Sex: How much does physical love mean to you?

Rebecca, that is probably a good influence and a good reason why you have the beliefs you do. My parents were married for about three weeks. My father remarried and has been married for a long time, but he doesn't seem happy. My stepmother always seems miserable and she isn't too fond of me or my half brother or sister. My mom never remarried. My grandparents were married for about 50 years and they seemed pretty happy. But except for one of their kids, all of them married and divorced. So just because your parents have a great or poor relationship, doesn't necessarily mean you will. (But I do hope you do!) Mom seemed really happy as a single person and never wished to marry again. I am sure all of this had some influence on how I feel about marriage and relationships.
I am sure some people are happy in marriages. I also have friends who have done everything to keep their marriage together and still just couldn't do it. I guess some things weren't meant to be.
I guess it is like families all around. Some are huggy, others not, but in both types there is love expressed in different ways.

 

Screw the anthropologists... ironic, eh? Personally, I cannot overlook them and their evidence. Everything that I've read, suggests to me, that VERY few species mate for life (including humans). It is in our very NATURE to seek many mates...it increases our chances of "putting our genes out there", as well as promotes genetic diversity within our potential offspring. Any evolutionary scientist (as well as many other types of scientists) will tell you this.

It is in our nature to seek many mates...the reason we DON'T is because humans, unlike apes, have SLIGHTLY higher developed moral/reasoning faculties. We generally don't "breed" with everyone on sight to avoid social-sigmatation. But, we do have the IMPULSE inherit in ALL of us. You may try to deny it, and stick with one partner for life, but as the stastistics bear out, most people eventually "go elsewhere".

BTW: as far as me being "biased" on this issue...I'm actually married! (Scary thought, eh?)

 

1. You can be married and still be biased.

2. I have Singing in the Rain stuck in my head and it's getting really really really annoying.

 

Stop watching A Clockwork Orange so much.

 

Well I disagree. I think our nature is more to make choices. What my parents have IS natural, and I find it highly insulting for my family when you say it isn't. I don't see how two people so happy could be "unnatural."

You may try to deny it, and stick with one partner for life, but as the stastistics bear out, most people eventually "go elsewhere".

I don't think so.

50% of first marriages in the US do NOT end. That means half of couples chose to stay together, and they cannot all be staying together because of religion, the sake of any children, or money. And they can't all be staying married but sleeping with other people as well.


It is in our nature to seek many mates...the reason we DON'T is because humans, unlike apes, have SLIGHTLY higher developed moral/reasoning faculties.

I think it's a lot more than slightly higher. Look at what apes have accomplished, and look at what humans have accomplished. Human brains are obviously very much more sophisticated.

 

I think that human history does not seem to favor monogamy or multiple people. There are plenty of people who are with only one person their entire lives and there are people who go from one person to another. Monogamy has been institutionalized and some call it unnatural, but I don't think it is at all.

I see both sides trying to claim their way is superior. Folks, does it really matter that much what human nature has done in the past?

 

Ooh. I like your new icon, Flamingsword. Tres cool.

 

Thanks, Ariana, your new one is too

I've got a question for those who are waiting to have sex (be it till marriage or a serious relationship).

With what are you waiting? Just sexual intercourse? More? I suppose it would be clearer to ask what you would/would not do or what you think is/is not right before marriage
Sexual intercourse
Sex play, including oral sex, but not actually intercourse
Pleasuring yourself (masturbating)
Touching (more than just ordinary daily things)
Kissing (and not just a peck on the lips and cheek)

I know some of what some of you may say to some things(such as Ariana), but I am curious as to what people think. If you don't think you should wait and feel like arguing the opposite, feel free to do so.

If this post is in any way unclear or inappropriate, I blame the fly medicine

 

I agree with the point that sex is an evolutionary process designed to increase the size of the gene pool as much as possible. I think you missed something though.

The problem I have here is this: The idea that evolution is the fundamental rule by which we should base our judgements is inherantly flawed, because evolution is a dead process in our species. We are now fully capable of improving lifespan and overall health and other conditions through the manipulation of our environment far faster than we can do so through reproductive genetics, which takes thousands upon thousands of years for even minute changes.

The idea that human nature pushes us in the best direction is also flawed. Look at Africa, where tribes still practice sex whereby each woman of childbearing age is laid by every guy in the village who is young enough to be verile. Such villages have HIV rates of 50-60%. But, hey, there is no wrong or right for those people other than what their natural urges tell them, so why stop?

My point is not that sex with many people is immoral, but that having tons of sex all of the time is arcane, useless, and denotes a lack of civilisation. We do not improve ourselves or our society by letting our primitive and outdated urges control our actions.

The use of man's technical classification as an animal as an excuse for why we shouldn't show self control when it comes to sex is somewhat questionable. Is it ok then for me to kill someone in cold blood because my instincts told me I should?

The decision for action in modern man is not one of instinct, but of logic and reasoning. Of self-control rather than unbridled passion and directly manifested animal instinct. I think that anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is living in the past and unmindful of the future.

 

Here, here.

 

bow chicka bow bow

 

Risste

Your entire arguement is based on the fact that we are a higher species, and not just think we are. I'm still not sure we're a higher species. Sure, we can build computers, but does that make me better than a monkey?

Or does the ability to question to my existance make me a higher creature?

Am I better than a monkey, or do I just think I am?




Whoa, I need to get wasted ....

 

Our intelligance is far better than that of monkeys, and that's a fact. Based on intelligance, yes we are higher in that area. Our brains and decision-making processes are obviously much more developed, since we make many decisions that are not related to instinct.

 

I've sometimes wondered if there's any correlation between rising divorce rates in modern times, and the lengthing of the human lifespan.

Actually this is very likely true. Our life expectancy has almost doubled in the last century(from something I recently heard). For most of history to be monogamous meant to be with a person for ten years at most. And even then, actual monogamy as in not having sex with anyone except the person to whom you were married, was rare.

If there is a fifty percent divorce rate, plus the percent of people who do not divorce but still are not necessarily monogamous to their spouses, then probably 75 percent of people are not monogamous. This definitely supports the idea that, while it's nice and there isn't really anything wrong with on an individual level pursuing such an ideal if one wishes, but it isn't something that is necessarily natural, nor is it something that is necessarily to be expected or looked down upon morally.

Look at Africa, where tribes still practice sex whereby each woman of childbearing age is laid by every guy in the village who is young enough to be verile. Such villages have HIV rates of 50-60%. But, hey, there is no wrong or right for those people other than what their natural urges tell them, so why stop?


It's a disease. It isn't caused by sex although it can be spread that way. The disease has nothing to do with right or wrong. There are some diseases, deadly ones, which are spread by shaking hands or breathing--does that mean people shouldn't do those things? Just never touch anyone and go around wearing masks. The one has nothing to do with the other. It doesn't show the immorality or the wrongness of having sex in a certain manner.

Of self-control rather than unbridled passion and directly manifested animal instinct. I think that anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is living in the past and unmindful of the future.

Having sex with many people doesn't show unbridled passions either. If you have sex let's say 10 times in a month, you have sex 10 times in a month, whether it is with one person or ten people.

In fact monogamy was really for women. It was never really expected of men. Men paid some lip service to it, but for the most part it was a little wink and send you on your way, "that's just the way men are".

So monogamy most likely actually developed as a method of control over female sexuality by men. So that way they could be sure that it was actually their child they were being expected to support and that THEIR property passed onto THEIR offspring. It was actually most likely developed out of selfish, prideful motives--not just any child would do because it was a human being, it had to actually be of *their* seed. It wasn't developed out of higher, moral motives at all.

 

It's a disease. It isn't caused by sex although it can be spread that way. The disease has nothing to do with right or wrong. There are some diseases, deadly ones, which are spread by shaking hands or breathing--does that mean people shouldn't do those things? Just never touch anyone and go around wearing masks. The one has nothing to do with the other. It doesn't show the immorality or the wrongness of having sex in a certain manner.

Notice how the first thing I said after that was "My point is not that sex with many people is immoral,..." So, argue against my argument, not against something I never said in the first place. If you want to say sex is moral or immoral, fine, just don't act like I said anything about it either way. I never said sex is immoral.

My point was that having sex with everyone in the tribe, all of the time, is in the end not beneficial, even though the instict told them to do it that way. Hence: Our instincts do not always lead us to what is best, and in that they are a flawed navigation system. If there is no navigation other than what your instincts tell you, then you will end up acting on flawed motives.

Having sex with many people doesn't show unbridled passions either. If you have sex let's say 10 times in a month, you have sex 10 times in a month, whether it is with one person or ten people.

If I have sex with one person ten times in a month, then I act in a relationship with that person, and on a commitment to them. The sex is meaningful beyond "Oh, yeah, doing this feels great!" It involves sharing myself with them and only them. This is restrained passion, the fulfillment of sexual desire constrained by a relationship with someone else.

If however I have sex with ten different people in a month, the sex I have with those people has no meaning other than I want to get off with them once. Indeed, it is in effect saying "Oh, yeah, this feels great...Goodbye." The act is a reaction to chemical impulses in the brain and natural instinct to have as much sex with as many people as possible. This is unbridled passion, because it does not take place within any relationship and has no meaning, other than the pleasure involved.

In fact monogamy was really for women. It was never really expected of men. Men paid some lip service to it, but for the most part it was a little wink and send you on your way, "that's just the way men are".

To start out, let's not lie about things. In history, the practice of having extramarital affairs with regularity was one of the aristocracy, of people in power. However, it is not true to say the women in power never did it, that they were controlled by it in any way. Roman women who were married to senators regulary paid for the sexual services of slaves so that their children would be more attractive and physically adept. Isabella, princess of France, who married Edward II of England, deposed him and married her lover in the 1300's. Such affairs were a part of the aristocracy in general instead of this male-only evil you espouse.

So monogamy most likely actually developed as a method of control over female sexuality by men. So that way they could be sure that it was actually their child they were being expected to support and that THEIR property passed onto THEIR offspring. It was actually most likely developed out of selfish, prideful motives--not just any child would do because it was a human being, it had to actually be of *their* seed. It wasn't developed out of higher, moral motives at all.

A question: As a crusader against selfish men, do you find men who bed a new woman every night more or less selfish than one who commits to and uphold a relationship with the same woman for life?

Is it not selfish to relate with women solely on the fact that their bodies can bring you pleasure?

You say their actions were not born of higher ends, but I would submit that ends do not speak to the morality of an act. One can do the right thing for the wrong reason.


Ba

 

Risste, I see what you are saying but you are letting your sense of morality and right and wrong cloud your judgment on what others should consider their own.

You say that having sex with 10 different people in the span of a month means that you don't feel anything other than sexual pleasure with them and that's not something that you can say with accuracy. You can say that you would find it to be nothing other than sexual pleasure but you can't say what those two people are feeling. Nor can you say that sex with one person 10 times in a month is more meaningful to one or both parties than having sex with any number of other partners.

You're arguing that sex without relationship is a lesser form of the act than any other. It is your opinion, and that is fine, but it has no bearing on whether we as a species should or should not be having sex. Morality has no place in this discussion, as each person can design their own morality.

Your AIDS analogy is a good attempt to state your case, showing that with the knowledge of the disease out there we should be able to overcome out instinct to procreate because of it. However, you seem to be confusing what the instinct actually is. When I think of instinctive sexual drive I don't think of sexual pleasure. I think of procreation and spreading seed. That is the oldest sexual instinct we have. To populate the world with your spawn because you believe your spawn are best equipped to survive in this world. Your genes should be passed on to as many people as possible.

The desire to achieve sexual nirvana and to gratify our sexual urges leads to infidelity. The situation in Africa is born of the desire to perpetuate their tribal heritage. Unfortunately, they are doing it in a terribly dangerous time with a devastatingly deadly disease. It's a neverending cycle of death now, as well, since the more people that die from the disease....the more they need to bring into the world.

 

"So monogamy most likely actually developed as a method of control over female sexuality by men. So that way they could be sure that it was actually their child they were being expected to support and that THEIR property passed onto THEIR offspring. It was actually most likely developed out of selfish, prideful motives--not just any child would do because it was a human being, it had to actually be of *their* seed. It wasn't developed out of higher, moral motives at all."

That's what I said.


"Roman women who were married to senators regulary paid for the sexual services of slaves so that their children would be more attractive and physically adept"

I don't think he's talking about Rome, but mostly the ancient middle east, where most modern western values seem to have been spawned.

"Back to my point, sex with lots of people all the time is arcane, useless, and denotes a lack of civilisation."

Civilisation is overrated.

 

I don't think he's talking about Rome,

Thanks for the support, but just so you know, I'm a she.

A question: As a crusader against selfish men, do you find men who bed a new woman every night more or less selfish than one who commits to and uphold a relationship with the same woman for life?

Is it not selfish to relate with women solely on the fact that their bodies can bring you pleasure?

You say their actions were not born of higher ends, but I would submit that ends do not speak to the morality of an act. One can do the right thing for the wrong reason.


...it has nothing to do with it. For one thing, the women wouldn't be "committed" either. Besides you are assuming that to have sex with many people means to only relate to them on a sexual level. You can still relate to those people on any number of levels as human beings, sex would just be among those ways.

 

What in the hell are we arguing about?

 

You say that having sex with 10 different people in the span of a month means that you don't feel anything other than sexual pleasure with them and that's not something that you can say with accuracy. You can say that you would find it to be nothing other than sexual pleasure but you can't say what those two people are feeling. Nor can you say that sex with one person 10 times in a month is more meaningful to one or both parties than having sex with any number of other partners.

Hey, I'll admit that you can indeed have a meaningful relationship with someone in the course of a a day or a week. My original example was one of an entire village of men having sex with the same woman in the same day, which had nothing to do with relationships, but with acting on instinct.

See, I am talking about the difference between purely instinctual sex and sex in a relationship, while you insist on talking about the difference between long-term relationship sex and short-term relationship sex.

My original point is still that navigation by instinct is a flawed and arcane method of decision making. No one seems to disagree.

You're arguing that sex without relationship is a lesser form of the act than any other. It is your opinion, and that is fine, but it has no bearing on whether we as a species should or should not be having sex. Morality has no place in this discussion, as each person can design their own morality.

The title of the thread asks directly for opinion, not fact. This thread asks us to define what sex means to us. There have been those who said sex is a trait for which our instinct is to employ it as much as possible, so we should simply follow that instinct all the time. I disagree with that, and have posted in opposition.

I have never said any kind of sex is immoral. If I have, where? I don't remember saying that sex was immoral in any way. So, who is really bringing morality into this, you or me?

Your AIDS analogy is a good attempt to state your case, showing that with the knowledge of the disease out there we should be able to overcome out instinct to procreate because of it. However, you seem to be confusing what the instinct actually is. When I think of instinctive sexual drive I don't think of sexual pleasure. I think of procreation and spreading seed. That is the oldest sexual instinct we have. To populate the world with your spawn because you believe your spawn are best equipped to survive in this world. Your genes should be passed on to as many people as possible.

I have not mistaken the sexual instinct. It has two parts: the inherant, genetic instinct present from birth is the urge to continue the species, and to spread one's seed. The conditioned instinct, which grows stronger with repetition of the act is that of pleasure, a chemical reaction inside the brain that brings happiness and contentment. Both forms of instinct contribute to sex acts, as both instincts are present in all of us.

My point was not that sex is wrong because it can lead to disease. My point was that in acting on sexual instinct alone we are easily led astray.

The desire to achieve sexual nirvana and to gratify our sexual urges leads to infidelity. The situation in Africa is born of the desire to perpetuate their tribal heritage. Unfortunately, they are doing it in a terribly dangerous time with a devastatingly deadly disease. It's a neverending cycle of death now, as well, since the more people that die from the disease....the more they need to bring into the world.

I don't want this to turn into an Africa thread.

I don't think he's talking about Rome, but mostly the ancient middle east, where most modern western values seem to have been spawned.

No, I don't think so, because there was no monogamy in the ancient middle east. She spoke of monogamy. Thus, the middle east could not have been what she was talking about.

Civilisation is overrated.

Easy to type on a computer, that.

...it has nothing to do with it. For one thing, the w

 

One of the funniest time I ever had was when my dad said he had to talk to my older sister and I.
we were 15 and 17.
He sat in the kitchen, my mom standing behind him, my sister and I sitting at the table too, a little scared because we didn't know what was in his mind.
And he told us (quote):
- You know girls, your virginity is very precious and you must not give it to the first guys coming around and not before marriage. This is very important to know, to be happy (and whatever)
And behind him my mother was making the funniest faces, basicly meaning : "yeah right, like you were a virgin when we got married; c'mon Michel cut the crap, you know I had 20 lovers before meeting you a,d you did too, stop playing good old daddy!"

The most difficult was to resist laughing and politly nod.
But it was the greatest message my parents ever gave us :
" You girls are free to do whatever you want, as soon as you are happy with it. No religious crap should ever stand in your way.[...] And don't forget to putt condomns, AIDS kills."
They didn't say that, but they meant it. My dad tried to protect us from deseas (sp?) by trying to pull us away from sex and men. But my mom made it better... She just laughed and let us go.
And we got the point!

Morality : enjoy wedding if you feel happy with it, enjoy polygamy if that's what you need, enjoy sex as much as you want and NEVER EVER bother about the looks of the "good" people in the street. They are suckers that missed their life and try to destroy yours! in a word : ENJOY LIFE!!!

PS : here is Europe, the problem isn't pregnancy. It's AIDS. We use condomns first to protect ourselves from Diseases (sp?), secondly to protect ourselves from pregnancy. But we have the "pill" for that too...

 

Well some of us ARE happy waiting till marriage and ENJOY monogamy.

 

Oh those crazy Belgians...

 

Well, Ariana, that's what important!

I am happy not have waited until marriage, I am happy i had all the lovers I had and I have so trouble with my boyfriend who is a polygam and I am a jealous freak. But's it's getting better, I'm starting to get along with it.
Isn't life great?!

 

Risste, the point I'm trying to make is that, even know, when people have sex they are doing it out of instinct. You can never escape it.

Intelligence would tell us that having sex at all, in and of itself, accomplishes nothing save the proliferation of the species. So why do it? Instinct. It feels good, we enjoy it, it makes us happy. All instinct.

I'll agree that acting on instinct alone will not always lead down the correct path but neither will acting purely on reasonable thought processes. I think a balance of the two is best.