to not taking precautions or regarding common sense physical limits (though not intentionally trying to break them, which would overtly be acts of rape or violence and not sex).
To the phrase above could also be added:
"However there is evidence that harm can be generated by environmental factors in which any particular sex act takes place, such as use of violence and fear as well as the general expectations and moral labels cultures may impose on sex acts."
This would take care of your concerns for allowing cultures to define their own harm, yet recognize it is generated from the environment they have created.
Maybe we are closer to agreement.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)
™ Version 4.2