Connection between love and sex?

[tonyrey]

You are assuming all animals are biological machines the activity of which is entirely determined by physical causes and they are subject to the same basic limitations which precludes rationality, autonomy and responsibility.

I’ve answered these questions on the thread about animals.

Understanding is the result of hindsight, insight and foresight which are forever beyond the scope of inanimate particles which are trapped in the here and now. You can combine and permutate them for all eternity but you will never succeed in enabling them to be aware of themselves, to look back into the past and forwards into the future. The power of reason is not a mechanical process of computation but a personal, creative activity which entails consciousness, intuition, inspiration, imagination, abstraction, flexibility, choice and decision-making.

Actually, I would say that the process of reason is indeed a process of computation, but one that takes into account a vast number of variables and possibilities. If inanimate matter cannot retain information from the past to influence future actions, how do computers store information? How does my mobile phone learn predictive text preferences from my previous (name removed by moderator)ut?

Reasoning entails far more than retention!

If you are your body your mind doesn’t exist and you are no more than a complex set of atomic particles.

I certainly don’t think my mind has any existence that is in any way independent of my body, or independent of the physical substance of my brain. What and where is the mind if it does not arise from physical phenomena? We’ve been over this territory before, and you’ve been quite expansive about what you insist the mind isn’t and can’t be, but somewhat less forthcoming on what you believe it is.

The mind is the self, i.e. the conscious, intangible, autonomous entity which understands abstract concepts, interprets the information from the senses, establishes general principles, distinguishes between good and evil, controls the brain, makes decisions, resists temptations and has a capacity for unselfish love.

Monism in the form of materialism is a rare event in the history of mankind because human beings have always intuitively recognised the distinction between persons and things.

Have they, indeed? Yet they’ve been somewhat arbitrary in applying this distinction, if the record of history is anything to go by.

Why?

Ironically you are the one who is imposing limits - limits on reality by restricting it to matter!

This is only a limit according to your rather restrictive concept of matter and other physical phenomena.

Your concept of matter is that it is unbounded and virtually omnipotent in its power to create everything that exists! The mere fact that you can think about matter demonstrates that your mind encompasses it whereas matter has no idea of you or anything else…

The survival rates of the human population is far less significant than the survival of life on this planet - apart from the fact that we are the greatest threat to all forms of life. Even insects have a better chance of survival if you are arguing from the size of population. But quantity is far less important than quality - which is simplicity in this case.

Some quantity, however, is required for quality. Your argument was based on the concept of the survival value of intelligence. I was merely pointing out that under certain circumstances, intelligence allows for survival where lesser intellectual ability might lose out.

History has proved that “certain circumstances” count for nothing in the long run.

Do you think that if all humans died out, it would be of benefit to the rest of life on earth? I agree, but I wonder where this sentiment arises in the environment of Catholic faith.

Catholics believe in free will.

Biological machines are amoral…

Are they? What exactly is a biological machine? How would we distinguish between a biological machine and an animal?

I’ve answered these questions on the thread about animals.

You are equating marriage with a utilitarian notion of obtaining heirs and heiresses!

Which is exactly how it was perceived in past centuries.

Certainly - from a secular point of view.

The spiritual and physical dedication of a man and a woman to each other without the need for sexual intercourse with others to relieve the boredom of fidelity and self-restraint.

What makes you think that the relief of boredom and a lack of self-restraint are the prime motivators of polyamory?

They are not the prime motivators! The will to power over yourself, absolute freedom to control your own life and the rejection of all higher authority are your prime motivators.

Is that just your restrictive, sex-negative view of human relationships? I’ll endeavour to explain this again - I don’t deliberately pursue intimate relationships with others for the sake of getting away from my husband or because I lack interest in him as a lover (in every sense), but I also don’t deliberately avoid or limit intimate attachments to others, and neither does he. I don’t consider that I am committing intellectual adultery if I have a deep philosophical discussion with someone other than my husband - I reiterate, why do you place sex on such a pedestal that it is the only form of intimacy that must not be shared with anyone to whom one is not married?

Because sex is sacred!

 

[tonyrey]

Because sex is sacred!

Sex is sacred because it reflects the power of God to create persons. It is intended to unite a man and a woman who love each other spiritually and physically - without the need for sexual relations with any other person. Even if they cannot have children for some legitimate reason it is still an expression of their love, trust and dedication to each other.

Usually their lifelong union is the basis of a family in which their children can grow up in a stable and lasting environment with the father and mother as role models they will emulate. The family is a microcosm of society with its principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which stem from the teaching of Jesus but it also has two fundamental principles which society lacks: paternity and maternity. These are more than legal principles because they imply fatherhood and motherhood, i.e. fatherly and motherly love, care and devotion.

Each person in the family has a distinct role to play which gives the children a sense of security and purpose. The extended family is also a well-defined community which enhances the sense of belonging. Teachers and friends play an important part in linking the children to the rest of society but they respect the integrity of the family because they know how much unnecessary suffering is caused by anything which causes it to disintegrate.

To experiment with lovers is to take risks which are both unjustified and immoral because polyamory implies that marriage is merely a human convention based on expediency without any further significance. Love is degraded to the level of sexual friendships that can be commenced or terminated whenever the relationship loses its appeal to any of the lovers. The effects on children and society are pernicious in undermining belief in the sanctity of marriage and the concept of true love. The pursuit of moral perfection is abandoned for the sake of the pursuit of pleasure and self-restraint is replaced by self-indulgence.

Mutual consent leads to a mutual society which lacks definite obligations or prospects - all because the husband and wife are not fully dedicated to each other, regard sexual intercourse as an essential expression of friendship and interpret moral principles as arbitrary man-made rules.

 

[Sair]

Sex is sacred because it reflects the power of God to create persons. It is intended to unite a man and a woman who love each other spiritually and physically - without the need for sexual relations with any other person. Even if they cannot have children for some legitimate reason it is still an expression of their love, trust and dedication to each other.

So, sex reflects creative power even if it can’t create?

To experiment with lovers is to take risks which are both unjustified and immoral because polyamory implies that marriage is merely a human convention based on expediency without any further significance. Love is degraded to the level of sexual friendships that can be commenced or terminated whenever the relationship loses its appeal to any of the lovers. The effects on children and society are pernicious in undermining belief in the sanctity of marriage and the concept of true love. The pursuit of moral perfection is abandoned for the sake of the pursuit of pleasure and self-restraint is replaced by self-indulgence.

Marriage is a human convention. No other animals do it. If one looks back at the history of marriage, ‘love’, in such a context, is degraded to the level of a commercial transaction. Love, traditionally, is what happened in extramarital affairs.

Mutual consent leads to a mutual society which lacks definite obligations or prospects - all because the husband and wife are not fully dedicated to each other, regard sexual intercourse as an essential expression of friendship and interpret moral principles as arbitrary man-made rules.

So you are worried about what people might do if they don’t have hard and fast external rules, huh? What is indefinite about mutual consent? Operative rules of human societies are not arbitrary, but they are negotiable. These are quite different things. Arbitrariness doesn’t take personal needs into account.

 

[sw85]

What is the philosophy behind this? I cannot see any philosophical way of connecting these two. I obviously do think that there is a connection. But I don’t know what to make of it. This of course relates to why sex outside of marriage is wrong, why hook ups are wrong. etc.

Any papers on this topic or threads or new thoughts?

Simply put, the human sexual act speaks a language of total unity and commitment. We are configured to have sex with one person at a time – even if we have more than one other person in the bed, the conjugal act itself can occur only between two people at a time.

To have sex is to know a person completely: to know the most intimate things about them, those things which are hidden from the world. Its procreative aspect, of course, demands that unity and commitment as well, but the act itself speaks it.

Therefore, the unity and commitment of the sexual act ought to be matched by the will in the form of marriage. To have sex without marriage is to lie with one’s body.

And lying, of course, is always wrong.

 

[sw85]

So, sex reflects creative power even if it can’t create?

Sex reflects creative power in principle. That individual couples may be infertile is irrelevant to this principle.

Marriage is a human convention. No other animals do it. If one looks back at the history of marriage, ‘love’, in such a context, is degraded to the level of a commercial transaction. Love, traditionally, is what happened in extramarital affairs.

Marriage is human, I agree, but it is not conventional. It is an institution arising organically from human nature. (The legal arrangements surrounding marriage are of course conventional insofar as the social rights and benefits attendant on marriage depend on the culture in question).

 

[tonyrey]

Sex is sacred because it reflects the power of God to create persons. It is intended to unite a man and a woman who love each other spiritually and physically - without the need for sexual relations with any other person. Even if they cannot have children for some legitimate reason it is still an expression of their love, trust and dedication to each other.

Sex is **always **potentially creative even if it is not procreative. Sublimation is a powerful source of personal expression which has produced many works of beauty and compassion.

To experiment with lovers is to take risks which are both unjustified and immoral because polyamory implies that marriage is merely a human convention based on expediency without any further significance. Love is degraded to the level of sexual friendships that can be commenced or terminated whenever the relationship loses its appeal to any of the lovers. The effects on children and society are pernicious in undermining belief in the sanctity of marriage and the concept of true love. The pursuit of moral perfection is abandoned for the sake of the pursuit of pleasure and self-restraint is replaced by self-indulgence.

Marriage is a human convention. No other animals do it. If one looks back at the history of marriage, ‘love’, in such a context, is degraded to the level of a commercial transaction.

The fact that marriage has been distorted and abused is not a good reason for rejecting it, distorting it or abusing it.

Love, traditionally, is what happened in extramarital affairs.

Love has existed before, during, after and without marriage! Many married couples have loved each other all their lives regardless of whether they have given way to temptation.
Nor are “love” affairs synonymous with love.

Mutual consent leads to a mutual society which lacks definite obligations or prospects - all because the husband and wife are not fully dedicated to each other, regard sexual intercourse as an essential expression of friendship and interpret moral principles as arbitrary man-made rules.

So you are worried about what people might do if they don’t have hard and fast external rules, huh?

So you are worried about having any hard and fast external rules, huh? Have you invented all the rules by which you have chosen to live - and are they **all **provisional?

What is indefinite about mutual consent?

It is necessarily indefinite because it does not specify who the lovers will be in the future - or how long the relationships will last.

Operative rules of human societies are not arbitrary, but they are negotiable.

Are they all negotiable without exception?

Arbitrariness doesn’t take personal needs into account.

What are your personal needs and how do you decide whether they are genuine?

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming all animals are biological machines the activity of which is entirely determined by physical causes and they are subject to the same basic limitations which precludes rationality, autonomy and responsibility.

I don’t regard any living organisms as biological machines.

Is this merely a matter of complexity, or do the ‘higher’ animals have a ghost in the machine?

Unlike inorganic compounds all living organisms are directive and have an** élan vital,** i.e. an urge to survive.

Understanding is the result of hindsight, insight and foresight which are forever beyond the scope of inanimate particles which are trapped in the here and now. You can combine and permutate them for all eternity but you will never succeed in enabling them to be aware of themselves, to look back into the past and forwards into the future. The power of reason is not a mechanical process of computation but a personal, creative activity which entails consciousness, intuition, inspiration, imagination, abstraction, flexibility, choice and decision-making.

Actually, I would say that the process of reason is indeed a process of computation, but one that takes into account a vast number of variables and possibilities. If inanimate matter cannot retain information from the past to influence future actions, how do computers store information? How does my mobile phone learn predictive text preferences from my previous (name removed by moderator)ut?

Reasoning** includes **the storage and selection of information but it entails much more than that - as I have pointed out. Logic won’t take you very far…

 

[Sair]

Sex is **always **potentially creative even if it is not procreative. Sublimation is a powerful source of personal expression which has produced many works of beauty and compassion.

I would suggest then that sex doesn’t have to take place within marriage in order to be creative. Do you really think it’s sexual frustration (voluntarily undergone or otherwise) that has produced the great artworks of history? As for compassion, there is a lot to be said for the ability of physical intimacy to increase one’s sense of awareness and understanding of onesself and others. That’s the effect it has for me, anyway. I think you are underestimating the value of experience in this regard.

The fact that marriage has been distorted and abused is not a good reason for rejecting it, distorting it or abusing it.

The fact that it so often ends in tears, divorce and broken homes would seem to suggest it needs some tweaking, though.

Love has existed before, during, after and without marriage! Many married couples have loved each other all their lives regardless of whether they have given way to temptation. Nor are “love” affairs synonymous with love.

During a fair chunk of European history, the institution of marriage has been upheld as such regardless of the feelings of the parties involved. Then, and even in some cultures today, erotic love was and is considered a fairly poor reason for marriage - family alliances, material wealth and social position were and often still are considered more important in the decision of whom to marry than any emotional attachment. It’s only in the comparatively liberal and prosperous West, historically very recently, that marriage has become a personal choice made primarily by the individuals involved, based first and foremost on their own feelings.

So you are worried about having any hard and fast external rules, huh? Have you invented all the rules by which you have chosen to live - and are they **all **provisional?

Of course I haven’t invented them. I don’t live in a social vacuum. And yes, they are provisional in the sense that should they prove to have negative consequences, they will be examined and modified accordingly.

It is necessarily indefinite because it does not specify who the lovers will be in the future - or how long the relationships will last.

And no-one knows, upon deciding to marry a person, that they won’t fall out of love with their partner or maybe fall in love with someone else. No-one really knows what the future will bring, which is why honesty and openness, compassion and acceptance are necessary components of any relationship, whether you foresee it going the distance or not.

Are they all negotiable without exception?

What do you think? Are you attempting to get me to say there are some things that are always bad and some things that are always good to do to other people in given circumstances? There are, undoubtedly, since there are general trends in what behaviours are observed to strengthen or weaken social bonds between people, but I don’t think they’re the kinds of things you imagine they are.

What are your personal needs and how do you decide whether they are genuine?

What constitutes a ‘genuine’ need? Should I decide this on the basis of what religion or society says is acceptable or normal?

 

[tonyrey]

Sex is always potentially creative even if it is not procreative. Sublimation is a powerful source of personal expression which has produced many works of beauty and compassion.

Sex is the normal expression of married love but if there is mutual consent the couple can choose to abstain if there is a good reason to do so.

Do you really think it’s sexual frustration (voluntarily undergone or otherwise) that has produced the great artworks of history?

Sublimation is not frustration! That view stems from your animalistic concept of human beings. The energy of physical sex is transformed into creative activity which benefits others.

As for compassion, there is a lot to be said for the ability of physical intimacy to increase one’s sense of awareness and understanding of oneself and others. That’s the effect it has for me, anyway. I think you are underestimating the value of experience in this regard.

On the contrary. The physical expression of the love of a man and a woman becomes a mystical experience when they are faithful and united to each other. They become one to such an extent their lives becomes meaningless without their partner.

The fact that marriage has been distorted and abused is not a good reason for rejecting it, distorting it or abusing it

The fact that it so often ends in tears, divorce and broken homes would seem to suggest it needs some tweaking, though.

But not by having lovers! The love which brought them together needs to be rediscovered and revitalised - except in the rare cases where they are incompatible.

Love has existed before, during, after and without marriage! Many married couples have loved each other all their lives regardless of whether they have given way to temptation. Nor are “love” affairs synonymous with love.

During a fair chunk of European history, the institution of marriage has been upheld as such regardless of the feelings of the parties involved. Then, and even in some cultures today, erotic love was and is considered a fairly poor reason for marriage - family alliances, material wealth and social position were and often still are considered more important in the decision of whom to marry than any emotional attachment. It’s only in the comparatively liberal and prosperous West, historically very recently, that marriage has become a personal choice made primarily by the individuals involved, based first and foremost on their own feelings.

Your opinion is disproved by many examples in history of the deep love of married couples.
They are less sensational than love affairs but far more significant. Even in societies with arranged marriages there was - and is - an element of choice because most parents are not sadistic and want their children to be happy.

Have you invented all the rules by which you have chosen to live - and are they all provisional?

Of course I haven’t invented them. I don’t live in a social vacuum. And yes, they are provisional in the sense that should they prove to have negative consequences, they will be examined and modified accordingly.

What are the negative consequences of your marriage?

It is necessarily indefinite because it does not specify who the lovers will be in the future - or how long the relationships will last.

And no one knows, upon deciding to marry a person, that they won’t fall out of love with their partner or maybe fall in love with someone else.

The concept of “falling” in and out of love is romantic but irrational! It implies we are slaves of our emotions whereas in reality love is clear-sighted, realistic and down to earth. We accept their defects because we see them in perspective.

The fact remains that the mutual consent of polyamorists is necessarily indefinite because it does not specify who the lovers will be - or how long the relationships will last.

No one really knows what the future will bring, which is why honesty and openness, compassion and acceptance are necessary components of any relationship, whether you foresee it going the distance or not.

We do know those virtues you mention raise us above the level of animal behaviour and imply the need for self-restraint and unselfishness.

Are you attempting to get me to say there are some things that are always bad and some things that are always good to do to other people in given circumstances? There are, undoubtedly, since there are general trends in what behaviours are observed to strengthen or weaken social bonds between people, but I don’t think they’re the kinds of things you imagine they are.

What do you think I imagine?

What constitutes a ‘genuine’ need? Should I decide this on the basis of what religion or society says is acceptable or normal?

It is presumptuous to ignore the accumulated wisdom of humanity. The desire for extramarital sex is not based on necessity but an illusion of necessity which reveals dissatisfaction with one’s partner. It stems from, and may be a cause of, a revolt against religion and spiritual values because it regards sexual pleasure and satisfaction with whoever one chooses as a legitimate right and obligation! Moral principles are reduced to hedonistic precepts and children are given the impression that we alone are the ones who determine what is right and wrong for ourselves, our children and society as a whole. Polyamory is a direct outcome of the permissive society and its harmful consequences cannot be restricted to its practitioners.

 

[Sair]

Sex is the normal expression of married love but if there is mutual consent the couple can choose to abstain if there is a good reason to do so.

Never said abstinence was impossible. Do you think the sex drive is at a constant peak of intensity?

Sublimation is not frustration! That view stems from your animalistic concept of human beings. The energy of physical sex is transformed into creative activity which benefits others.

Any denial of the fulfilment of an urge is frustrating to that urge. It doesn’t follow that frustration always has negative consequences - quite the opposite sometimes. It also doesn’t follow that any urge is constantly present. Balance between satisfaction and frustration of our urges leads to contentment. You seem to be assuming that multiple sexual partners means a constant flow of sexual activity, when this is not often the case.

On the contrary. The physical expression of the love of a man and a woman becomes a mystical experience when they are faithful and united to each other. They become one to such an extent their lives becomes meaningless without their partner.

That’s pretty extreme. What happens if (usually when) one of the partners dies before the other? Does the other continue on in meaningless existence? As for physical sex being a mystical experience, I can assure you that part doesn’t disappear or diminish when it is shared with other partners. Unity and faithfulness are not dependent upon sexual exclusivity.

But not by having lovers! The love which brought them together needs to be rediscovered and revitalised - except in the rare cases where they are incompatible.

Why not by having lovers? Why is that the only thing you are concerned with?

Your opinion is disproved by many examples in history of the deep love of married couples.

It’s not an opinion. The fact of the matter is that marriage is and always has been primarily a practical social arrangement for the orderly begetting of children and passing on of property. If a couple could tolerate each other enough to fulfil their duties, all good. Romantic or erotic love, involving powerful emotions, was considered a destabilising force, and not a necessary part of the marriage equation. In fact, couples who were deeply in love have stood out precisely because they were unusual (and it would be surprising if all of these practised complete sexual exclusivity). There is a vast difference between being deeply in love and staying in a marriage arrangement because divorce is either forbidden or stigmatised or just the greater of two evils. For the vast majority of women throughout history, leaving a marriage was not an option unless she wanted to be destitute and denied access to her children. Meanwhile, it was tacitly accepted for men to take their pleasure elsewhere with mistresses or prostitutes. This was the social reality of marriage for centuries.

 

[Sair]

They are less sensational than love affairs but far more significant. Even in societies with arranged marriages there was - and is - an element of choice because most parents are not sadistic and want their children to be happy.

An element of choice is all very well, but the primary considerations in that choice are usually not the degree to which a potential couple fancy each other. That part is expected to evolve later.

What are the negative consequences of your marriage?

Thus far I haven’t come across any that outweigh the positives.

The concept of “falling” in and out of love is romantic but irrational! It implies we are slaves of our emotions whereas in reality love is clear-sighted, realistic and down to earth. We accept their defects because we see them in perspective.

There’s a lot of human behaviour that is not rationally directed. The expectation in monogamous culture is that if one is part of a couple, one will suppress any attraction to people other than their partner. This doesn’t mean the attraction isn’t felt, just that it’s not pursued on pain of breaking up the existing relationship. If both partners accept the fact that attraction to others will happen, then everyone has their cards on the table and it can be discussed as a realistic prospect to be explored, not an aberration that sounds the death knell to the relationship.

We do know those virtues you mention raise us above the level of animal behaviour and imply the need for self-restraint and unselfishness.

Raise us to a different level of animal behaviour - we’re still animals. Are you intimating that other animals never restrain themselves or behave altruistically? What makes you think these are exclusively human potentialities?

What do you think I imagine?

Sexual exclusivity, for a start. This is a strong cultural expectation, but not a necessary one from the point of view of social harmony.

It is presumptuous to ignore the accumulated wisdom of humanity.

And it is foolish to uncritically swallow this accumulated wisdom. How much accumulated wisdom was challenged by those who pursued the abolition of the slave trade or the emancipation of women?

The desire for extramarital sex is not based on necessity but an illusion of necessity which reveals dissatisfaction with one’s partner.

Perhaps not such an illusion. What of the fact that there is evidence to suggest that the human race has been enfeebled by a lack of sperm competition? If a man’s sperm is below par in health terms or incompatible with the woman’s immune system, it could be beaten back by healthier or more compatible sperm from another man, resulting in stronger offspring. If the weaker sperm is the only sperm given the opportunity, it will get there eventually, resulting in weaker offspring. Does this speak to passing fancy and dissatisfaction, or biological necessity?

It stems from, and may be a cause of, a revolt against religion and spiritual values because it regards sexual pleasure and satisfaction with whoever one chooses as a legitimate right and obligation! Moral principles are reduced to hedonistic precepts and children are given the impression that we alone are the ones who determine what is right and wrong for ourselves, our children and society as a whole. Polyamory is a direct outcome of the permissive society and its harmful consequences cannot be restricted to its practitioners.

Polyamory is an honest attempt to acknowledge human nature and provide it with a nurturing, ethical framework in which to grow and develop. Do you think there is no difference between someone who goes out on the pull every other night and brings home a different partner every time, and someone who pursues a long-term, caring and committed relationship with a few others? I suppose these are identical from your perspective - sex is bad unless it’s kept in a box and confined to one partner and one only.

 

[tonyrey]

Sex is the normal expression of married love but if there is mutual consent the couple can choose to abstain if there is a good reason to do so.

Do you think the intensity of the sex drive is relevant to your decision to have lovers?

Sublimation is not frustration! That view stems from your animalistic concept of human beings. The energy of physical sex is transformed into creative activity which benefits others.

Any denial of the fulfilment of an urge is frustrating to that urge. It doesn’t follow that frustration always has negative consequences - quite the opposite sometimes. It also doesn’t follow that any urge is constantly present. Balance between satisfaction and frustration of our urges leads to contentment.

You seem to be assuming that multiple sexual partners means a constant flow of sexual activity, when this is not often the case.

It would be very surprising if having several sexual partners did not lead to more activity than with one spouse. But the issue is not the quantity but the quality. Having several lovers demonstrates that sexual activity is considered to be on a par with any other activity shared with close friends. It no longer has any significant distinguishing feature.

The physical expression of the love of a man and a woman becomes a mystical experience when they are faithful and united to each other. They become one to such an extent their lives become meaningless without their partner.

That’s pretty extreme. What happens if (usually when) one of the partners dies before the other? Does the other continue on in meaningless existence?

Why should his or her existence become meaningless if you believe in an afterlife? Is sex the most important consideration in your life?

As for physical sex being a mystical experience, I can assure you that part doesn’t disappear or diminish when it is shared with other partners. Unity and faithfulness are not dependent upon sexual exclusivity.

They cannot exist without it! Sexual unity resulting from faithfulness is not something that can be switched on and off like a light bulb - unless one has a split personality.

But not by having lovers! The love which brought them together needs to be rediscovered and revitalised - except in the rare cases where they are incompatible.

Why not by having lovers? Why is that the only thing you are concerned with?

It is far from being the only thing but having lovers is an admission of defeat. The husband or wife is regarded as no longer sufficient to satisfy one’s sexual needs.

Your opinion is disproved by many examples in history of the deep love of married couples.

It’s not an opinion. The fact of the matter is that marriage is and always has been primarily a practical social arrangement for the orderly begetting of children and passing on of property.

How could it be otherwise? Why should it preclude love?

If a couple could tolerate each other enough to fulfil their duties, all good. Romantic or erotic love, involving powerful emotions, was considered a destabilising force, and not a necessary part of the marriage equation.

By whom?

In fact, couples who were deeply in love have stood out precisely because they were unusual (and it would be surprising if all of these practised complete sexual exclusivity).

Do you think some individuals with several lovers have stood out because they were deeply in love? I am very interested to know who you have in mind…
Have no married couples stood out precisely because they were deeply in love?

There is a vast difference between being deeply in love and staying in a marriage arrangement because divorce is either forbidden or stigmatised or just the greater of two evils. For the vast majority of women throughout history, leaving a marriage was not an option unless she wanted to be destitute and denied access to her children. Meanwhile, it was tacitly accepted for men to take their pleasure elsewhere with mistresses or prostitutes. This was the social reality of marriage for centuries.

The abuse and desecration of marriage are feeble excuses for resorting to polyamory. One evil does not justify another.

 

[tonyrey]

Any denial of the fulfilment of an urge is frustrating to that urge. It doesn’t follow that frustration always has negative consequences - quite the opposite sometimes. It also doesn’t follow that any urge is constantly present. Balance between satisfaction and frustration of our urges leads to contentment.

 

[tonyrey]

Even in societies with arranged marriages there was - and is - an element of choice because most parents are not sadistic and want their children to be happy.

“fancy” is a very appropriate word! No wonder there are so many broken marriages. In the past there was a period of courtship in which both families were involved whereas now in Western society it is often a one to one affair.

What are the negative consequences of your marriage?

Thus far I haven’t come across any that outweigh the positives.

Then there is no good reason to have lovers…

The concept of “falling” in and out of love is romantic but irrational! It implies we are slaves of our emotions whereas in reality love is clear-sighted, realistic and down to earth.

There’s a lot of human behaviour that is not rationally directed. The expectation in monogamous culture is that if one is part of a couple, one will suppress any attraction to people other than their partner.

“suppress” suggests that sexual attraction should rule our lives!

This doesn’t mean the attraction isn’t felt, just that it’s not pursued on pain of breaking up the existing relationship. If both partners accept the fact that attraction to others will happen, then everyone has their cards on the table and it can be discussed as a realistic prospect to be explored, not an aberration that sounds the death knell to the relationship.

It is always obvious when individuals are strongly attracted to each other but it becomes pathological when they believe they are incapable of being happy unless they have sexual intercourse. If flirtation is treated as a form of entertainment no harm is done and their sense of humour dissipates the grim necessity of having to submit to their physical urge. They don’t have to return to an empty bed…

We do know those virtues you mention raise us above the level of animal behaviour and imply the need for self-restraint and unselfishness.

Raise us to a different level of animal behaviour - we’re still animals. Are you intimating that other animals never restrain themselves or behave altruistically? What makes you think these are exclusively human potentialities?

Animals never restrain themselves or behave altruistically according to moral principles. They have no concept of good or evil.

What do you think I imagine?

Sexual exclusivity, for a start. This is a strong cultural expectation, but not a necessary one from the point of view of social harmony.

You need to justify your belief that sexual exclusivity** must **undermine social harmony.

How much accumulated wisdom was challenged by those who pursued the abolition of the slave trade or the emancipation of women?

The abolition of the slave trade and the emancipation of women were based on the existing moral principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. The abolition of monogamy is based on the amoral principles of sexual liberty, sexual equality and sexual fraternity. In other words sexual considerations are paramount and override everything else.

The desire for extramarital sex is not based on necessity but an illusion of necessity which reveals dissatisfaction with one’s partner.

Perhaps not such an illusion… If a man’s sperm is below par in health terms or incompatible with the woman’s immune system, it could be beaten back by healthier or more compatible sperm from another man, resulting in stronger offspring. If the weaker sperm is the only sperm given the opportunity, it will get there eventually, resulting in weaker offspring. Does this speak to passing fancy and dissatisfaction, or biological necessity?

Your question implies that we should be ruled by biological necessity. Do you have lovers to produce stronger offspring? Or to satisfy your sexual urge?

It stems from, and may be a cause of, a revolt against religion and spiritual values because it regards sexual pleasure and satisfaction with whoever one chooses as a legitimate right and obligation! Moral principles are reduced to hedonistic precepts and children are given the impression that we alone are the ones who determine what is right and wrong for ourselves, our children and society as a whole. Polyamory is a direct outcome of the permissive society and its harmful consequences cannot be restricted to its practitioners.

Polyamory is an honest attempt to acknowledge human nature and provide it with a nurturing, ethical framework in which to grow and develop.

How can polyamory be ethical when it is based on submission to sexual attraction and a rejection of the traditional family which is the basic unit of society? It amounts to sexolatry in the sense that sex dominates one’s attitude to life and becomes the sine qua non of friendship and self-fulfilment. It implies that unless we can express ourselves with our genital organs outside marriage we are doomed to misery and frustration!

Do you think there is no difference between someone who goes out on the pull every other night and brings home a different partner every time, and someone who pursues a long-term, caring and committed relationship with a few others?

A false dilemma. There is another far more reasonable option.

I suppose these are identical from your perspective - sex is bad unless it’s kept in a box and confined to one partner and one only.

Sex is sacred and beautiful when it is the expression of the faithful, dedicated love of a man and a woman who are prepared to control themselves and resist the temptation to obtain pleasure and satisfaction from intercourse with others.

 

[Sair]

No wonder there are so many broken marriages. In the past there was a period of courtship in which both families were involved whereas now in Western society it is often a one to one affair.

Well, yes - it was a business transaction, and love between the spouses-to-be was a secondary consideration. These days in the West, marriage is mostly liberated from the socioeconomic motives that governed it in the past. It’s all about personal choice and romantic love now, which means the expectations of personal fulfilment attached to it are much higher. That’s much of the reason so many marriages fail now, because they’re about personal needs, rather than community obligations.

Then there is no good reason to have lovers…

Did I mention that amongst the positives are my husband’s openness to both of us having other lovers, and his lack of possessiveness?

“suppress” suggests that sexual attraction should rule our lives!

Not at all. It suggests that it’s an important part of our nature, though.

It is always obvious when individuals are strongly attracted to each other but it becomes pathological when they believe they are incapable of being happy unless they have sexual intercourse. If flirtation is treated as a form of entertainment no harm is done and their sense of humour dissipates the grim necessity of having to submit to their physical urge.

So it’s okay to entertain the idea, but not to act on it. Right. As I have endeavoured to explain (and I don’t think I’ve failed to make it clear), sex with multiple people is not the goal or purpose of polyamory. It’s often an effect of it, certainly, but the point is to nurture intimate relationships. They may or may not involve sex to any degree, but there is no artificial limit placed on the ways in which intimacy may be expressed.

Animals never restrain themselves or behave altruistically according to moral principles. They have no concept of good or evil.

Not that we’d hear about, since they don’t have speech or writing. But social animals do behave in ways that suggest they have an understanding of what is and is not acceptable for them to do. Humans have merely abstracted and reified the natural demands of social interaction.

You need to justify your belief that sexual exclusivity** must **undermine social harmony.

I didn’t claim that it does. It’s obvious that it works for some people, and equally obvious that it doesn’t work for others. There’s no reason to believe that a lack of sexual exclusivity must undermine social harmony. It depends whether you choose to see the problem as manifest in the behaviour, or manifest in the ‘rules’ imposed to restrict behaviour.

 

[Sair]

The abolition of the slave trade and the emancipation of women were based on the existing moral principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. The abolition of monogamy is based on the amoral principles of sexual liberty, sexual equality and sexual fraternity. In other words sexual considerations are paramount and override everything else.

Sexual considerations are obviously paramount for you, but as I explained, they are not the primary motivation for polyamory. Prior to the advent of the notion that one should find all of their personal fulfilment within the marriage bond, intimate friends were an important part of many people’s lives - it was not unheard-of for a married woman to eject her husband from her bed in order to share it with a visiting female friend; nor was it considered inappropriate or sexually suggestive for two men to share a bed, or to hug and kiss, or to walk hand-in-hand. Intimacy is understood rather differently nowadays, and is assumed generally to mean sexual intimacy, when sex is only one possible part of a much more complex relationship. It’s all very well to have existing moral principles, but who decides how they are to be applied and to whom?

Your question implies that we should be ruled by biological necessity. Do you have lovers to produce stronger offspring? Or to satisfy your sexual urge?

Actually, you implied that we ought to be ruled by necessity, and that because it isn’t a biological imperative to have multiple sexual partners, it is wrong to claim this as a genuine need. I was merely casting doubt upon the notion that there’s no biological reason to have multiple partners. I have lovers because I don’t place artificial restrictions upon the ways I may express intimacy with close friends. I don’t seek out people for the sake of having sex with them, but neither do I rule out the possibility of sex as something that may be shared between friends.

How can polyamory be ethical when it is based on submission to sexual attraction and a rejection of the traditional family which is the basic unit of society?

We’ve been over this many times now. First, the ‘traditional family’ as it is presently understood is a product of 1950s American society. Secondly, polyamory, for me and many others who practice it, is about building family, about restoring the network of intimate friends that was the norm before the ‘traditional’ nuclear family was elevated to become the ideal social (and economic) arrangement. Friends are the family you choose for yourself.

A false dilemma. There is another far more reasonable option.

I wasn’t posing a dilemma - I was pointing out that you apparently see no difference between casual promiscuity and polyamory.

Sex is sacred and beautiful when it is the expression of the faithful, dedicated love of a man and a woman who are prepared to control themselves and resist the temptation to obtain pleasure and satisfaction from intercourse with others.

Sex is only sacred and beautiful to you if it is restricted and ritualised, forced into the mould of deliberate and life-long monogamy. Sexual exclusivity has become the primary measure of commitment, to the exclusion of any other indicators. Supposing I am married to a man who likes the fact that I find pleasure and satisfaction with other lovers, and who does so himself. As it happens, I am married to such a man. Should I deny him the pleasure of knowing that I am loved by others, and deny myself the pleasure of knowing the same of him, all for the sake of maintaining someone else’s ideal of marriage? Our relationship with each other is enriched by the fact that we have other lovers. There’s nothing I can do about your choice to interpret this as an indication that we have no self-control or respect or commitment. It’s obvious you idolise the monogamous marriage and don’t want to believe it’s possible to have intimate, committed and fulfilling relationships with multiple partners. Again, I can’t make you believe otherwise, but your belief has no bearing on the fact that this is what works for me and for the people with whom I share my life.

 

[tonyrey]

Sexual considerations are obviously paramount for you, but as I explained, they are not the primary motivation for polyamory.

It is ironic that you think sexual considerations are paramount for me because you are the one who is convinced it is your right to have intercourse with whoever you choose!

Intimacy is understood rather differently nowadays, and is assumed generally to mean sexual intimacy, when sex is only one possible part of a much more complex relationship.

For you it is an **essential **part when you are physically attracted to another person.

It’s all very well to have existing moral principles, but who decides how they are to be applied and to whom?

We do but we are not morally infallible. And the consequences of our moral defects are not always immediately apparent. As we get older we pay the price for our mistakes in ignoring the rules of personal development. The pursuit of pleasure for its own sake ultimately leads to a sense of futility because there are more worthwhile goals. If we regard one another as animals we shall remain at the animal level.

Actually, you implied that we ought to be ruled by necessity, and that because it isn’t a biological imperative to have multiple sexual partners, it is wrong to claim this as a genuine need.

My argument has nothing to do with biology whereas you imply that you cannot be happy unless you have intercourse with men who attract you.

I was merely casting doubt upon the notion that there’s no biological reason to have multiple partners.

Why is that relevant? Do you base your decisions on biological factors?

I have lovers because I don’t place artificial restrictions upon the ways I may express intimacy with close friends.

How do you determine whether a restriction is artificial? Are there any limits to the ways in which you express your sexuality with others? Is anything permissible provided that it gives pleasure?

I don’t seek out people for the sake of having sex with them, but neither do I rule out the possibility of sex as something that may be shared between friends.

Then the possibility must come into your mind when you meet a man who attracts you sexually… It could even be a motive for inviting him to your house.

First, the ‘traditional family’ as it is presently understood is a product of 1950s American society.

How do you justify that hypothesis?

Secondly, polyamory, for me and many others who practice it, is about building family, about restoring the network of intimate friends that was the norm before the ‘traditional’ nuclear family was elevated to become the ideal social (and economic) arrangement.

How do you justify that belief?

I wasn’t posing a dilemma - I was pointing out that you apparently see no difference between casual promiscuity and polyamory.

What gives you that idea?

Sex is only sacred and beautiful to you if it is restricted and ritualised, forced into the mould of deliberate and life-long monogamy.

The vast majority of couples need to express their love by committing themselves exclusively to each other without needing to use their genital organs to express friendship.

Should I deny him the pleasure of knowing that I am loved by others, and deny myself the pleasure of knowing the same of him, all for the sake of maintaining someone else’s ideal of marriage?

Your mutual decision to have lovers is a logical consequence of your belief that we are apes.

Our relationship with each other is enriched by the fact that we have other lovers.

There is no doubt that it is physically enriched. Whether you are impoverished as persons is another matter. John Stuart Mill wrote that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied…

There’s nothing I can do about your choice to interpret this as an indication that we have no self-control or respect or commitment.

Your self-control, respect and commitment are diminished as a result of mutual consent. You have chosen to be members of a volatile sexual community based on expediency. When your lovers cease to be friends they are replaced by others. Your initial relationship is weakened because you have lovers who may prove to be more fulfilling in the long run. Your love is diluted by distraction from each other.

It’s obvious you idolise the monogamous marriage and don’t want to believe it’s possible to have intimate, committed and fulfilling relationships with multiple partners.

You idolise physical sex because you think it is the sine qua non of close friendship. To obtain sexual pleasure and satisfaction is one of your main priorities in life.

Again, I can’t make you believe otherwise, but your belief has no bearing on the fact that this is what works for me and for the people with whom I share my life.

Of course it “works” for you at the animal level because you believe there is no other level! For an “emancipated” woman chastity is folly and self-indulgence is a virtue. Men have had an unfair share of sexual adventures and now you must demonstrate you are equally capable of enjoying yourself.

 

[tonyrey]

No wonder there are so many broken marriages. In the past there was a period of courtship in which both families were involved whereas now in Western society it is often a one to one affair.

The Christian ideal of marriage is certainly not a business transaction. The husband and wife become one and should love each other as Christ loved the Church.

These days in the West, marriage is mostly liberated from the socioeconomic motives that governed it in the past. It’s all about personal choice and romantic love now, which means the expectations of personal fulfilment attached to it are much higher. That’s much of the reason so many marriages fail now, because they’re about personal needs, rather than community obligations.

The reason so many marriages fail is because we live in a permissive society dominated by sexploitation where faithfulness has become far less important and far more difficult.

Then there is no good reason to have lovers…

Did I mention that amongst the positives are my husband’s openness to both of us having other lovers, and his lack of possessiveness?

Then why did it take you both so many years to have lovers?

“suppress” suggests that sexual attraction should rule our lives!

Not at all. It suggests that it’s an important part of our nature, though.

It sounds as if submission to sexual attraction is essential!

It is always obvious when individuals are strongly attracted to each other but it becomes pathological when they believe they are incapable of being happy unless they have sexual intercourse. If flirtation is treated as a form of entertainment no harm is done and their sense of humour dissipates the grim necessity of having to submit to their physical urge.

So it’s okay to entertain the idea, but not to act on it.

It is absurd to pretend we are never attracted.

As I have endeavoured to explain (and I don’t think I’ve failed to make it clear), sex with multiple people is not the goal or purpose of polyamory.

Polyamory without sex?

It’s often an effect of it, certainly, but the point is to nurture intimate relationships. They may or may not involve sex to any degree, but there is no artificial limit placed on the ways in which intimacy may be expressed.

What makes a limit artificial? Is sexual perversion permissible?

Animals never restrain themselves or behave altruistically according to moral principles. They have** no concept **

of good or evil.Not that we’d hear about, since they don’t have speech or writing. But social animals do behave in ways that suggest they have an understanding of what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

There is no evidence that animals restrain themselves - or behave altruistically - according to moral principles or that they have abstract concepts of good or evil.

Humans have merely abstracted and reified the natural demands of social interaction.

Is all human interaction based solely on natural demands?

You need to justify your belief that sexual exclusivity must undermine social harmony.

I didn’t claim that it does. It’s obvious that it works for some people, and equally obvious that it doesn’t work for others.

That is because they are either incompatible or sexually insatiable.

There’s no reason to believe that a lack of sexual exclusivity must undermine social harmony. It depends whether you choose to see the problem as manifest in the behaviour, or manifest in the ‘rules’ imposed to restrict behaviour.

Sexual inclusivity implies that sexual activity with others is entirely a matter of choice and mutual consent. The first casualty is the institution of marriage which has led to misery for parents and maladjustment for children. Over a million one-parent families in the UK are the direct result of the absence of what you call “artificial limits”.

Any denial of the fulfilment of an urge is frustrating to that urge. It doesn’t follow that frustration always has negative consequences - quite the opposite sometimes. It also doesn’t follow that any urge is constantly present. Balance between satisfaction and frustration of our urges leads to contentment.

It is a form of primitive animalism to think contentment is entirely or even mainly the result of balancing our physical urges. Polyamory is the logical outcome of such a hedonistic belief. The body is no longer the temple of the Holy Spirit but primarily a source of pleasure!

The logical outcome of polyamory in a secular society is the eventual disappearance of marriage:

“Additionally, participants in a polyamorous relationship may not have, nor encourage their partners to have, preconceptions as to the duration of the relationship, in contrast to monogamous marriages where a life-long union is generally the goal.” - wikipedia

 

[Sair]

It is ironic that you think sexual considerations are paramount for me because you are the one who is convinced it is your right to have intercourse with whoever you choose!

Of course I don’t consider it a ‘right’. That implies that there are no other considerations involved in the relationship. It’s like saying women have a ‘right’ to have children.

For you it is an **essential **part when you are physically attracted to another person.

No, not essential. Desirable, perhaps, but not necessary.

We do but we are not morally infallible. And the consequences of our moral defects are not always immediately apparent. As we get older we pay the price for our mistakes in ignoring the rules of personal development. The pursuit of pleasure for its own sake ultimately leads to a sense of futility because there are more worthwhile goals.

And the pursuit of ‘more worthwhile’ goals that don’t afford a sense of pleasure and satisfaction leads to misery.

If we regard one another as animals we shall remain at the animal level.

As opposed to…? What do you imagine you are if not an animal? Are you a vegetable?

My argument has nothing to do with biology whereas you imply that you cannot be happy unless you have intercourse with men who attract you.
Why is that relevant? Do you base your decisions on biological factors?

Not all of them. But then, how does one distinguish between a desire or a need motivated by biological factors and one motivated by other factors? Where do you draw the line? What would be a non-biological factor?

How do you determine whether a restriction is artificial? Are there any limits to the ways in which you express your sexuality with others? Is anything permissible provided that it gives pleasure?

If something comes naturally, it should not need to be forced. If monogamy was natural for humans, it would require considerably less effort and would enjoy rather more success as a social arrangement. Be that as it may, the limits are based upon what each partner feels comfortable with.

Then the possibility must come into your mind when you meet a man who attracts you sexually… It could even be a motive for inviting him to your house.

A motive for getting to know him better, perhaps. It depends on the person. Sometimes the attraction doesn’t develop until the friendship is well established.

How do you justify that hypothesis?

Only through the evidence of social history.

How do you justify that belief?

Through my own experience and intentions, and those of my friends, and those of other poly folks. How do you justify your implication that my beliefs about my own experience are invalid, particularly when it’s not apparent that you have any such experience of your own to measure against?

The vast majority of couples need to express their love by committing themselves exclusively to each other without needing to use their genital organs to express friendship.

A vast majority? Are you sure? What makes this a need rather than a cultural convention?

Your mutual decision to have lovers is a logical consequence of your belief that we are apes.

Absolutely. Just like our mutual fondness for bananas and our tendency to groom each other and look for lice. Your logic is not like our earth logic…

There is no doubt that it is physically enriched. Whether you are impoverished as persons is another matter. John Stuart Mill wrote that it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied rather than a pig satisfied…

As far as I’m aware, pigs aren’t polyamorous. Do you really think physical enrichment precludes emotional and intellectual enrichment?

Your self-control, respect and commitment are diminished as a result of mutual consent. You have chosen to be members of a volatile sexual community based on expediency. When your lovers cease to be friends they are replaced by others. Your initial relationship is weakened because you have lovers who may prove to be more fulfilling in the long run. Your love is diluted by distraction from each other.

Wow. Seems like you know a whole lot more about me than I do myself. Again, where are you getting your information? Do you have any first-hand experience of polyamorous relationships? Or are you just extrapolating from your own monogamous mindset? What reason would I possibly have for discarding friends? That would only happen if something was done to actively ruin the friendship - and that would take a pretty significant betrayal. There is nothing volatile about the relationships we build with our lovers, any more than there is volatility inherent in any monogamous relationship.

You idolise physical sex because you think it is the sine qua non of close friendship. To obtain sexual pleasure and satisfaction is one of your main priorities in life.

Clearly you haven’t read anything I’ve written so far, preferring to content yourself with the all-knowing Wikipedia…

Of course it “works” for you at the animal level because you believe there is no other level! For an “emancipated” woman chastity is folly and self-indulgence is a virtue. Men have had an unfair share of sexual adventures and now you must demonstrate you are equally capable of enjoying yourself.

Yes, of course. My polyamorous inclinations are actually an expression of deep-seated feminism. I mean to level the playing field, dammit! Your prejudices run pretty deep, it seems. I wonder why you keep coming back to this ‘animal level’ tripe, since it’s pretty obvious that most animals don’t pursue sex for any other reason than reproductive instinct, and only at certain times of the year. If anything, sexual indulgence is a particularly human characteristic.

 

[Sair]

I wasn’t posing a dilemma - I was pointing out that you apparently see no difference between casual promiscuity and polyamory.

What gives you that idea?

Your insistence upon approaching polyamory as if it was entirely motivated by the desire for superficial, transient sexual relationships of the kind pursued by people who just like to ‘hook up’ with others for sex with no strings attached. The point of polyamory is that the strings are what we want - it’s about whole relationships, not just sex. It’s about intimacy that doesn’t get strictly defined under the headings of ‘intellectual’ or ‘emotional’ or ‘sexual’ because one of those categories is forbidden to be shared with anyone other than one’s spouse. It’s about actually sharing your life with more than one person at a time.