Connection between love and sex?

[tonyrey]

Is evil an objective reality or a subjective idea?

So to intend to cause or permit unnecessary suffering is objectively evil?

What part do emotions and the intellect play in sexual relationships with several men?

The same part they play in sexual relationships with one man.

Then there is no fundamental difference between them?

Ideally, the relationships are long-term, but it doesn’t always work out that way (as many monogamous marriages don’t). I think you’re leaving out the most important motivation for polyamory - intimacy with people who share your goals and interests, and just not creating an arbitrary barrier - sexual intimacy - in an otherwise deep and meaningful friendship.

Why is the lack of sexual intimacy is an arbitrary barrier? Why is it necessary to share one’s body with a friend? Couldn’t sexual adventures be a form of escapism from the monotony of a humdrum life?Your partner must be regarded as inadequate in some respect if there is such a need for variety and experimentation. It is tantamount to regarding your partner as a useful means of giving some stability and continuity to your life without the need to commit yourself fully to him - as if it is some form of slavery or imprisonment. I suspect the bonds of marriage are seen as restraints and an outmoded convention for a modern, emancipated woman who sees us for what we really are: just apes without any categorical imperatives or any absolute moral principles - like always doing what we believe to be right and just.

Your implied contrast between ‘commune’ and ‘family’ is telling. I think collective ownership of property is preferable to exclusivity, and I think larger groups are better for us, psychologically speaking, than small, functionally isolated nuclear families.

For me the contrast between ‘commune’ and ‘family’ has personal rather than political implications. I don’t subscribe to either capitalism or communism because they are both absurd extremes. I believe in the welfare state, private enterprise on a small scale and co-operatives rather than corporations - but that is another topic.

You are right with your view of the need for larger groups rather than isolated nuclear families but I disagree with your solution. In modern society the breakdown of local communities preceded the breakdown of extended families which has led in turn to the disintegration of families themselves - and sometimes to the psychological disintegration of individuals. Your larger groups of lovers would merely exacerbate rather than solve that problem. The family has always been the basic unit of society but in small communities it was not isolated from other families. To a large extent villages were like extended families without the need for artificial communities like bingo halls!

Friends are the families we choose for ourselves.

If friends are the families we choose for ourselves there is no obvious reason why a man or woman shouldn’t have children by their lovers. Would you consider that to be desirable? And how would communities based on sexual predilections fit into society as a whole? What would happen to the unfortunate individuals who were celibate or sexually unattractive or morally scrupulous?

It is good to regard friends as a part of the family but lovers are not in the same category because sexual intercourse is not just a physical episode. It has a profound effect on our attitude to ourselves and others. It is a beautiful gift that should not be debased by being used as an instrument of pleasure but an expression of our whole personality and a form of self-dedication to another person by means of the most sublime union of mind and body:

“Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit** impediments**. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
O no, it is an ever-fixèd mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wand’ring bark,
Whose worth’s unknown, although his height be taken.
Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.”

If there is one thing true love is not it is an affair of convenience…

 

[levinas12]

It is tantamount to regarding your partner as a useful means of giving some stability and continuity to your life without the need to commit yourself fully to him - as if it is some form of slavery or imprisonment. I suspect the bonds of marriage are seen as restraints and an outmoded convention for a modern, emancipated woman who sees us for what we really are: just apes without any categorical imperatives or any absolute moral principles - like always doing what we believe to be right and just.

You are right with your view of the need for larger groups rather than isolated nuclear families but I disagree with your solution. In modern society the breakdown of local communities preceded the breakdown of extended families which has led in turn to the disintegration of families themselves - and sometimes to the psychological disintegration of individuals. Your larger groups of lovers would merely exacerbate rather than solve that problem. The family has always been the basic unit of society but in small communities it was not isolated from other families. To a large extent villages were like extended families without the need for artificial communities like bingo halls!

If friends are the families we choose for ourselves there is no obvious reason why a man or woman shouldn’t have children by their lovers. Would you consider that to be desirable? And how would communities based on sexual predilections fit into society as a whole? What would happen to the unfortunate individuals who were celibate or sexually unattractive or morally scrupulous?

It is good to regard friends as a part of the family but lovers are not in the same category because sexual intercourse is not just a physical episode. It has a profound effect on our attitude to ourselves and others. It is a beautiful gift that should not be debased by being used as an instrument of pleasure but an expression of our whole personality and a form of self-dedication to another person by means of the most sublime union of mind and body …

Well said, tonyrey, well said …

 

[tonyrey]

Well said, tonyrey, well said …

Thanks! :thankyou:It has turned out to be a meditation on the beauty and spiritual significance of sex!

 

[levinas12]

Tonyrey:

You’ve done a good job on this thread … I couldn’t agree more … your postings form the nucleus of a “philosophy” of the body corresponding to JP II’s theology of the body … and I mean b"philosophy" a space that can be shared by both believer and non-believer …

 

[levinas12]

Well said, tonyrey, well said …

 

[tonyrey]

Well said, tonyrey, well said …

Thanks for your appreciation. It has turned out to be a meditation on the beauty and spiritual significance of sex which is a further expression of God’s love in creating us in His own image! Jesus prayed that “they may be one as we are one”. All love is creative but the love of a man and a woman reflects His very act of creating persons!

 

[levinas12]

Thanks for your appreciation. It has turned out to be a meditation on the beauty and spiritual significance of sex which is a further expression of God’s love in creating us in His own image! Jesus prayed that “they may be one as we are one”. All love is creative but the love of a man and a woman reflects His very act of creating persons!

You should lead a Theology of the Body session at my parish.

 

[Sair]

So to intend to cause or permit unnecessary suffering is objectively evil?

Difficult question, since it’s difficult to refer to anything that depends upon a subjective response to circumstances as ‘objective’.

Then there is no fundamental difference between them?

There is no fundamental difference between those with whom one shares sexual intimacy, except the difference between individual personalities - this is a genuine difference, rather than a culturally regulated difference.

Why is the lack of sexual intimacy is an arbitrary barrier?

Because it is an arbitrary barrier when we consider the fact that there is no such barrier in place when it comes to emotional or intellectual intimacy. Erecting the sexual barrier places sexual interaction on an artificially higher plane than other forms of interaction, and misses the point that any interaction with another person involves an appreciation of that person as a whole individual. It’s got very little to do with me being an ‘emancipated woman’, except perhaps in the sense of balancing the scales - men have exercised a degree of sexual freedom, of which society has tacitly approved, for centuries, as long as they were doing their dynastic duty as well by providing heirs for their family property.

For me the contrast between ‘commune’ and ‘family’ has personal rather than political implications. I don’t subscribe to either capitalism or communism because they are both absurd extremes. I believe in the welfare state, private enterprise on a small scale and co-operatives rather than corporations - but that is another topic.

Quite so. Small-scale collectivism is my preferred form of social organisation. Whether this is practicable in the modern world is another issue…

You are right with your view of the need for larger groups rather than isolated nuclear families but I disagree with your solution. In modern society the breakdown of local communities preceded the breakdown of extended families which has led in turn to the disintegration of families themselves - and sometimes to the psychological disintegration of individuals.

Individuals are cast adrift when they have no frame of reference in the form of family and community. I think, historically, the breakdown of community was the result of the increasing concentration of property and power in the hands of individuals - movement into cities generally followed from enclosure of land and restriction of individual access to resources.

Your larger groups of lovers would merely exacerbate rather than solve that problem. The family has always been the basic unit of society but in small communities it was not isolated from other families. To a large extent villages were like extended families without the need for artificial communities like bingo halls!

Again, I think you’re missing the point. Groups of lovers would be communities who shared similar life goals and interests. Family, in this context, would be virtually indistinguishable from the wider community, as it is in existing communities in which shared parenthood and communal access to resources are realities.

If friends are the families we choose for ourselves there is no obvious reason why a man or woman shouldn’t have children by their lovers. Would you consider that to be desirable?

Yes. Shared parenthood increases the adult role models for any given child, and means that multiple adults, not just the direct parents, have an interest in the children’s development. The belief prevalent in modern society is that only the biological parents have a vested interest in the outcomes for their children, and we can see, on a daily basis, how well that works.

And how would communities based on sexual predilections fit into society as a whole? What would happen to the unfortunate individuals who were celibate or sexually unattractive or morally scrupulous?

The point is that it’s not just sexual predilections. That’s just one part of the whole phenomenon of interpersonal relationships. The only difference is that sexual interaction is not privileged over any other form of interaction, but is accepted as a normal human expression of acceptance, trust and appreciation. The choice to be celibate or morally scrupulous could certainly be respected, assuming it had a valid context in a sex-positive community, but sexual attraction is as variable as any other human experience. I don’t see that as being a necessary barrier to sexual interaction.

It is good to regard friends as a part of the family but lovers are not in the same category because sexual intercourse is not just a physical episode. It has a profound effect on our attitude to ourselves and others. It is a beautiful gift that should not be debased by being used as an instrument of pleasure but an expression of our whole personality and a form of self-dedication to another person by means of the most sublime union of mind and body

And you think this commitment can only be made to one person? Then why can parents love more than one child?

If there is one thing true love is not it is an affair of convenience…

Of course it’s not. But it’s also not a matter of choosing between the objects of love, and bending them to your own will in the sense of committing them to you alone. That is an example of admitting the ‘impediments’ to which Shakespeare referred, of what we think of as ‘love’ altering when it alteration finds.

 

[tonyrey]

So to intend to cause or permit unnecessary suffering is objectively evil?

You could say all our responses to circumstances - including the recognition of facts - are subjective! All our reasoning, whether logical or scientific or otherwise, is subjective… What is subjective about unnecessary suffering and deliberate causation? In a court of law they would have no difficulty answering that question.

There is no fundamental difference between those with whom one shares sexual intimacy, except the difference between individual personalities - this is a genuine difference, rather than a culturally regulated difference.

So sexual relations with different individuals are equally significant - apart from the degree of pleasure and satisfaction they produce? They have no personal or spiritual significance?

Why is the lack of sexual intimacy an arbitrary barrier?

Because it is an arbitrary barrier when we consider the fact that there is no such barrier in place when it comes to emotional or intellectual intimacy. Erecting the sexual barrier places sexual interaction on an artificially higher plane than other forms of interaction, and misses the point that any interaction with another person involves an appreciation of that person as a whole individual.

So sexual intercourse is at the same level as social or conversational intercourse? The logical conclusion is that there should be no barrier against sexual relations with all your closest friends, whether they be male, female, adults or children. Such physical intimacy is essential for full appreciation of a person as a whole individual…

It’s got very little to do with me being an ‘emancipated woman’, except perhaps in the sense of balancing the scales - men have exercised a degree of sexual freedom, of which society has tacitly approved, for centuries, as long as they were doing their dynastic duty as well by providing heirs for their family property.

Then you believe women’s moral standards regarding sex should be identical to those of men? You should imitate their behaviour?

Groups of lovers would be communities who shared similar life goals and interests. Family, in this context, would be virtually indistinguishable from the wider community, as it is in existing communities in which shared parenthood and communal access to resources are realities.

Again the logical conclusion is that groups of lovers and their offspring should be accorded the same legal rights as couples. Would you endorse that view?

Shared parenthood increases the adult role models for any given child, and means that multiple adults, not just the direct parents, have an interest in the children’s development. The belief prevalent in modern society is that only the biological parents have a vested interest in the outcomes for their children, and we can see, on a daily basis, how well that works.

Do you believe children would benefit from having several “fathers” or “mothers” without any risk of confusion or loss of deep attachment and love for their real parents? Wouldn’t too many cooks spoil the broth of family life?

The point is that it’s not just sexual predilections. That’s just one part of the whole phenomenon of interpersonal relationships. The only difference is that sexual interaction is not privileged over any other form of interaction, but is accepted as a normal human expression of acceptance, trust and appreciation. The choice to be celibate or morally scrupulous could certainly be respected, assuming it had a valid context in a sex-positive community, but sexual attraction is as variable as any other human experience. I don’t see that as being a necessary barrier to sexual interaction.

Sexual interaction is not privileged but sexual differences have a profound effect on one’s personality. Groups of lovers and their offspring would be more difficult to integrate in society than families because they would be distinguished primarily by their sexual predilections. It would be more difficult to identify pedophiles in such a community. In fact it would be a haven and an incentive for anyone with secret inclinations towards sexual perversion…

It is good to regard friends as a part of the family but lovers are not in the same category because sexual intercourse is not just a physical episode. It has a profound effect on our attitude to ourselves and others. It is a beautiful gift that should not be debased by being used as an instrument of pleasure but an expression of our whole personality and a form of self-dedication to another person by means of the most sublime union of mind and body

And you think this commitment can only be made to one person?

Yes! Otherwise it becomes diffuse and diluted. Deep love does not need distractions or alternatives.

Then why can parents love more than one child?

Because they know children are fully dependent on them whereas adults are not.

If there is one thing true love is not it is an affair of convenience…

Of course it’s not. But it’s also not a matter of choosing between the objects of love, and bending them to your own will in the sense of committing them to you alone. That is an example of admitting the ‘impediments’ to which Shakespeare referred, of what we think of as ‘love’ altering when it alteration finds.

It is nonsense to associate Shakespeare’s concept of love with “bending them to your own will”. It is precisely the opposite because your wills are united when you are deeply in love and have no need of sexual entertainment with others which reduces your genital organs to instruments of pleasure.

 

[MartinThinking]

.

Ones mind :.

The multiple partner platform is in receipt of partial concede by virtue of prolonging the mind of the opposition in a behavior which is claimed to be improper…yet continues to occupy and dwell.,offering… a suggested reasonable viewpoint.

An un-reasonable viewpoint …is without dwelling in repeated themes guised as rebut.

The multiple partner idea is deemed reasonable within text .

Ones mind takes delight in what it chooses to be…
mindful of…

.

 

[mexilad]

check out chastity.com for some insight. Check out the papal encyclical “humane vita”
also, if you are really interested on this topic. Get a copy of pope john paul’s book “theology of the body”

there are also some books or mp3 topics on this at catholic.com

this is how i see it. If you can follow my logic.

God is completely capable of creating life on his own, by himself. He does not need us to do this.
Yet, he shared what is arguably one of his greatest powers… The power to create new life, with us… His lowly creations. Why? - he doesn’t need us, why then?

It is with this first question and realization that you start to see a divine connection between love and sex. Because other then answering “love” - it is hard pressed to understand why god shared creation with us humans. Especially given how much of a mess we often make of it. Children out of wedlock, abortion, children addicted to drugs, custody battles, etc. Etc. Etc.

If we accept a connection between creation and sex, then the connection between love and sex is much more obvious.

Only by denying the connection between sex and procreation, is it easy for us to justify casual hook-ups, contraception, abortion, single parent families, etc.

But one can also argue that when you treat the natural result of an action separate from the action itself, you create a dysfunctional and perhaps schizophrenic, fractured understanding of the thing itself, in this case, sex.

brilliant!!!

 

[MartinThinking]

Sex is a focused expression of eternity.

It is the means by which eternity is made possible… in the mutual participation in the becoming of humanity. Essence of oneself, or soul joining Creation, and in doing so eternity of another is
the intended

It is not something to be argued but recognized within
our consciousness to be an un-selfish participation, in all that is…

The connection between love and sex is rather simple. The act is a focused adoration in appreciation of another. The expression of absolute acceptance.

If one is “without” the mental compliance of deep and devoted benevolence, the mind…contradicts the behavior.

A willing self organized deceit… Self destructive in principal, Sex without love.

(also biologically repugnant)

The connection is the connection, without which would be contradiction.

Do I have to explain everything ?

 

[tonyrey]

“Power is an aphrodisiac, as is well known, and we know as well that power in one sense is often presumed to be power in another sense,” said James Walston, professor of Italian politics at the American University of Rome."

uk.reuters.com/article/2011/05/15/uk-strausskahn-power-idUKTRE74E3RT20110515

Conversely sexual intercourse can give an illusion of power. Some extramarital affairs are based on mutual consent but both the man and the woman regard each other as conquests! They are “lovers” but incapable of true love. They are not prepared to dedicate themselves to each other for the rest of their lives because they are egoists who put their own interests first. Real love entails self-sacrifice…

 

[tonyrey]

The connection between love and sex is rather simple. The act is a focused adoration in appreciation of another. The expression of absolute acceptance.

Well put! “absolute” is the key word…

 

[Sair]

“Power is an aphrodisiac, as is well known, and we know as well that power in one sense is often presumed to be power in another sense,” said James Walston, professor of Italian politics at the American University of Rome."

Conversely sexual intercourse can give an illusion of power. Some extramarital affairs are based on mutual consent but both the man and the woman regard each other as conquests! They are “lovers” but incapable of true love. They are not prepared to dedicate themselves to each other for the rest of their lives because they are egoists who put their own interests first. Real love entails self-sacrifice…

My understanding of sexual conquest is that one partner has managed to wrest from the other some benefit - that of physical pleasure - without having to pay the wage for such pleasure, be that financial support in the case of pregnancy, or exclusive emotional commitment. These seem to be direct results of the economisation and commodification of human relationships. If sex is treated as a symbol of some other kind of transaction, it’s easy to see how exploitation can result. If sex is considered as an expression of an already close and cooperative relationship, it’s less apparent how exploitation can creep into the mix.

 

[tonyrey]

“Power is an aphrodisiac, as is well known, and we know as well that power in one sense is often presumed to be power in another sense,” said James Walston, professor of Italian politics at the American University of Rome."
*
Conversely sexual intercourse can give an illusion of power*

The mere fact of physical possession is enough for many people to regard it as a conquest: they have achieved their goal of obtaining consent and access to the most intimate parts of another person’s body - which implies a period of courtship and perseverance if he or she is not easy meat! It is unrealistic to claim physical pleasure doesn’t override all other considerations during sexual activity. In many cases it is probably the main motive for those who believe we are merely apes that exist for no reason or purpose.

Why shouldn’t physical satisfaction be our dominant motive when there are no apparent obstacles? Aren’t we entitled to do exactly what we like with our own body regardless of what others may think? Absolute freedom is a consummation “devoutly” to be wished - with apologies to Shakespeare.

 

[levinas12]

Because it is an arbitrary barrier when we consider the fact that there is no such barrier in place when it comes to emotional or intellectual intimacy. Erecting the sexual barrier places sexual interaction on an artificially higher plane than other forms of interaction, and misses the point that any interaction with another person involves an appreciation of that person as a whole individual.

Again, I think you’re missing the point. Groups of lovers would be communities who shared similar life goals and interests. Family, in this context, would be virtually indistinguishable from the wider community, as it is in existing communities in which shared parenthood and communal access to resources are realities.

The point is that it’s not just sexual predilections. That’s just one part of the whole phenomenon of interpersonal relationships. The only difference is that sexual interaction is not privileged over any other form of interaction, but is accepted as a normal human expression of acceptance, trust and appreciation.

And you think this commitment can only be made to one person? Then why can parents love more than one child?

Actually, in a sense, you are closer to Catholicism than you may think. We all have a need for intimacy and transparency - not just in the monogamous marriage. Based on the teachings of the Catholic Church, we can look forward to a new Heaven and the new Earth, where there will be a perfect union between God and the saints. This union will not only be between God and the individual person, but it will also be a union of human persons with each other. With the general resurrection of the body, this union will be physical - although not sexual if sexual is defined in terms of this world. It will be better than sex. But JP II has pointed out that the sexual act is iconic of this perfect union.

Because of original sin and the limitations of this world, we can’t have this perfect intimacy and transparency right now. But it’s the future.

 

[tonyrey]

*Because it is an arbitrary barrier when we consider the fact that there is no such barrier in place when it comes to emotional or intellectual intimacy. Erecting the sexual barrier places sexual interaction on an artificially higher plane than other forms of interaction, and misses the point that any interaction with another person involves an appreciation of that person as a whole individual.

I think the desire for physical unity with more than one person is an unwitting substitute for spiritual unity…
Even at the human level persons possess each other far more when they are having a deep conversation. The love of saints like St Francis and St Clare surpassed the need for physical sex.

 

[Sair]

The mere fact of physical possession is enough for many people to regard it as a conquest: they have achieved their goal of obtaining consent and access to the most intimate parts of another person’s body - which implies a period of courtship and perseverance if he or she is not easy meat! It is unrealistic to claim physical pleasure doesn’t override all other considerations during sexual activity. In many cases it is probably the main motive for those who believe we are merely apes that exist for no reason or purpose.

Why shouldn’t physical satisfaction be our dominant motive when there are no apparent obstacles? Aren’t we entitled to do exactly what we like with our own body regardless of what others may think? Absolute freedom is a consummation “devoutly” to be wished - with apologies to Shakespeare.

Clearly your understanding of sex and its purposes and effects is quite different to my own. Even though I do believe we are “merely” apes, whatever that ‘merely’ is supposed to mean, I don’t think the pleasures of sex are confined to the specifically erogenous zones, which your use of ‘physical’ pleasure seems to imply. If that’s all one is in it for, might as well use your own hand.

And conquest is hardly something I associate with intimacy with a lover. A feeling of privilege, certainly, but not power.

 

[cho_pilo]

I cannot see any philosophical way of connecting these two.

Try to place sexuality in the broader context of the Christian vision of man, our society today, the ethical teaching of Jesus, the nature of human relationships, and other critical areas that give a perspective to sexual morality.