Connection between love and sex?

[tonyrey]

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…

You are the one who pointed out that we are apes, i.e. animals and not rational beings.

I don’t think the pleasures of sex are confined to the specifically erogenous zones, which your use of ‘physical’ pleasure seems to imply.

But you consider the physical element **essential **for fufilment with certain persons.

If that’s all one is in it for, might as well use your own hand.

You are being unrealistic.

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

A feeling of privilege is akin to a sense of power! It reinforces your confidence and self-esteem. The primary purpose of the sexual act from the scientific point of view is reproduction. Human beings have distorted it into an end in itself, i.e. a source of pleasure which is increased when it is with another person or persons.

From the spiritual point of view the sexual act is an expression of love between a man and a woman who are committed to each other without having any need for additional sexual satisfaction. The notion that the more sex the merrier is false because promiscuity eventually leads to a loss of self-respect and the respect of others.

Polyamory is a stage on the slippery slope because it is a form of promiscuity restricted to those who meet one’s requirements! There is no guarantee that as one gets older and less attractive one will not become less discriminating. The alternative is for some of the lovers to become permanent fixtures! This seems likely to be a potential source of rivalry and jealousy. Perhaps the excitement and variety of polyamory will prove to be a disaster in disguise…

 

[levinas12]

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.

I agree with your statement about St. Francis and St. Clare.

Nonetheless, according to JPII, the marital sex act (in this life) is iconic of the “perfect intersubjectivity” that will obtain in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

And this “perfect intersubjectivity” (for us humans) will not be angelic - it will involve bodies. And the bodies will retain their gender.

Sexual intercourse as we know it now here on earth will no longer be necessary because procreation will cease. But there will be some unimaginable union between human beings, a union perfectly transparent, perfectly blissful, perfectly loving.

 

[levinas12]

Peter Kreeft has some interesting things to say:

peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm

 

[tonyrey]

I agree with your statement about St. Francis and St. Clare.

Nonetheless, according to JPII, the marital sex act (in this life) is iconic of the “perfect intersubjectivity” that will obtain in the New Heaven and the New Earth.

And this “perfect intersubjectivity” (for us humans) will not be angelic - it will involve bodies. And the bodies will retain their gender.

Sexual intercourse as we know it now here on earth will no longer be necessary because procreation will cease. But there will be some unimaginable union between human beings, a union perfectly transparent, perfectly blissful, perfectly loving.

The key word is “marital”. The father-mother-child trinity is rejected in favour of a multiple sex community.The extension of physical intercourse to those who are not married exalts the body to a role for which it doesn’t exist even at the human level. In a civilised society sexual activity is not a free-for-all which favours the most sexually attractive individuals but a personal relationship between a man and a woman based on respect and concern for the welfare of their children as well as each other. Polyamory is a form of unofficial polygamy which interferes with, rather than promotes, social intercourse because it establishes a distinct hierarchy of friends - with the non-sexual ones at a lower level and children in a no-man’s-land of confusion! But for those who believe we are no more than apes all this is a logical consequence of their freedom to maximise sensual pleasure and satisfaction - without counting the ultimate costs to everyone…

 

[Sair]

You are the one who pointed out that we are apes, i.e. animals and not rational beings.

You speak as if the fact that we are animals, that we are apes, and the idea that we are (sometimes) rational are mutually exclusive aspects of our nature.

But you consider the physical element **essential **for fufilment with certain persons.

Not essential, but neither is it something to be explicitly denied on the grounds of keeping a certain kind of relationship on an exclusive footing. During my uni days, a popular way of “letting someone down easy” was the claim that one didn’t have sex with friends - which prompts the question, why would you have sex with someone who wasn’t a friend?

You are being unrealistic.

Then I must be living in a parallel universe, since my observations are based on my own experience and that of friends.

A feeling of privilege is akin to a sense of power!

Not the kind of power to which you seemed to be referring - power over another person.

The primary purpose of the sexual act from the scientific point of view is reproduction. Human beings have distorted it into an end in itself, i.e. a source of pleasure which is increased when it is with another person or persons.

There is more to the science of sex than its reproductive function. Human evolution (and that of some of the other great apes) has led to sex becoming an important means of reinforcing social bonds - in particular within clans or tribes, but also potentially between them. The neurochemical effects of sex are well known, and the health benefits of a good sex life are far-reaching.

From the spiritual point of view the sexual act is an expression of love between a man and a woman who are committed to each other without having any need for additional sexual satisfaction.

Now you’re being unrealistic! That kind of sexuality exists amongst gibbons, and probably some other animals that are monogamous, at least for the period of time in which they’re raising offspring, but is not natural for humans - if it were, it would be the norm, not an ideal. To say that one should commit to a spouse and then have no need for other sexual partners is, as I’ve said, akin to saying that one should commit to a best friend and have no need or desire for conversation with anyone else.

The notion that the more sex the merrier is false because promiscuity eventually leads to a loss of self-respect and the respect of others.

I and several of my friends are living proof that your assessment is not universally applicable.

Polyamory is a stage on the slippery slope because it is a form of promiscuity restricted to those who meet one’s requirements!

Do you conduct intimate friendships with all and sundry, then? We are all selective when it comes to choosing friends. We just happen to like the company of certain people more than that of others.

There is no guarantee that as one gets older and less attractive one will not become less discriminating.

It seems that it is you, now, who is treating sex as a purely physical activity, at least from your own point of view. Not being a dualist, I don’t tend to separate the bodily aspects of sex from the mental/emotional aspects of it. In any case, as we age, the sex drive diminishes, but the need for other expressions of physical and emotional intimacy is still present.

The alternative is for some of the lovers to become permanent fixtures!

And why not? You seem to see this as an unfavourable circumstance.

This seems likely to be a potential source of rivalry and jealousy. Perhaps the excitement and variety of polyamory will prove to be a disaster in disguise…

Jealousy stems from the fear of loss or abandonment. This is what happens in a monogamous culture in which people are expected to choose one life partner over every other - of course sex with another is likely to lead to abandonment under the weight of such expectations. Polyamory is as much about security as it is about excitement and variety.

 

[levinas12]

The key word is “marital”. The father-mother-child trinity is rejected in favour of a multiple sex community.The extension of physical intercourse to those who are not married exalts the body to a role for which it doesn’t exist even at the human level. In a civilised society sexual activity is not a free-for-all which favours the most sexually attractive individuals but a personal relationship between a man and a woman based on respect and concern for the welfare of their children as well as each other. Polyamory is a form of unofficial polygamy which interferes with, rather than promotes, social intercourse because it establishes a distinct hierarchy of friends - with the non-sexual ones at a lower level and children in a no-man’s-land of confusion! But for those who believe we are no more than apes all this is a logical consequence of their freedom to maximise sensual pleasure and satisfaction - without counting the ultimate costs to everyone…

I totally agree.

But take a look at Peter Kreeft’s article (mentioned at my posting #79) … which concerns not this world but will happen after the resurrection of the body … I’d like to see your comments … I don’t necesssarily agree with everything Kreeft says … but he provides an interesting segue into a broader discussion … of course, we have now moved from philosophy to theology …

 

[levinas12]

Polyamory is as much about security as it is about excitement and variety.

I think the ancient Greeks and John Updike, as well as some politicians, might disagree with you.

 

[tonyrey]

You speak as if the fact that we are animals, that we are apes, and the idea that we are (sometimes) rational are mutually exclusive aspects of our nature.

“sometimes” is vague!

But you consider the physical element essential for fufilment with certain persons.

Not essential, but neither is it something to be explicitly denied on the grounds of keeping a certain kind of relationship on an exclusive footing.

“a certain kind of relationship” happens to be one you have both have chosen because you believed you would be happy together. Or did you both make it clear at the very outset that you were going to share everything with others? Is that one of the conditions you imposed and would teach your children to impose?

…Why would you have sex with someone who wasn’t a friend?

Because sex is something beautiful and not to be distributed whenever you feel in need of consolation or to recover your self-esteem…

Then I must be living in a parallel universe, since my observations are based on my own experience and that of friends.

It seems that not all your friends share your views on polyamory…

Not the kind of power to which you seemed to be referring - power over another person.

It is a sense of power nevertheless: a deep-rooted instinct linked to survival. At the very least it is the power to attract another person sexually. Otherwise it would be a Platonic friendship.

Human evolution (and that of some of the other great apes) has led to sex becoming an important means of reinforcing social bonds… The neurochemical effects of sex are well known, and the health benefits of a good sex life are far-reaching.

Are you are justifying polyamory on account of its health benefits or to reinforce your social bonds? It seems as if a good sex life necessitates a variety of partners!

From the spiritual point of view the sexual act is an expression of love between a man and a woman who are committed to each other without having any need for additional sexual satisfaction.

Now you’re being unrealistic! That kind of sexuality exists amongst gibbons, and probably some other animals that are monogamous, at least for the period of time in which they’re raising offspring, but is not natural for humans - if it were, it would be the norm, not an ideal. To say that one should commit to a spouse and then have no need for other sexual partners is, as I’ve said, akin to saying that one should commit to a best friend and have no need or desire for conversation with anyone else.

To equate conversation with sexual intercourse is IMHO absurd.

The notion that the more sex the merrier is false because promiscuity eventually leads to a loss of self-respect and the respect of others.

I and several of my friends are living proof that your assessment is not universally applicable.

Your claim has not yet survived the test of time.

Do you conduct intimate friendships with all and sundry, then? We are all selective when it comes to choosing friends. We just happen to like the company of certain people more than that of others.

A degree of friendship bears no relation to a degree of sexual relationship - because intercourse admits of no degrees…

It seems that it is you, now, who is treating sex as a purely physical activity, at least from your own point of view.

On the contrary I think you underestimate the effects of sexual intercourse on one’s attitude to oneself and others. We unconsciously associate copulation with reproduction and unconsciously regard the other person as a mate. The woman is more vulnerable because she is the one who has to bear and suckle the child. She is by nature more discriminating than the man in her choice of a sexual partner and it is unnatural for her to flit from one to another as if she is not a mammal but an animal which does not have to care for its young.

Not being a dualist, I don’t tend to separate the bodily aspects of sex from the mental/emotional aspects of it. In any case, as we age, the sex drive diminishes, but the need for other expressions of physical and emotional intimacy is still present.

The sex drive diminishes but sexual activity usually continues…

The alternative is for some of the lovers to become permanent fixtures!

And why not? You seem to see this as an unfavourable circumstance.

Once again your claim has yet to survive the test of time - and old age.

Jealousy stems from the fear of loss or abandonment.

Jealousy stems primarily from the presence of a rival who reveals the limitations of your partner’s love for you. The rival also devalues you by offering what you cannot give now - regardless of what happens in the future.

This is what happens in a monogamous culture in which people are expected to choose one life partner over every other - of course sex with another is likely to lead to abandonment under the weight of such expectations.

A genuinely devoted couple wouldn’t separate because of one affair. Your real objection to monogamy is that we should be at liberty to have more than one sexual partner rather than tackle the difficulty of being faithful. Individuals often fail to live up to their promise of fidelity but they are honest enough to admit it was due to weakness without trying to justify it.

You make it sound as if you choose several life partners. Is that really the case? Are they all permanent?

Polyamory is as much about security as it is about excitement and variety.

Why do you believe polyamory is a guarantee of security? The improbability of being abandoned by all your lovers? Distributing your intimacy would weaken rather than strengthen your relationships. Regarding sex there is no safety in numbers.

 

[tonyrey]

Jealousy stems primarily from the presence of a rival who reveals the limitations of your partner’s love for you.

Clarification:

Jealousy stems primarily from the presence of a rival who reveals the** presumed **limitations of your partner’s love for you. The presence of a rival certainly reveals the limitations of **your **love for your partner!

It also reveals belief in self-indulgence rather than self-restraint and a short-sighted choice of pleasure here and now rather than life-long love and dedication - on the principle that we must eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

As in so many other ways the pursuit of perfection has been replaced by the pursuit of pleasure…

 

[Sair]

“sometimes” is vague!

Not at all. We are not always rational beings, some people very seldom so indeed.

“a certain kind of relationship” happens to be one you have both have chosen because you believed you would be happy together. Or did you both make it clear at the very outset that you were going to share everything with others? Is that one of the conditions you imposed and would teach your children to impose?

Actually, polyamory is something we mutually agreed upon, as it happens, after we were married. There was no imposition involved, no deception and no coercion.

Because sex is something beautiful and not to be distributed whenever you feel in need of consolation or to recover your self-esteem…

And this is a reason to have it with strangers rather than friends?

It seems that not all your friends share your views on polyamory…

Why should they? It’s not something that’s automatically going to work for everyone, particularly people who are conditioned to believe monogamy is the only way to go.

It is a sense of power nevertheless: a deep-rooted instinct linked to survival. At the very least it is the power to attract another person sexually. Otherwise it would be a Platonic friendship.

Why should a person not feel empowered in life? All healthy relationships lead to a sense of empowerment, regardless of whether they are sexual or not.

Are you are justifying polyamory on account of its health benefits or to reinforce your social bonds? It seems as if a good sex life necessitates a variety of partners!

I don’t think polyamory needs any more justification than monogamy, and in some respects, less.

To equate conversation with sexual intercourse is IMHO absurd.

It strikes me as odd that on the one hand, you dismiss sex as something that isn’t the be-all and end-all (which it isn’t) and yet place it on a pedestal as the one and only thing that should not be shared with more than one person.

A degree of friendship bears no relation to a degree of sexual relationship - because intercourse admits of no degrees…

Spoken from a very black-and-white perspective on sexual expression, apparently.

On the contrary I think you underestimate the effects of sexual intercourse on one’s attitude to oneself and others. We unconsciously associate copulation with reproduction and unconsciously regard the other person as a mate. The woman is more vulnerable because she is the one who has to bear and suckle the child. She is by nature more discriminating than the man in her choice of a sexual partner and it is unnatural for her to flit from one to another as if she is not a mammal but an animal which does not have to care for its young.

And as I’ve said before, a child could only benefit from having a group of closely bonded adults looking after his or her welfare. And I have no illusions about the effects of sexual intercourse, either on how I see myself or how I see my partners. The important thing is that the sex is an expression of the relationship, not the thing that makes or breaks it - this is vastly different from how it is seen in the context of traditional monogamy.

Jealousy stems primarily from the presence of a rival who reveals the limitations of your partner’s love for you.

And does a couple’s choice to have more than one child reveal the limitations of their love for the first one? If you have more than one friend, does that mean your love for your oldest and closest friend is limited? Love for partners is not diminished by being shared.

A genuinely devoted couple wouldn’t separate because of one affair. Your real objection to monogamy is that we should be at liberty to have more than one sexual partner rather than tackle the difficulty of being faithful.

Being faithful is about so much more than sex. It means stepping up to the plate and sticking by your partner or partners and not walking out the minute things get difficult - working through problems, finding ways to deepen your relationships. Sexual exclusivity can give the illusion of commitment and faithfulness that sometimes isn’t there. Sharing sexual intimacy with more than one person throws into stark relief the qualities that you really value in a partner, when they’re not just the person who warms your bed.

Why do you believe polyamory is a guarantee of security?

I don’t think anything is a guarantee of security. Life doesn’t work like that.

Distributing your intimacy would weaken rather than strengthen your relationships. Regarding sex there is no safety in numbers.

Are you speaking from experience here, or are you letting your prejudice colour your perception?

 

[tonyrey]

We are not always rational beings, some people very seldom so indeed.

Actually, polyamory is something we mutually agreed upon, as it happens, after we were married. There was no imposition involved, no deception and no coercion.Do you tell children they can have the option of sleeping with whoever they like?

Because sex is something beautiful and not to be distributed whenever you feel in need of consolation or to recover your self-esteem…

And this is a reason to have it with strangers rather than friends?It is a reason for not distributing it at all!

It seems that not all your friends share your views on polyamory…

Why should they? It’s not something that’s automatically going to work for everyone, particularly people who are conditioned to believe monogamy is the only way to go.So you pride yourself on being more emancipated and reasonable than they are…

Why should a person not feel empowered in life? All healthy relationships lead to a sense of empowerment, regardless of whether they are sexual or not.

Why should one need to feel sexual empowerment with others **as well as **your life partner?

I don’t think polyamory needs any more justification than monogamy, and in some respects, less.

Which respects?

It strikes me as odd that on the one hand, you dismiss sex as something that isn’t the be-all and end-all (which it isn’t) and yet place it on a pedestal as the one and only thing that should not be shared with more than one person.

Is it odd to regard **your love for your life partner **as something that should not be shared?

A degree of friendship bears no relation to a degree of sexual relationship - because intercourse admits of no degrees…

Spoken from a very black-and-white perspective on sexual expression, apparently.Your implication that there are degrees of intercourse is very odd!.

And as I’ve said before, a child could only benefit from having a group of closely bonded adults looking after his or her welfare.

You are assuming the adults will not disagree and the child will not be confused.

And I have no illusions about the effects of sexual intercourse, either on how I see myself or how I see my partners.

What are those effects?

The important thing is that the sex is an expression of the relationship, not the thing that makes or breaks it…

Why is physical sex necessary to express your friendship? Is it essential to offer your body?

Jealousy stems primarily from the presence of a rival who reveals the limitations of your partner’s love for you.

And does a couple’s choice to have more than one child reveal the limitations of their love for the first one?Parental love is quite different from conjugal love.

Love for partners is not diminished by being shared.

It is diminished by being shared when it entails sharing your body.

Sexual exclusivity can give the illusion of commitment and faithfulness that sometimes isn’t there.

That is not a good reason to be sexually inclusive!

Sharing sexual intimacy with more than one person throws into stark relief the qualities that you really value in a partner, when they’re not just the person who warms your bed.

Is that a good reason for being sexually inclusive?

Why do you believe polyamory is a guarantee of security?

I don’t think anything is a guarantee of security. Why did you state that polyamory is as much about security as it is about excitement and variety?

Distributing your intimacy would weaken rather than strengthen your relationships.

Regarding sex there is no safety in numbers.
Are you speaking from experience here, or are you letting your prejudice colour your perception?
It’s not prejudice but common sense. The more lovers one has the less time and attention one has for each of them:
If you have six they enjoy your intimacy only once a week - assuming you have a day or night off!

Do you think polyamory is necessary for its health benefits and the reinforcement of your social bonds? Does a good sex life necessitate a variety of partners?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

Sair;7886089:

How can animals be rational at all given that all their behaviour has physical causes?

Physical processes, in most respects above the quantum level, follow a pattern of cause and effect. Rationality is the conscious awareness of cause and effect. Whence your insistence that the understanding of physical processes must come from beyond physical processes?

Do you tell children they can have the option of sleeping with whoever they like?

Firstly, I don’t tell children to have sex. Secondly, your ‘whoever they like’ seems to imply that there is no judgement involved in the choice.

It is a reason for not distributing it at all!

So you do think it is the most important factor in an intimate relationship!

So you pride yourself on being more emancipated and reasonable than they are…

I certainly pride myself on being more emancipated and reasonable than I used to be, but I don’t wallow in feelings of superiority - I hope for the happiness of friends, in whatever form that takes.

Why should one need to feel sexual empowerment with others **as well as **

your life partner?

You think my comment was restricted to sexual empowerment? The health of any relationship stems from the fact that other people accept you for who you are. Sexual intimacy is most definitely a powerful expression of this acceptance, but it’s not the only one, by any means.

Which respects?

Primarily the respects in which it (monogamy) resembles an economic transaction.

Is it odd to regard **your love for your life partner **

as something that should not be shared?

That assumes that your love for any partner is the same generic love one feels for any other partner. Every relationship is unique, as every individual is unique. My love for my legally wed husband is different to my love for any other person, but that’s equally true of my love for any individual.

Your implication that there are degrees of intercourse is very odd!.

Intercourse - as in, penile-vaginal - is by no means the only form of sexual expression.

You are assuming the adults will not disagree and the child will not be confused.

I’m assuming no such thing. Perfect harmony is an ideal, not a reality. My claim is that children benefit from having multiple adults interested in their welfare, multiple people they can trust to look out for them, and to whom they can turn in times of trouble. The psychological health of any person benefits from having a range of positive social interactions.

What are those effects?

Increased confidence, intimacy and shared pleasure.

Why is physical sex necessary to express your friendship? Is it essential to offer your body?

What do you think happens in a polyamorous relationship? You get talking to someone and just randomly decide to have sex? The point is that sex is not off-limits as an expression of intimacy - it’s not something you keep exclusively for one person, as if it’s a prize to be won or a property to be owned. It’s a gift you share when the relationship is right.

Parental love is quite different from conjugal love.

But only in the respect that one doesn’t generally have sex with one’s offspring. The emotional commitment is just as powerful.

It is diminished by being shared when it entails sharing your body.

Why? Is the body so debased and degraded that it can’t be appreciated by anyone other than the person who has bought you as property or social currency?

Why did you state that polyamory is as much about security as it is about excitement and variety?

In response to your condemnation of it as a frivolous excuse for promiscuity.

It’s not prejudice but common sense. The more lovers one has the less time and attention one has for each of them:

But that’s just as much of an argument for only having one child or one friend. And do you think that married couples generally have sex on a daily basis? If that is your experience, you are either very lucky or physically exhausted.

Do you think polyamory is necessary for its health benefits and the reinforcement of your social bonds? Does a good sex life necessitate a variety of partners?

Unless you have an extraordinarily creative partner, your sex life will most likely be improved by the addition of other partners. No, I don’t think polyamory is necessary for its health benefits and social bonds - just that these things are enhanced by successful and thoughtful practice of polyamory. Oh, and not to mention the fact that it’s quite likely, since the rise of agriculture, settled living and male ownership of access to his partner’s body in order to be sure he was passing property to his own offspring, the human race has been enfeebled, to a not insignificant extent, by the lack of sperm competition…

 

[tonyrey]

Rationality is the conscious awareness of cause and effect.

The point is that sex is not off-limits as an expression of intimacy - it’s not something you keep exclusively for one person, as if it’s a prize to be won or a property to be owned. It’s a gift you share when the relationship is right.How do you determine that? Is your husband consulted before each decision?

Parental love is quite different from conjugal love.

But only in the respect that one doesn’t generally have sex with one’s offspring. The emotional commitment is just as powerful.Parental love would not exist without conjugal love which establishes the unity of the family with strong emotional bonds. Any adult who has a sexual relationship with the father or mother is bound to disturb the stability of the family because harmony is the most difficult thing to achieve in life. The more outsiders there are the more likely there is to be disruption and complications.

Is the body so debased and degraded that it can’t be appreciated by anyone other than the person who has bought you as property or social currency?

The body is debased and degraded by being used as an instrument of pleasure on the pretext of enriching one’s friendship with a number of individuals. A body that is shared is indeed a social currency, even if it is for the select few.

Why did you state that polyamory is as much about security as it is about excitement and variety?

In response to your condemnation of it as a frivolous excuse for promiscuity.I asked whether polyamory entails choosing several life partners - which hardly implies a frivolous excuse for promiscuity. Is the desire for security a factor? Or does the excitement of risk-taking add to the enjoyment?

The more lovers one has the less time and attention one has for each of them:

But that’s just as much of an argument for only having one child or one friend. And do you think that married couples generally have sex on a daily basis? Many marriages break down because of neglect by one or both partners. Even happily married couples are incompatible to some extent and liable to disagree on something. A third party will present the risk of being the thin end of a wedge between them. It is unrealistic to think another person is never likely to be a source of trouble even when there is mutual consent. I would be amazed if lovers were always welcomed with open arms by the other spouse.

Unless you have an extraordinarily creative partner, your sex life will most likely be improved by the addition of other partners. No, I don’t think polyamory is necessary for its health benefits and social bonds - just that these things are enhanced by successful and thoughtful practice of polyamory. Oh, and not to mention the fact that it’s quite likely, since the rise of agriculture, settled living and male ownership of access to his partner’s body in order to be sure he was passing property to his own offspring, the human race has been enfeebled, to a not insignificant extent, by the lack of sperm competition…

Is this really your motive for having lovers? Even if your sex life is improved a variety of partners could well be morally degrading. Tristitia post coitum is a well-known phenomenon.Like any form of addiction the climax of sexual pleasure and excitement is followed by an anti-climax. Lack of self-restraint gradually leads to loss of self-control and self-respect.

“My love is as a fever, longing still
For that which longer nurseth the disease…”

Sonnet 147 - Shakespeare

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

tonyrey;7883421:

Realities like truth, freedom and logical principles are not tangible.

Truth, freedom and logical principles are concepts based on physical realities - the mind’s way of sorting things into comprehensible categories.

You don’t discuss it at puberty?

Informing children about sex is a very different animal to advising them to go out and do it.

“like” is a condition of friendship…

It’s a preliminary indicator of potential for closer friendship with someone. ‘Whoever they like’ seemed to imply jumping into the sack with anyone you happen to fancy at the time.

Then you should enlighten them…

I’m quite happy to explain it to people. Some are unsure they’d be able to deal with a polyamorous relationship, and I certainly won’t force them. I was once like them. I don’t think it’s ego-stroking on my part to say that polyamory requires a level of trust and acceptance and understanding of one’s partner(s) that goes beyond what is normally expected in a monogamous relationship.

So sexual acceptance by others can outweigh the value of platonic friendship?

Certainly not. On the other hand, unresolved sexual tension can hurt a friendship.

Is polyamory necessarily immune?

From having the characteristics of an economic transaction? Not necessarily. It’s kind of like the difference between socialism and capitalism, collective versus private ownership.

But there is nothing physical by which you distinguish your love for your husband…

Not in your sense of the word ‘physical’, no.

That suggests polyamory may not entail extra intercourse!

Again, not necessarily. Polyamory means ‘many loves’, not ‘many notches on the bedpost’.

So the traditional extended family should be replaced by a sexual community?

The ‘traditional’ extended family is a relatively recent human institution. In prehistoric times, and in some modern communities, the extended family contains a network of sexual partnerships.

Would you lack confidence if intimacy were confined to your husband? Do you think shared intimacy has any risks or disadvantages?

If I was fearful of being attracted to others, or ‘crossing a line’ with someone other than my husband, then yes, that would to some extent damage my confidence in dealing with others. As for risks and disadvantages, there is always a risk involved in inviting intimacy - it makes one vulnerable to emotional (and in extreme cases, physical) hurt. But there is a bigger risk involved in putting all one’s eggs in the one basket, so to speak. I’m unaware, for example, of any reports of domestic violence within polyamorous relationships.

How do you determine that? Is your husband consulted before each decision?

Polyamory only works if there is mutual agreement - I would not pursue a relationship with someone he could not get along with, and vice versa.

Parental love would not exist without conjugal love which establishes the unity of the family with strong emotional bonds. The more outsiders there are the more likely there is to be disruption and complications.

Again, polyamorous partners are not ‘outsiders’ - they’re part of the family unit, with emotional bonds every bit as strong as those between biological parents. Before the paternity certainty of monogamous arrangements, there might be multiple men with an interest in the welfare of a woman’s child, since it might well have been theirs; and even if it’s not, humans are evolved to respond with care and compassion to the young of others - that even extends to other species.

The body is debased and degraded by being used as an instrument of pleasure on the pretext of enriching one’s friendship with a number of individuals.

You’re still treating this as if it’s all an excuse for sex. It’s not. The sex is one part of an integrated whole. ‘Using’ the body for pleasure seems like a strange concept. Who is it that’s using your body for your pleasure? Physical and emotional pleasure and wellbeing go hand-in-glove.

I asked whether polyamory entails choosing several life partners - which hardly implies a frivolous excuse for promiscuity. Is the desire for security a factor?

Ideally, all parties to a polyamorous relationship will have similar life goals that they can help each other achieve. Desire for security is always a factor, with any relationship - it’s just not guaranteed, because it never is, no matter what we do. But there is a desire for interest and variety as well. It probably sounds odd, but having multiple partners allows you to see your relationship with each of them in an enhanced way - it doesn’t become the same old, same old routine that many monogamous marriages devolve into. Shared intimacy takes every individual relationship to a higher level.

Like any form of addiction the climax of sexual pleasure and excitement is followed by an anti-climax. Lack of self-restraint gradually leads to loss of self-control and self-respect.

There is no lack of self-restraint. If anything, having more than one person’s feelings to consider, you have to be especially careful and compassionate. Repression is just as damaging as overindulgence. Sex addiction is an entirely separate issue, and one that would be as damaging, potentially, to a polyamorous relationship as to a monogamous one.

You might find that the following page on polyamory clarifies some of what I’ve been talking about.

 

[tonyrey]

Truth, freedom and logical principles are concepts based on physical realities - the mind’s way of sorting things into comprehensible categories.

How do you explain truth, freedom and logical principles in physical terms?

Informing children about sex is a very different animal to advising them to go out and do it.

Don’t you give them any advice about how they should behave?

It’s a preliminary indicator of potential for closer friendship with someone. ‘Whoever they like’ seemed to imply jumping into the sack with anyone you happen to fancy at the time.

Not necessarily. It is also an indicator.

I was once like them.

!

I don’t think it’s ego-stroking on my part to say that polyamory requires a level of trust and acceptance and understanding of one’s partner(s) that goes beyond what is normally expected in a monogamous relationship.

Do you know anyone with children whose polyamorous relationships have lasted for ten years?

So sexual acceptance by others can outweigh the value of platonic friendship?

Certainly not. On the other hand, unresolved sexual tension can hurt a friendship.

Do you mean sexual attraction between friends must lead to sexual activity?

It’s kind of like the difference between socialism and capitalism, collective versus private ownership.

So sexual friendship** is** a form of ownership…

But there is nothing physical by which you distinguish your love for your husband…

.
Not in your sense of the word ‘physical’, no.

So you sometimes find a lover more physically fulfilling?

Polyamory means ‘many loves’, not ‘many notches on the bedpost’.

Doesn’t it usually include physical sex?

In prehistoric times, and in some modern communities, the extended family contains a network of sexual partnerships.

Why should prehistoric customs be our guideline?

If I was fearful of being attracted to others, or ‘crossing a line’ with someone other than my husband, then yes, that would to some extent damage my confidence in dealing with others.

What gives you such confidence?

As for risks and disadvantages, there is always a risk involved in inviting intimacy - it makes one vulnerable to emotional (and in extreme cases, physical) hurt.

Polyamorists obviously consider it’s worth taking the risk of hurting not only themselves but also their partner, their lovers and their children…

But there is a bigger risk involved in putting all one’s eggs in the one basket, so to speak.

That does imply a policy of safety in numbers!

I’m unaware, for example, of any reports of domestic violence within polyamorous relationships.

Crimes passionnels are generally due to sexual jealousy…

Polyamory only works if there is mutual agreement - I would not pursue a relationship with someone he could not get along with, and vice versa.

That seems to imply frequent discussions about each relationship.

Again, polyamorous partners are not ‘outsiders’ - they’re part of the family unit, with emotional bonds every bit as strong as those between biological parents.

Step-parents and step-children are not known for their care and compassion for each other.
“Weel, blude’s thicker than water; she’s welcome to the cheeses and the hams just the same.”!

You’re still treating this as if it’s all an excuse for sex. It’s not. The sex is one part of an integrated whole.

Do you mean you cannot have a deeper friendship with a person without sex?

‘Using’ the body for pleasure seems like a strange concept.

Prostitutes and their clients don’t think so…

Physical and emotional pleasure and well-being go hand-in-glove.

Always?

It probably sounds odd, but having multiple partners allows you to see your relationship with each of them in an enhanced way…

So one goal of polyamory is to make you appreciate your partner more than if you and he don’t have physical sex with others? It introduces an element of competition and - above all, variety - without which your lives would be unsatisfactory and unfulfilled.

… it doesn’t become the same old, same old routine that many monogamous marriages devolve into.

Doesn’t that reveal the limitations of their love for each other? Isn’t there a more reasonable solution than sharing your bodies with your friends?

Shared intimacy takes every individual relationship to a higher level.

What do you think is the optimum number of sexual partners? At what stage does polyamory descend into sexual licence rather than liberty?

If anything, having more than one person’s feelings to consider, you have to be especially careful and compassionate.

You make it sound as if a successful polyamorist has to be very saintly!

Repression is just as damaging as overindulgence.

Is repression an inevitable consequence of faithful love?

Sex addiction is an entirely separate issue, and one that would be as damaging, potentially, to a polyamorous relationship as to a monogamous one.

There are degrees of addiction. Arguably polyamory is the first stage given that individuals decide for themselves who are suitable lovers. Their life partners are unlikely to object to their choices because to do so would jeopardise their own liberty. I think frequent consultation is theoretical rather than practical. Would children have any say in you and your husband’s choice of lovers?

It seems to me that the love of polyamorists must be rather tepid if they are not satisfied with their life partner and children. They have a mundane concept of love - the inevitable result of regarding human beings as apes. If I shared your beliefs I might agree with you… but on reflection no! I think love will survive as a noble ideal…

 

[Sair]

So sexual friendship** is** a form of ownership…

Only in the sense that sharing anything with another person confers ownership of that something upon them. Again, it’s the difference between buying something as personal property (which is what happens in genuinely ‘traditional’ marriages) and agreeing to share something between a collective.

Why should prehistoric customs be our guideline?

Why not? Can you say they are demonstrably worse than our present Western obsession with profit and possession - the two things that lurk under all the romantic guff that goes along with traditional views on monogamy?

Polyamorists obviously consider it’s worth taking the risk of hurting not only themselves but also their partner, their lovers and their children…

As do ostensibly monogamous folks who cheat.

Crimes passionnels are generally due to sexual jealousy…

Which is a preserve of monogamous culture, not polyamory. Polyamorists recognise jealousy for what it is and learn to deal with it and overcome it.

That seems to imply frequent discussions about each relationship.

Healthy discussion is beneficial to any relationship.

Step-parents and step-children are not known for their care and compassion for each other.

Certainly not in our property-obsessed capitalist society.

What do you think is the optimum number of sexual partners? At what stage does polyamory descend into sexual licence rather than liberty?

The optimum number depends on the people involved. Sexual licence occurs when one decides that sex is just a commodity to be enjoyed without consideration for one’s partner(s). It happens in monogamous marriages as well.

Is repression an inevitable consequence of faithful love?

That depends on what your concept of faithful love entails. If you only mean sexual exclusivity, then I would say it’s not quite inevitable, but its probability is extremely high.

Arguably polyamory is the first stage given that individuals decide for themselves who are suitable lovers. Their life partners are unlikely to object to their choices because to do so would jeopardise their own liberty. I think frequent consultation is theoretical rather than practical. Would children have any say in you and your husband’s choice of lovers?

Life partners can and do object to a partner’s choice of other partners - the difference is that they object on grounds that are not based on the standard model of monogamous jealousy. Before properly accepting a new person into an existing relationship, all parties take the time to get to know that person. That would include children old enough to understand the implications.

It seems to me that the love of polyamorists must be rather tepid if they are not satisfied with their life partner and children. They have a mundane concept of love - the inevitable result of regarding human beings as apes. If I shared your beliefs I might agree with you… but on reflection no! I think love will survive as a noble ideal…

I’m guessing you didn’t peruse the link I provided previously. Your argument is based on a scarcity concept of love that simply doesn’t apply to human relationships. I am fast coming to the conclusion that your desire here is not so much to understand polyamory as to condemn it as different to what you think should be the ideal situation. If the ideal of love is so noble, why be so miserly about it?

 

[levinas12]

Only in the sense that sharing anything with another person confers ownership of that something upon them. Again, it’s the difference between buying something as personal property (which is what happens in genuinely ‘traditional’ marriages) and agreeing to share something between a collective.

It all sounds so reasonable. But aren’t you going down the same road as other utopian experiments that eventually failed. For example, the Oneida Colony. Or innumerable hippie communes.

Where have non-monogamous societies been better for women?

 

[tonyrey]

So sexual friendship is a form of ownership…
Only in the sense that sharing anything with another person confers ownership of that something upon them. Again, it’s the difference between buying something as personal property (which is what happens in genuinely ‘traditional’ marriages) and agreeing to share something between a collective.

Traditional Christian marriages are based on the couple’s desire to share their lives - not to exclude others but to share their happiness. The wedding is a social occasion celebrated by the community.Only in secular societies is it a more private affair in a registry office with a contract rather than a consecration.

Why should prehistoric customs be our guideline?

Can you say they are demonstrably worse than our present Western obsession with profit and possession?

That obsession has arisen in our secular society which puts the material before the spiritual and the pursuit of pleasure before the pursuit of perfection.

Polyamorists obviously consider it’s worth taking the risk of hurting not only themselves but also their partner, their lovers and their children…

As do ostensibly monogamous folks who cheat.

**All **polyamorists take those risks.

Crimes passionnels are generally due to sexual jealousy…

Which is a preserve of monogamous culture, not polyamory. Polyamorists recognise jealousy for what it is and learn to deal with it and overcome it.

An idealised view… What gives them their power and superiority?

Healthy discussion is beneficial to any relationship.

Are frequent discussions about the physical, psychological and sexual suitability of potential lovers necessarily healthy?

Step-parents and step-children are not known for their care and compassion for each other.

Certainly not in our property-obsessed capitalist society.

In any society.

The optimum number depends on the people involved.

What is the typical range?

Is repression an inevitable consequence of faithful love?

That depends on what your concept of faithful love entails. If you only mean sexual exclusivity, then I would say it’s not quite inevitable, but its probability is extremely high.

How do you know?

Life partners can and do object to a partner’s choice of other partners - the difference is that they object on grounds that are not based on the standard model of monogamous jealousy.

Doesn’t that cause dissension when the partner is deeply attached?

Before properly accepting a new person into an existing relationship, all parties take the time to get to know that person. That would include children old enough to understand the implications.

This implies that the children are taught to be polyamorists. Don’t you ever have any doubts about encouraging them in a search for sexual variety?

Your argument is based on a scarcity concept of love that simply doesn’t apply to human relationships.

It is a concept of purity which does not entail the sharing of one’s body with several persons. Virginity is scorned today but it reveals a strength of character lacking in those who yield to their sexual urges.

I am fast coming to the conclusion that your desire here is not so much to understand polyamory as to condemn it as different to what you think should be the ideal situation.

If I thought there were no plausible reasons why people choose to be polyamorists I wouldn’t waste time discussing it. If you believe it is the best solution why condemn you?

If the ideal of love is so noble, why be so miserly about it?

There are different types of love. It is obviously lunacy to extend the same love to everyone. We have to decide which is the most fulfilling for everyone, particularly where children are concerned. Sex has destroyed so many people’s lives that it must be treated with caution. The fact that it has lent itself to so many perversions and crimes reveals how it can be distorted into an outlet for evil fantasies for those who have no moral guidelines or higher purpose in life other than maximising pleasure.

Sexual lust is inextricably linked with the lust for power but ironically those who give way to it become slaves of their desires. We have to avoid the extremes of repression and self-indulgence to achieve a well-balanced state of mind. We have the right to choose how to live and love if we don’t harm others deliberately but we have to be careful we don’t harm** ourselves** - and subsequently others - unwittingly. The desire for variety and novelty can be a warning sign that there is a void in our life that cannot be filled with friendship, either sexual or platonic. I believe it is only in the quest for truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and unselfish love that we can find real peace, joy and fulfilment.
When we are spiritually united with others physical sex is not only unnecessary but a distraction - unless it is with the one person to whom we commit ourselves for life. In a community of lovers adults and children are all mixed up - metaphorically as well as literally! The supposed equality is an unattainable ideal because we all have our strong and weak points. There are bound to be favourites and the larger the community the greater the risk of neglect and unhappiness. The most difficult thing to achieve in life is harmony. In the long term multiplicity is a recipe for conflict. That is why time is the only real test of polyamory. The example of Victoria Woodhull and others suggests it will be eventually abandoned…

 

[Sair]

The wedding is a social occasion celebrated by the community.Only in secular societies is it a more private affair in a registry office with a contract rather than a consecration.

You don’t think secular marriages are social occasions? Ours certainly was. Polyamory is based on the desire of more than two people to share their lives.

That obsession has arisen in our secular society which puts the material before the spiritual and the pursuit of pleasure before the pursuit of perfection.

The obsession with personal property arose long before the modern age. In traditional marriage, the woman formed part of the man’s personal property. That was true of ancient polygamous arrangements, and was also true of monogamous marriages for centuries. It still is true of monogamous marriages in some parts of the world. Married women were, until relatively recently in Western society, not permitted to hold personal property in their own name - they were property. The need for paternity certainty for the man, in order that he might pass property to his own (preferably) sons, led to the double standard that still persists psychologically in our culture, that it’s okay for men to sew their wild oats, but not okay for women to sleep around. Wives were expected to tolerate their husbands’ affairs - in reality, they had no choice other than destitution and separation from their children. That was the reality.

**All **polyamorists take those risks.

The only way to avoid such a risk altogether is never to enter into any intimate relationship.

An idealised view… What gives them their power and superiority?

In all honesty, can you say that your view of monogamy is any less idealised? I’ve never claimed that all polyamorous relationships work better than monogamous marriages - just that they provide a different perspective which on the one hand is free of some of the issues that plague monogamous relationships, and on the other hand has a whole different set of issues. Jealousy is something that is tightly bound to monogamy and again, to the scarcity model of love on which monogamy is based. That doesn’t mean it’s never a problem for polyamorous partners, just that our perspective on it is different - it’s not inevitable, and it’s not insurmountable.

Are frequent discussions about the physical, psychological and sexual suitability of potential lovers necessarily healthy?

Probably more so than discussing the same things in couples’ therapy…

In any society.

You assume that children’s attitudes and feelings are somehow independent of the environment in which they are raised. Of course a child is going to feel resentful of a step-parent who, by virtue of one parent having left the household, is apparently and actually a replacement for the departed parent. Our culture instils the idea that step-parents are necessarily outsiders (the ‘wicked stepmother’ scenario is a well-established literary trope) and the implication is always - however subtle - that it’s not really worth investing emotionally (and financially) in children who are not biologically ‘yours’. It’s tacitly assumed that a step-parent will automatically feel less affection for the stepchildren. This isn’t necessarily the case.

What is the typical range?

As far as I’m aware, triads and quartets are the most common, but even in these, there is variation in the range and degree of physical intimacy.

Doesn’t that cause dissension when the partner is deeply attached?

That assumes the deep attachment is formed before the other partner(s) have had a chance to get acquainted with the newcomer. That implies, to me, a certain duplicity.

This implies that the children are taught to be polyamorists. Don’t you ever have any doubts about encouraging them in a search for sexual variety?

You keep claiming that it’s just a search for sexual variety. It’s not. It’s sharing your life with more than one person. Children of polyamorous parents might, heaven forbid, learn to be more tolerant than they might otherwise have been. It’s not as if, in pursuing polyamorous relationships themselves as adults, they will be deviating from any natural or inborn programming. Monogamy is a cultural construct, not an innate characteristic of humans.

 

[Sair]

It is a concept of purity which does not entail the sharing of one’s body with several persons. Virginity is scorned today but it reveals a strength of character lacking in those who yield to their sexual urges.

And I suppose a vow of silence and leading the life of a hermit is also a sign of strength of character, not just a retreat from dealing with the world… Really and truly, does sharing your thoughts with more than one person make your mind impure? If not, why not? I have yet to see any adequate explanation for why sex is considered the only expression of intimacy that must be kept exclusively for one person - that is, any explanation that doesn’t ultimately devolve into considerations of private possession, paternity certainty and property inheritance.

If I thought there were no plausible reasons why people choose to be polyamorists I wouldn’t waste time discussing it. If you believe it is the best solution why condemn you?

Do you think there are plausible reasons, or do you actually think it’s just an excuse for being sexually indiscriminate? No matter how many times I’ve pointed out that it’s not a matter of mere sexual variety, but relationship variety that, when successful, benefits all involved, you keep coming back to the notion that it’s all about the sex.

I believe it is only in the quest for truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and unselfish love that we can find real peace, joy and fulfilment.

I think you’ll find that these ideals are shared by many folks who happen to be polyamorous.

When we are spiritually united with others physical sex is not only unnecessary but a distraction - unless it is with the one person to whom we commit ourselves for life.

Polyamorists commit themselves to more than one person. I don’t see any reason to expect that spiritual unity is untainted with a single sex partner, but tainted for any additional partner. That doesn’t make much sense. Our culture expects people to choose one person - preferably of the opposite sex - with whom to share our lives. Except this is an ideal that manifestly doesn’t work for everyone. Great for the people who feel comfortable with it and have made a success of it - but too bad for the people who find that they are strongly attracted to someone in addition to their spouse. That’s an aspect of themselves they will just have to deny in order to fit into society’s (and/or religion’s) pre-cast mould. I would suggest, too, that sex is only a distraction (post-puberty, at least) when it is repressed and denied, and when it is considered - in practice, if not in theory - to be the most important aspect of an intimate relationship. Any way you style it, claiming that you can have a spiritual relationship with anyone and everyone you like, but a sexual relationship with only one, regardless of how many people you love, is putting sex in a more exalted position than any other expression of intimacy. No wonder it seems to cause people so much stress!

In a community of lovers adults and children are all mixed up - metaphorically as well as literally!

Why? Children look to the adults for love and guidance, because they’re part of the family. Why does it matter if all the adults have had sex with each other? Does that make them less than parental figures to the children?

The supposed equality is an unattainable ideal because we all have our strong and weak points. There are bound to be favourites and the larger the community the greater the risk of neglect and unhappiness. The most difficult thing to achieve in life is harmony. In the long term multiplicity is a recipe for conflict. That is why time is the only real test of polyamory. The example of Victoria Woodhull and others suggests it will be eventually abandoned…

Your argument here could be as valid for limiting the number of children you have as for confining your sexual intimacy to one person and one only. The fact that harmony is difficult to achieve doesn’t mean it’s impossible, or that we should not pursue it. Victoria Woodhull was not a polyamorist - she just called out the rest of her society for the double-standard that trapped women in often loveless marriages whilst their husbands’ mistresses and other dalliances were tacitly tolerated. Here we are some hundred or so years after her campaign, and not only have many of the freedoms she advocated become standard practice in Western nations, but polyamory is gaining a groundswell of support. I hardly think this suggests that we’ll be throwing in the towel any time soon.