Connection between love and sex?

[levinas12]

… 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.

The return to the womb may have been too strong a reading. Maybe a blissful baby nursing at his mother’s breast. A sense of fusion, of plenitude, of a presence without absence. All of this is nostalgic and, in Lacan’s terminology, imaginary (not just in the sense of unreality, but of powerful images that captivate).

Lacan provides an interesting analysis of our consumer society. We pursue signifiers, one after another, in the hope they’ll finally deliver plenitude (sounds like the Great Gatsby). But the signifiers lack stable signifieds. Vanities of vanities.

Lacan and Augustine both share the view that our hearts are perpetually restless (in Augustine’s case, until they rest in God). It’s as if we have a black hole in our very being. We devour things and people but are never satisfied.

With respect to the impossibility of sexual intercourse, Lacan, of course, was not denying sex but, what he calls, the sexual rapport between men and women. No fusion. Always a gap. Always an unwanted intermediary. Always blockage, always contraception (spiritual if not physical).

Such is our natural postlapsarian condition without grace.

.

 

[tonyrey]

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

" 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.** For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.** 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister." 1 John 4
Genuine love for others does not need sexual activity with more than one person but with the welfare and happiness of everyone. It is not God who is the obstacle but obsession with the need for physical sex with several persons.

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.

You imagine belief in a “prudish God” is an obstacle whereas in reality the obstacle to belief in God is your determination to decide for yourself** how to live. **Ultimately all revolt against religion is based on the will to power…

 

[Sair]

" 19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar.** For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.** 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister." 1 John 4
Genuine love for others does not need sexual activity with more than one person but with the welfare and happiness of everyone. It is not God who is the obstacle but obsession with the need for physical sex with several persons.

You still don’t seem to understand my position. I think this is because you refuse to understand, not because there is anything inherently confusing about acceptance of polyamory. Sex is an expression of love, as well as the means to procreation. Neither of these things are hampered or tarnished or cheapened or whatever else you presume by sharing them with more than one person. They might well be cheapened by a person’s attitude towards sexual intimacy, but that is just as easily done by people of monogamous inclination, perhaps even more so since they are encouraged to value only one person, ultimately, in a sexual relationship. For the last time, polyamory is not about an obsession with sex, any more than monogamy is about an obsession with sex. Even St Paul acknowledged the existence of the sex drive, and recommended marriage as a remedy for masturbation and lust, though preferably as a last resort. Polyamory is an honest acknowledgement of our capability to intimately love more than one person at a time, without demanding the weakening or even the breakup of any existing relationships - as monogamous culture does. If genuine love needs no sexual expression and is potentially limitless, then whence the claim that love between sexual partners requires that you confine it to a single outlet? If such is the case, then either there is no genuine love in Christian marriage, since it is cancelled out by sex, or sex is simply permitted as a necessary evil, since without it there would be no children.

You imagine belief in a “prudish God” is an obstacle whereas in reality the obstacle to belief in God is your determination to decide for yourself** how to live. **Ultimately all revolt against religion is based on the will to power…

The will to personal autonomy is different to the will to power over others. The former respects the personal autonomy of all persons involved, the latter doesn’t. The will to power, in the latter sense, finds more of an outlet in monogamy than in polyamory. It’s no accident that Christian marriage is supposed to represent the relationship between God/Christ and the church, as well as the rule of the king over the subject - it’s about submission to an overlord, repression of the self and refusal to exercise reason and judgement - the very things that make us human persons. Until very recently in our history, to use a rather extreme but nonetheless illustrative example, a man could murder his wife and be hanged for murder, whilst a woman who murdered her husband was guilty not of murder but of petty treason - rebellion against a ruler - and would be burned alive for it. Marriage might be understood differently in this day and age, but that is only because the Church has been forced, along with other social institutions, to move with the times and the tide of social change. The history of traditional monogamous marriage is a history of suppression and of oppression, all in the name of power and property - that is its heritage.

 

[tonyrey]

Genuine love for others does not need sexual activity with more than one person but with the welfare and happiness of everyone. It is not God who is the obstacle but obsession with the need for physical sex with several persons.

The reason you share your life partner sexually is that you find him sexually inadequate. Otherwise it wouldn’t be essential to have sexual relations with others. You also value variety and excitement more than faithfulness.

They might well be cheapened by a person’s attitude towards sexual intimacy, but that is just as easily done by people of monogamous inclination, perhaps even more so since they are encouraged to value only one person, ultimately, in a sexual relationship. For the last time, polyamory is not about an obsession with sex, any more than monogamy is about an obsession with sex. Even St Paul acknowledged the existence of the sex drive, and recommended marriage as a remedy for masturbation and lust, though preferably as a last resort. Polyamory is an honest acknowledgement of our capability to intimately love more than one person at a time, without demanding the weakening or even the breakup of any existing relationships - as monogamous culture does.

In other words it encourages people to be unfaithful and devalues self-restraint. No one doubts your ability to “love intimately” more than one person at a time but the division of your time, energy and sexual attention between two persons inevitably dilutes the closeness and depth of your first relationship. If there are more than two - as “poly” suggests - the dilution is even greater. The more lovers there are the less love there is for the others because, as you agree, you cannot separate the physical and psychological elements of sex. It is quite different from Christian love because it excludes others by the privacy of the physical sexual relationship.

If genuine love needs no sexual expression and is potentially limitless, then whence the claim that love between sexual partners requires that you confine it to a single outlet?
If such is the case, then either there is no genuine love in Christian marriage, since it is cancelled out by sex, or sex is simply permitted as a necessary evil, since without it there would be no children.

Genuine love between a man and woman who have chosen to share their lives does need sexual expression. It is absurd to think otherwise.

Ultimately all revolt against religion is based on the will to power…

The will to personal autonomy is different to the will to power over others. The former respects the personal autonomy of all persons involved, the latter doesn’t.

That is not the point. To decide for yourself how to live regardless of every other consideration is to make yourself the measure of all things. The vast majority of people are not necessarily or always right but it is wise not to ignore their beliefs or opinions. Whether we like it or not we have to accept some form of authority. It is worth glancing at Erich Fromm’s “The Art of Loving” in which he writes:

“And, maybe, here lies the answer to the question of why people in our culture try so rarely to learn this art, in spite of their obvious failures: in spite of the deep-seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important than love: success, prestige, money, power—almost all our energy is used for the learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to learn the art of loving.”

I would add pleasure, novelty, variety and excitement to his list of false priorities.

The will to power, in the latter sense, finds more of an outlet in monogamy than in polyamory. It’s no accident that Christian marriage is supposed to represent the relationship between God/Christ and the church, as well as the rule of the king over the subject - it’s about submission to an overlord, repression of the self and refusal to exercise reason and judgement - the very things that make us human persons.

Women have filled prominent roles in the Church historically. One notable example is St Catherine of Siena who rebuked three Italian cardinals who were supporting the anti-pope, writing to them, “What made you do this? You are flowers who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek”!

Christian marriage vows reflect the teaching of Jesus that man and woman are equal. Both have to promise to have and to hold from this day forward for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

Until very recently in our history, to use a rather extreme but nonetheless illustrative example, a man could murder his wife and be hanged for murder, whilst a woman who murdered her husband was guilty not of murder but of petty treason - rebellion against a ruler - and would be burned alive for it.

Marriage might be understood differently in this day and age, but that is only because the Church has been forced, along with other social institutions, to move with the times and the tide of social change. The history of traditional monogamous marriage is a history of suppression and of oppression, all in the name of power and property - that is its heritage.

Your identification of traditional monogamous marriage with Christian marriage is unjustified. St Paul who is unfairly reputed for misogyny wrote:

Paul makes clear when he says:

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her”. He added “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one”.

 

[Sair]

The reason you share your life partner sexually is that you find him sexually inadequate. Otherwise it wouldn’t be essential to have sexual relations with others. You also value variety and excitement more than faithfulness.

You still haven’t made a case for why this assessment applies to sex and to sex only. You might as well say that the need for conversation with more than one person means you find that person conversationally or intellectually inadequate. Desire for variety has nothing to do with whether or not a person is deemed sexually ‘inadequate’. I can assure you I have no complaints in that regard.

In other words it encourages people to be unfaithful and devalues self-restraint. No one doubts your ability to “love intimately” more than one person at a time but the division of your time, energy and sexual attention between two persons inevitably dilutes the closeness and depth of your first relationship. If there are more than two - as “poly” suggests - the dilution is even greater. The more lovers there are the less love there is for the others because, as you agree, you cannot separate the physical and psychological elements of sex. It is quite different from Christian love because it excludes others by the privacy of the physical sexual relationship.

Again, you’ve made no case for why this does not apply to having multiple friends or multiple children. By these lights, we should all live in families of two.

Genuine love between a man and woman who have chosen to share their lives does need sexual expression. It is absurd to think otherwise.

I agree. I just don’t think that genuine love carries the proviso that it be exclusive.

That is not the point. To decide for yourself how to live regardless of every other consideration is to make yourself the measure of all things. The vast majority of people are not necessarily or always right but it is wise not to ignore their beliefs or opinions. Whether we like it or not we have to accept some form of authority.

We have to accept that others are sufficiently like us to have similar needs and preferences, and we ought to respect those needs and preferences if we expect other people to respect ours. That is very different from accepting that someone has the right to dictate how you behave.

I would add pleasure, novelty, variety and excitement to his list of false priorities.

And of course, these things are all the sweeter if they are shared with people you love.

Women have filled prominent roles in the Church historically. One notable example is St Catherine of Siena who rebuked three Italian cardinals who were supporting the anti-pope, writing to them, “What made you do this? You are flowers who shed no perfume, but stench that makes the whole world reek”!

The fact that women are notable in this context usually comes down to the fact that their participation in any kind of public life was so rare as to be extraordinary.

Christian marriage vows reflect the teaching of Jesus that man and woman are equal. Both have to promise to have and to hold from this day forward for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

Yet if I recall correctly, back in the day, it was only the woman who was required to promise obedience…

Your identification of traditional monogamous marriage with Christian marriage is unjustified. St Paul who is unfairly reputed for misogyny wrote:

St Paul - assuming the epistles bearing his name were all written by the same person - was not merely a misogynist, but he was, as many others have been, afraid of human sexuality. His epistles contain instructions to women to remain silent and to obey men, and he seems to have seen marriage as a necessary evil, or perhaps even a last resort if one could not sufficiently repress sexual desire. He did think the apocalypse was just around the corner, of course.

Paul makes clear when he says:

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her”. He added “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one”.

This is right after he wrote, “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, for that is what you should do as Christians.” (my italics) This is not what equals do! And why should she be in any more need of sanctifying than her husband? In the same passage in the same letter, Paul also says, “Slaves, obey your human masters in all things.” It’s clear that he didn’t quite grasp the concept of what it meant for all people to have been created equal. Again, he was an apocalyptic preacher telling people to bide their time until the end of days. He is hardly to be seen as a moral guide for all people in all times and places, yet that is how his writings have been interpreted.

 

[tonyrey]

You still haven’t made a case for why this assessment applies to sex and to sex only. You might as well say that the need for conversation with more than one person means you find that person conversationally or intellectually inadequate.

To equate sex with conversation reveals how you have devalued sex into a source of pleasure which has no further significance.

Desire for variety has nothing to do with whether or not a person is deemed sexually ‘inadequate’. I can assure you I have no complaints in that regard.

If your partner fulfils your sexual needs the desire for sexual variety amounts to greed!

Again, you’ve made no case for why this does not apply to having multiple friends or multiple children. By these lights, we should all live in families of two.

Physical sex is absent from a normal relationship with friends or children. Otherwise you would have sexual relations with all your friends. When you choose to love selected friends sexually you establish a sexual hierarchy. That alone is a potential cause of envy and dissension. You exclude others by the privacy of the physical sexual relationship which differentiates it from other activities. You have to be alone with your lover whereas normal friendship is inclusive.

I just don’t think that genuine love carries the proviso that it be exclusive.

If it is not exclusive it must necessarily exclude your life partner from a substantial part of your life because sex is a very important aspect. The more lovers there are the less love there is for the others because, as you agree, you cannot separate the physical and psychological elements of sex.

We have to accept that others are sufficiently like us to have similar needs and preferences, and we ought to respect those needs and preferences if we expect other people to respect ours. That is very different from accepting that someone has the right to dictate how you behave.

No one is dictating how you behave. The question is whether it is in your - and others’ - best interests.

1. Should we ever refrain from sexual activity for their sake?
2. Would most adults, children and society benefit from polyamory?
3. Do your sexual relationships have any negative consequences?

I would add pleasure, novelty, variety and excitement to his list of false priorities.

And of course, these things are all the sweeter if they are shared with people you love.

Voltaire said the honeymoon is followed by the absinthe moon!
Is there anything you reserve entirely for your husband?

The fact that women are notable in this context usually comes down to the fact that their participation in any kind of public life was so rare as to be extraordinary.

The fact that it was extraordinary shows it was possible in a Christian society which had inherited a patriarchal culture. Women have always had an important role in the life of the Church in spite of the restriction of the priesthood to men. Motherhood is regarded as a vocation that has always been revered. Many women have been canonised and their writings have had a profound influence on Catholicism. The vital importance of Mary has safeguarded the role of women in stark contrast to that in some Protestant sects, such as the Mormons.

Christian marriage vows reflect the teaching of Jesus that man and woman are equal. Both have to promise to have and to hold from this day forward for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part.

Yet if I recall correctly, back in the day, it was only the woman who was required to promise obedience…

That is an English accretion. The original vows for both were simply “Yes” or “No”.

St Paul - assuming the epistles bearing his name were all written by the same person - was not merely a misogynist, but he was, as many others have been, afraid of human sexuality.

He could see how it often destroys people’s lives.

His epistles contain instructions to women to remain silent and to obey men, and he seems to have seen marriage as a necessary evil, or perhaps even a last resort if one could not sufficiently repress sexual desire.

Since St Paul came from a Pharisaic background it is not surprising he had a patriarchal outlook. Yet he wrote:
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her”.

This is right after he wrote, “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, for that is what you should do as Christians.” (my italics) This is not what equals do!

He did not write “Wives, give yourselves up for your husbands”!

And why should she be in any more need of sanctifying than her husband?

She isn’t! No one sanctifies except Christ.

 

[Sair]

To equate sex with conversation reveals how you have devalued sex into a source of pleasure which has no further significance.

Is that how you view conversation? Does that mean you don’t talk about anything interesting or important with your friends?

If your partner fulfils your sexual needs the desire for sexual variety amounts to greed!

Desire for variety is just that - desire for variety. It doesn’t have anything to do with quantity, at least not for me. I can’t speak for all poly folks, of course.

Physical sex is absent from a normal relationship with friends or children. Otherwise you would have sexual relations with all your friends. When you choose to love selected friends sexually you establish a sexual hierarchy. That alone is a potential cause of envy and dissension.

You’re still talking from a monogamous perspective. That’s fine, of course - you’re probably inclined towards monogamy, or at least serial monogamy. It’s certainly true that some poly relationships are hierarchical - there are ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ partners, and some people are happy with that. Some poly people are transitory and don’t seek the depth of connection that others do. Other poly relationships are more egalitarian, more about building family. The main thing is that people understand and accept and are happy and satisfied with the relationships they have. If a person isn’t happy in a poly relationship, the thing is to identify the problem(s) and attempt to resolve them - exactly what is supposed to happen if someone’s unhappy in a mono relationship.

If it is not exclusive it must necessarily exclude your life partner from a substantial part of your life because sex is a very important aspect. The more lovers there are the less love there is for the others because, as you agree, you cannot separate the physical and psychological elements of sex.

Again with the scarcity model of love. If you can’t intimately love more than one person, that is for you to decide. It doesn’t mean everyone thinks and feels that way. I don’t feel excluded from my husband’s relationships with other women, because I know about them and accept them, and they’re my friends too. Another thing that tends to occur in polyamorous relationships - something conspicuously absent from monogamous partnerships - is that partners appreciate the fact that others love their partners, and that their partners take pleasure in their relationships with others.

 

[Sair]

No one is dictating how you behave. The question is whether it is in your - and others’ - best interests.

That’s exactly what I was talking about. You were the one who put it in terms of ‘submitting to authority’.

1. Should we ever refrain from sexual activity for their sake?

Of course. Sexual intimacy should only ever take place where there is mutual consent. That means the consent of all partners involved in the relationship. I would not choose to pursue a relationship with someone my husband or any of my lovers couldn’t stand, and vice versa.

1. Would most adults, children and society benefit from polyamory?

I don’t know about ‘most’, but quite clearly many do.

1. Do your sexual relationships have any negative consequences?

If they do - and some definitely have - it’s about far more than just the sex. If you mean has sex ever ruined a relationship that would otherwise have worked out well, then I’d have to say no.

Voltaire said the honeymoon is followed by the absinthe moon!

Is that where you try to numb your senses sufficiently to cope with a stagnant relationship?

Is there anything you reserve entirely for your husband?

My relationship with my husband is unique, because only he and I share the relationship that he and I have. I’ve explained this before - what makes a relationship unique and special is what’s inside the people themselves, not the external expression of the connection.

The fact that it was extraordinary shows it was possible in a Christian society which had inherited a patriarchal culture.

Christianity inherited patriarchy from its parent religion! Christianity did little if anything to change the pervasive misogyny of Jewish culture, and wasn’t keen to rock the boat in favour of sexual equality in gentile societies either. In the ancient, pre-Christian and pagan world, there are as many examples of prominent women as there are following the advent of Christianity.

Women have always had an important role in the life of the Church in spite of the restriction of the priesthood to men.

So why aren’t women permitted to be priests? I’ve heard a few explanations, and they all come back to the fact that women are considered spiritually inferior to men. It’s almost as if these ‘prominent’ roles were given to a few women as a token gesture to make it seem a little less like the church was a big boys’ club.

Motherhood is regarded as a vocation that has always been revered.

Women are only honoured in a Christian context if they are virgins or mothers, or at a pinch, reformed prostitutes. The options are pretty restrictive. A man could be many things, including a father, a leader, a scholar, or a hellraiser-turned-monk, but a woman would be defined primarily by her biological status.

That is an English accretion. The original vows for both were simply “Yes” or “No”.

I doubt this simple exchange was restricted to Christianised cultures.

He could see how it often destroys people’s lives.

Or diminishes their apocalyptic zeal…

Since St Paul came from a Pharisaic background it is not surprising he had a patriarchal outlook. Yet he wrote:
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Empty words in context. Women still couldn’t be priests because of their sex. Slaves were still expected to obey their masters. ‘All one in Christ’ is all very well and a pretty saying, but when has this ever been the case in practice?

He did not write “Wives, give yourselves up for your husbands”!

But that was the expectation. That’s what ‘submission’ means!

She isn’t! No one sanctifies except Christ.

Or, apparently, a husband in the case of his wife, according to the passage you quoted.

 

[tonyrey]

No one is dictating how you behave. The question is whether it is in your - and others’ - best interests.

My precise words were:

“To decide for yourself how to live regardless of every other consideration is to make yourself the measure of all things. The vast majority of people are not necessarily or always right but it is wise not to ignore their beliefs or opinions. Whether we like it or not we have to accept some form of authority.”

When making your decisions you do always regard yourself as the ultimate authority and never defer to others when you are in doubt?

1. Should we ever refrain from sexual activity for their sake?

Of course. Sexual intimacy should only ever take place where there is mutual consent. That means the consent of all partners involved in the relationship. I would not choose to pursue a relationship with someone my husband or any of my lovers couldn’t stand, and vice versa.

Would children, relatives and other friends be consulted?

1. Would most adults, children and society benefit from polyamory?

I don’t know about ‘most’, but quite clearly many do.

How many?

1. Do your sexual relationships have any negative consequences?

If they do - and some definitely have - it’s about far more than just the sex. If you mean has sex ever ruined a relationship that would otherwise have worked out well, then I’d have to say no.

I mean negative consequences for anyone, not only the lovers.

Voltaire said the honeymoon is followed by the absinthe moon!

Is that where you try to numb your senses sufficiently to cope with a stagnant relationship?

Why should lovers be an exception?

Is there anything you reserve entirely for your husband?

My relationship with my husband is unique, because only he and I share the relationship that he and I have. I’ve explained this before - what makes a relationship unique and special is what’s inside the people themselves, not the external expression of the connection.

Since all relationships are unique in that sense there is nothing to distinguish the relationship with your husband.

The fact that it was extraordinary shows it was possible in a Christian society which had inherited a patriarchal culture.

Christianity inherited patriarchy from its parent religion!

Is that surprising?

Christianity did little if anything to change the pervasive misogyny of Jewish culture, and wasn’t keen to rock the boat in favour of sexual equality in gentile societies either.

You are quite mistaken. Christian women were actively involved even while Jesus was alive because He had treated them as equals and everyone knew what was expected of them after He was executed.

In the ancient, pre-Christian and pagan world, there are as many examples of prominent women as there are following the advent of Christianity.

Is there any evidence that women had equal rights to men in other societies?

Women have always had an important role in the life of the Church in spite of the restriction of the priesthood to men.

So why aren’t women permitted to be priests?

Women were undoubtedly deaconesses - which is the highest level of ordination before the priesthood - and they may well have been ordained priests.

I’ve heard a few explanations, and they all come back to the fact that women are considered spiritually inferior to men.

Women have never been considered “spiritually inferior” to men in the Catholic Church because Jesus could hardly have been in the womb of a “spiritually inferior” person. The reason they were not priests was that it was - and still is - the belief that the Church is the bride of Christ. Whether this is a valid argument that the priesthood should be restricted to men is controversial…

It’s almost as if these ‘prominent’ roles were given to a few women as a token gesture to make it seem a little less like the church was a big boys’ club.

That is only your cynical interpretation.

Motherhood is regarded as a vocation that has always been revered.

Women are only honoured in a Christian context if they are virgins or mothers, or at a pinch, reformed prostitutes.

That is sheer nonsense. Both men and women who are no longer virgins are not dishonoured any more than those who have committed other offences. The Church teaches that no one should have sexual relations before marriage.

The options are pretty restrictive. A man could be many things, including a father, a leader, a scholar, or a hellraiser-turned-monk, but a woman would be defined primarily by her biological status.

Women were mothers as well as nuns, mother superiors, missionaries, poets, teachers, theologians, mystics, matrons and sisters in hospitals, hospices, asylums and orphanages…

That is an English accretion. The original vows for both were simply “Yes” or “No”.

I doubt this simple exchange was restricted to Christianised cultures.

That is irrelevant.

He could see how it often destroys people’s lives.

Or diminishes their apocalyptic zeal…

The fact remains that sex has destroyed and still destroys people’s lives.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not surprising St Paul had a patriarchal outlook because he came from a Pharisaic background . Yet he wrote:
“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Empty words in context. Women still couldn’t be priests because of their sex.Very few Catholic women have wanted to be priests because they know they can serve God and others in other ways men cannot do so well. The priesthood is not only a great privilege but a vocation which entails much self-sacrifice and being the shepherd of a flock which is more difficult when you have children.

Slaves were still expected to obey their masters. ‘All one in Christ’ is all very well and a pretty saying, but when has this ever been the case in practice?

The first Christians knew they couldn’t transform society overnight because they were a small minority. But St Paul’s letter to Philemon is instructive:

“No, I am appealing to that love of yours, a simple personal appeal from Paul the old man, in prison for Jesus Christ’s sake. I am appealing for my child. Yes, I have become a father though I am under lock and key, and the child’s name is – Onesimus! Oh I know you have found him pretty useless in the past, but he is going to be useful now, to both of us. I am sending him back to you: Will You Receive Him As My Son, Part of Me?
… You lost him, a slave, for a time; now you are having him back for good, not merely a slave, but a brother-Christian. He is already especially loved by me – how much more will you be able to love him, both as a man and as a fellow-Christian!”

He did not write “Wives, give yourselves up for your husbands”!

But that was the expectation. That’s what ‘submission’ means!You don’t get the point. St Paul did not write “Wives, sacrifice your lives for your husbands” - which is what husbands are asked to do if necessary.

She isn’t! No one sanctifies except Christ.

Or, apparently, a husband in the case of his wife, according to the passage you quoted.Another misinterpretation! He did not write “Husbands, love your wives… that you might sanctify her” - but “that he might sanctify her”.

To equate sex with conversation reveals how you have devalued sex into a source of pleasure which has no further significance.

Is that how you view conversation? Does that mean you don’t talk about anything interesting or important with your friends?What significance does sex have for you apart from being a source of pleasure?

If your partner fulfils your sexual needs the desire for sexual variety amounts to greed!

Desire for variety is just that - desire for variety. It doesn’t have anything to do with quantity, at least not for me. I can’t speak for all poly folks, of course.
Why is sexual variety essential for you? What restricts your quest for variety?

Physical sex is absent from a normal relationship with friends or children. Otherwise you would have sexual relations with all your friends. When you choose to love selected friends sexually you establish a sexual hierarchy. That alone is a potential cause of envy and dissension.

You’re still talking from a monogamous perspective. That’s fine, of course - you’re probably inclined towards monogamy, or at least serial monogamy. It’s certainly true that some poly relationships are hierarchical - there are ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ partners, and some people are happy with that.
There is a sexual hierarchy in all polyamory between the sexual and platonic friends.

Some poly people are transitory and don’t seek the depth of connection that others do.

Can you always know this in advance?

Other poly relationships are more egalitarian, more about building family.

Can the family consist of lovers who have children by several of the lovers?

The main thing is that people understand and accept and are happy and satisfied with the relationships they have. If a person isn’t happy in a poly relationship, the thing is to identify the problem(s) and attempt to resolve them - exactly what is supposed to happen if someone’s unhappy in a mono relationship.

The more children there are by different parents the more difficult it must be to achieve harmony in a permanent community of lovers.

If it is not exclusive it must necessarily exclude your life partner from a substantial part of your life because sex is a very important aspect. The more lovers there are the less love there is for the others because, as you agree, you cannot separate the physical and psychological elements of sex.

Again with the scarcity model of love. If you can’t intimately love more than one person, that is for you to decide. It doesn’t mean everyone thinks and feels that way.Your capacity for sexual love is not a measure of your capacity for unselfish love. If your expectations of love are lower then it is obviously easier to share your love.

I don’t feel excluded from my husband’s relationships with other women, because I know about them and accept them, and they’re my friends too.

Would you accept them if you are all in bed together? Or do you insist on privacy?

Another thing that tends to occur in polyamorous relationships - something conspicuously absent from monogamous partnerships - is that partners appreciate the fact that others love their partners, and that their partners take pleasure in their relationships with others.

Sexual pleasure?
.

 

[Sair]

My precise words were:

“To decide for yourself how to live regardless of every other consideration is to make yourself the measure of all things. The vast majority of people are not necessarily or always right but it is wise not to ignore their beliefs or opinions. Whether we like it or not we have to accept some form of authority.”

When making your decisions you do always regard yourself as the ultimate authority and never defer to others when you are in doubt?

Ultimately our decisions are ours to make, regardless of whose interests we choose to acknowledge. So in that sense, yes, we are the final arbiters of our own actions.

Would children, relatives and other friends be consulted?

To the extent that they would be affected by the existence of the relationship, and assuming that any children in question are old enough to understand at least broadly what is going on, yes. Do the in-laws and children get a say in every decision made by a married couple? I doubt it.

How many?

Do I look like a statistician? I can only speak from my own experience, but I would have to say that a significant number of my friends and acquaintances are nonmonogamous to varying degrees.

I mean negative consequences for anyone, not only the lovers.

Quite frankly, no-one but me and my lovers has been affected in any way by the nature of my sex life. It’s not actually anyone else’s business, unless I choose to make it so.

Since all relationships are unique in that sense there is nothing to distinguish the relationship with your husband.

If you discount its own unique qualities, yes, that is true. But why would you discount them?

You are quite mistaken. Christian women were actively involved even while Jesus was alive because He had treated them as equals and everyone knew what was expected of them after He was executed.

Were they expected to preach, or were they expected to keep silent and respectful in the presence of men?

Is there any evidence that women had equal rights to men in other societies?

Leadership roles, even. Cleopatra springs to mind, as does Boudicca. Warrior women were not unheard of in ancient times either.

Women were undoubtedly deaconesses - which is the highest level of ordination before the priesthood - and they may well have been ordained priests.

So what went wrong?

Women have never been considered “spiritually inferior” to men in the Catholic Church because Jesus could hardly have been in the womb of a “spiritually inferior” person. The reason they were not priests was that it was - and still is - the belief that the Church is the bride of Christ. Whether this is a valid argument that the priesthood should be restricted to men is controversial…

I don’t even see how it makes sense. Are the men in the church considered to be part of the ‘bride’ of Christ as well?

That is only your cynical interpretation.

And one that is not at all difficult to form.

That is sheer nonsense. Both men and women who are no longer virgins are not dishonoured any more than those who have committed other offences. The Church teaches that no one should have sexual relations before marriage.

And isn’t it interesting how few people hold to that teaching? The church has, historically, since St Paul, painted sex as among the heights of depravity, unless officially sanctioned by Church marriage. How is this an even remotely healthy attitude?

Women were mothers as well as nuns, mother superiors, missionaries, poets, teachers, theologians, mystics, matrons and sisters in hospitals, hospices, asylums and orphanages…

As they would have been even without the dubious benefit of Christianity.

The fact remains that sex has destroyed and still destroys people’s lives.

As have many things that are good in and of themselves, when indulged unwisely or irresponsibly.

 

[Sair]

Sair;7962577:

Very few Catholic women have wanted to be priests because they know they can serve God and others in other ways men cannot do so well. The priesthood is not only a great privilege but a vocation which entails much self-sacrifice and being the shepherd of a flock which is more difficult when you have children.

And of course only women want children… And this argument doesn’t wash anyway, since nuns are also expected to be celibate.

The first Christians knew they couldn’t transform society overnight because they were a small minority.

And then when Christianity became an official religion, it also didn’t transform society. Historically, it simply requisitioned the rituals, customs and places of worship of the pagan societies conquered by Christianised societies.

You don’t get the point. St Paul did not write “Wives, sacrifice your lives for your husbands” - which is what husbands are asked to do if necessary.

Why such a difference in expectation? Why would not the same be expected of husband and wife, if they are equals and capable of equal devotion?

Another misinterpretation! He did not write “Husbands, love your wives… that you might sanctify her” - but "that he

might sanctify her".

Oh, I get it - so sanctification from Christ for a woman was available via the love of a man. Right.

What significance does sex have for you apart from being a source of pleasure?

A sharing of intimacy, bonding, an expression of acceptance.

Why is sexual variety essential for you? What restricts your quest for variety?

I don’t know that ‘essential’ is how I would describe it - as I’ve explained before, it’s more a matter of not restricting sexual intimacy to just one person. The kind of person with whom I tend to seek a romantic relationship (for want of a better description) is someone to whom I feel intellectually, emotionally and sexually attracted. It’s about the whole package, not just the sex. I don’t seek other partners for the sake of having other partners, but if I meet someone to whom I do feel thus attracted, I don’t assume that I can’t pursue a relationship with them because I am already in such a relationship with my husband.

There is a sexual hierarchy in all polyamory between the sexual and platonic friends.

And you know this precisely how? Have you spent much time discussing such issues with a variety of poly folks?

Can you always know this in advance?

Of course not, just like you can’t know it about someone with whom you seek a monogamous relationship.

Can the family consist of lovers who have children by several of the lovers?

Sure.

The more children there are by different parents the more difficult it must be to achieve harmony in a permanent community of lovers.

No particular reason a lack of harmony should be more difficult in a poly family than in a monogamous family. Sure, people get on each others’ nerves from time to time, but that happens in any and all communities of people.

Your capacity for sexual love is not a measure of your capacity for unselfish love. If your expectations of love are lower then it is obviously easier to share your love.

Why would my expectations of love be any ‘lower’? Maybe they’re more realistic than some.

Would you accept them if you are all in bed together? Or do you insist on privacy?

That would depend entirely upon my relationship with my lovers’ other lovers.

Sexual pleasure?

Sometimes, sure. But it’s not just that. It’s appreciating a lover’s pleasure as your own, something that tends to happen naturally if you do actually love a person.
.

 

[levinas12]

Ultimately our decisions are ours to make, regardless of whose interests we choose to acknowledge. So in that sense, yes, we are the final arbiters of our own actions.

But how can that be if we are simply the result of blind material processes “devoid of conscious intention” as you said in another thread dealing with Stephen Hawking?

How can we be “final arbiters of our own actions” if everything has already been determined by preexisting arrangements of particles/strings, mathematical laws and probability distributions and arbitrary quantum fluctuations? If we are simply tossed about by the ocean waves of hormones, neurotransmitters, etc?

 

[tonyrey]

But how can that be if we are simply the result of blind material processes “devoid of conscious intention” as you said in another thread dealing with Stephen Hawking?

How can we be “final arbiters of our own actions” if everything has already been determined by preexisting arrangements of particles/strings, mathematical laws and probability distributions and arbitrary quantum fluctuations? If we are simply tossed about by the ocean waves of hormones, neurotransmitters, etc?

Thanks for dealing with one of Sair’s points for me! Some don’t like “interlopers” but I always welcome reinforcements.

 

[tonyrey]

Very few Catholic women have wanted to be priests because they know they can serve God and others in other ways men cannot do so well. The priesthood is not only a great privilege but a vocation which entails much self-sacrifice and being the shepherd of a flock which is more difficult when you have children.

Do men bear and suckle the children?

And this argument doesn’t wash anyway, since nuns are also expected to be celibate.

Which is against your principles!

The first Christians knew they couldn’t transform society overnight because they were a small minority.

And then when Christianity became an official religion, it also didn’t transform society. Historically, it simply requisitioned the rituals, customs and places of worship of the pagan societies conquered by Christianised societies.

You are equating Roman and pagan morality with Christian morality…

You don’t get the point. St Paul did not write “Wives, sacrifice your lives for your husbands” - which is what husbands are asked to do if necessary.

Why such a difference in expectation? Why would not the same be expected of husband and wife, if they are equals and capable of equal devotion?

Equals have different functions in society.

Another misinterpretation! He did not write “Husbands, love your wives… that you might sanctify her” - but “that he might sanctify her”.

Oh, I get it - so sanctification from Christ for a woman was available via the love of a man.

He = Christ.

What significance does sex have for you apart from being a source of pleasure?

A sharing of intimacy, bonding, an expression of acceptance.

Which are impossible without physical intercourse?

Why is sexual variety essential for you? What restricts your quest for variety?

I don’t know that ‘essential’ is how I would describe it - as I’ve explained before, it’s more a matter of not restricting sexual intimacy to just one person.

Either it is essential or it isn’t.

The kind of person with whom I tend to seek a romantic relationship (for want of a better description) is someone to whom I feel intellectually, emotionally and sexually attracted. It’s about the whole package, not just the sex.

The “whole package” seems a very ambitious project when it has to be shared with one or more others.

I don’t seek other partners for the sake of having other partners, but if I meet someone to whom I do feel thus attracted, I don’t assume that I can’t pursue a relationship with them because I am already in such a relationship with my husband.

If you don’t set out to find other partners it suggests that you leave it to chance rather than regard them as a necessity.

There is a sexual hierarchy in all polyamory between the sexual and platonic friends.

And you know this precisely how? Have you spent much time discussing such issues with a variety of poly folks?

It is common sense that sexual and platonic friends fall into two disinct categories.

Can you always know this in advance?

Of course not, just like you can’t know it about someone with whom you seek a monogamous relationship.

You agree that the risk increases with every new lover?

Can the family consist of lovers who have children by several of the lovers?

Yes.

So the risk of dissension increases.

The more children there are by different parents the more difficult it must be to achieve harmony in a permanent community of lovers.

No particular reason a lack of harmony should be more difficult in a poly family than in a monogamous family. Sure, people get on each others’ nerves from time to time, but that happens in any and all communities of people.

It is well known that consanguinity is often an obstacle to affinity! A hotchpotch of parents and children seems a recipe for trouble.

Your capacity for sexual love is not a measure of your capacity for unselfish love. If your expectations of love are lower then it is obviously easier to share your love.

Why would my expectations of love be any ‘lower’? Maybe they’re more realistic than some.

If “realistic” means “limited to physical facts”…

Would you accept them if you are all in bed together? Or do you insist on privacy?

That would depend entirely upon my relationship with my lovers’ other lovers.

So in some cases privacy is not essential? The “whole package” suggests that there are no barriers between any of the lovers.

Sexual pleasure?

Sometimes, sure. But it’s not just that. It’s appreciating a lover’s pleasure as your own, something that tends to happen naturally if you do actually love a person.

Don’t think this preoccupation with physical sex is excessive?

 

[tonyrey]

When making your decisions you do always regard yourself as the ultimate authority and never defer to others when you are in doubt?

Even to the extent of rejecting the welfare of others? Aren’t there any moral principles you accept as the final arbiters of your actions?

Would children, relatives and other friends be consulted?

To the extent that they would be affected by the existence of the relationship, and assuming that any children in question are old enough to understand at least broadly what is going on, yes.

What happens when you disagree?

Do the in-laws and children get a say in every decision made by a married couple? I doubt it.

Most married couples do not have lovers.

How many?

Do I look like a statistician? I can only speak from my own experience, but I would have to say that a significant number of my friends and acquaintances are nonmonogamous to varying degrees.

Would thirty be near the mark? Do they all regard themselves as polyamorists?

I mean negative consequences for anyone, not only the lovers.

Quite frankly, no-one but me and my lovers has been affected in any way by the nature of my sex life. It’s not actually anyone else’s business, unless I choose to make it so.

But it is impossible to keep the co-existence of lovers a secret for a prolonged period of time unless you live in a remote place.

Since all relationships are unique in that sense there is nothing to distinguish the relationship with your husband.

If you discount its own unique qualities, yes, that is true. But why would you discount them?

Because uniqueness in itself is no proof of value.

You are quite mistaken. Christian women were actively involved even while Jesus was alive because He had treated them as equals and everyone knew what was expected of them after He was executed.

Were they expected to preach, or were they expected to keep silent and respectful in the presence of men?

There is plenty of evidence that many have preached and some were consulted by popes and bishops.

Is there any evidence that women had equal rights to men in other societies?

Leadership roles, even. Cleopatra springs to mind, as does Boudicca. Warrior women were not unheard of in ancient times either.

So they were not patriarchal societies?

Women were undoubtedly deaconesses - which is the highest level of ordination before the priesthood - and they may well have been ordained priests.

So what went wrong?

Habits die hard. The patriarchal mentality continued to rear its ugly head.

Women have never been considered “spiritually inferior” to men in the Catholic Church because Jesus could hardly have been in the womb of a “spiritually inferior” person. The reason they were not priests was that it was - and still is - the belief that the Church is the bride of Christ. Whether this is a valid argument that the priesthood should be restricted to men is controversial…

I don’t even see how it makes sense. Are the men in the church considered to be part of the ‘bride’ of Christ as well?

The Church is considered to be an organic whole but a collection of units.

That is only your cynical interpretation.

And one that is not at all difficult to form.

For one as obviously prejudiced as you are - largely because you regard the teaching of Christ as an obstacle to your enjoyment rather than an asset.

That is sheer nonsense. Both men and women who are no longer virgins are not dishonoured any more than those who have committed other offences. The Church teaches that no one should have sexual relations before marriage.

And isn’t it interesting how few people hold to that teaching? The church has, historically, since St Paul, painted sex as among the heights of depravity, unless officially sanctioned by Church marriage. How is this an even remotely healthy attitude?

Sex often does descend to the depths of depravity. he rejection of the sanctity of marriage is the first step on the slippery slope to paedophilia, sadism, perversion, sex slavery and prostitution.

Women were mothers as well as nuns, mother superiors, missionaries, poets, teachers, theologians, mystics, matrons and sisters in hospitals, hospices, asylums and orphanages…

As they would have been even without the dubious benefit of Christianity.

Where is the evidence?

The fact remains that sex has destroyed and still destroys people’s lives.

As have many things that are good in and of themselves, when indulged unwisely or irresponsibly.

What else compares with the urge to mate, reproduce and ensure the survival of your clan?

 

[tonyrey]

The Church is considered to be an organic whole but a collection of units.

“but” should be “not”!

Women were mothers as well as nuns, mother superiors, missionaries, poets, teachers, theologians, mystics, matrons and sisters in hospitals, hospices, asylums and orphanages… As they would have been even without the dubious benefit of Christianity.

Where is the evidence?

Schools, universities, hospitals, hospices, asylums and orphanages were founded by Christians following the precept of Jesus to love others through spiritual and corporal works of mercy .

 

[Sair]

But how can that be if we are simply the result of blind material processes “devoid of conscious intention” as you said in another thread dealing with Stephen Hawking?

How can we be “final arbiters of our own actions” if everything has already been determined by preexisting arrangements of particles/strings, mathematical laws and probability distributions and arbitrary quantum fluctuations? If we are simply tossed about by the ocean waves of hormones, neurotransmitters, etc?

Maybe the ‘we’ that is experienced requires such blind material processes in order to arrive at awareness of decisions and consequences.

As for whether we are, in such conditions, the final arbiters of our actions, who else would you hold responsible? From my perspective, is there an ‘I’ that doesn’t depend upon physical processes to reach conclusions and perform actions? What do you think is responsible for such things and how do you account for it, if it exists?

And how can we be the final arbiters of our actions if everything we do has been foreseen and foreordained by an omnipotent, omniscient deity?

 

[Sair]

Do men bear and suckle the children?

Are you saying they wouldn’t if they could?

Which is against your principles!

Only if it is imposed by external agencies. I have friends who are voluntarily celibate because it works for them, not because it is demanded by a belief system they adopt.

You are equating Roman and pagan morality with Christian morality…

Uh…morality is morality - sentient beings are what we are. Certain preferences can be assumed.

Equals have different functions in society.

By individual, yes - not by category.

Which are impossible without physical intercourse?

No, not impossible, but why should physical intercourse be restricted if it follows naturally from an existing acquaintance? You’ve yet to justify repression of sexuality…

Either it is essential or it isn’t.

Do you treat every choice in life as such? Is there anything at all that you do without its being essential?

The “whole package” seems a very ambitious project when it has to be shared with one or more others.

Sure, it might take more effort, but why knock it till you’ve tried it?

If you don’t set out to find other partners it suggests that you leave it to chance rather than regard them as a necessity.

And if you interact with others with the express intention to avoid any and all amorous attraction, doesn’t that limit the extent to which you can pursue a relationship?

It is common sense that sexual and platonic friends fall into two disinct categories.

But it doesn’t follow that there should be any discontentment in this occurrence.

You agree that the risk increases with every new lover?

Maybe…but I don’t see how monogamy, or serial monogamy, is a remedy for any risk.

So the risk of dissension increases.

Why do you think it should?

It is well known that consanguinity is often an obstacle to affinity! A hotchpotch of parents and children seems a recipe for trouble.

But is this so with a mono mindset or a poly mindset? You still seem to be unable to comprehend other relationship arrangements.

If “realistic” means “limited to physical facts”…

Depends upon your concept of ‘physical’…

So in some cases privacy is not essential? The “whole package” suggests that there are no barriers between any of the lovers.

No, the ‘whole package’ suggests that you accept each person as they come. Privacy is variable, depending on the preferences of each individual.

Don’t think this preoccupation with physical sex is excessive?

What preoccupation? My experience is that a preoccupation with sex is the result of repression, rather than permission.

 

[tonyrey]

Do men bear and suckle the children?

I am saying that being the shepherd of a flock is far more difficult if you are a mother who has to bear and suckle the children.

Which is against your principles!

Only if it is imposed by external agencies.

Christians are free to renounce Christianity - as you have done - if they wish to become polyamorists or reject any of its other tenets.

I have friends who are voluntarily celibate because it works for them, not because it is demanded by a belief system they adopt.

The principle that marriage should be for two persons who are dedicated to each other is not restricted to any particular belief system.

You are equating Roman and pagan morality with Christian morality…

Uh…morality is morality - sentient beings are what we are. Certain preferences can be assumed.

You stated that when Christianity became an official religion it didn’t transform society - which is clearly false from the moral point of view.

Equals have different functions in society.

By individual, yes - not by category.

Men and women necessarily have different functions even in modern society.

Which are impossible without physical intercourse?

No, not impossible, but why should physical intercourse be restricted if it follows naturally from an existing acquaintance?

Because natural inclinations to sexual indulgence should be resisted for one’s own benefit and that of others. Oscar Wilde was mistaken. To yield to temptations is not to get rid of them but to become a slave to them.

You’ve yet to justify repression of sexuality…

You have yet to prove self-control entails repression.

Either it is essential or it isn’t.

Do you treat every choice in life as such? Is there anything at all that you do without its being essential?

The choice to have more than one sexual partner has far deeper and far-reaching effects on oneself and others than most other choices.

The “whole package” seems a very ambitious project when it has to be shared with one or more others.

Sure, it might take more effort, but why knock it till you’ve tried it?

How do you know I haven’t? You make it sound as if polyamorists have to exercise more self-control rather than less! If it entailed such an amount of effort it would be far less enticing… unless it is masochistic!

If you don’t set out to find other partners it suggests that you leave it to chance rather than regard them as a necessity.

And if you interact with others with the express intention to avoid any and all amorous attraction, doesn’t that limit the extent to which you can pursue a relationship?

Normal interaction with others does not entail negative intentions. The vast majority of people don’t set out to find other lovers when they have one already. Those who don’t set out to find other lovers when they have one already cannot regard another as essential.

It is common sense that sexual and platonic friends fall into two distinct categories.

But it doesn’t follow that there should be any discontentment in this occurrence.

You were disputing that there is a hierarchy and inequality. Friends would not be human if they accepted their different sexual roles as insignificant.

You agree that the risk increases with every new lover?

Maybe…but I don’t see how monogamy, or serial monogamy, is a remedy for any risk.

Monogamy in itself is not a remedy but it avoids **unnecessary **risks and complications.

So the risk of dissension increases.

Why do you think it should?

Unity and harmony are difficult enough to achieve for two with children, let alone
a number which may reach ten adults and children - or more…

It is well known that consanguinity is often an obstacle to affinity! A hotchpotch of parents and children seems a recipe for trouble.

But is this so with a mono mindset or a poly mindset? You still seem to be unable to comprehend other relationship arrangements.

It is not difficult to understand the polyamorists’ arrangements nor their risks and complications. To have experience of polygamous and promiscuous societies puts monogamy in perspective.

If “realistic” means “limited to physical facts”…

Depends upon your concept of ‘physical’…

Your concept is clear enough - that love is physical and stems from the sexual instinct.

So in some cases privacy is not essential? The “whole package” suggests that there are no barriers between any of the lovers.

No, the ‘whole package’ suggests that you accept each person as they come.
Privacy is variable, depending on the preferences of each individual.

Then there must be barriers which result from those preferences. For a start some individuals exclude themselves from the group sex activities.

Don’t think this preoccupation with physical sex is excessive?

What preoccupation?

The dedication of so much time, energy and attention to sexual activities with several
individuals.

My experience is that a preoccupation with sex is the result of repression, rather than permission.

The vast majority of people are not sexually repressed because they are content with their partners and are capable of sublimating their sexual instincts into creative activities rather than being preoccupied with sexual pleasure, variety and excitement. The permissive society has led to a colossal amount of misery for many people.