Jagged

I'm going to defend luvluv here (first time for everything! ) and say I think this is a gender-biased view (making the risky assumption that you are, in fact, male?). Guys easily have sex without emotional involvement, girls don't. Not saying that it's not possible for a girl to have sex without involvement, but I do think there's a difference in biological "wiring" here.

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jagged Little Pill ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I am in fact male, and I see some sense in this point of view. However, after X number of clients, I doubt any streetwalker has much emotional investment in her clients. Therefore, while I confess there probably are male-female diffs, I refuse to cop to gender bias here!

Ms. Siv

I dont know if we can equate scratching one's nose with sex because we dont go about entering into contracts re: scratching our nose, but we do re: sex and relationships involving sex.
I think (I speak for myself but might be echoing the views of certain others) that the point behind comparing sex to scratching one's nose ... was for the realization that there's "sacred" or "divine" about sex. We know how it evolved, we know why it evolved, we know exactly why it evokes such strong emotions and responses in people. That demystifies sex (and sexual love) to a very large extent. This demystifying need not mean that we dont consider sex or sex related relationships important anymore. On the contrary they can continue to be important to people.

When we enter into a relationship with someone (be it marriage or a much less formal arrangement), there are certain implicit agreements made. And these hold true for both partners. Cheating violates this contract - unless the partners agreed to have a sexually open relationship. Thats why its wrong.

But the strong feelings and responses it evokes (even provoking murder) are more hard-wired than anything else. Sex was fundamental to evolution. It would be surprising only if it did not evoke extremely strong responses
While we may realize that the degree of strongness in the response is irrational - given that gene propogation might not be our objective anymore .... recognizing its irrationality may not imply our ability to overcome it totally or at all times. We are all human after all ... even if we do recognize the irrationality of human behaviour.
Maybe with genetic engineering we can, but until then we have to live with who we are.

- Sivakami.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

Pseudonymph

I just wanted to say that I really like this answer...in fact it satisfactoraly answers my original question about this whole thing.


I still wonder how many people who claim that sex should be removed of all taboos and stigma justify being upset when they are cheated on.

Jamie_L

Fact: some people can have sex with no emotional involvement.

Fact: some people seem unable to have sex without emotional attachment.

I think it's foolish to say that anyone can have sex without am emotional component. Some people clearly aren't capable of doing that. This may be nuture or nature or both. At this point, I'm of the opinion that there is a biological aspect to this emotional involvement, it's just that some people don't have it to the same degree as others (or at all).

Given all this, there should be no stigma attached to people who can engage in sex-without-love and choose to do so. Likewise, there should be no belittling of people who do get their emotions wrapped up in sex. As long as everyone is up front with their partners about what sex means to them, then everyone should be able to get along.

Jamie

tronvillain

sirenspeak:
Saying that sex should be devoid of stigma and taboo is not the same as saying "anything goes." I can have sex without any emotional attachment whatsoever, but that does not mean I cannot be in monogamous relationships where sex does have emotional attachment.

luvluv

But that's kind of arbitrary, isn't it tronvillian, if sex really doesn't have any more meaning than any other act.

I mean, a spouse could just as easily say that their marriage partner cannot have dinner with anyone other than them, or share a cab with anyone other than them, because after all, they can CHOOSE to give emotional meaning to dinner and cab rides.

But that would be kind of kooky wouldn't it?

Most people would not even agree to such an absurd arrangement, so what is it about the sex act that makes people willing (ocassionally) to confine it to a single partner?

luvluv

What I'm trying to say is, doesn't it make sense to give emotional meaning only to those acts which MERIT it? We can agree that not every act is worthy of emotional meaning. And if sex is an act that does merit emotional meaning, then isn't emotional meaning SOMEHOW always inherent in the act?

MadMordigan

Most people would not even agree to such an absurd arrangement

Really? Try telling your wife you went out for dinner with your beautiful new secretary.

luvluv

Are you saying that is equivalent to telling my wife I had sex with my beautiful new secretary?

Further, if your spouse wanted it stipulated in your wedding vows that you would never have dinner with ANYONE but her while she was alive (including your brothers, sisters, parents, and children) wouldn't you think that was a little off? Would you go along with it, even if you loved here?

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>