luvluv

It has been said on this board that sexual intercourse is not a particularly special or important act, and that Christians only behave as if it should be restrained to marriage and/or committed relationships because of their "religious traditions". Further, it has been stated that the reason an importance has been attached to the sex act by society at large is because of the latent effects of the Christian religion on Western society.

But, reflecting on this, isn't it true that there has never been a society, pre or post Christian, in which the entire populace, from the king down the lowest serf or slave, treated sex as if it were "nothing special". The majority of cultures at all times have treated the sex act as one which should be limited to a man and the woman (or, in polygamous societies, women) he has committed himself to caring for. Sex was treated as recreation only by the most advanced "superpowers" such as Rome and Greece, and even of these societies it generally was not the case that this luxury was enjoyed beyond the priviledged class. The average Roman or Greek farmer or shepard were probably married and largely monogamous. We would probably get the wrong impression of Greek and Roman society if we judged their behavior solely on that of their elite. The same is true, generally, in the society of all superpowers. The reason, I suppose, is simple: elites tend to be less cautious about sex (they can afford to) and prosperous societies produce more elites.

If you look at the bulk of societies over the majority of human history, sex has never been regarded as meaningless. To the ancient Chinese peasant, to the pre-Christian European, to the American Indian, to the African tribesman. Sex has always been limited and treated as a special act.

I suppose one could argue that this is solely because of the lack of knowledge of contraception. I, personally, have always wondered how true this was. Certainly by the Greek and Roman era humans must have gained methods to avoid pregnancy even if they were not very effective. In any case, the Romans and Greeks were probably not any more adept at contraception than their immediate predecessors, and yet their elites engaged in a reportedly rompous sex life. It would appear therefore that while contraception has had a major role on how we view sex, the lack of contraception was not the only factor shaping how human beings viewed the sex act. The lack of contraception, it should be remembered, was never a great barrier to prostitution, some form of which was common to all societies throughout history.

Does it follow, therefore, that all of our attitudes against taking sex as a meaningless act is the fault of Christian teachings or "Puritan brainwashing"?

Morevoer, does it follow that, given simply contraception, that we as human beings are EMOTIONALLY equipped to deal with sex as an act as meaningless as, say, a game of basketball? My future wife probably would not mind if I played basketball several times a week with a handful of my male friends. She probably would raise an eyebrow if I had sex several times a week with a handful of my male friends. Is this only because she is brainwashed? Is she simply being irrational in thinking that there really are emotional ties to a purely physical act?

My opinion is, brainwashing or no, most human beings could not find a way to function in a society where there was truly no meaning whatsoever placed on the sex act. Where children had sex with other children as soon as they were of age, with their parents blessing, where consenting parents had sex with their children, where sex between siblings was considered play, where authority figures, like teachers and pastors and psychologists, had sex with those under their authority, where all marriages were wide open. Like it or not, I think there are emotional ties to the sex act that are not the result of social programming. It is possibly physiological; for the evolutionist, the value of fidelity and commitment could simply be natures way of cementing two parents to each other because of the dependant nature of their children. But regardless of the origins of our valuing commitment, monogamy, fidelity or of the origin of our tendency to be jealous and emotionally hurt when that commitment is broken... it is an undeniable fact that most humans have these emotions. It does not follow, from the simple fact that contraception now exists, that these physiological, psychological, and emotional responses, that have (if you are an evolutionist) evolved for tens of thousands of years, can simply now be shut off like a light switch.

It is a serious and potentially socially devastating mistake to promote "sex as a meaningless act" to a creature who, by the Christian view, has been created to value fidelity and commitment, OR to a creature, on the atheist view, who has evolved VERY DEEP-SEATED emotional, psychological, and physiological responses to the act.

It has been said that sex was evolved "for fun". That, obviously, is not true. Sex (if it evolved at all) was evolved as a procreative measure. It is pleasurable because an animal that takes pleasure in the procreative act is more likely to engage in it, and thus procreate, than an animal which derives no pleasure from the act. Therefore, from an athiest perspective, it is probably a mistake to say that sex is "for" fun. The theist is actually in a much better position to say that fun or recreation is part of the purpose of sex, since it is possible that God also wanted humans to be happy in addition to their being fruitful and multiplying. For the atheist or the naturalist, the pleasure of sex can only realistically be regarded as a means to an end, and not the means in itself, for nature seems to make very few allowances for fun.

It would seem, therefore, that "sex for fun" is, even from a scientific point of view, a misuse of the sex act. It is putting the cart before the horse, as it were.

My point, in short, is that it is simply hubris to assume that, because of the fortunate intervention of a few rolls of sheepskin, that we can happily, healthily, or SANELY remove all meaning and all emotional attachment from the sex act. It is the dream of philosophers and fools, often reserved only for societies largely populated by elites educated into an alienation from their emotional states.

No doubt, there are some, a very few, who can treat sex as a totally meaningless act and find happiness. It is hard to fathom, certainly, since the person would probably have very few friends (since most of us would not be comfortable around them). Furthermore, in my opinion it is safe to say that the majority of people who promote "sex as a meaningless act" would be rather upset to learn that I was sleeping with their significant other.

Now to the explicit question:

1) Of those on this board who are in marriages in which both spouses agree that sex is a meaningless act, how many of your marriages are open? If they aren't, why not?

The same question goes to any who are in serious committed relationships.

Viti

I don't remember anyone saying sex was meaningless...IMO it is not a SACRED act, but certainly special and meaningful.

Dr Rick

Who said that and where is it posted?

luvluv

It's been implied by a lot of people, I couldn't give you many specifics.

For instance, at the begining of the thread about pre-marital sex, the poster posed the 6 or 7 sex questions. A respondent came along very quickly and said that the questions were silly, and that to see that all one would have to do was to replace the word "sex" in the questions with the words "have dinner with".

The implication was that sex and having dinner with someone are morally and socially equivalent acts.

But if I am wrong, and none of you do consider sex a meaningless or purely recreational act, I am happy to be in error.

Ab_Normal

IMHO, I don't find "purely recreational" and "meaningless" to be equivalent.

luvluv

Well, by purely I meant "totally" recreational act, which would mean there would be no meaning left for it to have besides that of recreation. I guess it depends on how meaningful you think recreation is as to how much meaning the "totally recreational" sex act would have.

However, if one viewed it as "totally recreational" it could not have any value in terms of commitment or fidelity, it would be the moral equivalent of playing a video game.

luvluv

Lady Shea:

I'm curious, in what way special and meaningful?

Is it inherently speical and meaningful, or only with certain persons under certain circumstances?

Can it be misused, even between consenting adults?

(After all, adultery and infidelity are often acts between consenting adults.)

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Talulah

I believe it has more to do with misogynistic traditions than religious traditions. The sexuality of males has never been so heavily proscribed as females. I would agree that lack of contraceptive could be a factor, but again, relating to the idea that a man could ensure his offspring were really his.

I think the present ideas about sexuality are a result of the prudery of the Victorian age.


I am sure in all cultures and all times that, just like today, some felt sex was recreational while some felt it to be 'sacred.' Others maybe thought it was expression of love, maybe mixed in with some of the other ideas as well.

But does this prove that it is the way that it should be? Can you even prove that was the way it WAS? I could likely list tons of documented examples of sexual deviance from times past. Does that mean it was a 'standard' or were people just 'doin' what comes natural' even then?


Again, I don't think you have proof that this was the case.

I think some people are [equipped to deal with sex as a meaningless act], and some aren't. It is a commonly held belief that men are much less emotionally involved in what their genitals are doing than women are. I don't think that is true for all men just because that generalization is made. I have met men who were far, far more selective in and emotionally involved with their sexual partners than me.

Besides, one could arguably say that an act that could result in so much pleasure would be impossible to be described as or believed to be 'meaningless.'

How did you leap from sex being meaningless to flagrant examples of abuses of power and position? I personally think that sex can't be compared to 'eating dinner' but some people might feel that way about it (reference my idea about pleasure above though.) That some people feel that way doesn't mean that society is about to disenigrate.

Maybe you should try to get people to talk about sex with versus without emotional involvement.

I will start. I have had sex with and without emotional involvement. One was 'ok' the other was/is great. Neither damaged my psyche or contributed to the downfall of humanity. To some, I have known, sex is sex regardless of the emotions attached.

Think of it like a spectrum. Even among *gasp* Atheists, there is, I am sure, a wide range of attitudes, stretching from not wanting a partner to have had any or very little experiance, all the way to a totally open relationship or even nothing BUT sexual relationships. I have meet Xtains in everyone one of these ranges too.

But, there is equity in the sexual relationship.
I have heard some creationists deride evolutionists, saying that we believe we came from animals, so they aren't surprised we act like them, no feelings, just primative, instinctual sex drives. Well, we do have feelings, that much is obvious.

DAMN, those Catholics were right. Let's just go back to when sex was believed to be just for procreation and birth control was illegal, etc.


As for me, I am in a serious, commited relationship. Sex is not meaningless to me (I don't think anyone said it was, I think they were contradicting the one man/one woman for life model), nor is is emotionless, but very highly emotional. I do not have an open relationship and don't want one. I am not married, which incidently leads me to say that I am not heterosexual either. I also do not think that that means that everyone should experiance it in the same way that I do.

However, I do not think that marriage [or sex] makes two halves a whole. I don't think that people become 'one flesh' in sex. I think that is religious sentiment only. I think sex can be FOR pleasure, or as a symbol of love or deep feeling (with the pleasure too). Obviously, I don't think a piece of paper or some mumbo-jumbo words are needed to have sex.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: Talulah ]</p>

luvluv

I don't know what the varying degrees of proscription have to do with anything I am mentioning here. The fact is that the sex act was limited to people who were in committed relationships, and was not considered to be recreational or devoid of social, financial, or emotional consequences even for males.

The fact that sex is proscribed AT ALL is evidence that we naturally have emotional and physiological ties to the act. If it was all about mysogyny, the men would have had NO rules about sex at all and would have simply left the women and children to die for all they cared.

Let's please not try to make this into a man/woman issue.

Can you elaborate on this? What mechanism has allowed such attitudes to prevail so succesfully against such pressure against them? After all, Victorian ideas about other subjects (fashion, literature, etc) do not hold. How do their ideas about sex hold? And why?

The man woman stuff is a diversion from the issue about the general attitude about sex. You apparently would be as upset about your partner cheating on you as he would about you cheating on him. The issue is why is this emotional factor common to all people, men and women, and given that it is how should we treat sex?

I actually was making the point from the opposite end of the spectrum, that for the atheist evolutionist there is no grounds for thinking that sex is for anything but procreation, and for the theist sex can be considered at least partially as being intended for enjoyment and the consumation of a committed relationship.

We could trade stereotypes all day or we could have a serious conversation.

This is not a pro-marriage thread and I am not (generally speaking) a marriage-promiting kind of guy. This has nothing to do with the point of this thread, which is about whether or not we can afford to take the stance that sexuality can be unrestrained simply because of the presence of contraception. The question at stake here is whether or not the human beings emotional make-up, independant of social programming, can handle such circumstances.

Gallimore

The great truism of human beings is that they are much more sophisticated, both psychologically and physically, than any other species. They have mind. A very gifted mind, which is progressively more and more capable of controlling emotion. This capability isn’t acquired, but evolved. What then? It’s no wonder that they’ve begun to appreciate the distinction between emotional and physical acts.

If you’re jealous when your partner commits infidelity, you’ve attributed emotion to the physical. If you aren’t, you haven’t. It’s not a moral issue. Morality is another example of religious indoctrination. It’s the evolution of mind. And as many philosophers know, evolution is always about privilege. It enables us to live in a much more rich, sophisticated world. Where we may chose to make love. Or where we may choose to fuck.