What's the deal with sex?

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

You are right that is tough. Good catch.

You know, it only feels good because it is necessary for reproduction, so, how does the biology know before the person does what is necessary and will feel good?
If you think about it, it is like Hemingways description of a French public toilet: Unsanitary. And if it is you in the act -it is serious business already, and everyone involved is cool. Sure. But watch a movie of someone else in the act, and it is like two monkeys wrestling over a cocanut neither can crack. You want to laugh except for the thought that you look just like that monkey, only ooglier, and she looks only ooglier too. It's got to be love that makes such indignity into a great pleasure. I can't find any other excuse for doing it..

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

I also find this interesting. If a community starts defining what beauty and virtue are, they essentially say what ugliness and vice are by the very fact that they are defining what virtue and beauty are. (thus the community also defines what vice and ugliness is) Or am I reading you incorrectly?

-----

Morality comes from a time when family and community were each person's hold on survival, and there was no other way of seeing family and community than as good. Are we so far from that point? Surely we do not see strangers as animals that can be killed or tamed indiscriminantly? How do we see them? As dangerous? Do you take candy from strangers like Kieth Richards? The point is, that while morality has some conscious attributes because people are forever trying to form a law around it; it is ultimately little more than a feeling for family and group, and one that takes heed of the common wisdom regarding strangers. Community is formed by the conscious choice of each person to be there. As much as you want to be out, you are out. As much as you want to be in you are in. It is not communities as abstractions which make morality, but the general love of community, and the feeling each person holds for the common welfare. The question is: what kind of person brings enemies down upon the community. What kind of person goes off an brings back disease to the community. What kind of enemy seeks to destroy the community from within or without? Good and bad, virtue and vice mark the border of the community. What side of the line do you stand on?

In regard to the sex thing, A parent and a community are responsible for the behavior of their children. It is their honor, and to their credit that they keep their hands to themselves. More than this, if that honor, which is to say virginity is not intact; then how can anything but wounded honor be pledged in marriage, which is actually a peace treaty from old and ancient times binding communities and families upon their oaths. Now, we cannot control our children and we are thought to be rank monters if we try. All our kids get a brand new toy when they reach that certain age, and how can we say they can't play with it? Marriages are good for nothing, because they have to be no better, and because families and communities are powerless to even enforce their own oaths made freely by their own. There is one boss in town now, and that is the law; and what the law don't see it cannot see to disagree. It does not matter that it is more powerful than anyone because it cannot see or be everywhere. So the more of law we have, the less we have of honor, and the more we have of crime, and the more law we need.

@Fido,

Wow! A very nice post, eloquent indeed. I am starting to understand this simplitic way of thinking about morality, its an intuitive feel for what is right and wrong according to how it affects others, relationships and recipricol emotional ties. Nice.

I laughed aloud when I read sex is oogly. I think it is also (unless i'm doing it). It is like this barbaric act that we ought to be able to escape or rise above; the quakers did, and where did it get them? did you read the wonderfully enlightening attachments that Teena posted? Very informative. We are so animalistic.

@ogden,

There is nothing inherently wrong about sex; it isn't something we should rise above. I understand the concerns about sex - it is easy for sex to become a very selfish act, and for poor relationships to cause great harm. But it seems the problems are no different with sex than with anything else man does - selfishness, greed, lust, and every other mindless reaction we so often have.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

There is nothing inherently wrong about sex; it isn't something we should rise above. I understand the concerns about sex - it is easy for sex to become a very selfish act, and for poor relationships to cause great harm. But it seems the problems are no different with sex than with anything else man does - selfishness, greed, lust, and every other mindless reaction we so often have.

Ya, sex is no different than any of our other problems, and that is why I recommend it!
Thanks Ogden.

If you can see sex as a form of relationship, which is to say, objectively, like any other form of relationship, then what is true for one is true for the other. Of couse we know this is not true, right? Sex is special. Some times forms become just forms, formalities. Some time people get off and go back to hating each other. Some time it is bought and sold. Some times it is used to make a sale. It is good to be aware fo the powerful emotional effect it has on us; but also good to know, that like all forms of relationship, that it is best if the relationship is between equals, between people having equal power in their lives, with none having greater power over the other. The form should not dominate the relationship. To me, the greatest problem associated with sex is that it reflects only too well the general condition of society. Sexual exploitation always follows economic exploitation. Sex is often the last labor of the lost.

@Fido,

I'm not sure the relationship of sex needs to be viewed objectively. The subjective nature of sex seems fairly apparent. What I'm suggesting is that the ethical problems of sex are little different than the ethical problems of anything else; only the circumstances change (which is true of any ethical situation).

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm not sure the relationship of sex needs to be viewed objectively. The subjective nature of sex seems fairly apparent. What I'm suggesting is that the ethical problems of sex are little different than the ethical problems of anything else; only the circumstances change (which is true of any ethical situation).

I think that whether we like it or not we have to have some objective view of sex and sexuality. Sex is hard to avoid, for anyone. It is right in front of us when we look in the mrirror, and it is essential to our being. Even while sex has alot of subjective meaning depending upon who the other is; it also must have an objective value to the whole of society, and the whole of humanity.
So; how do you view the circumstances objectively. I view them so by either looking at the form, and all the judgements and prejudices regarding (for example), sex as a form, or I look at the relationship compared to all relationships. It does not matter if you are bumping with someone or doing the dishes with them, the relationship is the same, right? You do not become different people just by changing activities, or as the case may be, forms. And, people do change forms, again, without becoming different. If you are the kind to take it on the freeway you might be the sort to take it in bed. As one, now long dead used to say: The only difference between assholes and mudder fudders is that for the mudders there is some hope. Some forms have got more hope than others. As the poles people always live between, forms and relationships can each be made to serve as a control for the other. If you say that all forms are the same in some respect you can measure relationship against relationship. If you say that in some respects every relationship is like any other, then you can measure forms one against the other. Do you think it is too simple?

@Fido,

Yes Didymos, sex is not inately wrong, nor is it something we should rise above (I stand corrected). Yes sexual morality is like any other moral/ethical delema (only the circumstances change).

And yes Fido sexuality is a form of relationship, and can be viewed in comparison with other relationships.

A relationship requires effect/interaction between two or more, wrether the effect is intentional or unintentional. Usually the interaction is reciprical but not neccessarilly.

Imorality is an act or effect that is harmfull to another/others, especially when done with malice, but also when done with selfish disregard.

so sexual imorality would be a sexual relationship that is harmfull to someone either malisiously or motivated by selfish disregard.

The grey area is who defines what is harmfull. By that I mean; when the interaction is consentual but is precieved as offensive, could it somehow still be harmfull? Poligamist are concentual partners that are not harmed in the relationship but still viewed by some as wrong/imoral. Pornograpy might be another example.

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

Yes Didymos, sex is not inately wrong, nor is it something we should rise above (I stand corrected). Yes sexual morality is like any other moral/ethical delema (only the circumstances change).

And yes Fido sexuality is a form of relationship, and can be viewed in comparison with other relationships.

A relationship requires effect/interaction between two or more, wrether the effect is intentional or unintentional. Usually the interaction is reciprical but not neccessarilly.

Imorality is an act or effect that is harmfull to another/others, especially when done with malice, but also when done with selfish disregard.

so sexual imorality would be a sexual relationship that is harmfull to someone either malisiously or motivated by selfish disregard.

The grey area is who defines what is harmfull. By that I mean; when the interaction is consentual but is precieved as offensive, could it somehow still be harmfull? Poligamist are concentual partners that are not harmed in the relationship but still viewed by some as wrong/imoral. Pornograpy might be another example.

I take the psychological definition of morality, even if there are rules we associate with morality, one does not have to break them, or any rules to be immoral. One either accepts or rejects what society puts forward as good or virtuous behavior. IN the simple feeling of rejecting society one is immoral. People make the choice to reject themselves when they reject society. In a sense, to be consciously moral, when the norm is to be unconsciously moral -means first being consciously immoral, looking for the false and the hypocracy in the standard moral teaching, and then accepting the morality consciously in spite of flaws and weaknesses. I think it is simple. We are young even at a hundred. Society is old even if it seems new to us. We have to ask what path brought it to such great age in one piece. There is a logic in morality that we may never grasp completly. In the end, no behavior no matter how comonplace or accepted can be considered moral which threatens the health and life of society.

@Fido,

But what is morality in the first place? SOmething defined by society? Is it something universally accepted? Seems that some things seem to be universally accepted whereas others are not as much.
And where is the origin of morality and ethics - God/Bible? That's what i heard. Or should we use the theory that we should do to others as we want others to do to us instead? Even though something does not necessarily harm others, it is seen as immoral by some religions...
So how should we define morality in the first place? Smile

@tMeeker,

tMeeker wrote:

Any thoughts from my fellow philosophers?

I'm really glad you posted this, and I mean that with complete sincerity. I can tell you've got an old soul inside of you and that quality is not only hard to come by these days, but given the fact it's currently a young man's world that quality is often grossly misunderstood. Its funny how one of the common qualities many people claim they like to see in someone is that they're old fashioned, and yet when such a person comes along a lot of these same people's actions suggest differently.

I have often said that today we live in a young man's world. Just by looking at what we favor today in American pop culture (obsession with good looks, sexuality, lust, vice, and petrifying fear of getting fat) we can see it cators to such a world. Like everything else there's good sides and bad sides. Often a good side associated with youth is tolerance, and certainly one can say that is definately a positive note in our culture today. One bad side in particular is immaturity, which is what all of those characteristics I put in parenthesis is a result of.

I agree our fervant obsession with sex today is problematic. Over 50% of the young people today who are HIV positive don't even know it...that's a scary thought. I don't think it'll take a world renowned philosopher to draw the link connecting this disturbing statistic with this country's obsession with sex. Indeed our sex fetish does present moral problems regarding the health and well being of the community.

However we live in a different time than we did during the Beatles. We've got new technologies at our disposal now that we could never even dreamed of back then, and when the technology changes the culture changes to support it. Some examples: cell phones, laptops, iPods, iPhones, the very Internet we are using to discuss this. When a culture becomes so dependent, even to our extent of obsessive, on technology like we are today you can pretty much count on a complete culture change to go along with that dependency, that obsession. Certainly to some degree the sex issue is no doubt an effect of that. I mean really think back, did you really see a cultural obsession and indifference to sexual promsicuity before the Internet became as accessible as it did, thus making accessible thousands of free pornographic links? No. Since the Internet pornography has become more personal, more private, more intimate with the viewer. So to some degree this obsession with sex can be directly linked to the surge of new technologies within the past 15-20 years or so, and as we advance further you can expect more cultural changes to come.

Really the issue of sex is a delicate one, and I can't say I have a firm stance one way or the other. I can't say that I don't think it presents a moral problem because I'd be lying to myself if I did, but for the same reason I can't say it's out of context with America today. It's a different world, a young man's world, not only that but this is something I'm still struggling with personally (though I get the impression you've got a lot more years of world experience than I do so I expect this struggle is only because I'm young and still have lots to learn both about myself and the world.)

But I do appreciate you posting this. Regardless of wherever folks stand on this, I don't think anyone can deny that it's an important and entirely relevant issue to discuss.

@madscientist phil,

Madscientist;

Morality is that first and most fundamental of relationships: with ones mother, extended to other people, and to an extent, to all people. It is through our mothers that we get our first moral lessons, that we can expect forgiveness and protection from some, but should be fair to all. Morality cannot be put into words, laws, or proscriptions. Churches are not the force behind morality, but are carried by morality. On the other hand, the church, primarily the Catholic Church, working with the Roman Law of Nations, from which we get our sense of natural law, has been behind the notion of an overarching morality that should guide the behavior of all people.

@dancinginchains,

dancinginchains wrote:

I'm really glad you posted this, and I mean that with complete sincerity. I can tell you've got an old soul inside of you and that quality is not only hard to come by these days, but given the fact it's currently a young man's world that quality is often grossly misunderstood. Its funny how one of the common qualities many people claim they like to see in someone is that they're old fashioned, and yet when such a person comes along a lot of these same people's actions suggest differently.

I have often said that today we live in a young man's world. Just by looking at what we favor today in American pop culture (obsession with good looks, sexuality, lust, vice, and petrifying fear of getting fat) we can see it cators to such a world. Like everything else there's good sides and bad sides. Often a good side associated with youth is tolerance, and certainly one can say that is definately a positive note in our culture today. One bad side in particular is immaturity, which is what all of those characteristics I put in parenthesis is a result of.

I agree our fervant obsession with sex today is problematic. Over 50% of the young people today who are HIV positive don't even know it...that's a scary thought. I don't think it'll take a world renowned philosopher to draw the link connecting this disturbing statistic with this country's obsession with sex. Indeed our sex fetish does present moral problems regarding the health and well being of the community.

However we live in a different time than we did during the Beatles. We've got new technologies at our disposal now that we could never even dreamed of back then, and when the technology changes the culture changes to support it. Some examples: cell phones, laptops, iPods, iPhones, the very Internet we are using to discuss this. When a culture becomes so dependent, even to our extent of obsessive, on technology like we are today you can pretty much count on a complete culture change to go along with that dependency, that obsession. Certainly to some degree the sex issue is no doubt an effect of that. I mean really think back, did you really see a cultural obsession and indifference to sexual promsicuity before the Internet became as accessible as it did, thus making accessible thousands of free pornographic links? No. Since the Internet pornography has become more personal, more private, more intimate with the viewer. So to some degree this obsession with sex can be directly linked to the surge of new technologies within the past 15-20 years or so, and as we advance further you can expect more cultural changes to come.

Really the issue of sex is a delicate one, and I can't say I have a firm stance one way or the other. I can't say that I don't think it presents a moral problem because I'd be lying to myself if I did, but for the same reason I can't say it's out of context with America today. It's a different world, a young man's world, not only that but this is something I'm still struggling with personally (though I get the impression you've got a lot more years of world experience than I do so I expect this struggle is only because I'm young and still have lots to learn both about myself and the world.)

But I do appreciate you posting this. Regardless of wherever folks stand on this, I don't think anyone can deny that it's an important and entirely relevant issue to discuss.

About fifteen years ago, when I was forty, and married, I was working with another guy about my age on a highschool in a country town. The other guy said: These girls are sooo Beautiful.
I said: Ya, but they're so stupid!
And he said with a grin: Ya, Isn't it wonderful?

I trust that stupidity is the quality most men find attractive in young women, but I know better than to think it will last. You might be able to tell a young woman she is happy, or should be happy; but if she is not she will figure it out. The one lie every old man should dispense with is of being a good lover. For that reason alone the old should love the old and the young should love the young.

You know; business has been selling the demi-virg, and selling to the demi virg for a long time. They have a lack of supervision, a need for love, and an abundance of money. What does society do, and what is it supposed to do when one person's immorality is another person's dollar? It certainly is immoral to advertize with sex, and to put it under every kids nose when there is no proper sex education and stds are so common. If you say I would die for you it might be a damned lie or the absolute truth.

I would warn you away from free internet porn. First of all, it is not really free, and the hidden cost is the moral consideration. Until you know some one is not abused, or forced by a situation out of their control, coerced as it were, into public sexuality when that is usually ones most intimate gift to another, then, it is wrong to believe what is not in evidence. There is plenty of evidence of drugs, violence, intimidation, or coersion in regard to white slavery. Hell, that may be half the attraction to some folks. But it is not Just, and even if some flirt with a web cam can put her self out there and works her way through college with it, it does women as a whole no justice.

Intimacy, a relationship, love are all we really have to give, which is no mean feat, as that works out to 110% of everybody. When it gets hard to carry on with your commitments, is it fair for some one to tease you, entice you, and offer to destroy your relationship for you? Very often in primitive societies women are cut up bad in an attempt to destroy their power to injure society with their sexuality. It is men who need to control themselves. Don't sell sex, and don't buy it. Never take what you cannot return in equal measure. Don't ever confuse a financial relationship with a romatic one. Learn to love. Do justice.

@dancinginchains,

I found this I thought it be nice if you read it. Enjoy

- Why has sex become a taboo?
- Because it is a process of alchemy: it transforms a vast manifestation of spiritual energy, which is love, into a physical gesture.
"It is imposible to understand sex as we see it nowadays - a mere response to a few physical stimuli. In reality, it is far more than that, and carries with it man's and humanity's entire cultural burden. Each time we face a new experience, we bring with us all past experiences - both good and bad - as well as those concepts which civilization has made into rules.
"This is not right, and we must recondition the brain so that each sexual experience is unique, just as each loving experience is unique."
- Very difficult.
- Very. But one must try, because almost all human beings need to keep this energy in movement. So, the first thing one must understand is that it is made up of two extremes, which walk side-by-side during the entire act: relaxation and tension.
"How can one set these opposite states in harmony? There is only one way: through giving oneself completely. How does one give oneself? By forgetting the traumas of the past, and by not forming expectations about the future - in other words, the orgasm. How can one do this? Very simply: by not being afraid to err.
"In reality, what usually happens is that we begin a sexual relationship thinking that everything might go wrong. But even if it did, what importance would that have? One must merely be conscious of the fact that one must give one's best, and any wrongs immediately are put right.
"Once the search for pleasure is being carried out by giving oneself, with sincerity, one senses the body becoming tense, like the string of an archer's bow, while the mind becomes more and more relaxed, like the arrow being made ready to be fired. The brain no longer governs the process, which begins to be guided by the heart. And the heart uses the five senses to show itself to the other.
- The five senses?
- Touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste, all of them are involved. Oddly enough, in most sexual relations, people try using only touch and sight: acting thus, they diminish the fullness of the experience.
- Do both partners need to know all this?
- If one partner gives himself completely, he breaks down the barriers of the other, however strong they may be. Because the act of giving means: "I trust you". The other, who to begin with may feel rather intimidated, wanting to prove things which aren't even under discussion, is unarmed by the spontaneity of such an attitude, and relaxes. At that moment, true sexual energy comes into play.
"And this energy is not only present in those parts we call "erotic". It spreads throughout the entire body, into each strand of hair and expanse of skin. Each millimeter is now shining a different light, which is recognized by the other body, and which combines with the other.
"When this happens, we enter a sort of ancestral ritual, which is an opportunity for transformation. All rituals, in whatever form, demand that one be ready to allow oneself to be led to another perception of the world. It is this will which lends the ritual meaning."
- Isn't all this rather complicated?
- It is far more complicated to have the sex one sees being carried out nowadays, a mere mechanical act, causing tension during the act, and emptiness afterwards. Everything spiritual manifests itself visually, everything which is visual turns into spiritual energy, I don't think this is so difficult to grasp. After all, we are born knowing we have a body and a soul: why not understand that sex also has them?"

By:

http://www.warriorofthelight.com/imagens/logoengl02.jpg

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

About fifteen years ago, when I was forty, and married, I was working with another guy about my age on a highschool in a country town. The other guy said: These girls are sooo Beautiful.
I said: Ya, but they're so stupid!
And he said with a grin: Ya, Isn't it wonderful?

I trust that stupidity is the quality most men find attractive in young women, but I know better than to think it will last. You might be able to tell a young woman she is happy, or should be happy; but if she is not she will figure it out. The one lie every old man should dispense with is of being a good lover. For that reason alone the old should love the old and the young should love the young.

You know; business has been selling the demi-virg, and selling to the demi virg for a long time. They have a lack of supervision, a need for love, and an abundance of money. What does society do, and what is it supposed to do when one person's immorality is another person's dollar? It certainly is immoral to advertize with sex, and to put it under every kids nose when there is no proper sex education and stds are so common. If you say I would die for you it might be a damned lie or the absolute truth.

I would warn you away from free internet porn. First of all, it is not really free, and the hidden cost is the moral consideration. Until you know some one is not abused, or forced by a situation out of their control, coerced as it were, into public sexuality when that is usually ones most intimate gift to another, then, it is wrong to believe what is not in evidence. There is plenty of evidence of drugs, violence, intimidation, or coersion in regard to white slavery. Hell, that may be half the attraction to some folks. But it is not Just, and even if some flirt with a web cam can put her self out there and works her way through college with it, it does women as a whole no justice.

Intimacy, a relationship, love are all we really have to give, which is no mean feat, as that works out to 110% of everybody. When it gets hard to carry on with your commitments, is it fair for some one to tease you, entice you, and offer to destroy your relationship for you? Very often in primitive societies women are cut up bad in an attempt to destroy their power to injure society with their sexuality. It is men who need to control themselves. Don't sell sex, and don't buy it. Never take what you cannot return in equal measure. Don't ever confuse a financial relationship with a romatic one. Learn to love. Do justice.

It seems to me that we're either on the same page or roughly on the same page. While you or I may not indulge in free Internet porn, millions in this country do because it's so easily accessible (?) and completely within the isolated confines of their home, or even a single room in their home. They don't have to go to the store anymore and embarrassingly make eye contact with the clerk they buy it from.

The porn industry is still a thriving business (which is by far an understatement). Why? It ain't from the porno mags. No sir, it's from the Internet. You (not specifically) could say that the Internet is a technological blessing for a multitude of reasons (i.e. the wealth of information). Yet, I can guarantee you that industries like the porn industry are saying the same thing...but for their own reasons.

I agree with you that it's immoral to flash free porn ads in front of the eyes of children too young to really even understand sex and its dangers, but the buck doesn't even begin to stop there. It's just a rung in a long ladder of moral issues that's directly related to this.

The sex obsession isn't just limited to this one factor, but the easy accessibility of the Internet is a key factor. Like I said when technology changes, society changes with it.

@dancinginchains,

If sex is the currency of a romatic love relationship how would you feel about inflation? I mean, it is possible to demean the sex in any relationship if people outside of the relationship are turning sex into an article of commerce. Maybe it should not be sold. It especially should not be bought unless the porn police can certify that the act did not occur out of duress, or as a consequence of some illegal activity, such as drug use, prostitution, or intimidation. As it is, we do not know, and should not presume. We do know that women who do not benefit in any sense from porn are injured by it, again, because the intimacy they freely give with the promise of a love relationship is sold for next to nothing. Is it nothing? Is this actually something we want cheap? Isn't exclusive intimacy a mark of honor? I would not demean your honor, and I take offense when honorable people are demeaned. I think it is clearly a fact that sexual exploitation flows out of economic exploitation. Isn't the answer to our problem found in the ending of economic exploitation? If the only way we can protect the women is to guard ourselves what shall we do? A fact I am certain of, is that anyone who puts a price on the priceless is no friend of humanity. Some things we all find value in and virtue in should never be articles of commerce, or it is our selves that is sold with every bargain.

@Fido,

A problem is that many people tend to think of sexual desire as an addiction. Because they think it an addictive temptation they don't bother to analyze carefully and seriously their sexual feelings. As Locke says, people do not possess innate ideas or propositions, but innate tendencies. One tendency, I would suggest, is to try to understand one's innate tendencies by finding a pattern in them. This tendency allows a new tendency, namely the tendency to behave in a way that fits the pattern of one's other tendencies. Indeed, life is too complicated for it to be supposed that we have a separate innate tendency to behave a certain way for each situation we might encounter ourselves in. Mostly, we are led by what I call abstract tendencies that we possess because they are implied by our understanding of ourselves. I would say people have more innate tendencies about sex than about just anything and that they are very complicated. People tend to be led into the trap of thinking that because masturbation be (in their minds) just some stupid physical act, and fantasy rather tends to lead to that, it is proof that fantasy is some sordid temptation. This error prevents them from taking masturbation and their sexual fantasies seriously, as something to be understood, which is what causes them to think masturbation (or prolonged stimulation, if one is in a tantric mood) stupid. The innate sexual tendencies of people are extremely complicated; it is necessary to familiarize oneself with one's own if one is to have anything more than a bad understanding of them. Why do people think it is bad to have sex otherwise than as one idiotic of one's own desires? Because they think there be something addictive about sexual pleasure, that makes them (wrongly) think it be bad to consider them.

The simplest explanation is that there is something akin to sexual pleasure that is probably addictive. Until recently many people viewed sodomy as addictive, and that most people don't see it that way now has nothing to do with any scientific discoveries, but would appear to be some sort of mass delusion rather peculiar to our present age. Probably, semen contains addictive chemicals capable of being absorbed by the digestive system (of either sex) but not by the female reproductive system.

Some people say there is something particularly selfish about sexual pleasure, but I would say that is looking at things too much from the male perspective. In males, yes, sexual pleasure is a more selfish pleasure, compared with other pleasures. But in females, sexual pleasure is a less selfish pleasure. Humans, like most animals, tend to be more polygynous than polyandrous, which makes sex more rewarding to males and caring more rewarding to females. Caring may be the most natural way for a male to love, but the most natural way for a female to love is by sex. A female is good largely to the extent she values her own sexual pleasure over the comfy pleasure of being well provided for.

I don't buy that sex with young females is worse than sex with older females. Depraved males do in fact prefer young females, because younger females, being more unsure of their own sexual nature, are more easily led astray by depravity (sodomy, drugs, or violence). But typical decent males I am inclined to think have more loving and rewarding sexual feeling for young females, which would explain why just about all women try to look younger than they are (notwithstanding this might make them slightly more susceptible to abuse from depraved males). Male sexual emotions matter, and in decent males, these emotions tend to be more special the younger the female (up to a point--if a girl is not yet near adolescence she is not likely to elicit much if any sexual feelings).

@step314 phil,

So; what is the difference between addiction and bonding. Is addiction to drugs what bonding is to people. Or are you only talking of the sexual conquest thing. It just goes to show that about anything can be the drug of choice.

@Fido,

I'd say bonding can be lots of things.

Sometimes people can be very afraid of losing someone from fear of insanity. E.g., you hear a great deal about people being afraid of getting their heart broken. I think "getting your heart broken" usually refers to that state where you feel your loved one has chosen depravity over you. Losing on account of your partner getting screwed is sufficiently like losing on account of your own self getting screwed that all sorts of crazy, harmful, anti-addictive gloomy emotions can be generated. Emotionally immature people might want defense against that, you know, like teenagers who think "going steady" is so important, and not because they feel sluttish else.

Also, oftentimes parents together raise their children. This can lead to a kind of friendship which is akin to bonding. Whether there should be a bonding pledge such as marriage beforehand is another interesting question. I'm inclined to think that usually males should marry the women they want to care for before having sex with them. But marriage should not entail for the male sexual exclusivity but caring exclusivity. I.e., mostly men should not care for women (or offspring by such women) other than their wives, but they should be allowed to have sex with other females so long as they don't make much effort trying to get it. I think wives should be allowed to commit adultery (secretly), but only if they love someone else much more. I think the main usefulness of marriage is that it causes selfish people to get less than unselfish people, because it allows selfish women to more easily trade sex for money and caring, which makes unselfish men get more sex outside marriage, thereby rewarding them more; it's not a huge or even obvious advantage, I just thought about how things would be without marriage, and compared that to how things would be with marriage and then formed an opinion of what would seem to best favor the evolution of beauty and goodness, which definitely seemed the most important consideration.

Bonding also can probably refer to the sort of long-lasting connections that can arise between DNA as a result of genetic crossover and the like, which I figure emotions probably have a role in regulating (especially when the offspring produced are female).

And bonding can be a depraved chemical addiction.

@tMeeker,

The long range effect of tearing down the barrier that is the family will ruin society as a whole. The family unit and marriage were either always or just recently in place. Sex is intimate union that has value. As its value is decreased and honor removed (one might call it sacredness) so is the value of intimate union. We are destroying intimacy for pleasure. A pleasure seeking society is less stable than an intimacy seeking society by default. Sex is not a pleasurable acitivaty, it is the intimate connection between a man and his wife. Whether or not that is what is believed it is how things were defined. As a whole we have taken that thing that was defined as such and spit on it. Now tell me what is so special about the marriage bed? Why does it need to be special? Why should we look with sacredness on the intimate connection between man and wife? What effect does free sex and no sacredness of it have on the strength of a marriage? What importance is the family to society? Why is it important that we value what creates us? What affects do you think devaluing the way we are made will have on our birth and/or lives? What type of evil comes from being focused on sex, or leading others prematurely into it? How many hearts have been broken and lives destroyed because of the premature use of sex outside of marriage? Think about it. If all of us waited till marriage we would all have the best sex of our lives for the rest of our lives because it would be the only type we knew. Also, the wife would be the most treasured delight seeing as she ans she alone is the one we get to do it with. Same goes for the husband. And the simple fact that you waited and treasured yourself and that moment for each other also goes a long way. When we talk about sex we talk about self-control, commitment, love, intimacy, and probably a host of other things worth valuing and calling sacred. But because that label is oppressive to people, we have torn down the value of those things... All this for pleasure seekers and lonely people with which sex becomes shelter so that they do not have to develop maturity to deal with life some other way. Do you know that sex is destructive? I bet I could answer a million ways it is constructive, but you could only tell me around five. And I could give you your same list of how destructive it is, and add a million to that. You are so narrowly focused and limited to your liberties that you cannot see what you truly want or what would truly make you free. Open the door to sex and you will start a flood, and that flood ends at the destruction of the society. Intimacy... Would you not rather honor and protect it, than use it?

Philosophy Forum

What's the deal with sex?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know