Connection between love and sex?

[Anna_Gregorach]

Sure! I appreciate it and I agree with you.

However, Theology of the Body is just that! Theology.

I am trying to find a way to connect love and sex without reference to God. Surely there must be a way to do it. All that I have read so far is Aquinas, Pope Paul VI and parts of JPII Theology of the Body. But these are all catholic religious sources!

Perhaps if you stop looking from a catholic perspective shall you find what you are looking for. I dont see how any catholic could relate (or connect) love and sex without putting God in the midst of it. He is the Alfa and Omega, the beginning and end of all things. So trying to find anything about sex and love without reference to God in catholic literature or catholic internet sites could be very impossible…just saying.

Godbless

 

[Computer8]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve read that sex has two purposes. One to procreate, and the other to unify husband and wife.

Could someone please explain to me what the church teaches on how sex unifies husband and wife?

 

[tonyrey]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve read that sex has two purposes. One to procreate, and the other to unify husband and wife.

Could someone please explain to me what the church teaches on how sex unifies husband and wife?

If you believe we are persons rather than animals sexual intercourse unites a husband and wife spiritually as well as physically. It is an expression of love which is only meaningful when it entails self-sacrifice. Sooner or later they are bound to be attracted to some one else but they demonstrate their willingness to forgo the pleasure and excitement of a “love” affair because they want to be fully dedicated to the one they have chosen to be their life partner and fully committed to their children. Infidelity is a sign of moral and spiritual decadence which leads to the disintegration of the family which is the basis of civilised society. Ultimately everyone suffers in some way when we ignore the facts of personal development. Lack of real love is at the root of all evil…

 

[tonyrey]

Addiction to sex is more pernicious than other forms of addiction for several reasons. It can be “justified” on philosophical grounds, i.e. that we are animals and need to behave like animals. If we feel frustrated and unhappy because we cannot have sexual relations with some one we shouldn’t repress our desire but respect it and nurture it. Provided we don’t harm anyone everything is permissible…

The problem here is that we alone determine whether anyone is harmed yet we are not infallible. How can we know what the effect of pandering to our physical desires will have on our personality in the long run? If greed leads to obesity and torpidity can’t sexual indulgence affect our physical and mental health? Why is Aristotle’s principle of moderation irrelevant to our power of reproduction which is closely linked to the most fundamental of all our instincts: self-preservation?

This is another reason why sexual excess is pernicious. The primary function of coition is procreation but it is distorted into a source of pleasure totally divorced from its natural function. For a married couple this is legitimate because they are prepared to have children - when possible and advisable - but for those who deliberately exclude reproduction it is an abuse of their genital organs similar to eating simply to titillate their palate. It is comparable to the Roman custom of offering guests a feather so that they could tickle their throat, vomit and continue to enjoy the delicacies set before them. Contraceptives are the modern counterpart for sexual gratification.

All this is far removed from unselfish love which is concerned with the welfare of others. We are expected to love others as we love ourselves but we cannot love them if we co-operate with them in degrading activities. Physical sex is not an expression of love when it is diverted from its primary function in human society. It is merely a substitute for genuinely creative activities which distinguish us from animals. Spinoza - a pantheist - wrote:

“For as far as sensual pleasure is concerned, the mind is so caught up in it, as if at peace in a [true] good, that it is quite prevented from thinking of anything else. But after the enjoyment of sensual pleasure is past, the greatest sadness follows. If this does not completely engross, still it thoroughly confuses and dulls the mind.”

In other words sexual “liberation” is a form of escapism based on submission to instinct and it culminates in a sense of futility. To seek pleasure for its own sake as a way of life is self-defeating because pleasure alone can never fulfil our yearning for love which makes us feel wanted for **ourselves **and not simply for our body. It is in the purity and innocence of children that we find our true values. Sex is holy and beautiful but it is also a source of great temptation… Corruptio optima pessima.

 

[tonyrey]

According to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy sublimation is “the repression of a ‘lower’ feeling and substitution of a ‘higher’ one, as when sexual desire is substituted by Platonic love”. The author, Simon Blackburn, until recently the Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy in the University of Cambridge, believes lust is not a sin but a fundamental, essential element of our nature. We are “large primates” and not children of God.

The monotheistic religions of the desert are frequently cruel, misogynistic, divisive, intolerant, life-denying and warp for the worse the emotions and practices of countless people across the globe.
/phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/

The results of the rejection of religion in Britain and elsewhere point to a diametrically opposed conclusion. The increase in crime, violence, corruption, abortions, suicides, mental disorders and antisocial behaviour demonstrates the failure of secularism. Sublimation is not repression but the voluntary expression of the sexual urge in creative activity. Instead of being dominated by physical instincts it is a sign of maturity that we can transform them into a means of fulfilling our aspirations. Celibacy is not a curse but a blessing for those who are dedicated to a spiritual or artistic vocation which requires freedom from family commitments.

Blackburn’s naturalism is incoherent:

It is only Cartesian dualists (religious people) who go in for opposing what nature would have me do against what I, the real me, does. And it is not even true that alone on earth we can exercise self-control. A dog may resist the temptation to take a biscuit, having been told not to do so.
phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/

“the real me” is a meaningless expression if we have no soul. A dog doesn’t resist temptation by exercising self-control but as the result of being trained to do so.

Lust best flourishes when it is unencumbered by bad philosophy and ideology, by falsities, by controls, by distortions, by corruptions and perversions and suspicions, which prevent its freedom of flow.

In other words we should give free rein to our sexual desires and to hell with the consequences! For a Professor of Philosophy this is an astounding error of the first magnitude. Not only is it based on unwarranted dogmatism it is falsified by its consequences in the misery and suffering all around us.

His final argument is the weakest of the lot:

And in any case, sexual desire is rather more acute just when we are not debauched with pleasure. A sated man or woman is no longer lustful. And then the word “debauch” is scarcely neutral, implying riot and ruin.

newstatesman.com/aldaily/2003121502.htm

A sated man or woman is no longer lustful but the effects of their debauched activity remain to haunt them - often for the rest of their life…

Finally, it is not true that venereal pleasures debauch a man’s mind. Newton seems to have been fairly ascetic, but Einstein was certainly not.newstatesman.com/aldaily/2003121502.htm

Blackburn equates intellectual prowess with personal development and fulfilment. Einstein’s first marriage ended in divorce and his relationships with his family suffered as a result of his dedication to science.

 

[Computer8]

Thank you very much for the answers tonyrey. They’re really helpful.

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you very much for the answers tonyrey. They’re really helpful.

Thanks for your appreciation! I’m pursuing the subject because every day I see children who are the victims of our permissive society. I was amazed this morning to read how Professor Blackburn has abused his position to encourage lust… but then Richard Dawkins has done far more than that…

 

[tonyrey]

In our sex-ridden society it’s easy to jump to the conclusion that Jesus was referring to lust when he said “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” But He wasn’t. He was referring to any type of sin: “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.” It was in the garden of Gethsemane He gave that warning to the Apostles when faced with the stark reality of evil. The prospect of being crucified puts everything in its true perspective.

Evil is insidious. These days our typical excuse is that we shouldn’t deny ourselves pleasure; otherwise we become miserable and frustrated:

The monotheistic religions of the desert are frequently cruel, misogynistic, divisive, intolerant, life-denying and warp for the worse the emotions and practices of countless people across the globe. - Simon Blackburn

The Puritans and their like have undoubtedly been kill-joys who have destroyed people’s lives but now our society has gone to the other extreme and it too destroys people’s lives. To put pleasure first is madness because it enslaves us and is far more insidious than any drug. Dissolute individuals are easy to recognise because they are spineless and incapable of forcing themselves to abandon their ingrained habits. That is the fate that Jesus was warning us about…

Sometimes we have to be cruel with ourselves and intolerant of our weaknesses. If we really love ourselves we have to hate ourselves to a certain extent! People think men and women like Saint Thomas More who wore a hair shirt were unbalanced but they had courage and nobility of character which are rare today. The pursuit of perfection has been replaced by the pursuit of pleasure.

It is madness to equate sex with love. It is the most dangerous instinct we possess because it is inextricably linked with power. Rape is the antithesis of love. It seeks to impose reproductive power on a woman and make her pregnant against her will. Even consensual sex is a sign of weakness if it is divorced from unselfish love and commitment. It is one of the most difficult temptations to resist because it is so closely associated with possession of another person. It gives the illusion of unity but genuine unity exists when it is not confined to a few hours of physical pleasure but confirmed by a lifetime of dedication.

The tragedy of our secular society is that such love is rare and the reason is that most people reject the teaching of Jesus. Prayer doesn’t enter their calculations yet without love for God we cannot love ourselves or others. How can we if we ignore the Source of love and think we can go it alone - like professors of philosophy? The folly of the world is exposed by the love and wisdom of Our Lord.…

 

[Sair]

If there are no significant differences between gorillas and us we are incapable of voluntary commitment to anyone or anything. All our activity has physical causes that we cannot override. We are compelled to behave in the ways we do behave. Mutual consent is a myth if we have no power of consent or dissent. Every thought, feeling, decision and action is due to a previous event!

Love becomes no more than a product of our hormones. How can it be anything else if only the body exists? Freedom and responsibility disappear when all our behaviour is determined by the laws of nature. In our secular society the consequence is an obsession with sex. That is inevitable if there is no other fundamental purpose in life apart from the urge to survive…

Are you saying you would commit for life, in marriage, to someone to whom you were not physically attracted? You seem to be drawing an undue distinction between physical, intellectual and emotional attraction - in my experience, they are intricately intertwined. In my philosophy, of course, they are all physical…

 

[Sair]

Tonyrey,

A dog doesn’t resist temptation by exercising self-control but as the result of being trained to do so.

Do you really think we resist temptation by any other means? If, for example, a child is not taught early on to restrain her impulses, she’s likely to become an obnoxious, demanding individual who doesn’t know how to exercise any patience. If, on the other hand, she has learned that if she waits, good things will come, she will be more likely to see things on a long view and control her immediate-gratification impulses.

By the same token, a dog that has been taught that calm behaviour merits rewards will be far less likely to jump and bark at inappropriate moments than a dog who has been overly indulged by well-meaning but ignorant guardians; if we consider the case of a dog who has been taught not to jump onto the couch, what means does he have to put such teaching into effect when his humans are not present, other than self-discipline?

Both humans and dogs learn by experience, as do most mammals. Self-discipline isn’t an innate feature, it’s something that is learned by the observation that good things come to those who wait.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The trouble is that people very often do have sex without love. People can be very easily misled about others’ feelings - unless there is genuine affection already established, sex can very well be just sex. Pleasure is part and parcel of being alive, and should be appreciated while we have it, both for its own sake and for its capacity to connect us to others.

People who are having sex without love are buying into their own imagination of what they somehow contrived love or pleasure to be. How one arrived here I do not know. Whats immediately of concern is the lack of respect for another human, “who was easily mislead” as you state. It wouldn’t matter if the “other” person was cooperating. That would also indicate they have issues. How does one reconcile the selfishness of this act? I would hope by making a rational choice to not continue.

So, then another human being deceived becomes ones receptical of they think Love or pleasure is. Sounds like a receipe for disaster to me…lol. Or you then have two individuals cooperating but acting with inappropriate behavior. I see nothing socially correct however you cut this cake up?

In other words in reverse “they” should have corrected their own inappropriate behavior’s from the start. Then they wouldn’t be looking back trying to figure out how they arrived at where they are at. To continue to give themselve permission to act like this sounds like incorrect denial. The denial should have been “correctly” exercised from the start. These individual needs intervention or therapy.

Geez, before they further validate the imagination by murder or some other social abomination:shrug: What a tangled web we weave when we step outside the universal law of love which is Gods. Its called “Love your neighbor as you Love yourself.”

Problems arrive when loving oneself is established by breaking Gods other laws. Wow, I guess thats about where God is abandoned.

I read your posts you have a facinating mind.

Peace, Gary

 

[tonyrey]

A dog doesn’t resist temptation by exercising self-control but as the result of being trained to do so.

Do you really think you resist temptation solely because you have been trained to do so by your parents and teachers?

If, for example, a child is not taught early on to restrain her impulses, she’s likely to become an obnoxious, demanding individual who doesn’t know how to exercise any patience. If, on the other hand, she has learned that if she waits, good things will come, she will be more likely to see things on a long view and control her immediate-gratification impulses.

Children are taught early on to restrain their impulses but that doesn’t mean they are going to do so for the rest of their lives. Even children who are taught to restrain their impulses don’t necessarily do so…

By the same token, a dog that has been taught that calm behaviour merits rewards will be far less likely to jump and bark at inappropriate moments than a dog who has been overly indulged by well-meaning but ignorant guardians; if we consider the case of a dog who has been taught not to jump onto the couch, what means does he have to put such teaching into effect when his humans are not present, other than self-discipline?

If you produce that argument in court you will still be found guilty if you have committed a crime - regardless of whether you have been overly indulged.

Both humans and dogs learn by experience, as do most mammals. Self-discipline isn’t an innate feature, it’s something that is learned by the observation that good things come to those who wait.

We learn by experience but unlike animals we are not compelled to act in any particular way. Even if both your parents were pedophiles and trained you to follow their example you would still be held responsible for your behaviour because you are deemed to have free will and be capable of exercising self-control.

 

[tonyrey]

*If there are no significant differences between gorillas and us we are incapable of voluntary commitment to anyone or anything. All our activity has physical causes that we cannot override. We are compelled to behave in the ways we do behave. Mutual consent is a myth if we have no power of consent or dissent. Every thought, feeling, decision and action is due to a previous event!

I don’t know how you have reached that conclusion. According to you we have no choice in the matter. We are committed to some one or something as the result of our previous experiences.

I believe we can be attracted to some one’s personality without being sexually attracted. If I had been unfortunate enough not to have met anyone to whom I was attracted in both respects I would probably not have married at all! A loveless marriage and a sexless marriage are both alien to Catholicism…

You seem to be drawing an undue distinction between physical, intellectual and emotional attraction - in my experience, they are intricately intertwined. In my philosophy, of course, they are all physical…

If they are all physical they are not essentially different and cannot be intertwined!

 

[tonyrey]

" “At puberty the elements of an unsuperstitious sexual morality ought to be taught. Boys and girls should be taught that…mutual inclination justifies sexual intercourse, and they should also be taught methods of birth control so as to insure that children shall only come when they are wanted… The increase of human happiness to be expected from sex education on these lines is immeasurable.”

books.google.co.uk/books?id=jqun5YJGt-wC&pg=PA356&lpg=PA356&dq=At+puberty+the+elements+of+an+unsuperstitious+sexual+morality+ought+to+be+taught.&source=bl&ots=s-ToBxbmHP&sig=n_cwAsAvuvCWmaVRlbAO9qRf-Y0&hl=en&ei=ww0_Tq2NBZCWhQeeicWlAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=At%20puberty%20the%20elements%20of%20an%20unsuperstitious%20sexual%20morality%20ought%20to%20be%20taught.&f=false

These are the words of Bertrand Russell, a prominent philosopher who had a profound influence on modern philosophy and social issues in Britain. He put forward these ideas in his book Marriage and Morals as long ago as 1929 and eighty years later we are witnessing their devastating consequences. He was not the only one who advocated sexual immorality but his intellectual eminence and Nobel Prize for Literature ensured that his opinions would be highly influential.

Ironically it is the increase of human misery from sex education on his lines that has proved to be immeasurable. Chastity has become a dirty(!) word associated with repression. Virginity is mocked as a outdated superstition:

“For the religious and/or conservative, having it makes them believe they’re imbued with magical powers, which may remain ONLY if they lose their virginity in marriage.”

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=virginity

In spite of this prejudice a woman who remains chaste until she is married is generally respected and preferred to one who has had several lovers. Premarital promiscuity is hardly a guarantee for faithfulness to her future husband. The quest for variety and novelty is unlikely to disappear once it has become a habit. For the same reason a man who has been promiscuous is a greater risk, although his loss of virginity is widely regarded as less serious because a woman is expected to be more immune to temptation. She is certainly more vulnerable due to the possibility of becoming pregnant.

To encourage adolescents to have sexual intercourse is a sign of moral decadence. It implies that they can behave like mature adults when they should be more concerned with their education - which is absurd - or behave like immature adults who must pander to their sexual desires - which is equally absurd. What is beyond doubt is the number of teenage pregnancies, abortions, STDs and spoilt lives. Chastity is not an old-fashioned idea but an essential virtue which distinguishes us from animals, liberates us from the tyranny of sex and enables us to follow the example of Jesus with unselfish love for others…

 

[tonyrey]

Sooner or later most of us are compelled to make a choice between love and sex. Unless we have opted for a life of celibacy we choose a person as a life partner. And sooner or later we become attracted to another person. Then we have to decide whether we love our life partner enough to resist that attraction and remain faithful. Many people in our society decide their love is not strong enough and leave their partner without knowing whether they really love the other person more.

Often sexual attraction has clouded their judgment and their new love is an illusion because of the novelty and excitement it offers. They realise their mistake only when it is too late to change their mind because it may take months or even years to discover the truth. One of the most difficult things in life is to determine how much we love a person and how much that person loves us - whereas there is no doubt about sexual attraction. Unfortunately the degree of sexual attraction bears no relation to the degree of love.

Love outlasts sexual attraction because it is not a physical desire but an expression of our whole personality. It is a desire to share everything we have and everything we are: to give ourselves rather than our bodies. We identify ourselves with others and are more concerned about their needs than our own. We forget ourselves to the precise extent that we love them and in so doing we are liberated from slavery to ourselves. Our overriding desire is to fulfil their needs but not necessarily their desires because sometimes their desires are deceptive!

The supreme example of love is Our Lord’s love for us. He gave Himself to us - and for us - because He valued us more than His life on earth. He taught us that self-sacrifice is the real test of love. He compels us to compare ourselves with Him. To what extent are we concerned about others rather than ourselves?

The truth about love puts sex in its true perspective. Physical desire can blind us to the fact that happiness consists in giving rather than receiving - in making others happy rather than ourselves happy. It is a mistake to think self-sacrifice makes us miserable and frustrated. On the contrary we share the happiness of others and are no longer isolated like the person who is dominated by self-love. Many people leave their partners not because their partners don’t love them but because they love themselves too much! They are more concerned about their own feelings than those of their partner. They are the products of a society dominated by advertising which promotes false needs and puts getting what** we** want before everything else…

 

[tonyrey]

Both love and sex are evidence of Design. Life itself is far too complex to be solely the result of fortuitous combinations of molecules. Yet it is not complexity alone that justifies our rejection of Chance as the explanation of our existence. Living organisms are purposeful whereas inanimate molecules are not. They have an autonomy, plasticity, directiveness and urge to survive which are absent even in the most beautiful crystalline structures:

archive.org/stream/directivenessofo035049mbp/directivenessofo035049mbp_djvu.txt.

Asexual reproduction is sufficient to ensure the continuation of life. The development of sex was unnecessary for survival but it demonstrates the underlying trend towards increased complexity which has never been explained scientifically. Simplicity is an advantage for survival because size and complexity expose individuals to more danger. Monocellular organisms have survived for millions of years whereas many advanced forms of life - like dinosaurs have become extinct.

Sexual reproduction is an ingenious way of accelerating the rate of development. It has produced the most complex structure in the entire universe which would otherwise have never been possible. But in spite of its incredible complexity and organisation the human brain is no more than a lump of tissue inside a skull which is an inadequate explanation of the incredible success of science and medicine.

Materialism is widespread in our society but it is self-contradictory and self-destructive. All our knowledge stems from our thoughts and perceptions. We infer the existence of material objects but we have direct awareness of our inner world. We express our love physically but love has its origin in a more fundamental Reality - in the realm of truth, goodness, freedom, justice and beauty. Mind is the supreme reality, our sole certainty and the source of all that we consider most precious…

 

[tonyrey]

There is an interesting online article about Love, Lust, and Creativity from a psychological point of view:

psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/love-lust-and-creativity

One study confirms the fact that preoccupation with sex rather than love leads to lower levels of creative insight. It suggests that “Love enhances global processing and creative thinking whereas sex enhances local processing and analytic thinking.” It is plausible that concentrating on the body makes a person more practical yet it is also a short-sighted approach. It may give more immediate pleasure and satisfaction but very often misery and frustration in the long run. John Stuart Mill remarked:

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”

Sex is precious, beautiful and fulfilling in the context of love but pernicious, ugly and destructive when it is divorced from love. If it is just a brief episode it debases both persons because there is no unselfishness or dedication. They reduce themselves to pleasure-seeking machines with no higher ideals or purpose. As they get older they are bound to become more aware of the emptiness of life without love.

When people “make love” casually they are really destroying their capacity for love. They are forming the habit of living for today and letting tomorrow take care of itself. They will go their separate ways in their quest for adventure, variety and excitement - as if they will always be young. But, tragically, the day of reckoning will come when they realise we all need a rock on which to base our happiness rather than the shifting sands of pleasure and passion. We cannot find that rock unless it reflects God’s love - which is not just for a day, a few weeks or months but forever…

Love has a life of its own and it needs time to develop. It has to grow like a child, learn, suffer and become “filled with ripeness to the core”. Like Jesus it has to be constant, caring and committed until death - and beyond death. Even animals sacrifice themselves for their young. If we cannot sacrifice ourselves for anyone we are not even at their level!

 

[Sair]

There is an interesting online article about Love, Lust, and Creativity from a psychological point of view:

psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200909/love-lust-and-creativity

One study confirms the fact that preoccupation with sex rather than love leads to lower levels of creative insight. It suggests that “Love enhances global processing and creative thinking whereas sex enhances local processing and analytic thinking.” It is plausible that concentrating on the body makes a person more practical yet it is also a short-sighted approach. It may give more immediate pleasure and satisfaction but very often misery and frustration in the long run. John Stuart Mill remarked:

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”

Sex is precious, beautiful and fulfilling in the context of love but pernicious, ugly and destructive when it is divorced from love. If it is just a brief episode it debases both persons because there is no unselfishness or dedication. They reduce themselves to pleasure-seeking machines with no higher ideals or purpose. As they get older they are bound to become more aware of the emptiness of life without love.

When people “make love” casually they are really destroying their capacity for love. They are forming the habit of living for today and letting tomorrow take care of itself. They will go their separate ways in their quest for adventure, variety and excitement - as if they will always be young. But, tragically, the day of reckoning will come when they realise we all need a rock on which to base our happiness rather than the shifting sands of pleasure and passion. We cannot find that rock unless it reflects God’s love - which is not just for a day, a few weeks or months but forever…

Love has a life of its own and it needs time to develop. It has to grow like a child, learn, suffer and become “filled with ripeness to the core”. Like Jesus it has to be constant, caring and committed until death - and beyond death. Even animals sacrifice themselves for their young. If we cannot sacrifice ourselves for anyone we are not even at their level!

Firstly, John Stuart Mill (whose utilitarian morality I do admire) could not know what it is like to be a pig or a fool - therefore he could not judge which state is subjectively ‘better’. I have often observed my dog, for example, and the evident joy he takes in simply living - and wondered whether it might not be better to be like him (the more so because he has cancer - I know he will die relatively soon, but he seems untroubled by any such awareness).

Be that as it may, do you imagine that anything you’ve written above is contrary to my view of intimate relationships? I don’t pursue sex for its own sake. I pursue love for its own sake. In some cases, sex becomes an appropriate expression for that love. But I don’t do casual sex. I cannot divorce the physical pleasure of sex from the emotional and intellectual pleasure of personal connection. As for your previous assertion that these things cannot be intertwined if they are all ultimately physical - how could they be intertwined if some elements were not physical? How does nonphysical substance interact with physical substance?

 

[tonyrey]

Firstly, John Stuart Mill (whose utilitarian morality I do admire) could not know what it is like to be a pig or a fool - therefore he could not judge which state is subjectively ‘better’. I have often observed my dog, for example, and the evident joy he takes in simply living - and wondered whether it might not be better to be like him (the more so because he has cancer - I know he will die relatively soon, but he seems untroubled by any such awareness).

The acid test is whether you would prefer to have been born as a dog rather than a person…

Be that as it may, do you imagine that anything you’ve written above is contrary to my view of intimate relationships? I don’t pursue sex for its own sake. I pursue love for its own sake. In some cases, sex becomes an appropriate expression for that love. But I don’t do casual sex. I cannot divorce the physical pleasure of sex from the emotional and intellectual pleasure of personal connection.

You are assuming that what I have written is directed at polyamorists even though I distinctly specified “if it is just a brief episode…”

As for your previous assertion that these things cannot be intertwined if they are all ultimately physical - how could they be intertwined if some elements were not physical?

Are your thoughts and decisions electrical impulses in the brain?

How does nonphysical substance interact with physical substance?

I don’t claim to understand the nature of ultimate reality! Do you?

 

[Sair]

The acid test is whether you would prefer to have been born as a dog rather than a person…

That is a question that can only be answered from a subjective point of view - if I was born a dog, knowing what a dog knows, could I consciously prefer to have been born a human? Can I, as a human, consciously prefer to have been born a dog? Of course not. I can only wonder what it might be like, and observe such differences from myself as are readily apparent.

You are assuming that what I have written is directed at polyamorists even though I distinctly specified “if it is just a brief episode…”

Most of your responses, whether to me specifically or in general, have extolled the virtues of the rarefied ideal of monogamous partnership. Your understanding of love is inextricably bound to sexual monogamy, and you have previously eschewed the possibility of love in a polyamorous context.

Are your thoughts and decisions electrical impulses in the brain?

If my thoughts and decisions are the product of electrical impulses in the brain situated in the body that is identified as ‘me’, are they any less ‘mine’ than if they came from a place beyond my physical substance?

I don’t claim to understand the nature of ultimate reality! Do you?

I have never claimed to understand the nature of ultimate reality, whatever that may be. Only that such reality as we can perceive is of one kind, and that is the kind we designate natural reality. Do you claim to perceive a reality beyond that which can admit of a natural, physical explanation? My question was quite unequivocal - how do you know that there is a nonphysical reality, and how does it connect with physical reality?