Connection between love and sex?

[Sair]

Two points: there were and are many monogamic exclusivist non-Western cultures as well. It is by no means a purely Western phenomenon. In fact, the great majority of the world practices either monogamy or restricted (rule-bound) polygamy, and even then there is usually a wife that is the more important and official one, usually the first.

Which lends credence to the theory that monogamous culture is a product of the move from small, tight-knit foraging groups to settled agricultural communities centred around personal property.

Sure, there might be some odd tribe out there with wildly different sexual mores; but why should we take the customs of a minority of the most undeveloped human groupings and call that natural for mankind?

There are in fact several tribes in Africa and South America, and scattered communities in Asia, that still live this way. If we surmise that prior to the development of agriculture, the majority of humans lived this way - and that represents the majority of time humans have so far been in existence - then our modern, “developed” ways don’t seem all that natural. What’s more, archaeological evidence shows that the first settled agricultural communities were far more prone to malnutrition, famine and conflict than their foraging predecessors. Are we to assume that our ancient ancestors somehow got it “right” just because we now live with the outcome of the agricultural revolution?

In the 20th century in the West there were many experiences of different kinds of marital association. Open-marriages, group marriages, free love communes, etc. How did they turn out?

I can’t speak for every instance of such things, but I do know of several polyamorous relationships amongst my aquaintance which are doing very well indeed. It’s difficult in our present moment of history to go against the grain, overcome possessiveness and take a more open attitude to sexual intimacy, simply because the context in which this occurs here and now is still imbued with the belief that monogamy is not only natural but also morally superior to any other form of sexually intimate relationship, even if most people don’t achieve the ideal; and the idea of generous sharing as a matter of course is quite foreign to our economically driven society; so our present culture is vastly different to the norms of our ancestors, and those of contemporary foraging societies.

 

[Joel_PF]

Your idea that the mere amount of time should determine what is natural is very odd. Why not define it by the way the majority of people have lived, in which case monogamy and rule-bound polygamy win hands down, as foraging communities are not compatible with a very large population. Anyway, I think both ways of determining what is natural for man are arbitrary; we should rather look at what is rational, what leads man to the greater actualization of his capacities in all fields. The intellectual, scientific, technological and aesthetic state of contemporary foraging tribes (whose very members, upon coming into contact with civilization, not rarely decide to emigrate, or at least to incorporate many technological advances to their own lifestyle - tribes in Brazil have satellite dishes for TVs and Pick-up trucks), I think, argues against their being the best, most rational way for mankind to live. They do, however, have their pros, and I understand some people preferring some aspects of them over life in civilization.

Brazilian indians were noted by Europeans to be averse to all kinds of work. They led a much more leisurely existence (which for them consisted of lying around most of the day), since their basic needs were met with little effort. The only exception to that was war, which was a constant happening. They were not, however, polyamorous as you suggest, but either monogamous or polygamous with many rules attached to marriage.

Can you give an example of a tribe you have in mind with such polyamorous organization?

If agriculture was so bad, why did it stick? Nothing easier than leaving the fields and going back to the woods if that meant living better.

Love of one man for one woman is a universal among all world cultures (even polygamous ones); it is not a mere ideological fabrication.

 

[Petergray]

People have sex because it feels good, fact and I am TOTALLY against it. I have never had sex and never will ( priesthood vocation I THINK) plus I WILL NOT have sex with someone JUST for the pleasure. People do though and forget what it is really about.

It feels so good as a “test” to see how people will use their free will and if they will use it properly and have sex with someone who they LOVE.

I am trying to say that sex should not happen if you do not love the other person.

**I also believe that you should only have sex if you want a child, not just for fun, it defeats the objective **

 

[Sair]

Your idea that the mere amount of time should determine what is natural is very odd. Why not define it by the way the majority of people have lived, in which case monogamy and rule-bound polygamy win hands down, as foraging communities are not compatible with a very large population. Anyway, I think both ways of determining what is natural for man are arbitrary; we should rather look at what is rational, what leads man to the greater actualization of his capacities in all fields. The intellectual, scientific, technological and aesthetic state of contemporary foraging tribes (whose very members, upon coming into contact with civilization, not rarely decide to emigrate, or at least to incorporate many technological advances to their own lifestyle - tribes in Brazil have satellite dishes for TVs and Pick-up trucks), I think, argues against their being the best, most rational way for mankind to live. They do, however, have their pros, and I understand some people preferring some aspects of them over life in civilization.

Context is key. My original observation was that the judgement of monogamy being the “natural” because the majority of people at least attempt to live that way is not as cut-and-dried as it’s often made out to be. Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha argue, in Sex At Dawn (from which much of my information and argument is drawn), that monogamy - and structured polygamy - is a cultural adaptation to the conditions of settled living, increased population and personal property that resulted from the agricultural revolution. It’s probably simplistic to say that one system is ‘better’ than another, since most people tend to subconsciously prefer that with which they are most familiar. It is incredibly difficult for modern Westerners, for example, to imagine a world in which personal property is inconsequential, where everything you have is shared. Consequently, we tend to perceive our relationships - probably also at a subconscious level - in terms of personal possessions: my husband is mine, not anyone else’s.

Brazilian indians were noted by Europeans to be averse to all kinds of work. They led a much more leisurely existence (which for them consisted of lying around most of the day), since their basic needs were met with little effort. The only exception to that was war, which was a constant happening. They were not, however, polyamorous as you suggest, but either monogamous or polygamous with many rules attached to marriage.

I’m not sure which particular tribe(s) you’re referring to, but Ryan and Jetha point out that many anthropologists have been known to claim that a culture practises monogamous marriage any time they observe any ritual or practice of pair-bonding, even if this is not intended to be binding in the long term. There are other tribes who practice marriage in essentially the same way Western nations do - as a lifetime union - but with the important exception that they have regular rituals whereby the partners couple with others to whom they are not married. Ryan and Jetha also question the assumption that warfare is intrinsic to the human condition - if you have no concept of personal property and resources are plentiful, what is there to fight over?

Can you give an example of a tribe you have in mind with such polyamorous organization?

I would recommend reading Sex At Dawn - it discusses the practices of several foraging societies and small horticultural communities. One that particularly struck me was the Mosuo who live in a sparsely populated area of China - they number little more than 50,000. Their social organisation is matrilineal, centred around the maternal household. From the time a girl is old enough to reproduce, she is given her own room into which she is permitted to invite any of the Mosuo young men she likes to share her bed (assuming they consent, of course). They have a high value for personal autonomy, and sexual freedom is an expression of this. Their language contains no word for war, murder or rape.

If agriculture was so bad, why did it stick? Nothing easier than leaving the fields and going back to the woods if that meant living better.

Again, that would depend upon the context, the conditions in which it arose. Perhaps it was perceived as advantageous in times of uncertain food supply. Once people have been raised in agricultural communities, it is easier, and perceived as more reliable, to stick with what they know. Foragers who were taught farming techniques by well-meaning Europeans certainly were quick to return to what they knew best, because to them it seemed - and indeed, probably was - a better way to live.

Love of one man for one woman is a universal among all world cultures (even polygamous ones); it is not a mere ideological fabrication.

It’s held up as an ideal, certainly, but if loving one person for a lifetime is such a universal phenomenon, how does one explain the prevalence of divorce?

 

[Warrenton]

Don’t worry, Warrenton - we have our fair share of jaded cynics here in the Antipodes as well. I’m sure you’d feel right at home.

:grouphug: Thanks!

 

[tonyrey]

**I also believe that you should only have sex if you want a child, not just for fun, it defeats the objective **

Sex is a gift from God which is intended to be a means by which a man and a woman can express their love for each other even when they cannot have children…

 

[tonyrey]

It’s held up as an ideal, certainly, but if loving one person for a lifetime is such a universal phenomenon, how does one explain the prevalence of divorce?

In modern society advertising fosters the belief that the main purpose of life is satisfaction of our desires without the need for self-sacrifice. “Doing your own thing” has become the watchword rather than “loving your partner”. The cult of pleasure rather than the pursuit of perfection inevitably leads to inability to be constant in love or even capable of true love:

“Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds…”

 

[Edward_H]

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!

Why are you interested in separating truth? If you believe in Truth, you won’t seek a partial connection.

If you still want to do this, one area for you to think about is parsimony. The parsimony of love and sex and the genders. It’s all very complementary. Philosophical arguments are often considered in terms of their parsimony; their ability to explain the data with the simplest theory.

 

[Joel_PF]

I would recommend reading Sex At Dawn - it discusses the practices of several foraging societies and small horticultural communities. One that particularly struck me was the Mosuo who live in a sparsely populated area of China - they number little more than 50,000. Their social organisation is matrilineal, centred around the maternal household. From the time a girl is old enough to reproduce, she is given her own room into which she is permitted to invite any of the Mosuo young men she likes to share her bed (assuming they consent, of course). They have a high value for personal autonomy, and sexual freedom is an expression of this. Their language contains no word for war, murder or rape.

Reading in wikipedia, it seems very clear that they do have private property. It is explicitly said that the husband does not share of his current wife’s family property. They also find it very important to know who the father is.

Their having no rape or murder also, frankly, defies belief; it needs some serious substantiation. Since Margaret Mead and her falsification of Samoa, one needs to take the boldest assertions of anthropologists with a grain of salt.

As for the walking marriages, it makes one wonder: isn’t it possible that they may be missing something much greater than the possibility of changing partners? I mean, many people today in the West live with no desire for a lifelong mate; this is very common. They make bonds, break them, get new partners. I know many people who either have no desire to marry or who, interestingly, already plan on marrying more than once. I very much doubt they find as much fulfillment in these transitory relationships than a married and devoted couple. Same for the Mosuo, who in this respect are like modern people.

The reason for so many divorces? The same reason why every virtue is hard: humanity’s serious fallibleness.

As for Brazilian Indians, I’m pretty sure this holds for all the major groups: tupis, guaranis, etc: war was very prevalent (without the violence common to European war, but with deaths and captures), and with it cannibalism.

The reason why agriculture sticks is because it allows for greater production and abundance. It is no accident that under agriculture the norm is population growth. A cultivated field produces much more useful things for man than an uncultivated one. It requires discipline and hard work, and I respect a tribe which has other values and so doesn’t want this kind of extra work. But from the material point of view, they will always be poor when compared to agricultural civilization.

 

[Sair]

In modern society advertising fosters the belief that the main purpose of life is satisfaction of our desires without the need for self-sacrifice. “Doing your own thing” has become the watchword rather than “loving your partner”. The cult of pleasure rather than the pursuit of perfection inevitably leads to inability to be constant in love or even capable of true love:

“Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds…”

Surely the desire to change one’s partner is a product of a misguided search for perfection, rather than an acceptance of what is. It seems to me that quite a few people have the idea that their marriage has to be to “the one” and then as soon as the passion fades and they find they don’t have the bedrock of a solid, accepting, loving friendship with their partner, they’re outta there. And it seems also that the one desire we have that the advertising industry seems to have forgotten all about (if it ever knew of it to begin with) is the desire to make others happy - in turn, fostering our own satisfaction with life.

 

[Sair]

Reading in wikipedia, it seems very clear that they do have private property. It is explicitly said that the husband does not share of his current wife’s family property. They also find it very important to know who the father is.

Their having no rape or murder also, frankly, defies belief; it needs some serious substantiation. Since Margaret Mead and her falsification of Samoa, one needs to take the boldest assertions of anthropologists with a grain of salt.

Does it defy belief because it’s unfamiliar to us in our overcrowded, violent society? Perhaps so. But it still raises interesting questions about what we assume to be the norm for every human because it’s the norm for us, here and now.

As for the walking marriages, it makes one wonder: isn’t it possible that they may be missing something much greater than the possibility of changing partners? I mean, many people today in the West live with no desire for a lifelong mate; this is very common. They make bonds, break them, get new partners. I know many people who either have no desire to marry or who, interestingly, already plan on marrying more than once. I very much doubt they find as much fulfillment in these transitory relationships than a married and devoted couple. Same for the Mosuo, who in this respect are like modern people.

I’m still pondering the possibility that the culture of monogamy - the romantically unrealistic idea of “the one” who is somehow perfect for you - has led to people developing unrealistic expectations of what a lifetime relationship is all about. Combine that with the image-obsessed popular culture that surrounds us, with its emphasis on external rather than internal qualities, and you have significant numbers of people who are either casting about for that one perfect relationship - discarding any that don’t meet their inflated expectations - or have taken the cynical approach and decided that they’ll never find “the one” so they give up trying.

The reason for so many divorces? The same reason why every virtue is hard: humanity’s serious fallibleness.

But is this fallibility in our formation of expectations, or our failure to commit to the things we value? It’s all very well to have ideals, but if they’re ideals that are simply not suited to human inclinations, we’re setting ourselves up to fail. Something that comes naturally to us should not need constant reinforcement.

As for Brazilian Indians, I’m pretty sure this holds for all the major groups: tupis, guaranis, etc: war was very prevalent (without the violence common to European war, but with deaths and captures), and with it cannibalism.

Not forgetting that these descriptions, coming from anthropologists, should also be taken with a grain of salt. It’s questionable whether these things would have happened without external pressure on the tribes involved, perhaps from European settlement in areas they inhabited; just like the observation of violence amongst chimpanzees was very likely connected to researchers providing the troupe with a stockpile of food - suddenly the chimps had something to fight over.

The reason why agriculture sticks is because it allows for greater production and abundance. It is no accident that under agriculture the norm is population growth. A cultivated field produces much more useful things for man than an uncultivated one. It requires discipline and hard work, and I respect a tribe which has other values and so doesn’t want this kind of extra work. But from the material point of view, they will always be poor when compared to agricultural civilization.

Is greater production and abundance, leading to population growth, necessarily a good thing, though? From the point of view of our anthropocentric culture, perhaps. From the point of view of the overall balance of nature? Not so much. Furthermore, there’s fossil and archaeological evidence - as well as physical evidence from present-day foragers - to suggest that the hunter-gather diet was far healthier than that of the majority of cultivators since the dawn of agriculture.

 

[Sair]

Why are you interested in separating truth? If you believe in Truth, you won’t seek a partial connection.

If you still want to do this, one area for you to think about is parsimony. The parsimony of love and sex and the genders. It’s all very complementary. Philosophical arguments are often considered in terms of their parsimony; their ability to explain the data with the simplest theory.

The data show that humans like sex. That’s pretty much it. Oh, and that bodily pleasure through life correlates with lowered levels of violence and hostility to others. I’m not sure what advantage there is in supposing that the human sex drive is a purely selfish desire, rather than an instinct that leads to greater social unity, if understood in the context in which it likely evolved, where groups of humans shared everything and were reliant upon each other for collective survival.

What is more, if sexual monogamy is supposed necessary for love, in terms of the marriage bond, and sexual infidelity of any kind, with or without emotional commitment, is considered to be a deal-breaker for many couples, why are friendship and emotional connection with others, without sex, considered okay? Does this mean sexual intimacy is more important than emotional and intellectual intimacy? Why is sex considered non-transferable whilst love and friendship are acceptably shared? Doesn’t this point to an agenda regarding sex, reproduction, parental investment and inheritance of personal property that is quite separate from the concept of love and emotional commitment? Clearly, this makes it possible to have one without the other - when the aims of each are considered to be separate rather than complimentary.

 

[tonyrey]

Surely the desire to change one’s partner is a product of a misguided search for perfection, rather than an acceptance of what is. It seems to me that quite a few people have the idea that their marriage has to be to “the one” and then as soon as the passion fades and they find they don’t have the bedrock of a solid, accepting, loving friendship with their partner, they’re outta there. And it seems also that the one desire we have that the advertising industry seems to have forgotten all about (if it ever knew of it to begin with) is the desire to make others happy - in turn, fostering our own satisfaction with life.

I entirely agree with you. By the pursuit of perfection I don’t mean striving for an attainable ideal but simply doing the very best we can - although in reality it’s not so simple because we can never know in advance exactly what we are capable of!

As Robert Browning wrote “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” (including woman of course

 

[tonyrey]

The data show that humans like sex. That’s pretty much it. Oh, and that bodily pleasure through life correlates with lowered levels of violence and hostility to others.

Conflict often arises as a result of sexual envy and jealousy. The pursuit of pleasure alone doesn’t guarantee harmony.

I’m not sure what advantage there is in supposing that the human sex drive is a purely selfish desire, rather than an instinct that leads to greater social unity, if understood in the context in which it likely evolved, where groups of humans shared everything and were reliant upon each other for collective survival.

Like any natural drive or instinct sex can be perverted for selfish motives. Primitive societies are no exception to that rule.

What is more, if sexual monogamy is supposed necessary for love, in terms of the marriage bond, and sexual infidelity of any kind, with or without emotional commitment, is considered to be a deal-breaker for many couples, why are friendship and emotional connection with others, without sex, considered okay? Does this mean sexual intimacy is more important than emotional and intellectual intimacy? Why is sex considered non-transferable whilst love and friendship are acceptably shared? Doesn’t this point to an agenda regarding sex, reproduction, parental investment and inheritance of personal property that is quite separate from the concept of love and emotional commitment? Clearly, this makes it possible to have one without the other - when the aims of each are considered to be separate rather than complimentary.

The experiments in free love don’t seem to have been successful, particularly from the woman’s point of view…

 

[MartinThinking]

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?

Read through good thinking in thread thus far.

I feel this is a very important issue. An issue which cannot hope to be finalized in self knowledge without serious rational thinking… Contemporary man has difficulty with applying
knowledge… as the potentiality in the nature of survival within sex and love can most certainly be over-whelming.

A key, or roadmap which is understood and accepted is of absolute necessity if any constructive measure of peace is in view .Confusion in morality, self doubt and such …all together actualize conflict within self…in clear obstruction of… Peace of Mind.

My compliments to self &societal interest, honesty and exploration …which is apparent in opening thread initiative.

Lifetime partner vrs multiple partners.

By way of tone in thread …the raw biological expression in human sexuality… is ruled out of this entry as a role for non-conscious or barely conscious animals.This would be I think another topic

In order to view the issue sex outside marriage or multiple partners as a viable option… one would… “require the will”… in opposition of lifetime comittment…

Where the will is noted…a perceived need is in motion. What then…is the fundamental need for multiple partners…?

The fundamental need for multiple partners would not suggest but evidence a great depreciation of …meaning in sexual activity…relative to those who are not …in this requirement

or…

The fundamental need for profound acceptance is in-ordinate …relative to the emotional stability of one who does not require or perceive accumulated need …in multiple partners.

or…the combination of both above including :

An un-conscious need to betray. …resulting from ill-will in a suggested dis-honest highly suggestive implant of non-worth and non-acceptance. Ill-will…then in satisfaction of itself propagates in the madness of which it is…a fruitless effort to transfer the abdication of useless-ness. A whirlwind of never ending negativism in the material application re destiny of oneself…

Since sexuality is a focused expression of adoration …a profound acceptance is mutually experienced…

A changed focus, or partner…denies the previous expression to be that of unique…decided and offered in another’s appreciation of worthiness in contribution to life.

The act emerges onto, a common ground… as the focus is without meaning.

If the focus is without meaning…we have yet another un-fortunate problem. Ones behavior(adoration) is in-consistent with ones state of understanding in comprehension of another.

This would be illogical conduct, unless a non-conscious or barely conscious animal.
As we know man is very capable of ill logical behavior. It is a reflection of dis-order.

I believe this issue is a physiological issue where perception of self worthiness is mis-construed with biological acceptance.

Of course we all know we are more than biological entities.Through shallow reasoning we find a fester… for emotional acceptance . A fester as the required emotional acceptance is denied…in the tool box of biological materialism.

A matter for rooting out the un-conscious rejection lying within self . The matter will not find rest within conversation.

Acceptance…will rule out rejection…But…it MUST… be honest acceptance.

Multiple partners is a dis-honest consideration in ones becoming. Everyone inherently knows this.

The dis-honesty festers…never satisfied…its what one in great need knows.

The dishonesty of ill-granted rejection. Betrayal… learned and experienced as a part of life.
The solution is rooting out the rejection in comprehension of self…

Comparing tribes and so forth is absolutely ridiculous. Survival is an issue which has obvious
implications.in human sexuality. I will offer an example:

I moved to a quaint town a little while ago. There are people who live believe it or not right here in N/A in the bush. In the grocery store one day one of these people came to the unhappy situation of great hunger. Well…there he was at the meat dept.

Hands wrapped around a blood dripping roast of beef, teeth bloodied and decayed from a
un-cared for existence, Long bedraggled face kneeling outwards with his prize…large quantities of the beef missing in only what could be easily in the ambiance understood as seconds.

Looking outward at the shoppers who all appeared stunned…the man …said…with great
unity and confidence in his fellow man…

…F O O D

My point is that FOOD relative to this human being is NOT food relative to a civilized looked after individual who has at least enough to keep from serious health issues.

Sexuality…cannot be interpreted as sexuality in the same broad sense across multiple civilizations customs…survival issues ect.

As well…it really is limited to come to a visualization of tribes and so forth sitting around
having care free activity…24-7…Sickness…even a toothache…food…defence. These are major issues which require organization and…maturity.

The finding of cultural behavior is incomplete in summation without direct experience I would confidently propose… relative to applying same ethical principal in developed society
.
Common sense leads the way to a decent life. We must be decent in our journey towards Spiritual understandings…

.

 

[Sair]

I doesn’t seem to me that the goals of lifetime commitment and multiple sexual partners are necessarily incompatible. Yes, sex and love are connected, but they are not identical. Monogamous culture and thinking tends to enforce this connection - or at least attempt to do so - and in this way distorts the emphasis of a committed relationship, placing (paradoxically, perhaps) a much higher importance on sex as the physical symbol of the emotional and spiritual side of a relationship. Consequently, sexual infidelity becomes the knife in the heart for many a marriage, when it need not be thus.

My father once observed, and I took it to heart, that the reason many marriages fail is not a lack of sexual attraction or passion, but a lack of friendship. My experience thus far has borne this out - my husband is my best friend as well as my lover, and so sexual jealousy does not enter into our relationship. It’s the friendship, not the sex, that binds us. To be sure, taking a cavalier approach to sex tends to be devaluing to all involved, but if polyamory is approached with respect and trust and communication, it becomes a way of strengthening friendships and deepening long-term bonds.

As for the wild, unkempt man you mentioned, it doesn’t seem like he was living anything like the kind of lifestyle typical of foraging tribes, who exist in harmony with nature and flourish on a variety of food sources throughout the year. The man raiding the meat sounds like he was homeless and starving, rather than a thriving forager.

 

[tonyrey]

I doesn’t seem to me that the goals of lifetime commitment and multiple sexual partners are necessarily incompatible. Yes, sex and love are connected, but they are not identical. Monogamous culture and thinking tends to enforce this connection - or at least attempt to do so - and in this way distorts the emphasis of a committed relationship, placing (paradoxically, perhaps) a much higher importance on sex as the physical symbol of the emotional and spiritual side of a relationship. Consequently, sexual infidelity becomes the knife in the heart for many a marriage, when it need not be thus.

I think you underestimate the significance of the physical aspect of sex. The woman is obviously the more vulnerable in the relationship because - apart from the fact that she potentially bears and suckles a child - she is generally dependent on the man financially and socially in our male-dominated society. In the UK there are over a million women who have to bring up their children on their own - one of the results of the cult of sexual satisfaction at the expense of personal commitment. Nor is the man always to blame… The main culprit is the prevailing hedonism which has replaced the pursuit of moral perfection. If I used that phrase in everyday conversation in this country most people would look at me as if I’m a crank! The arbitrary separation of physical sex from the emotional and spiritual aspects of the relationship is based on the quest for novelty and variety - as if the other person is incapable of fulfilling all one’s sexual needs.

My father once observed, and I took it to heart, that the reason many marriages fail is not a lack of sexual attraction or passion, but a lack of friendship. My experience thus far has borne this out - my husband is my best friend as well as my lover, and so sexual jealousy does not enter into our relationship. It’s the friendship, not the sex, that binds us. To be sure, taking a cavalier approach to sex tends to be devaluing to all involved, but if polyamory is approached with respect and trust and communication, it becomes a way of strengthening friendships and deepening long-term bonds.

You are assuming most people are capable of sharing their partner without the slightest doubt, jealousy or compunction. You are also assuming the absence of the other person for the purpose of sexual satisfaction is easily taken for granted and a matter of mutual consent. The high incidence of separation and divorce demonstrates that this is rarely the case. These days harmony in marriage is difficult enough to achieve without introducing the further complication of sexual rivalry between the couple themselves and between their paramours. The logical outcome of your theory of maximising sexual satisfaction is group sex… Do you favour that?

 

[Sair]

I think you underestimate the significance of the physical aspect of sex. The woman is obviously the more vulnerable in the relationship because - apart from the fact that she potentially bears and suckles a child - she is generally dependent on the man financially and socially in our male-dominated society.

That’s kind of the point. It’s cultural adaptation to changed conditions. Many anthropologists concluded that matriarchal societies don’t exist, but that is because they were generally looking for a mirror image of patriarchy, where the females dominate the males by force and coercion. Real matriarchies don’t operate that way - they’re far more egalitarian and cooperative. In the circumstances of the present-day West, even despite the achievements of feminism, yes, women are still vulnerable. But that would not necessarily have been the case in prehistoric times, nor is it the case in modern-day foraging groups.

In the UK there are over a million women who have to bring up their children on their own - one of the results of the cult of sexual satisfaction at the expense of personal commitment. Nor is the man always to blame… The main culprit is the prevailing hedonism which has replaced the pursuit of moral perfection. If I used that phrase in everyday conversation in this country most people would look at me as if I’m a crank! The arbitrary separation of physical sex from the emotional and spiritual aspects of the relationship is based on the quest for novelty and variety - as if the other person is incapable of fulfilling all one’s sexual needs.

Not forgetting, of course, the commodification of sex along with just about every other aspect of our lives. And in fact, I don’t think it’s realistic or even fair to expect that one person is capable of fulfilling all our needs. I think most people accept this in terms of emotional and intellectual needs - else why have more than one friend? I don’t see why, when it comes to sexuality, it is expected that one person should be capable of satisfying all of one’s needs.

You are assuming most people are capable of sharing their partner without the slightest doubt, jealousy or compunction. You are also assuming the absence of the other person for the purpose of sexual satisfaction is easily taken for granted and a matter of mutual consent. The high incidence of separation and divorce demonstrates that this is rarely the case. These days harmony in marriage is difficult enough to achieve without introducing the further complication of sexual rivalry between the couple themselves and between their paramours. The logical outcome of your theory of maximising sexual satisfaction is group sex… Do you favour that?

Polyamory has to be a matter of mutual consent. Otherwise it’s just called cheating And I certainly don’t think it would be suitable for everyone. However, I do think there is a lot of cultural conditioning involved in the jealousy response - jealousy stems from the fear that one will lose the object of one’s desire, in this case the attention and affection of a loved one. And in a monogamous society, where it’s assumed that a sexual relationship is something you have with only one person at a time, obviously sexual straying is interpreted as losing one’s partner. But this need not be the case. If anything, my relationship with my husband has grown stronger since we acknowledged our polyamorous inclinations. It has certainly furnished us with many an hour of interesting conversation And in essence, it’s an acknowledgement that we don’t own each other - we’re not together out of obligation, but because we want to be. And, no, group sex is not to my taste, although I don’t object to it on principle. I guess I’ve been conditioned to think of sex as something that happens in private…

 

[tonyrey]

The woman is obviously the more vulnerable in the relationship because - apart from the fact that she potentially bears and suckles a child - she is generally dependent on the man financially and socially in our male-dominated society.

Women will **always **be more vulnerable because of their dependence on their partners while they are bearing and suckling children. It is for that reason that some choose to remain childless. The disintegration of the family is another logical outcome of the hedonistic philosophy in which the maximisation of physical satisfaction dominates one’s purpose in life.

In the UK there are over a million women who are compelled to bring up their children on their own - one of the results of the cult of sexual satisfaction at the expense of personal commitment.

Nor is the man always to blame… The main culprit is the prevailing hedonism which has replaced the pursuit of moral perfection. If I used that phrase in everyday conversation in this country most people would look at me as if I’m a crank! The arbitrary separation of physical sex from the emotional and spiritual aspects of the relationship is based on the quest for novelty and variety - as if the other person is incapable of fulfilling all one’s sexual needs.Not forgetting, of course, the commodification of sex along with just about every other aspect of our lives. And in fact, I don’t think it’s realistic or even fair to expect that one person is capable of fulfilling all our needs. I think most people accept this in terms of emotional and intellectual needs - else why have more than one friend? I don’t see why, when it comes to sexuality, it is expected that one person should be capable of satisfying all of one’s needs.

Are they genuine needs or simply excuses for indulgence?

You are assuming most people are capable of sharing their partner without the slightest doubt, jealousy or compunction. You are also assuming the absence of the other person for the purpose of sexual satisfaction is easily taken for granted and a matter of mutual consent. The high incidence of separation and divorce demonstrates that this is rarely the case. These days harmony in marriage is difficult enough to achieve without introducing the further complication of sexual rivalry between the couple themselves and between their paramours. The logical outcome of your theory of maximising sexual satisfaction is group sex…

Polyamory has to be a matter of mutual consent. Otherwise it’s just called cheating And I certainly don’t think it would be suitable for everyone. However, I do think there is a lot of cultural conditioning involved in the jealousy response - jealousy stems from the fear that one will lose the object of one’s desire, in this case the attention and affection of a loved one. And in a monogamous society, where it’s assumed that a sexual relationship is something you have with only one person at a time, obviously sexual straying is interpreted as losing one’s partner. But this need not be the case. If anything, my relationship with my husband has grown stronger since we acknowledged our polyamorous inclinations. It has certainly furnished us with many an hour of interesting conversation And in essence, it’s an acknowledgement that we don’t own each other - we’re not together out of obligation, but because we want to be. And, no, group sex is not to my taste, although I don’t object to it on principle. I guess I’ve been conditioned to think of sex as something that happens in private.

A cynic could say this view is consistent with the notion that all our behaviour is the result of conditioning - including our moral principles! The reality is that the highest form of love between a man and a woman is a personal relationship which is the basis of a united family. Adultery may seem desirable for adults but it is certainly harmful for many children. In our society many are the victims of the free sex philosophy which is a symptom of the “Why shouldn’t I do what I like?” and “Do your own thing!” mentality. Ultimately its result would be sexual communes where group sex would be an option and a further cause of dissension between a man and woman. If you’re going to share your sex life with others why stop there? Why not spend days or even weeks with those who satisfy you sexually or in other ways? It seems as if the relationship is a matter of habit and mutual convenience rather than inspired by genuine love.

There is good reason to believe the cult of sex is a substitute for religion because it entails far more than a physical act. Normal men and women are averse to sharing the most intimate physical expression of their love for each other because they regard it as a beautiful and sacred gift, a distinguishing feature of being a person rather than an animal. Why? Because it entails self-restraint. The real test of anything worthwhile is whether it stands the test of time. I hardly think promiscuity has promising prospects! I knew one poor woman who committed suicide because she had lost all self-respect. What is regarded as sexual emancipation is really no more than slavery to lust. Moral precepts are not arbitrary rules but laws of personal development and fulfilment. We ignore them at our peril…

 

[Sair]

Women will **always **be more vulnerable because of their dependence on their partners while they are bearing and suckling children. It is for that reason that some choose to remain childless. The disintegration of the family is another logical outcome of the hedonistic philosophy in which the maximisation of physical satisfaction dominates one’s purpose in life.

Sure, a woman is vulnerable during pregnancy (in particular the latter months), childbirth and breastfeeding, but it doesn’t follow that her only source of support during such times is or must be her child’s father. This is where the value of close ties to the members of one’s group or extended family becomes apparent.

I’m not sure I’ve made it clear enough that my view of sex is not one that separates the physical act itself from its emotional implications and effects. I am far from being an advocate of the pursuit of sexual pleasure in isolation from the other aspects of interpersonal relationships. Just as the unexamined life is not worth living, the unexamined sex life is not worth pursuing, at least in my view.

Are they genuine needs or simply excuses for indulgence?

My closest male friend, apart from my husband, is someone with whom I can share the kind of nerdy philosophical discussion in which I find a great deal of pleasure, but of which my husband is rather less fond. Whilst my relationship with this friend is nonsexual, it is close enough that one of our work colleagues thought we must be a couple. Now, who’s to say that my desire for a different kind of intellectual stimulation is not frivolous and indulgent? Yet it is somehow more acceptable than the desire for sexual variety.

The reality is that the highest form of love between a man and a woman is a personal relationship which is the basis of a united family.

Highest by whose standards? And there’s more than one concept of ‘family’ - which are you using? Personally, I find the idea of the nuclear family to be more divisive and exclusive than unitive and accepting.

Adultery may seem desirable for adults but it is certainly harmful for many children. In our society many are the victims of the free sex philosophy which is a symptom of the “Why shouldn’t I do what I like?” and “Do your own thing!” mentality.

Which, again, is not at all what I would personally advocate. All our actions have consequences, and so the idea of no-strings-attached sex is a non-starter. If anything, it’s the strings that make the sex what it should be - a means of building intimacy and strengthening a relationship. And I would have thought it obvious that a group of adults, all concerned with a particular child’s welfare, would lead to better outcomes for that child than just a pair of concerned adults. It’s the culture of monogamy, with its insistence that you can only be sexually involved with one person at a time, that underpins the reality of broken families.

There is good reason to believe the cult of sex is a substitute for religion because it entails far more than a physical act. Normal men and women are averse to sharing the most intimate physical expression of their love for each other because they regard it as a beautiful and sacred gift, a distinguishing feature of being a person rather than an animal. Why? Because it entails self-restraint. The real test of anything worthwhile is whether it stands the test of time. I hardly think promiscuity has promising prospects! I knew one poor woman who committed suicide because she had lost all self-respect. What is regarded as sexual emancipation is really no more than slavery to lust. Moral precepts are not arbitrary rules but laws of personal development and fulfilment. We ignore them at our peril…

And yet what we find is that people who have a more open and accepting attitude to sex generally don’t consider it the be-all and end-all, but another among many aspects of life to be enjoyed, something that contributes to one’s fulfilment as a person. I can’t remember who said it first, but I think there’s more than a grain of truth to the observation that some Catholics (or any others who find the animal aspects of humans distasteful) are obsessed with sex in the way that anorexics are obsessed with food. As for promiscuity standing the test of time, if it is indeed true that human sexuality evolved in an environment of small, tight-knit foraging bands, and the change came with the advent of agriculture and extensive personal property, then humans have been promiscuous for far longer than we’ve been monogamous.