What's the deal with sex?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Mephistopheles phil
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 10:58 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
I don't have to tell anyone anything about sex. People, especially the young crave pleasure and intimacy and love, and trust. Their hearts are in the right place but their heads are up their horns. Sex can be a form of a relationship, but so can porn, or advertizing. We have to be warry of people turned into objects before our eyes. A woman as an object of desire, on a magazine cover, or in a home is still an object. That is violence, and it results in the ultimate violence of death where a person is literally transformed into an object. Women are killed in this country, and they are killed in every country because they can be, because our cupidity is so easily turned to antipathy.[/b][/i]


Women are objects of desire. Who is not intoxicated with thoughts of sex from time to time? To deny this is hypocritical.

That being said, you don't have to treat women like objects. I certainly do not.

You can't blame murder on sex.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 01:00 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles wrote:
Women are objects of desire. Who is not intoxicated with thoughts of sex from time to time? To deny this is hypocritical.

That being said, you don't have to treat women like objects. I certainly do not.

You can't blame murder on sex.


Exactly. To deny natural desire is stupid. However, it doesn't mean you have to treat women like objects, which was the point of my posts.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 10:40 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
I completely agree, and that's my point. The perceptions of sex are social constructs, we must realize that, and not speak of them as absolute.

Perceptions are only perceptions, but how we concieve of them always has a social element because conceptions are forms and all forms, and every form is also a form of relationship.
Now, think of this. Sexuality is essential to our being because we are dioecious, Greek for both house, and we are not individuals in the sense of a single microbe, but rather are individuals socially, or politically, but are sexually individual only when mated. I know it is not thought of that way, but the fact is, I am an individual man, but not an individual human. An individual human as we commonly think of an individual is sterile. Only when men and women are together are they an individual, if, when divided further they are sterile. There is no such thing as a complete man, or a complete woman. We are all wanting the balance of our being to be supplied by another. We may think of it as inconvenient that society wants a say in our sexual behavior, but society has a lot invested in us, and it has a right to see us carry on with society. And sexuality, which can be the source of life, can also be the cause of much social disturbance, and spread disease because it is naturally unsanitary. It is just more proof that we pulled ourselves by the force of will out of primordial slime. So everyone should remember that the longer you cuddle the bigger the puddle.
 
OntheWindowStand
 
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 01:51 pm
@Fido,
The only reason every society has put a morality into the act of sex is because of the consequences of it. Saying you wouldn't be here without doesn't demean any moral standard someone might have. Moralities on sex exist to protect yourself from these consequences if this is true everyone has a moral standard on sex. I come from a divorced home and can say that sex is dangerous I don't even want to be in a relationship because that mean relinquished control to some urge.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 9 Jul, 2008 04:57 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
The only reason every society has put a morality into the act of sex is because of the consequences of it. Saying you wouldn't be here without doesn't demean any moral standard someone might have. Moralities on sex exist to protect yourself from these consequences if this is true everyone has a moral standard on sex. I come from a divorced home and can say that sex is dangerous I don't even want to be in a relationship because that mean relinquished control to some urge.

Well tough. You are in relationships all over the place so you might as well root in and prove you are as bad at it as it as everybody else. If I need to explain this better, then: Every form is a form of relationship. Passion is an idea, a form, and it is also a form of relationship between people. Humanity is an idea, and a form, and a form of relationship between people. Morality is a form, and idea, and a form of relationship. Our relationships are never completely formless, or without formality. I think the most informal relationships are the best, and most free; but we can never completely escape the form. Now, sexuality, or marriage may not be your thing. Maybe you have been warned off by how terribly they fail. People often bring too many outrageous expectations to their forms of relationship, and when that happens, if people are going to survive they have to run rabbit, or figure out how to make the form work by making the relationship work, apart from the formal expecations, making rules, and agreements by pledges of honor and negotiation; but this is true of every relationship. And what is more: All relationships require a sacrifice of self to make them work. No one in a relationship can have the relationship taking all and burning what they cannot cart off. I hate to play daddy to you, kid; but those are the cruel facts of life. Building relationships, and keeping them free of too much meaningless formality is the challenge all of us face. And it is how we survive, and how we bear fruit as living beings. Painful as it is, and whether or not you have been properly taught; that is what you have to do to get by. Have fun with it.
And I wouldn't call sexuality, some urge. It is a whole lot like the urge. But if your biology is driving you to a certain point, go along, and in the process try to make sense of it. We are a lot like auto mobiles. People don't build them with all those hoses and switches so they are less efficient, and cost more. If it were possible to leave a part off it would be done at the factory, and we are like that in having the urges necessary to our survival whether it be for love, or hunger. And, if an urge results in better human bonding, and the bonding results in children, which from a biological point of view is best accomplished by the young who have the energy to run down their children occasionally and beat their backsides raw when they muck up, then all the better. Thinking about morality, and thinking about our natural urges has made people make the wrong choices very very often. Children should have children who are raised by grandparents. Thinking about it has made people into old parents who are to easily bored with children, and too easily tired out; and it has also made less adventurous and healthy children. Don't think about. Do it by the braille method. Feel your way through. If it does not feel right, think twice. Best.
 
midas77
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 09:41 am
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
The only reason every society has put a morality into the act of sex is because of the consequences of it. Saying you wouldn't be here without doesn't demean any moral standard someone might have. Moralities on sex exist to protect yourself from these consequences if this is true everyone has a moral standard on sex. I come from a divorced home and can say that sex is dangerous I don't even want to be in a relationship because that mean relinquished control to some urge.


Sex is important. Thats why society device ways to control it. Besides admit or not it is a powerful force. However its importance and its power does not necessarily mean that moral social control are installed to demean sex.
 
boagie
 
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 04:57 pm
@midas77,
Smile
Sexuality is involentary, you have little to no will in its presence, it can even usurp control and make you believe it is under your rational control. It has been expressed as the blind will of nature, nature wants you to reproduce, and it has a bag full of tricks to make sure you do. Many people in there later years look back at all the time consumed by this passion, the bad relationships, and wasted frustrations, and think, what if I had been free of that to fellow with a like passion something of cultural value. It is the one story that people never tire of generation after generation, pop songs and romance novels, boy chases girl ---boy gets girl--boy loses girl sounds like a country song to me. It is the strongest impluse to nature in the world. No matter how much misery creatures are subjected to, they eagerly bring on the next generation, even if there is no expectations of the fortunes of their children being any better. I think I shall leave it on that high note.
 
Arouet
 
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 03:10 pm
@boagie,
Sorry about the weird format, the form won't process my enter key correctly.
Quote:
Many posters in this thread seem to view sexuality the way Freud did, as a horribly strong impulse that can overwhelm both the conscious mind and the conscience, is impossible to control, and causes no end of problems. On the surface, from certain perspectives, this certainly seems to be the case.
Quote:
However, from a scientific standpoint, the desire to reproduce is actually less pressing than several other natural instincts, such as the desire for food and that for water. There are also several other major impulses in our species, such as a desire for social power, a drive to be in control, and the famous fight-or-flight response. However, none of these are viewed with anywhere near the horrific fascination many or even most members of modern society view sex with. The key thing about these natural impulses is that they grow stronger the longer they are denied. The longer you go without eating, the more you'd be willing to do for a Klondike Bar. The longer you go without water, the more desperate you are for a drink. The longer you go at the bottom of the social hierarchy, the more you wish you were at the top. And the longer you go without achieving sexual satisfaction, the more desperately strong that desire grows. Leaving aside psychological and biological outliers that cause things like overactive sex drives or overactive hunger, then, the main cause of desire for sex, hunger, or water is an absence of them.
Quote:
With that in mind, consider the function of our society. The sex drive begins to manifest its true form anywhere between eight and thirteen years of age, most regularly at eleven or twelve. A strong majority of society (at least in my country, and probably in the world as a whole) considers it morally wrong to have a sexual experience before marriage, or with anyone other than your spouse. The mean age of first marriage in the United States is 26 for women and 27 for men. With a strictly theoretical full compliance to that supposed moral standard, that means that by the time they marry and have their first sexual experience, the average person is a full-fledged sexual maniac, such is the impact of spending fifteen years repressing a key natural desire. More realistically, the first real sexual freedom most people achieve is when they enter college. A notable minority discover frequent masturbation or have regular sexual experiences in high school, and in my experience (this should by no means be considered an exhaustive study) it is these individuals who are the least fixated on sex, for they have missed out on most of the repression. But for those who do not begin to have an active (orgasm once per week at the minimum) sex life until senior year of high school or college, a substantial portion of their adult life, the most formative part in fact, has been spent in sexual repression. Is it any wonder that sex becomes one of the focuses of life for many of these people?
Quote:
The fact that sex is considered by many to be morally wrong in most situations simply adds to the complication, as does the very strictly monogamous structure of our society. This reaction to sex (historically rooted in issues of tribalism and depth of the gene pool, but based in modern times on religion) pollutes sexuality, driving many otherwise sexually healthy people into myriad problems - and of course, the sexual fringe of LGBT individuals, those involved in BDSM or non-monogamous sex, and fetishists get the short, wrapped-in-barbed-wire, electrocuting end of the stick, as usual. When one's natural desires are fundamentally at odds with one's lifelong belief system, no good can come of the situation.
Quote:
The real "deal" with sex is not that people are too free about practicing it, but that people are not free enough to pursue the satisfaction of their natural desires in a healthy way.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 10:42 pm
@Arouet,
Arouet wrote:
Sorry about the weird format, the form won't process my enter key correctly.

People should not be free in the expression of sexuality. Historically and prehistorically nothing has been loaded with more pain, frustration, and bloodshed than sexuality. I am not suggesting this for the west, but in many parts of the world women are controlled in the most ruthless fashion because they carry honor, but can also destroy honor. They are at once the tie that binds families together and if out of control can turn family against family as with Romeo and Juliet in bloody conflict. It is little wonder that many people come to consider women as Kremheld, and she devils. In my opinion women are safer where less honor is attached to their good behavior, and on the other hand, men are much better off when they seek the council of women as equals, or better than. What do you think
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 10:56 pm
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Smile
Sexuality is involentary, you have little to no will in its presence, it can even usurp control and make you believe it is under your rational control. It has been expressed as the blind will of nature, nature wants you to reproduce, and it has a bag full of tricks to make sure you do. Many people in there later years look back at all the time consumed by this passion, the bad relationships, and wasted frustrations, and think, what if I had been free of that to fellow with a like passion something of cultural value. It is the one story that people never tire of generation after generation, pop songs and romance novels, boy chases girl ---boy gets girl--boy loses girl sounds like a country song to me. It is the strongest impluse to nature in the world. No matter how much misery creatures are subjected to, they eagerly bring on the next generation, even if there is no expectations of the fortunes of their children being any better. I think I shall leave it on that high note.


Sexuality is social. We are social. No feral child knows what to do with it, or how it is supposed to play into the larger development of the person. If you think about it, I don't see how the conclusion can be avoided that much of our socialization in regard to sex is meant to direct sexual energy and tension to the improvement of society, as if that creme cannot be skimmed off to the bottom. Given a chance, leaders would prefer their workers or soldiers to be without women, saving their strength and working out their frustrations on the reality at hand. One part of it is the capitalist work ethic, Early to bed and early to rise; but there is a darker and sinister purpose in crowding man with man to build an atmospher of homosexual affection and hierarchy; which was used effectively and to the death by many Nazis. So, if one is socialized one becomes sensitive to what is ubiquitous, but also to what is meaningless without the help of society to teach the significance. What do you think
 
boagie
 
Reply Sun 13 Jul, 2008 11:48 pm
@Fido,
Fido,Smile

My thinking is much along the same lines as your own reguarding sexuality, sexuality is pretty raw nature, society as the container gives it shape, but, it is the will of nature and thus does not often conform naturally to the shape of society as container. Perhaps the greater tolernance of people outside what is termed the norm is only just, and the more rational approach is greater tolerance. It would be a blessing if sexuality was made safer, and more readly available so that it does not consume so much of a young persons consciousness. People would become naturally more emotionally mature. Sexual selection is the function of the female however, at least where it is not taken out of their physical control. More women should be aware of this as part of their education. Women have a power here which can effect transformation in society, they have begun doing so in earnest just in the last forty years, it is at the same time a civilizing force, and it is right in line with nature.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 05:05 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
People should not be free in the expression of sexuality


I'm trying to come up with words adequate to express the immorality of this view and I'm overwhelmed - there's just too much. So I'll leave it with 'wow'.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 05:13 am
@boagie,
boagie wrote:
Fido,Smile

My thinking is much along the same lines as your own reguarding sexuality, sexuality is pretty raw nature, society as the container gives it shape, but, it is the will of nature and thus does not often conform naturally to the shape of society as container. Perhaps the greater tolernance of people outside what is termed the norm is only just, and the more rational approach is greater tolerance. It would be a blessing if sexuality was made safer, and more readly available so that it does not consume so much of a young persons consciousness. People would become naturally more emotionally mature. Sexual selection is the function of the female however, at least where it is not taken out of their physical control. More women should be aware of this as part of their education. Women have a power here which can effect transformation in society, they have begun doing so in earnest just in the last forty years, it is at the same time a civilizing force, and it is right in line with nature.

When we are the results of nature, and the products of culture it is difficult to distinguish between the two as to effects or causes. I don't mean here that the discussion has no merit, simply that the sexual urge can be easily perverted on the one hand, and that if there were no one to tell a youth the meaning of develping sexuality, they would not get it. And I say this upon having read some pretty good evidence that babies are born with a sexual consciousness of sorts, with daughters usually more drawn to their fathers, and sons more drawn to their mothers. You know, that given the unique circumstances of life for barbaric native Americans, surrounded by enemies and with community being the center of existence, that little boys or girls showed their own preference of sexual identity, which because of community caused absolutly no upset what so ever. If a girl wanted to play with a bow, they gave it to her, of if the boy wanted to wear an apron they let him. The only recrimination in the matter fell on the man who took up with a man because it was thought he lacked ambition, and wanted a wife who would both hunt for him and cook dinner. There are environmental factors which affect sexual development and consciousness, and those people who judge others on the basis of a sexual consciousness innate to them are themselves in need of judgement. Homosexual orientation is unnatural for any without the orientation, and that is the end of it. People who want to change the homosexual should try to change themselves and see how easy it is.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 05:24 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
I'm trying to come up with words adequate to express the immorality of this view and I'm overwhelmed - there's just too much. So I'll leave it with 'wow'.

If it is worth expressing; thanks, but I was not trying to wow you, but only to express what is obvious. People are constrained in every fashion, and some may use this as an excuse to load others with fetters. I do not. I see that among primitives the universal attitude is that society sets the rules of correct sexual behavior, and that the individual willingly submits even at the price of sexual mutilation and constant pain. It is one of the many methods society, -living in nature, and beside nature uses to draw a distinction between the animal and the human when we see little difference from the point of view of animal nature. We rather take for granted what they could not, and end up behaving more as animals and criminals than humans. And they were right to realize that no force coming from individual people could be as destructive of society.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 05:53 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
If it is worth expressing; thanks, but I was not trying to wow you, but only to express what is obvious.


Hrmm let's see...

... any 'freedom' bestowed can be abused; taken to extremes as to do others harm. If you consider the term 'freedom', as its used, to be absolute to any level of absurdity; then yes, I'd agree. And if this is the case, you've succeeded in stating the obvious (at least, I'd think, to the majority of *this* crowd).

Almost no 'liberty' or 'freedom' given, by any entity, on any basis and for any reason is *absolute* and without qualification. The question for the philosopher, to my way of thinking, is what limits are those? What basis for limits of personal action should there be? For sexuality, what extent of expression is OK, natural, socially acceptable, productive, healthy, etc.

Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but we *are* animals. Intelligent; yes, but animals nonetheless. Accepting this doesn't forgive unacceptable or destructive behavior, but it's a truth well worth keeping in mind. Wink
 
midas77
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 07:54 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but we *are* animals. Intelligent; yes, but animals nonetheless. Accepting this doesn't forgive unacceptable or destructive behavior, but it's a truth well worth keeping in mind. Wink


If we are animals, we are at least an animal species that realize that we are, which makes us a special type of animals. Sexual expression although animalistic in nature must be tempered with human control unless we want people copulating like dogs in the street.
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 09:12 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
Hrmm let's see...

... any 'freedom' bestowed can be abused; taken to extremes as to do others harm. If you consider the term 'freedom', as its used, to be absolute to any level of absurdity; then yes, I'd agree. And if this is the case, you've succeeded in stating the obvious (at least, I'd think, to the majority of *this* crowd).

Almost no 'liberty' or 'freedom' given, by any entity, on any basis and for any reason is *absolute* and without qualification. The question for the philosopher, to my way of thinking, is what limits are those? What basis for limits of personal action should there be? For sexuality, what extent of expression is OK, natural, socially acceptable, productive, healthy, etc.

Oh, and I hate to break this to you, but we *are* animals. Intelligent; yes, but animals nonetheless. Accepting this doesn't forgive unacceptable or destructive behavior, but it's a truth well worth keeping in mind. Wink

It is not just freedom that is not absolute; but all concepts which are only tentative, and theoretical. So what freedoms does any individual have? Do you expect that at any point in your life that you can stand apart from society and say: My Freedom? We join, or belong to any organization that support our rights. What is the freedom of an individual apart from his society? Traditionally it has been the freedom of the outlaw, what life one can manage, harried, outcast from place to place. Freedom is a moral, which is to say social concept. It is not a physical concept like a square or a circle. It has the meaning we give to it, and we have the freedom society allows to us. We can dispute the matter, but the matter stands as society sees it. And society has jurisdiction over all that is likely to affect it negatively. Just as with a lazy rake, the owner has the right to leave it on the ground as a hazzard, or to stow it properly, because it has the likelyhood of affecting him negatively, so that is within the province of his disgression. Certainly the same must be true of society if it can see danger and prevent it. And this does not mean that the larger society does not often over step their boundries out of whim or caprice. It is then that the rational argument should be made, and ultimately enforced by the community to which one truly belongs. An example of this is a labor union, or the gay community which set their own standard of conduct and freedom. No one should believe that anyone has the last word on the subject, especially the individual. What do you think
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2008 09:19 am
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
If we are animals, we are at least an animal species that realize that we are, which makes us a special type of animals. Sexual expression although animalistic in nature must be tempered with human control unless we want people copulating like dogs in the street.

The traditional morality of the West denies that we are animal in our nature, and is based upon a spiritual conception of mankind as indiviually created by God. Yet, as much as we think of morality as coming from God, it, God, is not the cause, but is the effect; because true morality results in what we consider blessings: health, longevity, peace, virtue, and happiness. Those blessings resulting from the moral behavior of mankind have created a nearly universal conception of a benificent God.
I would like to direct your attention to some of the most sexually immoral people on the planet: The Victorian ruling class of England who showed little regard as to where they put it and who they woke up with whether they were married or not to the one they bedded with. And if memory serves me, one of them said: What does it matter what people do, as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses. Apparently, frightening the horses was the worst they expected by way of consequences, meaning they did not accept the religious morality they supported for all others. And you know, the fact was not lost on those who served them tea. I have in the book, which is on Churchill, if you would like an exact. Best. What do you think
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 12:26:54