Connection between love and sex?

[levinas12]

Foraging societies, even now, don’t have the same notions of privacy as modern settled societies, nor do they have the same concept of personal property - resources are there for the sharing.

But every society distinguishes between the private and the public.

And I doubt whether foraging societies would understand nature in terms of “resources” which is a late European concept.

They may not have the same concept of private property but they are not budding socialists before the fact.

There’s lot of cultural anachronism at work here.

And one thing’s for sure - no member of a foraging society would suddenly step outside the group and propose an alternative lifestyle. Individual experimentalism presupposes an entirely different view of the universe. 'That’s why reverting back to an earlier stage of human development is impossible - there’s a “translation” problem.

Monogamous marriage is not the essential feature of human nature that is being portrayed here - it is a cultural norm. It is, to use your terminology, itself a form of social engineering …

“Social engineering” presumes deliberate human planning. Again, you forget about the unconscious nature of social facts.

Questions: where do social facts (in Durkheim’s sense) come from?

 

[levinas12]

Questions: where do social facts (in Durkheim’s sense) come from?

Questions (cont.): Where does social change come from?

 

[Sair]

You need to justify your view that they are statements of prejudice and assumption.

In the meantime when do you think we should resist our inclinations and for what reasons? If there are good reasons why polyamory harms you and others, particularly children, would you renounce it even though you are convinced it is essential for your own well-being and happiness?

Again, you’ve provided no justification for claiming that polyamory is harmful, either to the adults or to the children involved. Thus far it doesn’t look like you’ve got anything more solid than the former (now debunked) claims that homosexual couples harm their children because said children would either grow up to be homosexual or would be teased at school for having two dads or two mums. That’s nothing but an attempt to keep people in a box, because ‘everyone else’ lives in a box.

Sociological studies have shown that children benefit from being raised in a stable, secure environment by adults who love and care for them, regardless of the sexual orientation of said adults. You simply assume that this kind of environment can’t happen in polyamorous relationships, because you see them as nothing more than a case of revolving bedroom doors - you don’t seem to grasp the commitments that go along with the sex.

In what sense do you think polyamory does actual harm to the adults involved? Is it harmful to simply be different to the majority or to what ‘society’ says we should be? And can you demonstrate that less harm is done by attempting to adhere to monogamy when one is not inclined to do so?

 

[Sair]

But every society distinguishes between the private and the public.

And I doubt whether foraging societies would understand nature in terms of “resources” which is a late European concept.

Whether foraging societies think in terms of ‘resources’ or not is immaterial - they share food, tools, shelter, sex, child-rearing - all the things necessary for life. There may well be things they don’t do in the company of others - defecating, for example - but they certainly don’t have the same concepts of ‘public’ and ‘private’ that exist in settled societies. Sharing is a way of life for foragers in a way that it seldom is for us.

They may not have the same concept of private property but they are not budding socialists before the fact.

Not ideologically so, certainly. In practice, how much more socialist can you get?

And one thing’s for sure - no member of a foraging society would suddenly step outside the group and propose an alternative lifestyle.

That’s because the lifestyle of hunter-gatherers is pretty much necessary for their survival. At some point in prehistory, though, there must have been someone who stepped outside the general acceptance of ‘the way things are’ and decided that it would be a good idea to plant a crop for food.

Individual experimentalism presupposes an entirely different view of the universe. 'That’s why reverting back to an earlier stage of human development is impossible - there’s a “translation” problem.

In the sense that it’s impossible to travel back in time, to undo what has been done already, sure. But it’s not impossible to adopt values and practices that existed in earlier times. Only look at how many people are now getting back to growing their own vegetables and raising chickens in their backyards. The impetus for such values and practices is no longer the necessity of doing so, but the conviction that it’s better for the environment, and that it’s more healthy and satisfying when you know where your food comes from, rather than buying it wrapped in plastic from a supermarket. Modern polyamory is in large part a result of people looking at the social norm, perhaps trying it out, and finding that not only does it not work for them, but that there’s no good reason to conform to it - it’s just what ‘everyone’ does, like sheep. The point in raising the subject of foraging societies - which do, in all likelihood, represent the way humans lived for most of the time we’ve existed - is simply to point out that there’s no biological sense in which humans are monogamous. It’s a cultural norm.

“Social engineering” presumes deliberate human planning. Again, you forget about the unconscious nature of social facts.

Social ‘facts’ are expressions of what humans have been brought up to believe is ‘the way things are’. The way things are in most Western nations is that monogamy is seen as not only normative but biologically necessary. But it’s not the latter. The expression of social facts is not a matter of biological hardwiring, so to speak, any more than religious expression is a biological imperative - it’s socially engineered through the generations of parents who bring their children up to believe in it, whether ‘it’ is the expected life script the child will ultimately follow, or the religious faith their parents wish them to follow. I suspect you are forgetting the biological fact that humans are social animals, and that we actually are hardwired to find safety and psychological security in conformity. It just so happens that we are naturally inclined to do as those closest to us do. One certainly cannot be a polyamorist in isolation!

 

[tonyrey]

Again, you’ve provided no justification for claiming that polyamory is harmful, either to the adults or to the children involved…commitments that go along with the sex.

In what sense do you think polyamory does actual harm to the adults involved? Is it harmful to simply be different to the majority or to what ‘society’ says we should be? And can you demonstrate that less harm is done by attempting to adhere to monogamy when one is not inclined to do so?

This is the first instalment of my answer:

Sex outside marriage implies:

1. A lack of respect and consideration for one’s partner and children even when based on mutual consent.
2. A preference for novelty and variety with others in one’s sex life.
3. A willingness to forgo the need for privacy.
4. Indifference to the risk of a sense of neglect and jealousy on the part of one’s
   partner.
5. Indifference to the risk of sexual rivalry and conflict.
6. Indifference to the risk of the disintegration of the family.
7. Indifference to the effects of adultery on the children.
8. Indifference to the risk of losing one’s self-respect and the respect of others.
9. A rejection of the worldwide belief that sex is a beautiful and sacred gift and the most intimate physical expression of a man and a woman’s love for each other.
10. A unwillingness to commit oneself for better or for worse.
11. An inability to forgo the quest for pleasure for a higher ideal.
12. An inability to be constant in love and capable of unselfish love.

Unawareness of, or indifference to, the fact that:

1. Sexual intercourse has a deep and lasting effect on one’s attitude to oneself and the other person.

13 Premeditated and regular sexual intercourse with different persons over a long period of time has harmful implications for society as well as the family.

1. Things which are readily available - like your body - become devalued.
2. Genuine love is not a question of possession but self-possession, trust and love.
3. Unselfishness benefits us because we are liberated from preoccupation with ourselves.

17 The renunciation of sexual pleasure with others increases our love for our partner because it is not diminished by self-gratification.

1. The lack of sexual intimacy with a friend is a sign of respect for everyone concerned
2. Belief in the need to share one’s body with a friend reveals a false sense of values.
3. The “bonds of marriage” are not restraints or an outmoded convention but a reflection of one’s love and dedication.
4. Sexual adventures are a form of escapism which puts a need for variety and experimentation before the values that really matter.
5. Groups of lovers exacerbate the problem of achieving harmony in the family.
6. The confusion of a community of men and women having sexual relations with one another is harmful for the children.
7. Genuine love is not an affair of convenience…
8. The sexual act is the most powerful expression of our physical nature because it enables us to be a source of new life and should be reserved for the adult we** love** more than anyone else in the world.

 

[Sair]

This is the first instalment of my answer:

Sex outside marriage implies:

1. A lack of respect and consideration for one’s partner and children even when based on mutual consent.

How, if it’s based on mutual consent? Sexual exclusivity implies possession, property, and repression (as distinct from mere control or management) of perfectly normal and natural feelings and desires.

1. A preference for novelty and variety with others in one’s sex life.

Which is not intrinsically harmful.

1. A willingness to forgo the need for privacy.

Not necessarily. That depends on the people involved. Every person is entitled to alone time to pursue their personal needs, and some people just need alone time. This need is not ignored by polyamorists.

1. Indifference to the risk of a sense of neglect and jealousy on the part of one’s
   partner.

Absolutely not. The needs and feelings of partners are of concern to polyamorists, and are openly discussed. And the risk of neglect and jealousy is, to my way of thinking, increased when you rely on one person to fulfil all of your needs, and when their straying or fancying someone else means they’re expected to leave you.

1. Indifference to the risk of sexual rivalry and conflict.

On the contrary - awareness of it, and the willingness to confront and resolve it, should it actually arise.

1. Indifference to the risk of the disintegration of the family.

What risk is that? You’re still imagining that people with your mindset are the ones who are going to be involved - you expect sexual rivalry and jealousy and abandonment are the natural results of non-exclusive sexual intimacy, but they are so only under the ‘rules’ of monogamy. Polyamorists are, so to speak, playing a completely different game. And it has to be said that monogamous culture hasn’t done such a great job of keeping families together.

1. Indifference to the effects of adultery on the children.

Which are? I understand how, again according to the rules of monogamy, the threat of abandonment looms large if a parent has another lover, but if that’s the family arrangement in which the children are raised, then that is what they’re used to, what they feel comfortable with, and where they find security. I previously mentioned societies in which the majority of children can claim multiple fathers, who all have an interest in the welfare of their children. That’s their cultural norm.

1. Indifference to the risk of losing one’s self-respect and the respect of others.

As I recall, the way Catholic girls are taught self-respect revolves around the idea that sex is shameful, and only (begrudgingly) allowed when you’re married. Being taught, essentially, that one’s own body is shameful, in and of itself, is not calculated to foster actual self-respect - only fear and embarrassment. I know, because I’ve been there.

1. A rejection of the worldwide belief that sex is a beautiful and sacred gift and the most intimate physical expression of a man and a woman’s love for each other.

Firstly, this isn’t a worldwide belief. There are plenty of people who have sex just for fun, and a lot of them are essentially monogamous - they’re just getting in as much fun as they can before they ‘settle down’. Secondly, there is nothing about polyamory that negates the notion of sex as a gift and an intimate sharing between lovers - it just lifts the restrictions on the number of people who can share this gift at the one time.

1. A unwillingness to commit oneself for better or for worse.

Again, absolutely untrue. Polyamorists are as capable of serious emotional commitment as any monogamist, perhaps even more so.

1. An inability to forgo the quest for pleasure for a higher ideal.

And yet again, you think it’s just about the sex. Polyamory isn’t a quest for pleasure. It’s an acknowledgement that you can love more than one person at a time, and a desire to share your life with more than one other person, with all the requisite commitments that involves.

1. An inability to be constant in love and capable of unselfish love.

Oh, and monogamists are so successful at these things. Yeah, right.

Unawareness of, or indifference to, the fact that:

1. Sexual intercourse has a deep and lasting effect on one’s attitude to oneself and the other person.

We’ve covered this already, but just to make it clear - accepting that I’m a sexual being and getting comfortable in my own skin was the best thing that ever happened to me. I could finally throw off my Catholic guilt and find some real, actual self-respect that didn’t depend upon me toeing the party line and feeling ashamed of my body. I feel deeply attached to my lovers, so I can’t see how my attitude to them is harmed by sexual intimacy.

13 Premeditated and regular sexual intercourse with different persons over a long period of time has harmful implications for society as well as the family.

Harmful under the rules of monogamy, perhaps - but that’s because of the rules of monogamy, not because there is anything intrinsically harmful in polyamory.

1. Things which are readily available - like your body - become devalued.

Do you think all polyamorists, not to put too fine a point on it, bonk like rabbits at every available opportunity?

 

[Sair]

1. Genuine love is not a question of possession but self-possession, trust and love.

Exactly.

1. Unselfishness benefits us because we are liberated from preoccupation with ourselves.

Again, I totally agree. I have already argued that there is less selfishness involved in polyamorous relationships than there often is in monogamous relationships.

17 The renunciation of sexual pleasure with others increases our love for our partner because it is not diminished by self-gratification.

Uh-huh. Keep telling yourself that, and keep imagining that restricting intimate love and sex to one person and one only doesn’t lead to resentment of the “ball and chain”.

1. The lack of sexual intimacy with a friend is a sign of respect for everyone concerned

Either that or that you don’t happen to find them sexually attractive. The only reason for thinking that not having sex with someone - that is, when there is mutual attraction and consent - is a mark of respect, rather than repression, is if one believes, implicitly, that sex is shameful and dirty - an attitude that sits rather uncomfortably alongside the idea that it is meant to be a beautiful gift.

1. Belief in the need to share one’s body with a friend reveals a false sense of values.

It’s not so much a need as just a lack of restriction - sex isn’t an essential prerequisite or component of friendship, but for a polyamorous person, it’s not something forbidden either - nor is it something to be ashamed of, or something to be fearfully hidden from a spouse, because, as I’ve said before, polyamorous relationships just don’t operate under the same ‘rules’ as monogamous ones. So far, the entirety of your list, just about, has been based on your belief that monogamy is the One True Way, that it’s the only way society and relationships can operate, and it appears that you just can’t step outside that belief, or question it. Claiming that polyamory is harmful in the ways you state is only valid if one assumes that every person, everywhere, ever, is/was wired for monogamy and all that it implies. That is just not the case.

1. The “bonds of marriage” are not restraints or an outmoded convention but a reflection of one’s love and dedication.

They are the latter now, primarily, at least for those of us lucky enough to live in the West.

1. Sexual adventures are a form of escapism which puts a need for variety and experimentation before the values that really matter.

Escaping from what, exactly? Have I at any stage in this conversation endorsed commitment-free, no-strings-attached sex? I’m afraid that’s just not how I or most of the poly people I know operate. Sex is a mark of commitment and deep affection, and that doesn’t change just by having more than one other person in the relationship.

1. Groups of lovers exacerbate the problem of achieving harmony in the family.

Oh, please. As if there aren’t so many things that can do that, even in nuclear families based on monogamous marriage! Why are groups of lovers less likely to achieve harmony than a couple with several children, where they both work long hours to pay the mortgage and put the kids through school, where the in-laws are always interfering, where his drinking buddies and her shopping posse (sorry about the stereotype) compete for the occasional weekend away? If you want to blame anything for a lack of harmony in families, blame the fragmented, isolating, consumer-driven, rampantly individualist society we live in.

1. The confusion of a community of men and women having sexual relations with one another is harmful for the children.

That the children each have two dads and two mums? Or two dads, one mum, or two mums, one dad, or one mum, three dads, or two dads, three mums? It doesn’t seem as if the children of societies that embrace the concept of partible paternity suffer any great confusion. What matters is that they have multiple adults looking out for them, caring about their wellbeing and supporting them.

1. Genuine love is not an affair of convenience…

Never said it was.

1. The sexual act is the most powerful expression of our physical nature because it enables us to be a source of new life and should be reserved for the adult we** love** more than anyone else in the world.

What if you love two people, equally, more than anyone else in the world?

 

[levinas12]

Whether foraging societies think in terms of ‘resources’ or not is immaterial …

My comment about ‘resources’ was an allusion to Martin Heidegger. He has a special term for ‘resources’ in our technological age, i.e., “bestand” – roughly translated, “standing reserve”, as in, e.g., “oil reserves”, or more colloquially, “supply depot”. It connotes a view of nature as something that is only useful. E.g., a river is seen only as a source for hydroelectric power.

“Bestand” is esentially atheistic; we do not thank anyone (God or gods) for the “resources”. “Bestand” defines modern capitalism unrestrained by Christianity.

This is a very specific historical horizon for our activities, including polyamory and backyard gardens.

Unbridled voluntarism and utilitarianism leads to a society of efficient means and random ends. The ends are random because they vary from individual to individual – not based on any universal nature. This is the essence of a consumer society. Even lifestyles become commodities - we pick and choose them “off the rack” - as Kierkegaard once said, it’s a veritable fire sale.

 

[Sair]

My comment about ‘resources’ was an allusion to Martin Heidegger. He has a special term for ‘resources’ in our technological age, i.e., “bestand” – roughly translated, “standing reserve”, as in, e.g., “oil reserves”, or more colloquially, “supply depot”. It connotes a view of nature as something that is only useful. E.g., a river is seen only as a source for hydroelectric power.

Then this is certainly not what foraging societies would understand by ‘resources’. It’s more a matter of things necessary for survival.

“Bestand” is esentially atheistic; we do not thank anyone (God or gods) for the “resources”. “Bestand” defines modern capitalism unrestrained by Christianity.

Wasn’t it Christianity - and its parent, Judaism - that advocated humans ‘subduing the earth’? That everything on earth was put here specifically for human use? The banishment from the Garden of Eden seems to have conferred the necessity of toiling on the land to wrest a living from the soil, rather than enjoying nature’s bounty as Adam and Eve - and probably our hunter-gatherer ancestors - would have done. Perhaps the writers of Genesis had some folk memory of a prior age in which living was not a matter of constant, arduous toil.

This is a very specific historical horizon for our activities, including polyamory and backyard gardens.

Unbridled voluntarism and utilitarianism leads to a society of efficient means and random ends. The ends are random because they vary from individual to individual – not based on any universal nature. This is the essence of a consumer society. Even lifestyles become commodities - we pick and choose them “off the rack” - as Kierkegaard once said, it’s a veritable fire sale.

I don’t think voluntarism and utilitarianism have much in common with the capitalist ethos of unrestricted profit for the fat cats at the top of the pyramid while most of the population struggles to stay afloat while they march to the tune of the real dictators of society - the corporate bigwigs and their propaganda ministers, the advertising industry. Also, I don’t think the ends, at least in our society, are as random as you imagine. They are based upon conformity, not just to a standard life script, but to the capitalist religion of more is better. You’re doing well if you’re a ‘success’ in terms of having the money, the corporate career, the cookie-cutter family and the house with a white picket fence. If anything, the increasing enthusiasm for home-grown food and the quiet rise of polyamory are a step away from the unfettered consumerism and image-consciousness of modern society - stripping away the continual reliance on products, the superficial trappings of keeping up with the Joneses and getting back to the basics of what we really do need in life - love, community, family, simplicity, the balance between self-reliance and mutual support.

 

[djeter]

I already know the answer and I believe it, but there is no philosophical exploration of this topic.

Good man. No sense looking for answers when you already know them. Look at these idiots pretending that there are any. You so cool.



dj

 

[levinas12]

Wasn’t it Christianity - and its parent, Judaism - that advocated humans ‘subduing the earth’?

I don’t think voluntarism and utilitarianism have much in common with the capitalist ethos of unrestricted profit for the fat cats

Also, I don’t think the ends, at least in our society, are as random as you imagine. They are based upon conformity, not just to a standard life script, but to the capitalist religion of more is better. You’re doing well if you’re a ‘success’ in terms of having the money, the corporate career, the cookie-cutter family and the house with a white picket fence.

“Subduing the earth” is a peculiarly modern translation. In Genesis, we are caretakers of nature; in later Judaism, shepherds. This is not domination. More like a guardianship. And God will hold us responsible.

Voluntarism is the philosophical term for the view that will is the only reality. In Nietzsche, this becomes “will to power”, the engine that drives our contemporary society.

This “will” creates its own ends. The individual determines reality, not the other way around. Or shall I say, some individuals determine reality. You are right to point out the manipulation of desires.

Even efforts to non-conform become coopted.

 

[levinas12]

“Subduing the earth” is a peculiarly modern translation. In Genesis, we are caretakers of nature; in later Judaism, shepherds. This is not domination. More like a guardianship. And God will hold us responsible.

Voluntarism is the philosophical term for the view that will is the only reality. In Nietzsche, this becomes “will to power”, the engine that drives our contemporary society.

This “will” creates its own ends. The individual determines reality, not the other way around. Or shall I say, some individuals determine reality. You are right to point out the manipulation of desires.

Even efforts to non-conform become coopted.

Behind the individualism, voluntarism, utilitarianism, capitalism, consumerism may be something more sobering. Jacques Lacan, a French Freudian (sounds like French fried), says that we are looking for one substitute after another, for the unity and fusion with another human being that we experienced in the womb - but we will never find it. For Lacan, sexual intercourse is impossible. Or, to quote Yeats, the tragedy of sexual intercourse is the perpetual virginity of the soul.

So in a way all of our individual efforts are doomed to futility.

Unless God steps in.

 

[levinas12]

… Jacques Lacan, a French Freudian (sounds like French fried)…

should’ve said: “Jacques Lacan, the French Freud …” — for the pun to work — I admit it’s not original … it requires a specific dialect … Brooklyn, N.Y.?? … somewhere in Britain or Australia?? … or maybe, just maybe, it’s not much of a pun … But Lacan would’ve liked it; he loved puns … bad, sad or mad …

 

[levinas12]

Apropos on the discussion, you might want to check this from the wild man Zizek:

lacan.com/nosex.htm

It embodies every alarmist warning about where we’re headed, in a Lacanian/Heideggerian register.

 

[Sair]

Behind the individualism, voluntarism, utilitarianism, capitalism, consumerism may be something more sobering. Jacques Lacan, a French Freudian (sounds like French fried), says that we are looking for one substitute after another, for the unity and fusion with another human being that we experienced in the womb - but we will never find it.

I would be inclined to agree that such things may be, for some people, a substitute for a feeling of belonging, or a way to induce feelings of belonging, of being one of the crowd, without the actual emotional investment; although I must say, I have my doubts that this reflects some innate desire to return to the womb.

I have become increasingly sceptical of any attempt to identify “the source” of everyone’s problems (even though I’ve found myself falling into this trap on more than one occasion), simply because humans exhibit a wide range of emotional needs. I’ve tried not to portray polyamory, for example, as a universal solution to the problems encountered with monogamy. It really only works for people who are already inclined to be polyamorous, not those harbouring a desire to escape from a relationship they find unsatisfactory. The only problem with monogamy is that it has become a standard which is expected to apply to everyone and to be in accord with every person’s natural desires. There are some things that everyone needs - social involvement, a sense of belonging, acceptance - but we all need these things to differing degrees.

For Lacan, sexual intercourse is impossible. Or, to quote Yeats, the tragedy of sexual intercourse is the perpetual virginity of the soul.

With respect, I think I’d have to say they were doing it wrong!

So in a way all of our individual efforts are doomed to futility.

Even the most reclusive amongst us need some interaction with others - our individual efforts can only get so far if they don’t have the support of our fellows. That’s what it means to be a social animal.

Unless God steps in.

I don’t recall having felt really connected with other people until after I showed God the door…

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t recall having felt really connected with other people until after I showed God the door…

You obviously regarded and regard God as an unwelcome obstacle to the ways in which you wanted to be connected…

 

[Sair]

You obviously regarded and regard God as an unwelcome obstacle to the ways in which you wanted to be connected…

Given that the goal of monotheistic religion is to love God more than anyone else, yes, in that sense belief in God is a potential limitation, even a barrier to human connection and intimate relationships. And it’s primarily the Christian God that is inherently prudish when it comes to sex - you’ll recall that I don’t believe in any supernatural gods, even the pagan ones who are supposed to be sex-positive.

 

[levinas12]

… I must say, I have my doubts that this reflects some innate desire to return to the womb.

In Lacan, all of this is what he calls the Imaginary, the realm where we feel one with the Other. It may not have been an actual moment. It’s more a nostalgia for plenitude, for a presence without any absences.

… I have become increasingly sceptical of any attempt to identify “the source” of everyone’s problems (even though I’ve found myself falling into this trap on more than one occasion), simply because humans exhibit a wide range of emotional needs.

Again, Lacan, along with every postmodernist, would agree. These postmodernists are very hard to pin down. But, for some reason, in spite of ourselves, we are driven to return to the “source”, to the Garden. Even if we can’t.

… With respect, I think I’d have to say they were doing it wrong!

This reminds me of something that Woody Allen once said.

But it also reflects Augustine’s “our hearts are restless until they rest in you” (you being God … as the presence without absence).

Lacan’s remark is not that biological sex is impossible, but that the relation, the rapport between men and women is impossible (for the Catholic, this is the natural condition after the fall, without grace).

 

[levinas12]

Sair:

… although I must say, I have my doubts that this reflects some innate desire to return to the womb.

Sair:

…I have become increasingly sceptical of any attempt to identify “the source” of everyone’s problems …

 

[levinas12]

Sair:

… I have my doubts that this reflects some innate desire to return to the womb.

Sair:

… I have become increasingly sceptical of any attempt to identify “the source” of everyone’s problems (even though I’ve found myself falling into this trap on more than one occasion)