If you are interested, I hope you will respond to
some of the following points.
As I think You have pointed out, we could be
discussing the rights of infants after birth
and separately discussing the question of when infants should acquire rights has been ably argued before we two began this.
One of your most interesting questions was whether some folks love their sex (or other pleasure?) so much they would kill for it.
Certainly I would rather forgo pleasure than
cause someone clear harm. There may be an
intoxication which comes from too-frequent sex, I suppose. Still, until some even more serious management issues are repaired, I am willing to
let folks be mildly intoxicated. With better management on other things, I'm convinced sexual problems, including over-sex, would settle into
Trouble is, it is hard to know sometimes if complete abstinence is really more holy and wholesome. I mean, I think that sometimes it is clearly LESS holy to be completely abstaining.
SOMETIMES. I'm not negatively critical of chastity or celibacy as a personal or organizational choice...though the question could be revisited in depth with good effect, I think.
I agree with you it is more important to do the right thing than to have some particular moment of pleasure. The ethical handling of mutual
companionship issues continues to interest me.
I certainly was not telling you or anyone not to massage "American women" (or anyone borne of women) if they are in need and you are willing to do so with their freely given consent. I find much of the ethical problems with sex result from informational stresses in society.
We have trouble discussing some things because we are bullied, in my view.