Amen-Moses

What makes you think it is common to ALL people?

I have known plenty of people for whom this is not true and in fact there have been several cultures in which it was expected as common curtesy for visitors to have sexual relationships with their hosts. (mostly pacific islanders who probably needed the injection of new DNA that this would entail)

Amen-Moses

phlebas

I hear atheists sometimes use sex to have babies.

Jagged

No. You're forgetting that sex is a personal, pleasurable, unique and emotional experience for everyone. That is the nature of sex. You don't need god to tell you that.

luvluv

Gallimore:

I don't know if I'm following you here. It sounds like you are saying we should decide to evolve into creatures who do not sweat, grind our teeth, or endure the 100's of other physiological and emotional reactions we go through when we hear of a partner's infidelity. That sounds more like mind over matter to me than the use of real judgement.

Gallimore, I've conceded (for the sake of this argument) that our attitudes about sex are the result of evolution, but my point is that we cannot DECIDE to evolve into creatures who do not place a value on sex simply because contraception has come on in the last 50 years. We MAY evolve into creatures who do not attach emotional value to sex, but the simple fact is WE HAVE NOT EVOLVED IN SUCH A WAY YET and WE CANNOT DO SO BY AN ACT OF OUR WILL.

That is the point of my argument. We cannot "decide" to change our physiological make-up because sex is less of a commitment for us now. We've still got thousands and thousands of years of evolution at our backs (according to the evolutionist) and that evolution has brought the majority of us to have emotional attachments to the act. These attachments aren't simply attitudes. They are often times rooted in biology and chemistry. I mentioned a few months ago in a similar thread that there are hormones released in women when they have children or orgasms which serve to emotionally bond them to the child or the sex partner. Now, how can we "change our minds" about the production of such hormones, and how can we "decide" to evolve into an animal in which such hormones are not produced?

Amen-Moses:

I did include a qualifier saying this might not be true of all people, but it can safely be said to be true of most people.

phlebas:

Only when they can't find a suitable test tube in the laboratories/pornography dungeons they all live in.

OR

Don't be silly, we all know atheists prefer to reproduce by cloning.


Jagged Little Pill:

You can say that is what it means for you, but you cannot say that is what the "purpose" of sex is in general from a scientific standpoint.

A theist can argue that recreation was part of the original intent of the sex act. The atheist can only say he or she has decided to have fun with it.

Scientifically, there is really no question what the purpose of sex is. If you want to give it some other possibility of meaning, you have to be unscientific.

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

galiel

luvluv, have you ever stopped to ask yourself why it is so important for you to tell other people what to do with their penises and vaginas? What gives you the authority to tell anyone else that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is either right, wrong, or purple with pink polka dots?

Talk about hubris.

And talk about misinformed. To suggest that anything could be "right" or "wrong" according to science is to reveal an utter ignorance about the nature of scientific inquiry. Science does not deal with moral judgements, it seeks, through empirical evidence, logical analysis and propperly applied skeptical caution to derive useful principles about the objective, physical reality within which we live. Talking about "a misuse of the sex act" from "a scientific point of view" is about as meaningful as talking about the "morality" of sunlight.

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

Jagged

I thought we were talking about sex and meaning, not sex and scientific theory. Atheists do not need science to tell them the meaning of sex in their personal lives. Because we experience it firsthand. And all human beings experience sex as pleasurable (orgasm), unique (can only have sex with one person at a time and it's unlike any other experience) and emotional (hormones and physiological responses all over the place).

luvluv

galliel:

More to the point, when have I done such a thing on this thread?

I'm asking questions as a concerned member of this society. I'm not telling anybody what to do with their thingies. I do care what they do, because I care about people and I know people can bring harm to themselves and others through sex. I don't see how anyone could be apathetic about the issue and say they care about people. I consider it moral to hope that people do what is good for them, not to simply hope they do what they like, even if it harms them. That certainly doesn't mean I advocate making that decision for them, but it also doesn't mean I do not care (or am not, in some way, involved) about whatever decision they do make. I don't have the right to tell someone not to jump off a bridge, but if I knew a person had such an intent I would try to talk them out of it. No, casual sex is not the equivalnent of jumping off of a bridge, but it is an act that is potentially harmful and so a person has a right to express an opinion (or in the case of this thread, ask a question) about sex on purely humanitarian grounds.

You might say that you don't care what I do with my body, I can't say the same about you. It's not from a control standpoint, but from a standpoint of genuine human concern. I am under no illusion that I can control anyone, and I don't have the desire to.

The control issue, like the male/female issue, is a dodge. The central issue is whether our attitudes about sex are healthy given our natural emotions about sex.

Misuse was probably the wrong word. Perhaps "mis-labelling"... "false categorization"? Point is, from a scientific standpoint, it is difficult if not impossible to say that sex is "for" fun. Scientifically the fun is a means to an end.

There are moral judgements in science (should a scientist lie in reporting his findings?), but I won't get into that.

luvluv

Jagged Little Pill:

We are in a sense talking about meaning, or, if you prefer, purpose. A scientist could not say that the meaning or purpose of sex was pleasure. You can give it any meaning you want, but it won't be any more legitimate than my giving it a sacred meaning. It would just be what you have decided to give it.

Talulah

For starters, for the sake of simplicity, forget I mentioned misogny.

I do not believe this to be a standard, historically. Are you taking into account practices of Native Americans, remote tribes of Africans, etc? Have you ever read any of the studies of Margaret Mead?

I was trying to point out that there were differing opinions then, as now, about the emotional importance placed on the sexual act. Differences that are based on the prevailing religion, attitudes and needs of the people. The stereotype I put forth about men being less involved emotionally in sex, was part of that effort.

Some current ideas about sex can be traced back to Victorian times. Just as literature and fashion have progressed since then, so have sexual attitudes. That doesn't mean that we aren't still seeing the influence of those ideas, however slight.

I am saying it doesn't matter whether some people think sex is meaningless or not when it is obvious that a great many more feel the opposite. Furthermore, if it works for them, what does it matter what they think? I am also trying to point out that just because we do not hold to Christian values, that doesn't mean we also think sex devoid of meaning.

What is it you think will happen if this were true? It would tear the fabric of society? The family would cease to exist? Children would be left to die in the streets because maternal instint would be lost with emotional attachment to a mate?

luvluv

And, other than Talulah, none of you have answered the question. I'd also like to know if you attach any meaning to the sex act, what is that meaning and how did you come to recognize it?