Monkeybot

Well, for me, it's a question of honesty. If he leads me to believe that he will be monogamous and then isn't, that's a pretty major violation of trust.

I of course believe that it's possible to have sex with no emotions or strings or whatever attached. That isn't always the case, however. A lot of people do invest emotionally in sex, regardless of societal pressures or vestiges of religion or whatever. Sex can make you feel desirable, loved, cherished, and it can also make you feel dirty, cheap, and used. It's all about context and personal experiences. Everyone's going to come at sex with a different perspective. Again, while I acknowledge the possibility, I don't really understand where your "scratching your nose" analogy comes in. It's not really comparable. Sex is a much more intense, much more emotional experience for a lot of people. Our sexuality influences so much of our personality and our self image. Would you feel the same way about being raped as you would about someone scratching your nose without permission?

How does this relate to monogamy? If you're in a relatively long-term relationship, you can't just assume what your partner's feelings towards cheating and monogamy are. S/he may be totally cool in an open relationship. You may both be keen on adding another person to the relationship (polyamory). Or, you may both agree on monogamy. Whatever the case, if you agree on monogamy then I think it's dishonorable to renege on that agreement without notifying your partner. I mean simple human decency should tell you not to betray your partner's trust like that. If I enter into a relationship, and we agree on certain things, and then I find that he's violating these certain agreements behind my back -- I'm not going to be too happy.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: Monkeybot ]</p>

The Other Michael

Sex has whatever significance the participants give to it.

You could compare it to eating. Dry kibble could be made that kept you nourished but did nothing for the taste buds (and maybe even tastes bad). If you were eating kibble then eating probably isn't very significant.

But if you've got some really good chocolate pastry/nice steak/prime tofu etc that you've spent hours preparing, and much time savoring every bite, then being nourished by the food is of much greater significance.

There might be times when kibble was good enough and all you wanted, and at that time you aren't looking for much out of eating. But if haute cuisine is what you are craving and you are willing to go to some effort to obtain it, then you are likely to get a lot more out of the experience.

I'm cooking just now, so food comparisons came to mind.

cheers,
Michael

MadMordigan

Sex can make you feel desirable, loved, cherished, and it can also make you feel dirty, cheap, and used.

Which way do you prefer, babe?

luvluv

Glory:

Do you believe these desires could possibly be biological or physiological in origin?

Could you really make the decision not to care if your husband were monogamous or not? Could you really decide that you could be happy another way, given how infidelity makes you feel?

Is it really up to you?

The Other Michael:

Again, is it possible that this is not true, and that how we respond emotionally to sex is largely biolgical? Can we really decide how we will view it?

Certainly two people can have sex without being in love with each other, but do they really have the option of having sex with no emotional involvement at all? Is this only true between two strangers or can it also be true between friends? Could you sleep with your best friend and just decide that it will mean nothing? When you say "whatever signifigance the partners give to it" it sounds like you are saying that signifigance is totally voluntary and totally determined by the participants... but is it? Given the way in which we have evolved and the central role sexual reproduction played in that process, does it really follow that you can decide what meaning sex has and have your emotions really abide by that decision over and against thousands of years of evolution(/design)?

Again, with respect, this starts to sound like mind over matter to me in some respects.

[ November 11, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Glory

Maybe to some extent. Falling in love and arousal are both biological phenomena as are all brain functions. The question is was my brain wired to think the way I do by nature or by experiences. I think it is a combination of both. Nature and nurture.



When did I imply that I was in control of my emotions to that extent? No, I don't think I could decide to be happy under any circumstances. I can make decisions designed to maximise my happiness and that is what I am talking about. However, had I been raised differently I suspect I would feel differently about infidelity. Nature and nurture.



How I feel about infidelity? To some extent yes, to some extent no.

How I feel about each sexual encounter? See above.

Wether or not a sexual encounter will involve emotional attachment? same as above. Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't emotional attachment. I know this because I have had sex that was free from emotional attachment. I have also had sex that resulted in emotional attachment. I have of course had sex which was the result of emotional attachment. What I never felt was the need for emotional attachment in order to have sex. For me, emotional attachment and investment make it a lot better, but they don't need to be there.

Wether or not I participate in a sexual encounter without empotional attachment? Yes, that is up to me.

Most important though is that I do not expect other people to feel the same as I do.

Glory

Glory

Just because I don't think that promiscuity is inherently bad doesn't mean I think it's right for everyone. That's just silly. There is nothing bad about eating coconut either but I hate coconut and do not eat it.

Glory

Jagged

You guys are forgetting something re: the "scratching your nose" analogy.

Scratching your nose is a one-person activity. I mean, yes, you can have someone else scratch it for you but you don't get anything more out of it than if you're scratching it yourself.

Sex, on the other hand, you do get more out of if you're doing it with someone else. Also intrinsic to sex is that you can (pretty much) only do it with one person at a time. (Yeah, yeah, but you know what I mean--the vast majority of sex is 2-person.)

ALSO, let's not forget what a vulnerable position you are in when you are having sex with someone. You've exposed your privates, if not all of your body, you're letting someone get close enough to touch you while at the same time surrendering to passion. This needs some level of trust, unless you're just really horny or really stupid.

So anyway, not sure if I'm ready to make any blanket generalizations about how sex should or should not be used, but I do think that there are characteristics intrinsic to sex which make it quite unique compared to other activities. I didn't even name them all, of course there's the fact that we're wired to use sex for procreating children, which is kind of a long-term thing, and also there are hormonal and physiological effects also hardwired. And at least speaking for myself and many women I know, we just have a hard time seperating sex with emotion and intimacy--no matter what we believe.

I'm hoping I'm making at least a slight bit of sense right now I'm tired and I'm not really sure how coherent I'm sounding

The Other Michael

Hi luvluv,

Subconscious meaning counts too - not just conscious meaning.

cheers,
Michael

Vorkosigan

Certainly two people can have sex without being in love with each other, but do they really have the option of having sex with no emotional involvement at all?

Luv, have you ever heard of prostitution? How about the kind of sex that goes on in gay bars where some guys rams his schlong into a hole in the bathroom and another sucks him off? How about orgies? Did you see the game they played in "The Ice Storm?" There are lots of situations in which people engage in sex acts with little or no emotional involvement. In fact, given the prevalence of prostitution in the world, especially in the more religious countries, I would argue that there is more emotion-free sex in the world than not.

Is this only true between two strangers or can it also be true between friends? Could you sleep with your best friend and just decide that it will mean nothing?

Sure. Have done so. Still friends with her for years afterwards. In a couple of cases.

When you say "whatever signifigance the partners give to it" it sounds like you are saying that signifigance is totally voluntary and totally determined by the participants... but is it?

"Giving significance" may well refer to involuntary or unconscious reactions.

Given the way in which we have evolved and the central role sexual reproduction played in that process, does it really follow that you can decide what meaning sex has and have your emotions really abide by that decision over and against thousands of years of evolution

Luv, can you tell us exactly what kind of emotions about sex evolution designed us to have?

Also, why are you so hung up on sex? I am suspicious of people who spend so much time worrying about whether and how other people are fucking. What is it you hope to show through close analysis of Infidel ideas about sex?

Vorkosigan

luvluv

Glory:

Right but we really don't have control of either, so how we react to sex is to a large extent not up to us.

Jagged Little Pill:

Agreed.

I was actually talking about male-female intercourse among non-professionals in the general sense. I thought I clarified that, but maybe that was on the other thread.

I still don't think you understand exactly what I mean by emotional attachment. I don't mean being in love. I mean can you have sex with someone without having some moral feeling about the siginifigance of what you've done, even if that feeling is repressed or analyzed away? Can you really have sex with a prostitute with neither of you feeling cheapened or degraded by the act, even if that emotion is repressed. Most of us have those feelings but we feel justified in repressing them because we tell ourselves they are just the baseless left-overs of our religious or moral programming, and thus non-binding. My question is are those feelings really purely sociological... it would make sense evolutionarily, for example, for us to feel guilty or somehow frustrated about masturbating. We would not be using our sexual desires for nature's procreative intent. It would make sense for nature to introduce a fail-safe device to spur us to productive sexual unions. Why could this not be the origin of some of the guilt around the sex act?

I didn't mean it as a personal question, but as a statement which could be generally said to be true or false of most people.

I'm not worried about you guys at all, I'm worried about a certain superstition that our society has about the meaning of sex and I generally speak up against it wherever I go. Why are you so hung up about why other people believe in God? I am suspicious of people who spend so much time worrying about whether and how other people are worshiping. You have your moral concerns and I have mine.

Have you ever heard of the axiom you don't break the law you break yourself against them? Well, as I may have mentioned here before I do a little volunteering with children, mostly inner city but I see all types. I see a lot of them, especially young girls, breaking themselves against the law because they have adopted this laissez faire attitude about sex. They're barely 14 or 15 but they consider that it is not only right for them to have sex with whoever they please (including legal adults) but that it is morally wrong for me to question them about it. So I've seen them get pregnant and drop out of school and in a few cases worse because they believe what our society has told them about sex: that it is meaningless, that there is something wrong with them if they don't do it before they get married, that it is impossible for them to abstain, etc...

I basically make it my point to combat this attitude wherever I find it, much the same as your commitment to challenging theism wherever you find it. Fair enough?