I can't really claim to be an expert on the topic, but I feel sex is definately something that needs to be addressed in a reasonable and unbiased way. I think a lot of it really does come from this christian idea that somehow, enjoying a natural and essential part of our existence is something that should be abhored.

I feel like I was lucky, I was raised in a very "open" family and wasn't punished when my parents discovered me "exploring" certain tv channels and websites, instead I got the safe sex talk and that was that. My girlfriend on the other hand, was a veritible wreck when we met, her mom had instilled in her not only a fear of sex but a fear that being intimate with a man would result in her getting raped and pregnant and facing the difficulties and trauma involved with those. Fortunately, I've been able to counter most of her mother's indoctrination.

I have another friend who recently got a divorce with her very christian husband, the primary reason? Infidelity and poor sex life, he saw sex as a necessary evil for procreation, and nothing more. They could never really be intimate and open together and in my opinion at least, if you cant share a moment of intimacy and love then things aren't going to work out.

 I think its very telling what things are censored on TV. Blood and violence is okay for kids to see, most "mild" curse words aren't considered a problem. But a breast seen on tv for /maybe/ a couple of seconds and the entire country is up in arms. What makes breasts so harmful for kids to see that is missing from blood and violence? Obviously I'm not condoning allowing kids to get their hands on hardcore porn or what not (even though I fail to see how it's going to make them any worse, I've never heard of any child being traumatized by a playboy.) But why is it such a terrible thing to see a breast on tv or on a beach? Hell I go to an art school and I've drawn more than my fair share of nude forms: male, female, fat, thin. People shouldn't be afraid of the human body, its a beautiful form and people shouldn't be instilled with a fear of sex.

I'd go on, but then I'd start ranting about how we put so much value on being thin and in shape that we have eating disorders, we have bountiful food and people starving themselves to be thin... but I digress.

There's nothing wrong with sex, when you accept that you'll have a much fuller life.  

Things like this don't have to be good for our biological evolution or survival. Sexual prudency doesn't have to be for the good of anything other than the sexual prudency meme. If that meme can survive in a certain environment (for example a capitalist environment which perpetuates the need to breed more workers in a controlled and easily documentable way) then the prudent form of Christianity may become popular. This meme might not originate in this way (it was probably mingers who never get laid who first thought it up) but it has taken hold in this way within American society.

Memetic evolution is not dependant upon genetic evolution. There might be some dependency (i.e. self-destructive, suicidal memes) won't survive so well because they won't be able to pass themselves on easily (although unlike genetic traits they can be passed on through other means than heredity).

I think that you're dead-on here, PJ.

As for the masturbation taboo, I believe it goes back to a time when people thought that men essentially injected a woman with a tiny baby, then it grew to birth maturity in the woman. I could see people freaking out over all the tiny babies being killed (or wasted) each time some Roman jerked off.

I think that regardless of whether people are monogamous or not we'll always have STDs and unwanted pregnancies.  There are have always been STDs around.  There are (or were) cultures in which a man can take plural wives; I wonder if within those cultures STDs were more rampant.  Perhaps it depends on how insulated the culture is.  If people are having sex within, say a tribe of 100 people with very little contact from the outside, I'd guess that the chances of STDs might be less than that of a culture of larger numbers.  I don't know, I'm just speculating.

I don't think that humans were meant to be monogamus.  I'm not saying we're meant to be humping everything that moves, either.  <shrugs>  

I firmly believe that many of the hangups and issues that we have with sex still stem from the idea of property and control and not necessarily religion.  I think religion adopted the societal rules of sex and not the other way around.   

every minute of every day there are people having sex who have no interest in having a child. couples who at first had sex only for pleasure, and then became parents, afterward resume having recreational sex with no intention of having another child. there's many reasons to have sex while having no interest in producing offspring and all of them are instinctual and perfectly appropriate; pleasure, love, just for fun, to maintain physical and mental health, heck even just to eliminate boredom. if you only ever have sex to procreate, you're missing out on a tremendous natural source of pleasure and enjoyment. 

Sex itself is an enjoyable thing to do, whether or not you want child.

I never said it wasn't.  But using your analogy, say we call it oreos, if you end up eating two whole 14oz packages, you just consumed about 3840 calories.  Now was that good for you?  You sure enjoyed the hell out of those cookies but was it good for you?

As do I but that doesn't mean I'm going to start humping everything in sight because I enjoy it.  And I shouldn't approach it like that either for reasons I already gave. 

Did I say that?  I don't remember saying that you SHOULDN'T have sex.  If you don't want children there are options.  But because of those options are you going to "open up" to just anyone?

As far as me personally what is it to you?  Yes I have and no I'm not going to sit here and call myself a "born again" whatever the hell.  I've done what I've done without regrets but being that I'm 31, I'm a bit beyond screwing whatever throws themselves my way because I got horny and that's the point I'm trying to make.

Perhaps you missed the sentence where I said "If you don't want children there are options"???  Again you hit on the point that there are couples who have sex and by all means, if you are in a relationship get it on.  Where I have issue, and I would hope that everyone would understand why I am posting on this thread, is simply because of the guy, or girl, who considers it a good thing to go home with someone they just met for the sake of getting off.

Now, I'm not implying anything about you here, but it's worth asking yourself whether you are really approaching sex with an 'open to reason' attitude or whether you have swallowed a dogma and are just trying to justify it.
Do you treat sexual lust like you did with food gluttony?
Be ready to try things and learn from experience?

When did I ever say you should only have sex if you want to make babies?  I think you need to re-read my posts.  In my second post I stated "Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't have sex for the pleasure of it since we are one of only two species that science has told us that we get pleasure from the act of mating but that term, the "act of mating" serves a purpose so why get down if you aren't ready to have a child." 

Where did you get that I believe sex is only for procreation?  Stop jumping to conclusions.  Sex is wonderful and I'm not saying that don't have sex if you don't want kids...but be aware that the act of sex is for procreation as well as pleasure so don't get busy if you aren't ready for what might come from it.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA.....when did this turn into a Christian vs. Atheist thing?  I'm just talking from a moralistic point of view...I have yet to mention God, the bible, or my faith in this discussion. 

Well first you do know there are STD's you can get even with a condom on right?  Second, if you treat sex as just another human act, would it have any special meaning if you had sex with someone you cared about or more so, someone you were "in love" with?  If you say yes there is, then why do it with just anyone in a "fling" arrangement?  If you say no, I'd be curious if first you believe there is such a thing as love and second do you believe in monogamy?

Do you mean that people should be aware of the consequences for the actions? Yes, absolutely. One of my biggest complaints about the abstinence only sex education is that these kids aren't getting the information they need to protect themselves.

I'm also not saying that people should run around humping anything and everything. If you do, I sure hope that you are informed individual. But that's up to the individual.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your post but that was the general impression I got.

I don't think infertility should be used as an excuse for promiscuity. In this day and age, where not having children is no longer frowned upon, infertility shouldn't be an issue. I think it would have to be discussed with sexual partners if a person is committed to a relationship. It would be dishonest not to do so.

I wasn't talking about wife swapping or free love. I was talking about cultures where they practice plural marriage. It's completely different than wife swapping. I would agree with the statistics you've provided in that aspect.

No, I would not marry someone who had multiple wives. I prefer to be the only woman. I also grew up in a culture where plural marriage is not practiced and is in fact illegal. If I grew up in a culture where plural marriage was the norm, I imagine I'd have very little issue with it.

That's boring! I think it's important to look at other cultures and history in order to understand why we are the way we are now. I also think that sex is a societal issue, don't you? I took the original intent of the thread to be questioning the history of sex and why we have the viewpoints that we do and not raising concerns over the consequences of this current time period.

I would find that behavior to be incredibly dishonest. I personally would have little respect for someone who got their position in a company because they gave the boss a great blow job.

 [EDIT - spelling]

That's exactly what I've been trying to say so we are in complete agreement. 

This I agree with completely as well.  I believe kids should be informed 100% about what sex is but I also believe that sex education should not just be about what entails the act of but to also include WHY you have sex and WHY you should wait to practice it, even when you start dating someone. 

Informed individual...even today with all the resources to discover the truths you still see people screwing what they want without an ounce of remorse.  There has to be more than just statical information in sex education before we start saying we are informing people.

And I agree.  I think with that the conversation should get into the moralistic point of view of sex instead of what the point of the act of procreation. 

OK so then you are a romantic when it comes to sex and love right? Legality is irrelevant I think when we start talking about the "meaning" of sex and love now.

Granted but we are living in North America so since that is the culture at hand and that's the culture we are most familiar with, that's the one we should be discussing.

Ah ok.  I approached it on where I think society, our society, needs to have an attitude adjustment when it comes to sex today. 

Well that's part of my point on how some consider sex to be almost immaterial to their lives. There is something wrong with that don't you think?

1 out of 4 people, 25% of the population, have HSV, herpes, and you can pass it with or without a condom, even when there are no symptoms.  Not significant enough still?  Did you know that there are many people out there who have HSV that got it when they were kids when they got a kiss from an elder who had type 1 (typically around the mouth) and it got passed on to them.  Did you know that?  Oh, and since it is a virus, you get it, you are stuck with it.  Almost every human on this planet has some form of HPV, otherwise known as genital warts, and men will never show any kind of symptom except for a "cloverleaf" growth near the pubic area which, when it comes into contact with skin (meaning away from the condom area) can pass it on to their partner.  In women, many strains can cause cervical cancer...you want that on your conscious?

Well I for one am not going to say that if there was a risk you need to stay away but when it comes to the issue of STD's, people need to know who they are sleeping with before the act is done and that means getting to know the person over an extended period of time.  One night stands are where STD's are passed most often. 

You did say quite a bit on that one so forgive me if I get a little long winded.  I'm keeping in mind what you followed this up with.

 When you approach sex as "having fun" you approach it as you would say playing tennis or playing a computer game.  It becomes a selfish act for your enjoyment and not that of a mutual sharing event.  Now being able to give someone else a handful of orgasms isn't what I'm talking about here because when it's over, there was no sharing of emotional bond here.  You have fun, the person leaves, and you go on with your life.  Now while you say you do it to get bored of it, the reality is you begin to get desynthesized to what sex should be about.  Being that I've been there before, I've found it hard to appreciate it when a woman gives herself to me because I don't know if they are doing it for the act or because they like me as an individual.  One of the reasons I realize that "having fun" was a really stupid thing to do is now that I feel empty about it, it takes more for me to feel something special about the next person.  It doesn't help me appreciate the next relationship I might have but rather screwed up what I think a relationship should consist of.  This is why I REALLY don't want to be in a sexual relationship with someone unless I know, I feel, that woman is truly into me and not what I have or what I can do.

Yes it is human nature to want sex.  It's human nature to want companionship.  But just like those who marry because they got pregnant, it's not a good idea to "settle" because it presented itself and the same goes for sex; because it's there doesn't mean you should go forward with it.

pariahjane

Thanks for trying to bring the thread back it it's original intention. I'm not really interested in a debate over whether it's a good thing to shag everything with a pulse with no thought to the consiquence. I don't think many people would be taking the affirmative on that. 

Personally I think it's atleast partly because human beings are natually conformist. We like to fit in but even more than that we like to expect others to be like us.

Sexuality seems to be the last subject that it's socially acceptable to be closed minded about, and even some of that has been lost. It's no longer socially acceptable to pick on homosexuals so we can now go after much smaller groups of people with sexual differences.

It seems we never outgrow the schoolyard. We need to single out those who are different to reaffirm that we fit in.

My original intention was sex in it's broadest sense. I included mastubation in the original post as an example. I'm not sure if there's any real way to give a complete definiton due to the vast possiblities for sexuality.

A few corrections--some of these numbers sound like the "facts" that are pushed by the abstinence freaks.

The most recent CDC statistics I could find say 20% of adolescents and adults in this country have HSV-2 (genital herpes). In general, HSV-1, the cold sore you get from your aunt kissing you, is not usually considered a sexually transmitted disease, but it can be thrown in to inflate the numbers artificially.

There is currently no treatment that cures HSV-2, so once you get it you carry the virus forever. Treatments can decrease frequency of outbreaks, and condoms do decrease frequency of transmission, but someone who has it can always pass it on to someone else.

HPV (genital warts) is actually a bunch of different kinds of viruses. About half the adult population gets an infection at some point. Unlike HSV-2, most infections go away on their own, and since there usually aren't any symptoms most people never know they had it. Condoms don't prevent transmission of HPV, but they're not sure whether or not condoms decrease the frequency of transmission.

HPV only rarely leads to cervical cancer according to the CDC. There's a vaccine that helps women avoid HPV infection, but some religious groups are making an effort to suppress availability of the vaccine.

Neither of these diseases is life threatening.  You're more at risk of death or injury getting into your car and driving to the store for milk.  Unless you have visible symptoms, HPV doesn't really affect your sex life at all.  HSV-2 outbreaks can be painful, but many HSV+ people have long-term sexual relationships (with informed partners) that are just as fulfilling and active as people without the virus.  So it's important to keep these two viruses in perspective and see that they are not the end of the world. 

Don't water them down because I am no abstinence freak.

Both types of HSV are part of the 25%, 1 out of every 4, because both types can be spread by sexual contact. Type 1 can be spread to a partner via oral sex and it still becomes a STD. That is not artificial inflation and to deny that it can be a STD is just living in denial.

All of what you said was true but the fact remains that HSV, both types, can be passed with or without a condom and with or without any kind of treatment.

Again everything you said is true about HPV, but let me ask you this, knowing it is out there, why risk it?

As to the vaccine, tell me with all the issues surrounding what is approved by the FDA to only come back with some life threatening issue, wouldn't you think twice about it? This isn't about religion at all.

Again true...but how do you think a potential sexual partner will react if you let them know you have an STD? Would you want them to live with your disease knowing full well you have it? This has nothing to do with "perspective"....now we get into the moral aspect of the STD side of sex.

Textom just confirmed them.  If you still don't believe it, google it already.

And what's your point about touching or kissing?  Are you saying you'll ignore your moral responsibility to a potential partner by NOT saying anything?  If in the future I am tested to have an STD then so be it; such is what happens over the course of life.  The thing is I will not simply continue my sexual lifestyle as before and any woman who comes into my life will know the situation.

Playing to win or playing for the sake of enjoyment is still one sided.  Not everyone will enjoy playing tennis (or watching it for that matter) but it's biological that everyone enjoys sex.

My point in the example is sex unlike a game, it is NOT meant to be a selfish endeavor. 

Oh I'm no fool.  I know that what ideally should be and what is are totally different things.  But, I state it how I do not because I want the world to follow my example but because if I do that for my life, well let me put it this way, that lady who was on the space station for 6 months, think of what something as simple as a slice of pizza will be like after all that time.  Now picture the time with her hubby.  When you put things "on a pedestal" you appreciate them all the more and that's why I've said what I have and of course my hope would be to say to the world this is why sex is best enjoyed not as a recreational sport. 

I've yet to truly meet one person who would disagree with me about the desire to be in something meaningful.  It's human to want this.  Anyone who says otherwise later on makes a liar of themselves.  Oh, before you say "where they are in their life", that's a cop out.  Everyone from puberty onward desires companionship and the joys of sex are an extension of that.

Tell me, what is your definition of marriage?  Is it the business deal you do before a court or is it when you and your partner "become one flesh" if you will.   Because law defines what marriage is does not mean that's the only definition for it and limiting how it's defined by law also reduces the meaning behind when two people join up in love.  Now if you are sleeping with two different people, wouldn't that, in a different light, be adultery? 

Oh, and to address the original question:

My favorite theory is it's the fault of Augustine of Hippo. He was a huge factor in introducing the neurotic streak of anti-sex asceticism into the early church.

He had been a Manichee, and one of their core beliefs is that material things are base and unworthy, while spiritual things are elevated and good. Everything has a mix of matter and spirit, and the bigger the distribution of spirit, the more good something is; the more matter, the more evil it is. This idea was used as a rationale for such things as, for example, suppressing women (since they have babies, they have a higher percentage of base matter in their makeup than men).

After his own VH1 behind the music experience with sex and drugs, Augustine converted to Christianity and brought wholesale into the religion these ideas that the body, sexuality and pleasure were unspiritual and thus needed to be repressed and avoided.

Granted, Aug found fertile ground in the early church with all the other rival ascetic movements that were going on (some religious, some not). But Augustine's _Confessions_, IMO, is where the repression-sublimation complex that characterizes a lot of Christian attitudes toward sex really took root.

Shall we try to bring this thread back to the original OP?  I want to talk about masturbation, dammit!!! 

Thanks Razor!  lol.

I would definitely say that American views on masturbation and sex in general is influenced by the Christian/Jewish religions. 

I am not sure how other cultures view masturbation and since I'm at work, I'm not going to do any research at this time. 

Personally I don't see what the big deal is.  If you're feeling a little tight and want to rub one out, go ahead. 

In other news, why shouldn't sex be selfish?
I can understand that it's usually better when it's not, but there's no reason why it should never be.

I have to admit something to you; when I first read the question I really couldn't believe you asked that.  Why shouldn't sex be selfish?  Besides the number of emotional reasons, I'd suppose the answer would just have to be respect for the other person.  If you are having sex for your own reasons then you aren't respecting the gift or the trust the other person just put in you.  If it's about you it sure isn't about them.

I guess that depends on which angle we are approaching that idea.  Do people make more out of say their "first time" than they should?  Of course.  Now if I say that love has to be characterized by a, b, and c, is that putting love on a pedestal?  I think so.  Does it mean I'm putting it on the unobtainable?  No...I just know what I want.

I'm not being a snob by knowing exactly what I want in my life.  If I told you I won't settle for any woman that isn't at least 5'8", 130, blond, blue eyed, model, athletic....OK maybe now I'm being a snob because I'm rejecting any other woman who might not fit that description but could be a better woman than the one who did fit it.  Now saying I want a woman who is ambitious, family oriented, educated, made or making something of her life, that isn't being a snob but knowing the type of person I want to share my life with.  Superficial vs. personal qualities is a well understood line in the sand.

Now as far as sex going into procreation, well what happens when sex does lead to producing children?  Tell me one parent (who decided to be a parent) who doesn't love their child. 

Of course I know this well.  I'm here to tell you though it's an illusion.  That "light hearted fun" is what society has said is acceptable and it goes back to why sex shouldn't be selfish. 

I agree with the first part of your statement, the "serious commitment" part.  At what point does that happen?  When the ring goes on the finger?  When you have sex?  When you realize that you do love that person?  A wedding is not the start of that commitment. 

We're back at the respect you have for not just the person this time but for yourself.  An "open relationship" is wanting the cake and eating it too.  People that actually believe that's healthy are only thinking of themselves once again. 

You've told me you don't agree with those two definitions but didn't provide any of your own.  What other kinds of romantic relationships are there (and please exclude the economical one since those do not start with romance in mind)?  I'd like to hear your examples. 

Can you say you've experienced that?  In the various relationships I've been in, I can say I've only been in one "casual" relationship in which I and the woman remained friends but the start was pure sexual motivation on my end from the start.  That's all I wanted to start with and while a friendship grew from that, it was not what started it off.  At its conclusion, there were bad feelings due to other issues but after I threw out my own ego and apologized for what happened, the friendship endured.   

If you are not after your own fulfillment of physical need at the start, the only thing that is left is to share your life with someone else.  That approach is not selfish nor would it be casual since there is a lot of effort put into that type of relationship (and you'd hate to be walked away from if the other person is not willing to do the same). 

What exactly are "casual relationships" to you? 

Oh I know...but I still thought we are discussing the American style society where romantic relationships and marriages are based upon choice of a mate and not prearranged.

As far as polygamous...do they serve a purpose for the individual or something larger than that?  Can romantic "love" be shared across more than one person?  Is it possible to truly love two people the same romantically without loving one more than another?

 And when you did experience what you have, what initiated the relationship?

Which I agree in general concept but what is being done during the relationship isn't what I've been concentrating on; it's how it started and the motivations to start such a relationship that I question. 

It begins with the person having a desire for something physical without commitment right? Sounds pretty selfish to me.  If I want something without commitment, I WANT something that will satisfy my own urges.

As I was saying before if you are single and don't want to get into something long term, you have urges, needs, sexual frustrations that you want fulfilled.  That's part of being human.  What you have within you however is control, the ability to not follow up on those desires and urges.  There is good cause to NOT fulfill your needs when you have them (besides the obvious safety considerations) and it is those reasons that "friends with benefits" is detrimental not only to yourself but to society in general. 

How? Think what are women like today?  Are they under an impression that all guys want nothing but sex?  Are women trusting?  Are men trusting that women aren't all golddiggers or bunny boilers (haha let's see how many know that reference)?  Do many men have the attitude of women as disposable objects for their desires?  These questions were not as well known as they are today and there are big reasons for that.  Sexual education didn't come from parents or schools but from what we saw when we were younger and it became experimental to find out what the hell.  The closure of our the baby boomer generation's parents towards sex and the let it all hang out of Generation X didn't produce a happy medium for relationships that can be healthy.  Now I'm not saying don't try to experience anything, but there are right and wrong ways to approach it.