[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

My points about biology were to note that some of our typical social gender expectations or desires may be rooted in differences in biology, rather than merely being sort of arbitrary limits places on women or being purely socially derived. I didn't intend to carry that out to suggest that being partially biological made them permanent or especially desirable.

I think it's kind of odd that you think the temporal nature of social norms has some effect on whether a behavior in the present is regarded in the present as normal and healthy (for the woman in question) and/or ethically good ( for the guys).

I don't claim to judge for all time that a women who has an encounter like this is risking so much that her mental health is suspect; I simply think it was true right now when she did it. I have a hard time imagining that it will ever seem entirely ethical to have sex with someone whose ability to fully consent is compromised, but it certainly seems to be the case right now.

As far as the numbered list, this particular case didn't happen behind closed doors. I also don't know that I agree that "we don't and have no right to know what drives behavior that we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of." I agree that we shouldn't try to compel people engaging in private, harmless acts to disclose their own behavior simply to pass judgment or restrict it, but I think human behavior is worth knowing about, and the motivations behind callous, deviant, disgusting behavior are as interesting and important as the motivation behind loving, normal, healthy and admirable behavior. We shouldn't force people to present themselves for study, but it it worth studying. And 3, so?

I really, truly think you're mistaking causation for correlation here - I guess that's my main point.