Let's talk about sex baby
Offline Why do we have so many problems with sex?
I know we have come a long way as a society but in many ways it's still something that has a lot of negativity attached to it, expecially from the religious. Women are looked down on if they have slept with a lot of men. Men cannot comfortably admit to masturbation. Strange turn-ons are something to be ashamed of in many cases. The existence of homosexuals still disturbs many people. Any mention of the idea that our parents might actually have had sex, and worse might still occasionally do it, makes many of us stick our fingers in our ears and go "lalala - I'm not listening". There's the very broad idea of a sex offence which in some places means that mooning someone will get you listed along side child rapists.
Is this a part of some conspiracy to make sure noone actually enjoys themselves or is there some real reason for these taboos? Evolutionarily I see no good reason for this hang up, if anything it coud impede the reproduction of the species. Theologically I don't see why god would have such a problem with us using the equipment he gave us in ways that do no harm to others. Sex is fun, necessary for the continuation of our species and - when practiced responsibly between consenting adults - doesn't hurt anyone.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
I combined both points to one since they seemed so related.
When I say "indefinite" I mean within one person's lifetime. While it's true not everyone wants to have someone else, that's not a typical human trait. And I don't think that when you have people in your life you want them to just up and leave.
As far as marriage, again my definition of what marriage is comes without the relation to the law. "Marriage" in a more spiritual or romantic sense is about love and it has always been so.
What I was trying to say is that temporary happiness is worthless since you know it ends. I cannot see how living for the "fix" would even come close to satisfy.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
As I was saying in my previous post, how can something temporary satisfy? I can't see how it would hence being worthless.
Now as far as life being temporary...YOUR life is not. You have a beginning and an end so because of that no part of your life is temporary. So why settle for temporary fixes when you can have the real deal for the fullness of your life?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Is a good book worthless? Most books you will only read once (how else do you have time to read more books) Is the experience of reading it worthless because you know it will end? Is it worthless after you read that last page, close it and put it back on the shelf? Should you have never bothered to open the book in the first place?
I don't know where you get this idea that something that satisfies must satisfy forever. I never want satsisfaction if that is the criteria.
Being unsatisfied is what gets me out of bed in the morning, it's what makes me want to learn, grow, better myself, solve problems or create. I get brief satisfaction when I achieve a goal I set for myself but then I need to set a new goal and acheve that. Life would be utterly pointless if I was satisfied permanently.
I feel sorry for you if you desire permanent satisfaction. Firstly because you will probably never achieve it so will be constantly frustrated by life, the small achievements would only mock you by their temporary nature. Secondly because in the unlikely event that you do attain a satisfaction that will last for the rest of your life it will be a very boring life from that point on.
Um what? My life has a begining and an end therefore it is not temporary?
Temporary: lasting for a limited time
If life has a begining and an end then it lasts for whatever time is between the begining and then end. That time is finite and thus limited.
Life has a begining and end thus making is last for a limited time, thus making it temporary.
Because, as I've said, it's all temporary anyway and in order to experience the fullness of life it needs to be.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
It would be atypical for a human to not want anyone, as we are social animals(as in, a person who chooses to live isolated on mountain or something). However, I would argue that not wanting one romantic partner for your entire life is absolutely a typical human trait.
No, of course not, but that's not what I'm saying. Are we still talking about sexual/romantic partners here? If so, then I say no, we don't want them to leave(if he/she makes us happy), but we don't just want one person either. At least as males, that is.
Says who though? What is your definition?
Really disagree with you on this one. I watch a White Sox game, I know it will end, but I don't think it's worthless. I eat a great meal, it too will end, but it was certainly not worthless to me. Again, I'll state that happiness must be inherently temporary, otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Even using your example of a lifetime union bringing you happiness, that happiness won't be there 24/7, will it? You'll go through periods, sometimes long ones, in which you wish nothing more than to send your partner on a one-way flight to Mongolia.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Fair enough, things can be spread with the use of a condom. I did look into those two viruses you mentioned, and treatment is available, and hpv can go away on its own, and they are not life - threatening.
My next point, in earlier posts you talked about casual sex being selfish. There are a large number of people who get off on the idea of being used. Do you think it is immoral to have sex with someone who wants to be used?
Various types of HPV do not go away and even some others can cause cancer. Various types of HSV can attack the brain and cause paralysis or even death. Granted each is rare enough but they most certainly can be life threatening. But then even if they aren't, would YOU want herpes?
Treatments are not cures...remember that.
I'm sorry but I don't want HSV even if it doesn't shorten my life and I sure as hell don't want to pass it on to anyone if I did have it.
Immorality towards sex stems from intention. If people want to be used for sex there are other issues going on. Not everyone will admit it but you know there has got to be something going on with an individual who sells their body for money, or worse. If you choose to have sex with someone who wants to be used and you are fully aware of this, you are using that person and sex should not be about the abuse of others. Period.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Wait a minute. How can you compare life satisfactions to inanimate objects? I mean reading works your brain increasing (well most of the time anyway) your intelligence and your knowledge of things so how does that compare with finding someone who wants to share your life?
Let me bring this back a bit and maybe relate it to what you posted...
Does a casual relationship teach you anything? Yes. Is it worth it? My personal opinion on this is why learn about sex and emotional bonds to another with someone you have no interest in something beyond the moment? Wouldn't that learning experience be best with someone who is willing to put past bias and superficial nonsense?
I have to admit I know what I want. Wanting perfection isn't a bad thing and it keeps in my mind what I'm willing to compromise on and what I'm just not going to budge on. For example, do I care if a woman I date is short, tall, fat, or skinny? I'm attracted to all types so physical appearance isn't going to limit me on getting to know someone. Now if I find out that woman is married or amusing me because she wants to use me for money, why would I even continue?
Life is temporary only to the third person point of view. Yes my life has a start and an end however while I'm here this is what I know and I gotta use my time wisely. While I'm alive, there isn't anything temporary about it.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I don't know if I'd agree with that. I mean yes as humans we look at others even when with someone else. But physical desire is not the only factor in being with someone so that makes us completely different and because we can use that thought process, monogamy is not just possible but most likely a desired quality.
I kinda gave it before; marriage is when two people become the "one flesh"...that is to say they are together by love and the sexual sharing they experience is no longer the act but how they share that love on a level beyond just what is visible to others. That's marriage and I know I don't need any piece of paper to define that.
I've gotta defer my response to this to the one I just gave in my previous post.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Actually I think if you look into the etymology of this verse (Gen 2:24) you'll find that "one flesh" actually refers to the act of physical sex only. That is, God is ordering married men and women to have physical relations with each other. (I don't know why God felt it was necessary to make this order, but obviously it was an issue for some reason.)
People have taken Gen 2:24 and made all kinds of other things out of it, from incitements to monogamy to prohibitions against homosexuality. But all these are post hoc embellishments of what the Bible actually literally says. There are no prohibitions or exclusions here, and no references to romantic love. It doesn't say anything beyond the order from God that married people should have sex.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I disagree with your tossing aside the physical aspect as if it's just some annoying urge that you just turn off when it's polite to. Although humans are obviously more "advanced" than other animals, we are still motivated by primal urges that we wouldn't know how to stop even if we want to. Put two people in a room and don't feed them for a week. Then, put one hamburger in the room and see what happens. Lots of sophisticated human qualities get thrown right out the window. A bit of an extreme example, but it's been theorized that everyone from suicide bombers to corporate executives are driven by inate physical desires, in these cases the urge to increase their reproductive opportunities. And I still disagree that it's(monogamy) a desired quality by everyone, or that as a general rule it's inherently better. I still admit that given the way society operates right now, it has more benefits than the alternatives.
That definition only exists in a religious context. Obviously, that won't mean anything to me.
I assume you meant this one?:
Whether you're reading a good book, or sharing a "moment" with your wife(or whatever) it's all a matter of brain stimuli. I know plenty of people that derive more happiness from books than from extended contact with people. You're not really getting the happiness from the actual ink and paper anyways, it's how the story materializes in your imagination.
I share my life with lots of people, in varying capacities. I don't think you're necessarily any better off for saving most of yours for one person.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
I was not comparing it to the phsyical book I was talking about the experience of reading the book. I'm comparing experience with experience, why am I not allowed to do that?
The point is that any experience, by the nature of experience, is temorary, but we still value it.
Did you enjoy it? Was noone hurt by it? If your answer to both these questions was yes then it was worth it - even if you didn't learn anything.
Ta-daaa! "My personal opinion".
You recognise that it is only your opinion. If you want to only have sex in long term committed relationships then noone is forcing you to have a one night stand, noone's even telling you that you're wrong for not wanting to have a one night stand.
That is how you feel about sex, It's also how I feel about sex but If two people meet in a bar and decide between them they want to have on night of sex with no emotional attachments then that's fine with me.
Why do you assume that the way you feel about sex is the only right way to feel about it and how do the actions of someone who doesnt feel the same way affect you?
Are you trying to contradict yourself? your life has limited time to but it isn't temporary?
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I think I should point out that Genesis 2:24 was a result from Adam being lonely. God made woman so man would not be alone. Verse 24's purpose is to point out that when it is time for a man to leave his parents, that is grow up, he finds a woman as a companion in life.
The point of "sex only" is not a proper interpretation of context of what the rest of the chapter is referring to. God did not order anything; it was "natural" that the man found the woman as a companion or as it is translated, a "helper" to which it was meant a helper in his life and when they join together, they become one in every sense: sexually, spiritually, mind and body.
Homosexuality is a completely different issue and as far as monogamy, when a couple joins together, from the biblical point of view it should be for a reason larger than just physical desire. From a moralistic point it should be for more than just physical desire again.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
But survival vs. companionship are two totally different "instincts" that humans have (and I use the word instincts loosely).
And if everyone else knows that how could it not be more desirable?
Don't think of it in a religious context but a moralistic or even spiritual one.
Is that your explanation from what you've learned or what you really know from the heart?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
My personal experiences from them have been it was enjoyable in the moment but when I still ended up alone when she walked out or when it ended, it was always empty so I'd relate that to drug use; the fix only leaves you wanting more, i.e. false sense of happiness.
No no no no no no no no. Please don't assume that I feel because it's my opinion that sex should be only in a committed relationship that I need to impose my opinions on anyone else. If two people go home to bang all night, that's their choice. They have the freedom, the "free will" if you will, to follow their desires. I've been expressing my opinion here because I've learned from experience and yes through my faith, it's not necessarly a good thing to do and I'm sharing what I know of the subject of sex with you and others.
Never mind never mind...I'm dropping that point cause I'm not explaining myself well.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I think it's important to point out, Razorphreak, that this is your *opinion* supported by the American protestant tradition. There is nothing in the text that supports this point of view.
If I'm wrong, please produce the evidence.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I'm sorry...WHAT? How is it my opinion? What evidence exactly are you asking of me? Where that's supported in scripture or something else?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Allow me to clarify.
Where is the textural support that God commands that they become one "in every sense" in Gen 2:24? The text, the etymology and the context refer only to the physical sense.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Drug use... A false sense of happiness... Your're really leaving it wide open for me to make a dig at the opiate of the masses here. But it's too easy so I'll leave it. Well except for pointing out that I could do it, which is probably almost as bad as doing it. I should stop typing this paragraph and move on to making a point.
It sounds like you were feeling bad because the expectations of the relationship you had weren't met. Is that really due to having sex? maybe you two didn't understand eachothers expectations at the start, or maybe you weren't compatible so it had to end?
Also what is inherently wrong with drug use? Most people use Alchohol without negative side effects.
Then we agree and have nothing to argue about. However the impression I've been getting from you is that while you accept that others may have different opinions, yours is the right one.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Oh I was talking about casual sex relationships. What there was to feel bad about was doing them. I gave into the desire that I knew I shouldn't have so looking back I knew it was a mistake.
You've gotta be kidding?
Opinions are just that; right or wrong shouldn't be a part of them.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
This site does a pretty good job of explaining it in full:
http://www.gotquestions.org/one-flesh-marriage.html
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Nope, I drink an average of 2 standard drinks a night. I have no health problems and it doesn't interfere with my professional or social life. Drinking too much has negative side effects, just like having unprotected sex with random strangers on a nightly basis will probably cause problems.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
Companionship in terms of social contact is a human instinct. Seeking a monogamous romantic partner for life is not a human instinct.
Because, given the failure rate of lifetime monogamous relationships, people have decided that it's NOT more desirable. I was speaking of benefits such as, a spouse is automatically deemed next of kin if someone dies, or that a child is better protected under the laws that favor married couples.
You cant. Marriage has no moralistic or spiritual aspect without religion. To me, an atheist, marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper that allows the state to meddle in your affairs. A relationship I might decide has a spiritual(or whatever) quality, but marriage itself has no value for me.
I am much, much happier than most married people I know.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
Again, this article is nothing but the (anonymous) author's opinion. There's no textual support for this reading.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
OK you just asked for textual support, the article gave the verses from the bible that support EXACTLY what I said before. Now you are rejecting it for absolutely no reason other than your rejection of the bible (yet ironically that was the one book you asked for references from).
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Psychologists would disagree.
Ever think that maybe the failure rate is not due to no longer wanting monogamy but rather a case of marriage of convenience or necessity (e.g. marry for money or marry because she got pregnant).
This has nothing to do with your belief or disbelief of God but rather what you know to be right or wrong. This is the moralistic view I speak of so you CAN but it sounds like you'd rather not because it came from a book you don't believe in.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
OK so we agree...but not everyone uses constraint of only two drinks. All it takes is one night of 4 or more and then you drive home going down the wrong side of the highway.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Really? Not this psychologist:
http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%20on%20monogamy.htm
or this group of evolutionary psychologists:
http://www.king.igs.net/~rogersk/mono.htm
I was unable to find any psychologists that believed monogamy was a natural human instinct. If you could provide a link or two, I'd be interested in reading them
No. Not when the failure rate is as high as it is. Remember, I'm not just talking marriages here, I'm referring to all attempts at life=long monogamy. The failure rate is so high because it's not a natural human condition. The inate drive towards infidelity is in our genes, and not able to be removed through social conditioning. Not in the long run, at least.
Yes it does. Marriage never claimed any moralistic or spiritual qualities until religion attached them to it. Therefore, why would I have any need to think of marriage in those contexts?
I don't think it's that black and white. It's right for some people, not right for others. Neither is inherently better.
Well, yes, actually. The rules set forth for marriage in today's first-world societies are derived mainly from religion. Until you can show me anything that claims the idea that one man and one woman will live forever in fidelity because they choose to out of love for each other that ISN'T religion-based, I'm going to remain firm in my opinion that marriage doesn't have a moral quality.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."
I'm sure you probably saw these articles...check the sources they used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incidence_of_Monogamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_Monogamy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_Monogamy
What's interesting is the sources you used and the ones that say no are basically studies steming from animal observations. Whatever justifies it I guess...even though humans are unlike any other animal but not going to go there...this is about sex not evolution.
Forcing monogamy isn't going to work either. I think that is what you are referring to. Where love doesn't exist monogamy won't either.
Yes it did but because of the veil of religion you'd rather remove that context under convenience.
Is that because you really believe that or because science told you to follow it as anit-religious because from your previous posts and what you told me, it sure doesn't sound like you believe or follow that.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I don't see anything in those articles that bolster the position that lifelong monogamy is a natural human instinct.
You keep using the "humans are different than animals" as some kind of uber-trump card. While humans certainly are different, they also are very similar to animals as well. Let's invoke Occam's Razor for a second. Almost all animals are NOT monogamous. The human monogamy failure rate is astronomical. It's agreed that humans have the urge to have sex with other people, regardless of their relationship status. It makes more sense from an evolutionary standpoint for humans to not be monogamous. Which position then holds the simplest answer?
Where did I say it was being forced on anyone? That's not what I meant. I meant that people have been raised for centuries to believe that they will choose one partner and love them forever and have kids, etc., and that's the way things should be. However, as is evident in the status of monogamy today, you can't remove the primal urge through external influences(well, non-violent ones anyway)
No, it didn't. Show me one example of marriage being described as a fidelity-based lifetime partnership chosen by the 2 participants, that isn't religious in origin.
I believe that humans aren't made to be permanently monogamous. The science tells me this as well, and the science is not concerned with any religious angle. I'm not clear on what you mean by your last sentence here.
"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."