Let's talk about sex baby

ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Let's talk about sex baby

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!


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Sex is fun, necessary for the continuation of our species and - when practiced responsibly between consenting adults - doesn't hurt anyone.

Unless of course, someone wants to be hurt. Eye-wink 


Jarem Asyder
Jarem Asyder's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2007-06-18
User is offlineOffline
I can't really claim to be

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.  


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
In simple terms (I like

In simple terms (I like simple)

 

Sex is more fun /distracting than religion and hence is a threat to it, therefore religion has to try to control it


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Things like this don't have

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).

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Well, first off, I think

Well, first off, I think the reason that women get the short end of the stick as far as sex goes is because we are the ones bearing the children.  Everyone will know that the kid we produce is ours.  However, before DNA testing, people could not be certain who the father was.  Remember, properties and titles were passed down from father to child (women were basically just property in most cultures).  What better way to ensure that your heir is really yours?  Threaten the ladies with eternal damnation, stoning, ostracism or anything else to ensure they keep their legs shut.  The shorter the leash on women, the less chance of them getting knocked up.  Plus, you wouldn't want you neighbor diddling around with what belongs to you, right?

I think this sort of mentality was adopted into the major religions. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Well,

pariahjane wrote:

Well, first off, I think the reason that women get the short end of the stick as far as sex goes is because we are the ones bearing the children. Everyone will know that the kid we produce is ours. However, before DNA testing, people could not be certain who the father was. Remember, properties and titles were passed down from father to child (women were basically just property in most cultures). What better way to ensure that your heir is really yours? Threaten the ladies with eternal damnation, stoning, ostracism or anything else to ensure they keep their legs shut. The shorter the leash on women, the less chance of them getting knocked up. Plus, you wouldn't want you neighbor diddling around with what belongs to you, right?

I think this sort of mentality was adopted into the major religions.

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.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Well,

pariahjane wrote:
Well, first off, I think the reason that women get the short end of the stick as far as sex goes is because we are the ones bearing the children. Everyone will know that the kid we produce is ours. However, before DNA testing, people could not be certain who the father was. Remember, properties and titles were passed down from father to child (women were basically just property in most cultures). What better way to ensure that your heir is really yours? Threaten the ladies with eternal damnation, stoning, ostracism or anything else to ensure they keep their legs shut. The shorter the leash on women, the less chance of them getting knocked up. Plus, you wouldn't want you neighbor diddling around with what belongs to you, right?

I agree with a lot of what you said but I got to wondering...would ANY of the issues we have today like unwanted pregnancies, STD's, or the issues we have with parents if monogamy was actually practiced by everyone?  I think everyone knows in a utopian scenario things would be way better if people did act better than they do now so I don't consider the issues with sex bad because of actions of women or of men but that of people.  I'm not angel but I realize that sex with emotion is far better than sex for the sake of having sex. 

Worry about STD's, about if they end up pregnant or not, hell worrying about a slew of other crap doesn't enter my mind when I have a girlfriend who I've been with for a while and it doesn't enter my mind now that I've been single for more than a year without.  I'm not going to say it's easy (hell it's hard enough to turn away from it when it's being thrown in my face) and I know I'll give in to it but I'm hoping you'll see my point...

Sex is a great thing but like anything good in our world we should not overindulge.  It's far better when you have sex for the right reasons instead of selfish ones.  That's my view on it anyway...

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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I think that regardless of

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.   

If god takes life he's an indian giver


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I think

pariahjane wrote:
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.

Unwanted pregnancies is almost a contradiction in terms because why would you not want to have a child but want to have sex?  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.  Get my point?

As far as STD's, I'm not debating this however you cannot deny that STD rates are above and beyond what they were say 100 years ago. 

pariahjane wrote:
There are (or were) cultures in which a man can take plural wives; I wonder if within those cultures STDs were more rampant.

Because they did doesn't make them right.  And any time humans were not one man/one woman, STD rates were always higher. 

pariahjane wrote:
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>

Because of how humans are, that is the nurturing side of raising the young, humans CAN be monogamous but choose not to be. 

pariahjane wrote:
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.

I don't agree with that.  I think that people are the reason behind hangups and issues of sex and not steming from religious beliefs.  Sex like with anything else in life isn't meant to be taken for granted and explioted for any means necessary (career advancement or power struggles come to mind) but should be respected as not mearly as an act of mating.

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


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Unwanted pregnancies is almost a contradiction in terms because why would you not want to have a child but want to have sex? 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. Get my point?

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. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


kellym78
atheistRational VIP!
kellym78's picture
Posts: 602
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Didn't you know that we

Didn't you know that we can't talk about sex? GAWD, you're setting atheism back, like, 3000 years. Duh. *rolls eyes* 

razorphreak wrote:

Unwanted pregnancies is almost a contradiction in terms because why would you not want to have a child but want to have sex? 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. Get my point?

So, since I already have three kids and don't want any more, I should never have sex again? Have you ever had sex? 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Unwanted pregnancies is almost a contradiction in terms because why would you not want to have a child but want to have sex?


Don't be silly.
Do you eat only for nourishment?
If you have ever eaten something purely because it was tasty (like a snack that is bad for your health) then you should understand why people will have sex without wanting child.

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

Quote:

the "act of mating" serves a purpose so why get down if you aren't ready to have a child. Get my point?


The purpose from an evolutionary perspective is to pass on our seed, yes. However, evolutionary purpose and our purpose are two very different things. I might not want carry on my genetic line but still want to enjoy the pleasure of sex.


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
People have problems with

People have problems with sex?

Don't see why, a shag's a shag.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Don't be

Strafio wrote:
Don't be silly. Do you eat only for nourishment? If you have ever eaten something purely because it was tasty (like a snack that is bad for your health) then you should understand why people will have sex without wanting child. 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?

Strafio wrote:
The purpose from an evolutionary perspective is to pass on our seed, yes. However, evolutionary purpose and our purpose are two very different things. I might not want carry on my genetic line but still want to enjoy the pleasure of sex.

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. 

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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
djneibarger wrote: every

djneibarger wrote:
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.

First the key here is you said couples.  Casual sex is where the issue is...not monogmous couples. 

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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
kellym78 wrote: So, since I

kellym78 wrote:
So, since I already have three kids and don't want any more, I should never have sex again? Have you ever had sex?

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.

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


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Did I

razorphreak wrote:

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?

The problem I'm seeing is you only allow for the existence of three groups of people in this idea.

1) Married couples who have sex and while they may not be doing it for reproduction will be prepared to raise a child if that is the result.

2) People Abstaining from sex 

3) Wild mindless hedonists raping everything in sight.

 

What about a married couple without the resources wo raise a child?

What about someone who isn't married but has sex with long term partners even though the relationships have never led to marriage? They don't "open up to just anyone", there is a connection it just doesn't last a lifetime.

There's are countless situations and motivations in hich people have sex yet it seems in your mind there are only two. One good, one bad.  

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic wrote: The

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
The problem I'm seeing is you only allow for the existence of three groups of people in this idea.

1) Married couples who have sex and while they may not be doing it for reproduction will be prepared to raise a child if that is the result.

2) People Abstaining from sex

3) Wild mindless hedonists raping everything in sight.

What about a married couple without the resources wo raise a child?

What about someone who isn't married but has sex with long term partners even though the relationships have never led to marriage? They don't "open up to just anyone", there is a connection it just doesn't last a lifetime.

There's are countless situations and motivations in hich people have sex yet it seems in your mind there are only two. One good, one bad.

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.

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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
Unwanted pregnancies is almost a contradiction in terms because why would you not want to have a child but want to have sex?

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. Get my point?

As far as STD's, I'm not debating this however you cannot deny that STD rates are above and beyond what they were say 100 years ago.

I am sure that there have been many children born in this world who wasn't wanted by one or both parents. Monogamus, married couples don't always desire children.

If we follow your second point than a man or woman who is infertile should not have sex. After all, they cannot produce a child so why should they have sex for the sake of sex?

As far as the STDs goes, I don't have the statistics, I can't say with certainty. There are a hell of a lot of more people on the earth now though, the percentage of STDs will rise.

pariahjane wrote:
There are (or were) cultures in which a man can take plural wives; I wonder if within those cultures STDs were more rampant.

razorphreak wrote:
Because they did doesn't make them right. And any time humans were not one man/one woman, STD rates were always higher.

Oh? Who says it's not right? In some cultures, plural wives is perfectly acceptable. You're being ethnocentric.

I also don't think you can say with any confidence that STD rates were higher. There were certainly more plural marriage cultures long ago then there are now.

razorphreak wrote:
Because of how humans are, that is the nurturing side of raising the young, humans CAN be monogamous but choose not to be.

There were indigenous cultures where the entire tribe raised the children together. Raising the kids had nothing to do with monogamy but everything to do with community. Everyone had to stick together to survive, not just the smaller immediate family unit.

razorphreak wrote:
I don't agree with that. I think that people are the reason behind hangups and issues of sex and not steming from religious beliefs. Sex like with anything else in life isn't meant to be taken for granted and explioted for any means necessary (career advancement or power struggles come to mind) but should be respected as not mearly as an act of mating.

I didn't say religion was the reason. I said that people were and religions just adopted the current culture to become more acceptable. Sex back then was about ownership and business. You married your daughter off to the Lord next door in the hopes that the two families could unite and he won't attack you or take your lands. Kings and Queens did it all the time. Women were property and so were the children they produced. Not producing a son in many cultures shames the family, makes them look... less. Marriage was essentially a contract. Shit, the bride's family even paid the groom to take her. It was called a dowry.

I'm confused by your last statement. You don't think people should have sex if they cannot mate but you want sex to be respected as not merely an act of mating.

 

 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I never

razorphreak wrote:

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?


So now you're saying that there's nothing wrong with enjoying something for pleasure, just that we should rationally abstain from excess where it would cause harmful consequences...
That's very different from "you should only have sex if you want to make babies" and I don't think anyone disagrees with you anymore.

Quote:

As do I but that doesn't mean I'm going to start humping everything in sight because I enjoy it.


You think that atheists go around humping everything in sight? Smiling
I'll explain the difference between dogma followers and freethinkers when it comes to sex. (incidently, many Christians I know treat sex with a freethinker perspective!)
The freethinker enjoys pleasure, is aware of the consequences so rationally behaves in a way that will bring an optimum between pleasure and consequence.
The dogmatic will follow the rule blindly (not realising that this is unhealthy for emotional reasons) and then they'll try and justify following the dogma with practical reasons, but if they really believed in this practical reasons then the dogma wouldn't be necessary. They would act practically themselves, justifying purely on practical consequences. However, as they treat their attitude to sex like an unbreakable dogma rather than something they are genuinely open to reasoning on, it just comes across as making excuses.

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?

Quote:
And I shouldn't approach it like that either for reasons I already gave.


The only reason I saw was the "sex is a function for making babies" but we already refuted that, showed that you don't really agree with it yourself. Which other reasons do you have?


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Again

razorphreak wrote:
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.


Fair enough. You've clarified what you're against.
So what are your reasons against flings and one night stands?
Clearly STDs and unwanted pregnancies are a risk but if you take the right precautions then that risk is negligible. Have you any other reasons?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: So now

Strafio wrote:
So now you're saying that there's nothing wrong with enjoying something for pleasure, just that we should rationally abstain from excess where it would cause harmful consequences... That's very different from "you should only have sex if you want to make babies" and I don't think anyone disagrees with you anymore.

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.

Strafio wrote:
You think that atheists go around humping everything in sight?

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. 

Strafio wrote:
So what are your reasons against flings and one night stands? Clearly STDs and unwanted pregnancies are a risk but if you take the right precautions then that risk is negligible. Have you any other reasons?

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?

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


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: I am sure

pariahjane wrote:
I am sure that there have been many children born in this world who wasn't wanted by one or both parents. Monogamus, married couples don't always desire children.

Which is why I said there are options.  Having children however is one reason for the act of sex so if you are not prepared for what can result, shouldn't you at least think about it before going nuts?

pariahjane wrote:
If we follow your second point than a man or woman who is infertile should not have sex. After all, they cannot produce a child so why should they have sex for the sake of sex?

Just like I posted in my last response, I never said sex was only for babies.  The point in which you are prepared for a child to be the result typically comes from being in a relationship first.  Now if you are infertile, does that mean you have an excuse to open up at any time with anyone?  Maybe....but should you? 

pariahjane wrote:
As far as the STDs goes, I don't have the statistics, I can't say with certainty. There are a hell of a lot of more people on the earth now though, the percentage of STDs will rise.

How bout this for starters... 

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/trends2005.htm

You can see from the charts that when society opens up to the idea of casual sex, the rates spike.  Gonorrhea spikes each time there was a trend for casual sex; World War 2, the "free love" movement, but you could see after 1980, when the AIDS epidemic started getting more attention, the rates started to go down.  Over the last decade you can see though they level off...I saw a recent article I think on MSNBC where it asked the question, are we more concerned about Mr/Mrs Right-now instead of Mr/Mrs Right?  I mean after all the whole "friends with benefits" is far more popular than ever before.

pariahjane wrote:
Oh? Who says it's not right? In some cultures, plural wives is perfectly acceptable. You're being ethnocentric.

I also don't think you can say with any confidence that STD rates were higher. There were certainly more plural marriage cultures long ago then there are now.

When you take how people lived in the 50's vs. in the 60's when it became socially acceptable to swap partners, the charts from the CDC show a spike in STD's.

As far as multiple wives, tell me would you marry someone who already was with another woman?  Why?  Why not? 

pariahjane wrote:
Sex back then was about ownership and business. You married your daughter off to the Lord next door in the hopes that the two families could unite and he won't attack you or take your lands. Kings and Queens did it all the time. Women were property and so were the children they produced. Not producing a son in many cultures shames the family, makes them look... less. Marriage was essentially a contract. Shit, the bride's family even paid the groom to take her. It was called a dowry.

Granted, but then we are talking about societial issues no?  Let's bring it back to this decade and stick to only America.

pariahjane wrote:
I'm confused by your last statement. You don't think people should have sex if they cannot mate but you want sex to be respected as not merely an act of mating.

First clairify where I said sex was only for mating.

Second, what I mean is we know there are people out there who use sex to further their career, get better grades, so on.   Doesn't that show a disrespect for the act itself?

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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
Having children however is one reason for the act of sex so if you are not prepared for what can result, shouldn't you at least think about it before going nuts?

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.

razorphreak wrote:
Just like I posted in my last response, I never said sex was only for babies. The point in which you are prepared for a child to be the result typically comes from being in a relationship first. Now if you are infertile, does that mean you have an excuse to open up at any time with anyone? Maybe....but should you?

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.

razorphreak wrote:
When you take how people lived in the 50's vs. in the 60's when it became socially acceptable to swap partners, the charts from the CDC show a spike in STD's.

As far as multiple wives, tell me would you marry someone who already was with another woman? Why? Why not?

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.

razorphreak wrote:
Granted, but then we are talking about societial issues no? Let's bring it back to this decade and stick to only America.

That's boring! Smiling 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.

razorphreak wrote:
Second, what I mean is we know there are people out there who use sex to further their career, get better grades, so on. Doesn't that show a disrespect for the act itself?

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]

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: WHOA

razorphreak wrote:

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.


My bad... sometimes these things linger in the background as unstated assumptions. Anyway, you've cleared it up now so I'll just answer the bits that weren't based on misunderstanding. Smiling

Quote:

Well first you do know there are STD's you can get even with a condom on right?


Good point. Even 'safe' promiscuity can have risks.
However, I'm not sure that the risks are significant enough to stop me doing it. Most good things in life have some kind of risk attached. If there was a large epidemic of these STDs then I would certainly be a lot more careful!

Another point is that promiscuity isn't necessarily with strangers. It can often be with friends who you know and have that kind of relationship with them (with a bit of sex on the side), just without the commital 'official' kind of relationship.

Quote:
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?

At different times in your life you will have different needs.
At some point in my life I will be in love with a girl and won't need another. Other times I will be single, unattached, and looking for like-minded people to have fun with. I think that taking full advantage of 'free and single' periods is essential for several reasons. It's even beneficial to your next relationship - living the 'free and single' life is the best way to get 'bored' of it so you are ready to settle down and properly appreciate a relationship, while repressing it would leave an untapped desire that might haunt all of your future relationships.

Quote:
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?


Sure. Someday I will settle down properly and raise a family.
However, it will work because I will be naturally ready and because I have done my fair share of flings and one night stands. When I brought up 'dogma', I didn't just mean the religious sort - I meant social dogmas like political correctness as well. Girls in particular, but guys as well, can be looked down upon for being 'themselves' and this might force them to 'settle down' for the wrong reasons, and as a result of being socially forced into the kind of relationship that isn't right for them at that moment in time and this will result in a bad relationship.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: Do you

pariahjane wrote:
Do you mean that people should be aware of the consequences for the actions? Yes, absolutely.

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

pariahjane wrote:
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.

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. 

pariahjane wrote:
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.

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.

pariahjane wrote:
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.

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. 

pariahjane wrote:
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.

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.

pariahjane wrote:
That's boring! Smiling I think it's important to look at other cultures and history in order to understand why we are the way we are 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.

pariahjane wrote:
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.

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

pariahjane wrote:
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.

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?

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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Sex and sexuality is a

Sex and sexuality is a complex issue.  The WHY of sex is equally complex as well.  

ParanoidAgnostic mentioned in the original thread the negativity that surrounds fetishes.  Why is that?  I don't necessarily care what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors.  Do I think some of it is really fucking weird?  Yes, I do.  But it's their right to do it and if it's not hurting anyone, then there shouldn't be an issue.

Why do we have sex? First off, I'm going to take the child-bearing aspect completely out of it for now.  There are probably a million different reasons why people have sex.  People have sex because they love one another, people do it because it feels great, people do it because they are bored or peer pressure and so on.

 We need to clarify exactly what sex is.  Are we just talking about intercourse or are we taking into account the whole nine yards - foreplay, flirting, oral, anal, etc?

What influences our sexual behavior?  Why do we have the viewpoints we have?  Where did these views come from?  

These are just a few of the questions that need to be discussed. 

 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Good point.

Strafio wrote:
Good point. Even 'safe' promiscuity can have risks. However, I'm not sure that the risks are significant enough to stop me doing it.

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?

Strafio wrote:
Most good things in life have some kind of risk attached. If there was a large epidemic of these STDs then I would certainly be a lot more careful!

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. 

Strafio wrote:
At different times in your life you will have different needs. At some point in my life I will be in love with a girl and won't need another. Other times I will be single, unattached, and looking for like-minded people to have fun with. I think that taking full advantage of 'free and single' periods is essential for several reasons. It's even beneficial to your next relationship - living the 'free and single' life is the best way to get 'bored' of it so you are ready to settle down and properly appreciate a relationship, while repressing it would leave an untapped desire that might haunt all of your future relationships.

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.

Strafio wrote:
Sure. Someday I will settle down properly and raise a family. However, it will work because I will be naturally ready and because I have done my fair share of flings and one night stands. When I brought up 'dogma', I didn't just mean the religious sort - I meant social dogmas like political correctness as well. Girls in particular, but guys as well, can be looked down upon for being 'themselves' and this might force them to 'settle down' for the wrong reasons, and as a result of being socially forced into the kind of relationship that isn't right for them at that moment in time and this will result in a bad relationship.

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.

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


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Oh, and

razorphreak wrote:

Oh, and since it is a virus, you get it, you are stuck with it.

Do we have someone with the knowledge to comment on this. This sounds like misinformation as part of a larger scare tactic. I would think it this were true anyone who ever got the flu would be stuck with it for life. I know wh don't have much in the way of drugs to fight virii (compared to bacteria) but our immune system does a good job on most of them.

It may be the case that you are stuck with the particular virus mentioned but I'm preety sure it's not the case (in terms of infectiousness or symptoms) for every virus.

Quote:
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.

I don't dissagree with you personally. I wouldn't sleep with someone I didn't know well enough to be fairly confident I wasn't going to catch something. However I also believe that on issues of personal consiquences it's up to the individual how much risk they want to take.

It is really that different to the calculated risks of crossing a road, eating at a restaurant, sykdiving. To me it seems like the only difference is the fact that we have such a hang up over sex.

When you cross a road you dont' know if the drivers are tired, or drunk or hormonal teenage boys. When you eat at a restaurant you dont know if the chef has some horrible illness or if the kitchen is full of rats. When you go sky diving you don't know if your parachute is going to fail.

 

Quote:
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. 

Excuse me? When you play tennis with a friend it is not a mutual sharing event? I'm not much of a sportsman but when I play computer/card/board games with people there is a connection. It is a social interaction and strengthens personal bonds.

I wouldn't want to play tennis with you if you consider it a completely selfish experience.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane Thanks for

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. 

pariahjane wrote:

ParanoidAgnostic mentioned in the original thread the negativity that surrounds fetishes.  Why is that?  I don't necessarily care what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors.  Do I think some of it is really fucking weird?  Yes, I do.  But it's their right to do it and if it's not hurting anyone, then there shouldn't be an issue.

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.

Quote:
We need to clarify exactly what sex is.  Are we just talking about intercourse or are we taking into account the whole nine yards - foreplay, flirting, oral, anal, etc?

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.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Second,

razorphreak wrote:
Second, what I mean is we know there are people out there who use sex to further their career, get better grades, so on.   Doesn't that show a disrespect for the act itself?

A disrespect for the act? I think that statement get to the core of the issue. Can you disrespect the act of breathing, cooking, running, laughing or painting? Sex is not some entity that commands respect. Other than reproduction (which isn't an issue in any sexual act other than unprotected heterosexual penetrative sex - which is only one of many possiblities) any meaning it has is meaning we have placed on it.

If sex for you represents a bond beteween you and your partner then fine, that's the meaning you have placed on it. It's the same for me, sex is about intimacy so I wouldn't so it with someone I didn't already feel a strong connection with. But that is the meaning I have placed on sex.

Others may get something different out of sex. They have no basis to say I'm wrong, and I have no basis to say they are wrong. we also have no reason to argue with eachother about it, someone else having casual sex with a stranger does not in any way devalue the intimacy of sex for me.

  

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:
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?

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. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Strafio

razorphreak wrote:

Strafio wrote:
Good point. Even 'safe' promiscuity can have risks. However, I'm not sure that the risks are significant enough to stop me doing it.

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?


Not sure about your statistics here, but you realise that touching or kissing a person is just as bad?

Quote:

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.


No it doesn't. Not necessarily.
Playing a game is often about learning to enjoy it.
That's why I won't always play to win if I think it'll be more fun to play more relaxed. Even people who have just met can spark off a passion in each other, even if this passion doesn't survive past the morning.

Quote:
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.

You have the memories.
Sometimes a bond with a person is only supposed to be a small moment. And you don't always have to share an emotional bond. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on how sex is ideally but I disagree that it should always be absolutely ideal and perfect. I think that's putting it on too much of a pedastal.

Quote:
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. [At this point I was about to say: "You know this from personal experience? Huh?] Being that I've been there before, [I see! Smiling] 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.


You found from personal experience that it didn't really work for you. If you care about whether they are doing it for the act or you (although I don't see how it's necessarily one or the other...) then maybe you're personally suited to relationships. I'm not sure you would ever have appreciated relationships as you do now had you not personally tried and found disatisfaction with the other way.

Quote:

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.


Marriage isn't simply enjoying companionship, it's an official commitment "till death do us part" and would be a big deal to break. I know that there can be bad consequences for the misuse of sex but so far I don't see a serious risk in a limited amount of promiscuity.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:

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

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

Textom wrote:
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.

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.

Textom wrote:
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.

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.

Textom wrote:
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.

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.

Textom wrote:
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.

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.

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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

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. 

pariahjane wrote:

ParanoidAgnostic mentioned in the original thread the negativity that surrounds fetishes.  Why is that?  I don't necessarily care what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors.  Do I think some of it is really fucking weird?  Yes, I do.  But it's their right to do it and if it's not hurting anyone, then there shouldn't be an issue.

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.

Quote:
We need to clarify exactly what sex is.  Are we just talking about intercourse or are we taking into account the whole nine yards - foreplay, flirting, oral, anal, etc?

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.

I have to agree with you as far as our desire to conform.  But why are we so uptight about sex now?  When was the Kama Sutra written?  What about all the phalluses and erotic mosaics of Pompeii?  I believe there is a sect of women in China called the White Tigress and their entire spirituality revolves around semen.  So, what changed?

Sex and sexuality is culture based.  We learn our taboos from those around us.  Some taboos were instilled because it was necessary for survival.  For example, some tribes long ago made it taboo to have sex with a woman after she's had a child.  There was a certain time period the couple had to wait.  It made sense because if they had sex too closely together, the woman would get pregnant and having two babies at such a close age would have compromised the woman's health, and that of her children. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Not sure

Strafio wrote:
Not sure about your statistics here, but you realise that touching or kissing a person is just as bad?

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.

Strafio wrote:
No it doesn't. Not necessarily. Playing a game is often about learning to enjoy it. That's why I won't always play to win if I think it'll be more fun to play more relaxed. Even people who have just met can spark off a passion in each other, even if this passion doesn't survive past the morning.

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. 

Strafio wrote:
You have the memories. Sometimes a bond with a person is only supposed to be a small moment. And you don't always have to share an emotional bond. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on how sex is ideally but I disagree that it should always be absolutely ideal and perfect. I think that's putting it on too much of a pedastal.

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. 

Strafio wrote:
You found from personal experience that it didn't really work for you. If you care about whether they are doing it for the act or you (although I don't see how it's necessarily one or the other...) then maybe you're personally suited to relationships. I'm not sure you would ever have appreciated relationships as you do now had you not personally tried and found disatisfaction with the other way.

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.

Strafio wrote:
Marriage isn't simply enjoying companionship, it's an official commitment "till death do us part" and would be a big deal to break. I know that there can be bad consequences for the misuse of sex but so far I don't see a serious risk in a limited amount of promiscuity.

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? 

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


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
My point in getting the

My point in getting the most accurate numbers possible into this discussion, razorphreak, is to try to encourage you away from a position that resembles the unethical rhetoric of the abstinence movement and acknowledge a more realistic assessment of how humans actually behave.  It still seems like you're presenting the possibility of getting an STD as some kind of overwhelming argument for why everyone should always avoid certain behaviors. 

Not sure if you're aware of this, but the STD scare tactic, along with the "sex is soooo wonderful it should be saved for marriage" idea are Richard Ross talking points picked up by the rest of the abstinence movement.  Telling people that sex without marriage is no fun only works on people who have no experience to judge otherwise.  I have a problem with any way of teaching that deliberately encourages and exploits ignorance in order to control behavior. 

Leaving young people ignorant about STD prevention is likewise unconscionable.  A teacher's job is to teach, and leaving your students in a position where they could lose their lives because you didn't give them the information they needed is the worst kind of betrayal.

Fear is never a good long term motivator.  Historically,  the possibility of an STD has never been an effective argument in getting people to abstain.  Ignorance, only works until the genie gets out of the bottle.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Why do we have so many problems with sex?

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.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:

Textom wrote:
My point in getting the most accurate numbers possible into this discussion, razorphreak, is to try to encourage you away from a position that resembles the unethical rhetoric of the abstinence movement and acknowledge a more realistic assessment of how humans actually behave. It still seems like you're presenting the possibility of getting an STD as some kind of overwhelming argument for why everyone should always avoid certain behaviors.

Then in your own assumptions you obviously don't know anything about me nor are you asking questions to find out.

Presenting STD facts is by no means meant to be a scare tactic but to illustrate the point that risky behavior comes with some pretty bad consequences. Having sex with someone you just meant isn't a good idea because of those risks. It's not meant as a fear statement but rather "think before you leap" point.

Textom wrote:
Telling people that sex without marriage is no fun only works on people who have no experience to judge otherwise. I have a problem with any way of teaching that deliberately encourages and exploits ignorance in order to control behavior.

And who said that? I didn't. What I have been implying however is sex when in a committed relationship (note I did not say marriage) is the smart way to approach being intimate with someone. That's it.  The phrase "you must be married before sex" was never uttered by me.

Textom wrote:
Fear is never a good long term motivator. Historically, the possibility of an STD has never been an effective argument in getting people to abstain. Ignorance, only works until the genie gets out of the bottle.

Again fear is not what is intended. If the numbers scare you, well they should because if you walk into a bar and see 200 single women (or men, whichever way you look at things) and 50 of those have HSV but you don't have any clue as to which 50 they are, are you going to walk out the bar because the odds are overwhelming oooooor are you going to think twice about just doing it for the screw?

Oh yea....who said ANYTHING about abstainance?

I think you reeeeeeeeally need to one start reading a bit closer and two stop the assumptions and ask questions.

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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Shall we try to bring this

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

Razor, why do you think masturbation is frowned upon in our particular society?  After all, when you masturbate, you're not hurting anyone. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote:

pariahjane wrote:

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

Razor, why do you think masturbation is frowned upon in our particular society? After all, when you masturbate, you're not hurting anyone.

Oh that's easy...cause if you do it too much you'll go blind! LOL

There is nothing wrong with any person masturbating. It's not something that should be frowned upon but I think it is because if you are doing it, it shows you were having impure thoughts and pleasuring yourself while having impure thoughts shows evil. Remember from the bible (for an example OK guys, oh and by the way this really is the only spot in the bible that deals with "impure thoughts" on sex) in the words from the NT, Jesus gives the example that if you look upon a married women with an impure thought you committed adultery. Hence why masturbation shows impure thoughts as considered "evil" and since that can be (falsely) related to deviants (sexual predators, murderers, so on), masturbation can be considered a clue to future problems to integration of that person into society. That's the best explanation I've got for society's attitude on masturbation.

For the record, this is what I've heard from others...I do not prescribe to it.

Now my two cents on masturbation would be one, everyone does it at some point and it is perfectly natural to do. Two, if you are doing it far too often (that is you'd rather play with one eyed Willie than say go out with friends) you might want to consider finding you a mate and put sex in your life. From a humanist point of view I think masturbation in extremes could be bad from a mental standpoint since it is better, way way better, to have an active sex life with another person.

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


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Razor!  lol. I

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. 

If god takes life he's an indian giver


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
My bad, Razor.  Some of

My bad, Razor.  Some of your positions as stated sounded to me like True Love Waits (tm) talking points.  I'm glad to hear that they aren't and happy that we agree on the importance of accurate information.  Cool.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Playing

razorphreak wrote:

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.


My point was that playing it like a game doesn't make it selfish.
When I said "I don't always play to win" I had in mind situations where pummeling my opponent would make it less fun for them when I would rather make the game fun for both of us. When you play a game with someone you aren't necessarily being selfish, in that you care whether your partner is enjoying it too.

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.

Quote:
When you put things "on a pedestal" you appreciate them all the more

Major disagreement from me here.
When you put something on a pedestal you idealise how you think it ought to be and then become less capable of appreciating it for what is actually is.

Quote:
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.

I don't disagree with this.
However, you then go a step further and say that we shouldn't settle for less. That's when the snobbery and idealising come in. You also claimed that recognising sex's procreational function was the best way to make it 'meaningful'. I fail to see how.

Quote:
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.

There's more to a 'relationship' than just companionship, and there are times in your life when you don't want to make heavy commitments, just have some light hearted fun with a stranger.

Quote:
Tell me, what is your definition of marriage?

My current view on marriage is a combination of a serious commitment, a legal binding and an iconic celebration. I might get married someday - I'll know if/when the time is right. Then again, I might never get into the kind of relationship that requires that kind of commitment.

Quote:
Now if you are sleeping with two different people, wouldn't that, in a different light, be adultery?


Depends. If I had agreed with a partner to be exclusive then sleeping with another would be a break of trust and in that effect adultery. If we had an open relationship where we had both agreed certain freedoms then it would be fine.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: After his

Textom wrote:

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.

So he had his fun, felt guilty and decided that the rest of us should pay for it? He's first on the list when I discover time travel.

Augustine of Hippo (I really hope he was obese) sounds like some inverse Jesus Christ. He sinned, so the rest of us will suffer for it.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: In other

Strafio wrote:
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.

Strafio wrote:
Major disagreement from me here. When you put something on a pedestal you idealise how you think it ought to be and then become less capable of appreciating it for what is actually is.

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.

Strafio wrote:
I don't disagree with this. However, you then go a step further and say that we shouldn't settle for less. That's when the snobbery and idealising come in. You also claimed that recognising sex's procreational function was the best way to make it 'meaningful'. I fail to see how.

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. 

Strafio wrote:
There's more to a 'relationship' than just companionship, and there are times in your life when you don't want to make heavy commitments, just have some light hearted fun with a stranger.

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. 

Strafio wrote:
My current view on marriage is a combination of a serious commitment, a legal binding and an iconic celebration. I might get married someday - I'll know if/when the time is right. Then again, I might never get into the kind of relationship that requires that kind of commitment.

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. 

Strafio wrote:
Depends. If I had agreed with a partner to be exclusive then sleeping with another would be a break of trust and in that effect adultery. If we had an open relationship where we had both agreed certain freedoms then it would be fine.

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. 

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


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Okay, Razorphreak, now this

Okay, Razorphreak, now this most recent post is setting up a false dilemma:

If I'm reading your argument right, you claim there are only two kinds of romantic relationships.  (1) committed, binding, exclusive monogamous relationships that people should seek and (2) casual, selfish, illusionary relationships that people should avoid. As with all false dilemmas, this argument can only reach its conclusion by denying that anything exists between the two extremes.

I'm especially disagreeing with your argument that any relationship other than the idealized one presented as good here is automatically (1) selfish (2) disrespectful to the partner (3) illusionary and (4) unhealthy--and all four of these things necessarily going together.  These are the sentiments of some delusional fantasy world.

I'm sure the experience of many posters here, including myself,  says that there are a range of relationships between your two extremes, including the non-selfish, respectful, giving, yet casual relationship that you both walk away from without bad feelings and are a better person afterward because of it.  I personally know for sure that I wouldn't have had the emotional toolbox that has contributed to my having been happily married for 10+ years if I hadn't gone through some of the casual relationships I had when I was younger.

Also hopefully you're aware that the one-man-one-woman type marriage resulting from romantic love is an anomaly in human history.  Until very recently, marrigages were mostly a matter of economics (and still are in many parts of the world) and the majority of human cultures have always been polygamous.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: If I'm

Textom wrote:
If I'm reading your argument right, you claim there are only two kinds of romantic relationships. (1) committed, binding, exclusive monogamous relationships that people should seek and (2) casual, selfish, illusionary relationships that people should avoid. As with all false dilemmas, this argument can only reach its conclusion by denying that anything exists between the two extremes.

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. 

Textom wrote:
I'm sure the experience of many posters here, including myself, says that there are a range of relationships between your two extremes, including the non-selfish, respectful, giving, yet casual relationship that you both walk away from without bad feelings and are a better person afterward because of it.

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). 

Textom wrote:
I personally know for sure that I wouldn't have had the emotional toolbox that has contributed to my having been happily married for 10+ years if I hadn't gone through some of the casual relationships I had when I was younger.

What exactly are "casual relationships" to you? 

Textom wrote:
Also hopefully you're aware that the one-man-one-woman type marriage resulting from romantic love is an anomaly in human history. Until very recently, marrigages were mostly a matter of economics (and still are in many parts of the world) and the majority of human cultures have always been polygamous.

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?

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


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: You've

razorphreak wrote:

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.

Some examples:

-Two people who both just want to share physical intimacy, with emotional attachment either as a non-factor or as a secondary.

-Friends with benefits.

- Two people who think they might be interested in a long term committment giving it a go together to see what happens, and it doesn't work out eventually but they're both better off as a result.

-Married couples where both participants have agreed that they no longer want to be intimate with each other--but still don't want a divorce--and where one or both have long-term romantic relationships (and sometimes children) with a third person with full knowledge and consent of the marriage partner. (This used to be a common pattern among upper middle class Catholics in the U.S. and Western Europe.)

-Genuinely polyamourous people--and they do exist, you can find their Web communities--with functional, stable, long-term relationships that allow them to have sexual relations with people outside the marriage (with knowledge and consent of the partner).

razorphreak wrote:
Textom wrote:
I'm sure the experience of many posters here, including myself, says that there are a range of relationships between your two extremes, including the non-selfish, respectful, giving, yet casual relationship that you both walk away from without bad feelings and are a better person afterward because of it.

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.

Yep, I have experienced that.  You have to be honest and up-front and keep track of expectations, but it can be done.  I have also experienced the ones that end badly. But just because it's possible for something to go wrong doesn't mean it has to be always avoided at all costs. Getting the most out of your life requires taking appropriate risks.

razorphreak wrote:

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.

Right, and here's where I think the false dilemma is spelled out pretty concisely. Besides the two options of either being selfish or sharing your life, there's also the possibility of sharing part of your life, or a certain amount of time in your life, and the outcome is not always negative.

razorphreak wrote:
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).

Unless the other person wants a casual or short-term relationship, in which case all those long-term expectations can be a burden on the other person.

razorphreak wrote:
What exactly are "casual relationships" to you?

A romantic relationship including physical intimacy but without the expectation of long-term committment.

 

razorphreak wrote:
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?

Well polygamy (that is, multiple wives with one husband) is mostly economic/environmental again. But check out the polyamorous community--they have good reliable evidence that, for some people at least, it is possible to share these polymorphous sexual relationships in a healthy way.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Yep, I have

Textom wrote:
Yep, I have experienced that. You have to be honest and up-front and keep track of expectations, but it can be done. I have also experienced the ones that end badly. But just because it's possible for something to go wrong doesn't mean it has to be always avoided at all costs. Getting the most out of your life requires taking appropriate risks.

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

Textom wrote:
-Two people who both just want to share physical intimacy, with emotional attachment either as a non-factor or as a secondary. - motivation: self-centered desire first for the intimacy and then something romantic.  Few women do this because of that second part.

-Friends with benefits. - motivation: self-centered desire for sex. Everyone knows when the benefits end, so does the friendship.  It's rare to say otherwise.

- Two people who think they might be interested in a long term committment giving it a go together to see what happens, and it doesn't work out eventually but they're both better off as a result. - motivation: now we are talking about someone who isn't going in it with a selfish desire.  To commit to someone else means giving part of you to that other person.  If it doesn't work OK but you aren't doing it for a selfish desire.  And wanting "love" isn't being selfish; it's part of who we are.

-Married couples where both participants have agreed that they no longer want to be intimate with each other--but still don't want a divorce--and where one or both have long-term romantic relationships (and sometimes children) with a third person with full knowledge and consent of the marriage partner. (This used to be a common pattern among upper middle class Catholics in the U.S. and Western Europe.)- motivation: see this I question. If you are married but are no longer "in love" with the person first I'd have to wonder what caused the end of that. People don't just fall out of love; my personal opinion on the issue is "love" never existed in that relationship. I say this because if I ask you to tell me the first person you ever fell for, you'd remember.  You'll also remember the feeling you had for that person and how it was basically impossible to be with anyone else.  If your mind is straying outside the relationship you are in, you aren't thinking in that same way.  Now this is my own opinion on the deal and I've yet to meet anyone who would make me think otherwise, which obviously means that I just haven't met that person but they might exist.  I think it might take more than a forum explanation to figure if that's really the case though.

-Genuinely polyamourous people--and they do exist, you can find their Web communities--with functional, stable, long-term relationships that allow them to have sexual relations with people outside the marriage (with knowledge and consent of the partner).- motivation: when people claim this is healthy, well that's when I ask, do you love one more than the other?  Do you love either of them  like you do yourself?  Can love be split?

 

Textom wrote:
Right, and here's where I think the false dilemma is spelled out pretty concisely. Besides the two options of either being selfish or sharing your life, there's also the possibility of sharing part of your life, or a certain amount of time in your life, and the outcome is not always negative.

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. 

Textom wrote:
A romantic relationship including physical intimacy but without the expectation of long-term committment.

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.

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