Connection between love and sex?

[tonyrey]

The acid test is whether you would prefer to have been born as a dog rather than a person…

Do you have to be a dog before you make an objective decision about which type of life you prefer? I don’t think your husband would be very impressed if you thought he might prefer to be a dog! It would have some physical advantages of course. Problems like polyamory wouldn’t arise…

You are assuming that what I have written is directed at polyamorists even though I distinctly specified “if it is just a brief episode…”

Most of your responses, whether to me specifically or in general, have extolled the virtues of the rarefied ideal of monogamous partnership. Your understanding of love is inextricably bound to sexual monogamy, and you have previously eschewed the possibility of love in a polyamorous context.

I haven’t denied the possibility but raised doubts as to whether it can be as deep, fulfilling and beneficial for the adults and children concerned - and society - as the lifelong dedication of a man and a woman to each other.

Are your thoughts and decisions electrical impulses in the brain?

If my thoughts and decisions are the product of electrical impulses in the brain situated in the body that is identified as ‘me’, are they any less ‘mine’ than if they came from a place beyond my physical substance?

They are only “yours” in the sense that they are related to a particular body which produces those thoughts and decisions. The brain is only an instrument and not a responsible agent.

I don’t claim to understand the nature of ultimate reality! Do you?

I have never claimed to understand the nature of ultimate reality, whatever that may be. Only that such reality as we can perceive is of one kind, and that is the kind we designate natural reality. Do you claim to perceive a reality beyond that which can admit of a natural, physical explanation?

You probably didn’t bother to glance at the article “What is it like to be a bat?” Otherwise you would realise the futility of trying to discard the reality of subjective experience…

My question was quite unequivocal - how do you know that there is a nonphysical reality, and how does it connect with physical reality?

My question is equally unequivocal. What is your natural, physical explanation of your intangible mental activities?

1. How do you justify your assumption that matter is the sole reality?
2. Are our five senses our only source of knowledge?
3. Is the physical world our epistemological starting point?
4. What interprets the information provided by our perceptions?

I know there is a nonphysical reality because I am directly aware of my thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions which cannot be detected by any scientific instrument.

 

[Sair]

Do you have to be a dog before you make an objective decision about which type of life you prefer? I don’t think your husband would be very impressed if you thought he might prefer to be a dog! It would have some physical advantages of course. Problems like polyamory wouldn’t arise…

In order to make an objective decision about which type of life I would prefer, I would need some means of measuring and directly comparing the quality of life as experienced through each manner of existence. It’s quite possible that, for example, the joy experienced by a dog is much more pure and sweet than anything I might experience as a human, simply for being unadulterated by thoughts and fears for the future. But I don’t know that, because I am not a dog. It is, perhaps, fair to say that my dog will never know the satisfaction I feel in such activities as cooking, writing or painting, but it’s equally fair to say that he probably has no need of such things, being capable of obtaining satisfaction through far simpler means. But, again, I don’t know - I can only consider possibilities.

I haven’t denied the possibility but raised doubts as to whether it can be as deep, fulfilling and beneficial for the adults and children concerned - and society - as the lifelong dedication of a man and a woman to each other.

Although it’s quite obvious that you’re not prepared to countenance the possibility that polyamory can be deep, fulfilling and beneficial for all involved. It’s clear that for you, monogamy satisfies these criteria - as it does for many people - but whilst I see this as an indication that monogamy is one successful means of building intimate, loving relationships, you see it as the ideal (if not only) means of exercising genuine love and commitment. When the expectations and rules of a social institution - such as monogamous marriage - are at variance with the needs of significant numbers of real people, is it the misfits who have a problem, or does the social institution need to change to be more accommodating? Polyamory can’t be made to fit in with the established ‘rules’ of monogamy - attempts to do so have produced such disastrous effects upon families as you have outlined in several posts, largely because people are starting out with different needs and expectations, some of which are mutually exclusive.

They are only “yours” in the sense that they are related to a particular body which produces those thoughts and decisions. The brain is only an instrument and not a responsible agent.

The brain is but one organ in the whole animal. I am not just my brain - I am an integrated, interactive, responsive organism. It is the whole package that comprises ‘me’, not just one part of it. The ‘I’ cannot be isolated from the body, although the dualist approach assumes the opposite.

You probably didn’t bother to glance at the article “What is it like to be a bat?” Otherwise you would realise the futility of trying to discard the reality of subjective experience…

I am not discarding the reality of subjective experience. Only classing it as amongst those things that can admit of natural, physical explanations. The experience of a bat is directly related to the physical substance of the bat and the ways it interacts with its environment. How could it be otherwise? It would be impossible to obtain the subjective experience of being a bat without physically being a bat.

My question is equally unequivocal. What is your natural, physical explanation of your intangible mental activities?

1. How do you justify your assumption that matter is the sole reality?

I don’t assume that matter, as such, is the sole reality. Energy, forces and fields exist also, and are part of physical reality.

1. Are our five senses our only source of knowledge?

They are our only means of directly accessing information about our environment.

1. Is the physical world our epistemological starting point?

You were a receptacle of experience of the physical world long before your brain was capable of synthesising any thoughts about it.

1. What interprets the information provided by our perceptions?

Senses and the processing of sensory information are part of a feedback loop that informs our interaction with the environment. We absorb information and interpret it in light of subsequent experience, which in turn informs our future actions. And so it goes on. There is not one single point of information interpretation - it’s an ongoing process.

I know there is a nonphysical reality because I am directly aware of my thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions which cannot be detected by any scientific instrument.

So your brain is not a ‘scientific instrument’? If you have direct awareness of these things through means of your physical body, how are they not physical? I don’t claim to have anything resembling a complete explanation of how thoughts and feelings etc arise from physical processes, but neuroscientists are continually demonstrating the clear connection between physical processes in the brain and nervous system and corresponding subjective experience of those processes.

 

[tonyrey]

It’s quite possible that, for example, the joy experienced by a dog is much more pure and sweet than anything I might experience as a human, simply for being unadulterated by thoughts and fears for the future. But I don’t know that, because I am not a dog. It is, perhaps, fair to say that my dog will never know the satisfaction I feel in such activities as cooking, writing or painting, but it’s equally fair to say that he probably has no need of such things, being capable of obtaining satisfaction through far simpler means.

Every form of life obviously has its advantages and disadvantages but to prefer a dog’s life because its joy is “adulterated” by thoughts and fears for the future amounts to a hedonistic rejection of adult responsibility. Canine life has its own value but its achievements cannot compare with those of humanity. Such a desire to evade reality is motivated by the belief that we are animals with no other distinguishing feature.

Although it’s quite obvious that you’re not prepared to countenance the possibility that polyamory can be deep, fulfilling and beneficial for all involved. It’s clear that for you, monogamy satisfies these criteria - as it does for many people - but whilst I see this as an indication that monogamy is one successful means of building intimate, loving relationships, you see it as the ideal (if not only) means of exercising genuine love and commitment. When the expectations and rules of a social institution - such as monogamous marriage - are at variance with the needs of significant numbers of real people, is it the misfits who have a problem, or does the social institution need to change to be more accommodating?

When children are taught that sexual activity is a matter of personal choice and grow up in a permissive environment which has caused so much unnecessary suffering it is irresponsible to suggest society needs to be more accommodating…

Polyamory can’t be made to fit in with the established ‘rules’ of monogamy - attempts to do so have produced such disastrous effects upon families as you have outlined in several posts, largely because people are starting out with different needs and expectations, some of which are mutually exclusive.

People start out with imagined needs and false expectations because they are brainwashed by advertising and the “I have a right to do exactly what I like with my body” mentality.

They are only “yours” in the sense that they are related to a particular body which produces those thoughts and decisions. The brain is only an instrument and not a responsible agent.

The brain is but one organ in the whole animal. I am not just my brain - I am an integrated, interactive, responsive organism. It is the whole package that comprises ‘me’, not just one part of it. The ‘I’ cannot be isolated from the body, although the dualist approach assumes the opposite.

If the whole package is the body there is no “I”… There is no integrating factor or source of unity apart from the physical functions which regulate the process of living. There is certainly no source of self-control or responsibility.

I am not discarding the reality of subjective experience. Only classing it as amongst those things that can admit of natural, physical explanations. The experience of a bat is directly related to the physical substance of the bat and the ways it interacts with its environment. How could it be otherwise? It would be impossible to obtain the subjective experience of being a bat without physically being a bat.

You believe life consists solely of biochemical processes - an assumption which rules out the **reality **of subjective experience. According to neuroscientists it will prove to be an illusion because all mental activity consists of electrical impulses.

My question is equally unequivocal. What is your natural, physical explanation of your intangible mental activities?

1. How do you justify your assumption that matter is the sole reality?

I don’t assume that matter, as such, is the sole reality. Energy, forces and fields exist also, and are part of physical reality.

They are all related to matter and, in your opinion, constitute the** sole** reality.

1. Are our five senses our only source of knowledge?

They are our only means of directly accessing information about our environment.

Is our environment the sole reality?

You were a receptacle of experience of the physical world long before your brain was capable of synthesising any thoughts about it.

Are we no more than receptacles? How do you distinguish thoughts from neuronal events?

Senses and the processing of sensory information are part of a feedback loop that informs our interaction with the environment. We absorb information and interpret it in light of subsequent experience, which in turn informs our future actions.

So all our mental activity amounts to a feedback loop?

If you have direct awareness of these things through means of your physical body, how are they not physical?

I don’t believe direct awareness is through means of my body. You assume the conscious mind is a product but there is no evidence that the brain is conscious of anything. It is a biological computer which doesn’t know what it is doing any more than the machine you are using.

I don’t claim to have anything resembling a complete explanation of how thoughts and feelings etc arise from physical processes, but neuroscientists are continually demonstrating the clear connection between physical processes in the brain and nervous system and corresponding subjective experience of those processes.

A connection is not always a cause. There is plenty of evidence that subjective experience controls physical processes.

 

[GloriousOrder]

A completely fallen-away Catholic I know constantly yells at me for saying that the only perfection of love is to be found in marriage. The guy absolutely hates the Church’s teaching about this, especially since he had a “mystical”, “individual” marriage with his lover atop an old ruined well on a summer night. He thinks he’s so profound in saying that we can never know anything about God, so we shouldn’t care. There’s no way to get through to him on this. He says true, perfect love can exist independent of marriage, and sex is hardly important for it.

 

[tonyrey]

A completely fallen-away Catholic I know constantly yells at me for saying that the only perfection of love is to be found in marriage. The guy absolutely hates the Church’s teaching about this, especially since he had a “mystical”, “individual” marriage with his lover atop an old ruined well on a summer night. He thinks he’s so profound in saying that we can never know anything about God, so we shouldn’t care. There’s no way to get through to him on this. He says true, perfect love can exist independent of marriage, and sex is hardly important for it.

People often believe what they want to believe but time is the real test of truth:

“By their fruits you shall know them”.

If he has rejected the teaching of Jesus it is doubtful whether he knows what perfect love is. It is certainly not just an overflow of emotion beneath a starry sky! To believe we cannot know anything about God implies that we cannot understand our real needs. We are all living with a stranger but at least when we have a religion.we have some idea of what is expected of us. Otherwise we are wandering in the dark…

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

In my experience the difference between making love and sex is that sex is using another person’s body to masturbate with. While making love with a single partner lasts a life time, sex, sooner or later, becomes boring just like too much of anything else.

 

[Sair]

Every form of life obviously has its advantages and disadvantages but to prefer a dog’s life because its joy is “adulterated” by thoughts and fears for the future amounts to a hedonistic rejection of adult responsibility. Canine life has its own value but its achievements cannot compare with those of humanity. Such a desire to evade reality is motivated by the belief that we are animals with no other distinguishing feature.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Where did I indicate that I would prefer to be a dog? I was simply pointing out that we cannot, without physically being a dog, know whether or not a dog’s life is to be preferred to a human’s life, from the point of view of subjective experience. Why would I want to compare the achievements of humanity with the achievements of canine existence? There may be plenty of wonderful things humans have done that dogs could not be capable of doing; but on balance, there’s plenty of harm humans have done to the world and each other that dogs could not do either. Comparing the experience and capabilities of any animal with those of any other animal is comparing apples with oranges. Except that you appear to think that all other animals are the same as each other, for being different to humans.

When children are taught that sexual activity is a matter of personal choice and grow up in a permissive environment which has caused so much unnecessary suffering it is irresponsible to suggest society needs to be more accommodating…

When a child grows up knowing that her parents disapprove of certain activities but only choose to explain this disapproval in terms that she finds irrelevant ("your body is a temple, a sacred gift, keep it pure…etc, etc) then she has no sound basis for making judgements when she finds herself in situations that demand decisions about what level of intimacy is appropriate and acceptable. On the other hand, if she is taught to genuinely respect her body and her needs and her feelings, and has parents who are supportive of her wellbeing, she will have the ability to make informed decisions - not decisions based on ignorance and fear. Sure, there are reasons not to jump into physical intimacy, but they’re not reasons based on superstition.

People start out with imagined needs and false expectations because they are brainwashed by advertising and the “I have a right to do exactly what I like with my body” mentality.

On balance, these needs and expectations seem to me no more false than those inculcated by a religious upbringing.

If the whole package is the body there is no “I”… There is no integrating factor or source of unity apart from the physical functions which regulate the process of living. There is certainly no source of self-control or responsibility.

If there is no substance, there is no ‘I’. The body is an integrated system - it doesn’t need some ectoplasmic ‘integrating factor’ to hold it together. Where does self-control come from if not from the body’s ability to self-regulate? Just because we are conscious of some forms of self-regulation and not others (breathing, heartbeat, blood circulation, temperature control etc) does not mean that these processes are of fundamentally different kinds.

You believe life consists solely of biochemical processes - an assumption which rules out the **reality **of subjective experience. According to neuroscientists it will prove to be an illusion because all mental activity consists of electrical impulses.

An illusion or a perspective on an aspect of reality? How does the biochemical nature of subjective experience rule out its reality?

They are all related to matter and, in your opinion, constitute the** sole** reality.

The only reality that has perceptible effects upon us and our surroundings. Why do you assume there’s something else?

Is our environment the sole reality?

What else is there, apart from us and our environment? In what terms would you describe a nonphysical reality?

Are we no more than receptacles? How do you distinguish thoughts from neuronal events?

How do you distinguish them? You’re the one claiming they spring from different sources.

So all our mental activity amounts to a feedback loop?

Do you think it’s a one-way street?

I don’t believe direct awareness is through means of my body. You assume the conscious mind is a product but there is no evidence that the brain is conscious of anything. It is a biological computer which doesn’t know what it is doing any more than the machine you are using.

How do you know? Where does your consciousness come from if not from your brain and your nervous system? What would you be conscious of if not for the interaction of physical phenomena? Again, how would you even describe nonphysical phenomena?

A connection is not always a cause. There is plenty of evidence that subjective experience controls physical processes.

And vice versa. Hence the feedback loop.

 

[tonyrey]

Why would I want to compare the achievements of humanity with the achievements of canine existence?

To decide which existence is more fulfilling.

There may be plenty of wonderful things humans have done that dogs could not be capable of doing; but on balance, there’s plenty of harm humans have done to the world and each other that dogs could not do either.

Is that a valid reason for being a dog?

Comparing the experience and capabilities of any animal with those of any other animal is comparing apples with oranges.

Then why select a dog rather than a frog?

Except that you appear to think that all other animals are the same as each other, for being different to humans.

What leads you to that conclusion?

When a child grows up knowing that her parents disapprove of certain activities but only choose to explain this disapproval in terms that she finds irrelevant ("your body is a temple, a sacred gift, keep it pure…etc, etc) then she has no sound basis for making judgements when she finds herself in situations that demand decisions about what level of intimacy is appropriate and acceptable.

1. So you exclude all references to the sanctity of life and virtues such as modesty, chastity, self-restraint and self-respect?
2. So you recommend self-indulgence, sexual experimentation and the pursuit of pleasure at the expense of moral principles?
3. At what age should a child be encouraged to make her own decisions about her sexual activity?

On the other hand, if she is taught to genuinely respect her body and her needs and her feelings, and has parents who are supportive of her well-being, she will have the ability to make informed decisions - not decisions based on ignorance and fear.

Such as?

Sure, there are reasons not to jump into physical intimacy, but they’re not reasons based on superstition.

What reasons?

On balance, these needs and expectations seem to me no more false than those inculcated by a religious upbringing.

Then why is there an immense amount of misery caused by permissiveness?

If there is no substance, there is no ‘I’. The body is an integrated system - it doesn’t need some ectoplasmic ‘integrating factor’ to hold it together.

The body is a biological machine operated by the laws of nature with no personal element or responsibility for what it does.

Where does self-control come from if not from the body’s ability to self-regulate?

Physical self-regulation does not confer mental autonomy or moral responsibility. Without the self there cannot be self-control.

According to neuroscientists it will prove to be an illusion because all mental activity consists of electrical impulses.

An illusion or a perspective on an aspect of reality?

A brain doesn’t have a perspective any more than a computer does. It is programmed to function and has no insight or understanding.

How does the biochemical nature of subjective experience rule out its reality?

It becomes redundant from a scientific point of view - which is physicalists’ sole point of view if they are consistent. You have eliminated the “I” and yet you cling to a perspective. In science there is no privacy - no intangible, inner experience.

They are all related to matter and, in your opinion, constitute the sole reality.

The only reality that has perceptible effects upon us and our surroundings.

Don’t your thoughts and decisions have effects?

Why do you assume there’s something else?

Why assume there’s nothing else? What are you so sure only material objects exist?

What else is there, apart from us and our environment?

Ourselves and everything that is scientifically unobservable.

In what terms would you describe a nonphysical reality?

In terms of subjective experience - which you claim not to have ruled out!

Are we no more than receptacles?

No response!

How do you distinguish thoughts from neuronal events?

How do you distinguish them?

By their immediacy, directness, intangibility and power.

You’re the one claiming they spring from different sources.

So you equate them - and thereby abandon the reality of subjective experience?

So all

our mental activity amounts to a feedback loop?Do you think it’s a one-way street?

No, it’s two-way and we choose our destinations - unlike those trapped in an imaginary feedback loop of their own making who make no effort to escape from it…

You assume the conscious mind is a product but there is no evidence the brain is conscious of anything.

Where does your consciousness come from if not from your brain and your nervous system? What would you be conscious of if not for the interaction of physical phenomena?

My thoughts, feelings and decisions. Do you imagine consciousness depends solely on what you perceive with your eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin?

Again, how would you even describe nonphysical phenomena?

In terms of my ideas, beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, goals and capacity for love.
How would you describe your ideas, beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, goals and capacity for love in terms of physical phenomena?

There is plenty of evidence that subjective experience controls physical processes.

And vice versa. Hence the feedback loop.

Your feedback loop excludes initiative on your part. You are still a cog in a machine which turns backwards and forwards without getting anywhere until the machine finally comes to a standstill and disintegrates into eternal oblivion… A spark in the dark - ignited by a fortuitous concourse of events!

 

[tonyrey]

In my experience the difference between making love and sex is that sex is using another person’s body to masturbate with. While making love with a single partner lasts a life time, sex, sooner or later, becomes boring just like too much of anything else.

According to polyamorists the only solution to boredom is a variety of sexual partners!

 

[Sair]

In terms of my ideas, beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, goals and capacity for love.
How would you describe your ideas, beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, goals and capacity for love in terms of physical phenomena?

Then your beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, goals and capacity for love are unrelated to physical reality? What are you doing here, then?

 

[Sair]

According to polyamorists the only solution to boredom is a variety of sexual partners!

There it is - your monogamous mindset showing through. You assume polyamory springs from boredom with monogamy. Would you apply this reasoning to any other aspect of your life that involves some kind of need or commitment? Would you have a second child because you were bored with the first one? Would you stay up all night because you were bored with going to sleep? Would you eat vegetables because you were bored with meat?

You are unwilling to understand the motivations for polyamory, and the ways in which relationships with multiple people enrich our relationships with individuals. That much is obvious.

 

[tonyrey]

Then your beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, goals and capacity for love are unrelated to physical reality? What are you doing here, then?

Many of my beliefs, emotions, values, ideals, goals and capacity for love are **related **to physical reality but I don’t share your hypothesis that they are reducible to physical events. In your scheme of things they are simply a manifestation of minute electrical impulses in the brain which give the illusion that they are real. To sum it up in a nutshell:
mind = neural activity

 

[tonyrey]

There it is - your monogamous mindset showing through. You assume polyamory springs from boredom with monogamy.

You practise polyamory because you are convinced your husband is not sufficient to fulfil all your sexual needs. Would you agree that you need variety even if don’t believe it is the result of boredom?

Would you apply this reasoning to any other aspect of your life that involves some kind of need or commitment? Would you have a second child because you were bored with the first one? Would you stay up all night because you were bored with going to sleep? Would you eat vegetables because you were bored with meat?

You are devaluing the sexual relationship by putting it in the same category as food and sleep! Having a second child is an expression of love for, and appreciation of, your husband and first child because it implies that they are a source of joy and fulfilment. It is absurd to compare having another child with having a lover whose function is to supplement the father when you consider it necessary.

You are unwilling to understand the motivations for polyamory, and the ways in which relationships with multiple people enrich our relationships with individuals. That much is obvious.

I share your belief that relationships enrich our other relationships but I fail to see why sharing our genital organs with **several **individuals is essential. It implies that sexual pleasure is more important than self-restraint, self-respect and respect for our spouse. The exaltation of physical sex is the prime cause of permissiveness in our society with all its devastating consequences.

Children are particularly vulnerable when they are led to believe they are entitled to “make love” with anyone they choose provided they use contraceptives. In reality they are destroying their capacity for unselfish love and commitment. You yourself have admitted that what is obtained easily is no longer appreciated - and the results are visible all around us. Sex can become a drug and when it does it is more pernicious than other drugs because it costs nothing - at least in terms of money…

 

[Sair]

You practise polyamory because you are convinced your husband is not sufficient to fulfil all your sexual needs. Would you agree that you need variety even if don’t believe it is the result of boredom?

Sure I need variety, but pretty much everyone does. Some people just choose to keep a lid on - or outright deny - this need in one single aspect of their life. Polyamory is about more than just fulfilling sexual needs. One can satisfy such urges without forming a bond with another person. Casual sex misses the point of polyamory, which is to build intimate relationships.

You are devaluing the sexual relationship by putting it in the same category as food and sleep!

You mean that category of things that are essential to our lives?

Having a second child is an expression of love for, and appreciation of, your husband and first child because it implies that they are a source of joy and fulfilment.

Or it could imply dissatisfaction with having only one child.

It is absurd to compare having another child with having a lover whose function is to supplement the father when you consider it necessary.

How would such a person not be a source of joy and fulfilment?

I share your belief that relationships enrich our other relationships but I fail to see why sharing our genital organs with **several **individuals is essential. It implies that sexual pleasure is more important than self-restraint, self-respect and respect for our spouse. The exaltation of physical sex is the prime cause of permissiveness in our society with all its devastating consequences.

Done properly, sex is an expression of intimacy, not the end goal of a relationship. The point is not multiple sexual partners, but multiple intimate relationships, which, as I’ve said before, may or may not involve sex to any degree, depending on the people involved.

Children are particularly vulnerable when they are led to believe they are entitled to “make love” with anyone they choose provided they use contraceptives. In reality they are destroying their capacity for unselfish love and commitment. You yourself have admitted that what is obtained easily is no longer appreciated - and the results are visible all around us. Sex can become a drug and when it does it is more pernicious than other drugs because it costs nothing - at least in terms of money…

Sex without respect and affection for the person involved is a devaluation of all concerned. The problem with permissiveness is that it seeks to separate sex from relationships. Nothing I have written implies that polyamory is an easy out from the difficulties of intimate relationships.

 

[tonyrey]

You practise polyamory because you are convinced your husband is not sufficient to fulfil all your sexual needs. Would you agree that you need variety even if don’t believe it is the result of boredom?

Why is variety with your husband insufficient? Did you feel unhappy and unfulfilled before you practised polyamory?

Polyamory is about more than just fulfilling sexual needs. One can satisfy such urges without forming a bond with another person. Casual sex misses the point of polyamory, which is to build intimate relationships.

What does the bond entail?

You are devaluing the sexual relationship by putting it in the same category as food and sleep!

You mean that category of things that are essential to our lives?

Sexual relationships are not essential. Many people remain celibate without being unhappy and unfulfilled.

Having a second child is an expression of love for, and appreciation of, your husband and first child because it implies that they are a source of joy and fulfilment.

Or it could imply dissatisfaction with having only one child.

That is a negative interpretation. The maternal instinct is normally stronger than sexual attraction to other men.

It is absurd to compare having another child with having a lover whose function is to supplement the father when you consider it necessary.

How would such a person not be a source of joy and fulfilment?

A lover may well be a short-term source of joy and fulfilment but his function is still to supplement the father. His very presence is evidence of the perceived inadequacy of the father - which the children, friends, relatives and others cannot fail to notice.

I share your belief that relationships enrich our other relationships but I fail to see why sharing our genital organs with **several **

individuals is essential. It implies that sexual pleasure is more important than self-restraint, self-respect and respect for our spouse. The exaltation of physical sex is the prime cause of permissiveness in our society with all its devastating consequences.
Done properly, sex is an expression of intimacy, not the end goal of a relationship. The point is not multiple sexual partners, but multiple intimate relationships, which, as I’ve said before, may or may not involve sex to any degree, depending on the people involved.

You haven’t explained why it is essential with some individuals and not others. It is still true that it implies that sexual pleasure is more important than self-restraint, self-respect and respect for your spouse and that the exaltation of physical sex is the prime cause of permissiveness in our society with all its devastating consequences.

Children are particularly vulnerable when they are led to believe they are entitled to “make love” with anyone they choose provided they use contraceptives. In reality they are destroying their capacity for unselfish love and commitment. You yourself have admitted that what is obtained easily is no longer appreciated - and the results are visible all around us. Sex can become a drug and when it does it is more pernicious than other drugs because it costs nothing - at least in terms of money…

Sex without respect and affection for the person involved is a devaluation of all concerned. The problem with permissiveness is that it seeks to separate sex from relationships. Nothing I have written implies that polyamory is an easy out from the difficulties of intimate relationships.

Having **several **intimate relationships increases the difficulties of intimate relationships. There is obviously a greater probability of dissension and frustration when there are more loverss. Rivalry is inevitable because the sexual instinct is so deep-rooted. Otherwise you wouldn’t believe it is essential to satisfy it in order to be happy.

How are you going to ensure that immature adolescents have deep respect and affection for their lovers? What are their guidelines for sexual activity? Isn’t it inevitable that they will regard sex as less significant when it becomes a leisure activity with various friends rather than an expression of dedication and love for one person?

 

[Sair]

Why is variety with your husband insufficient? Did you feel unhappy and unfulfilled before you practised polyamory?

There’s only so much variety one can sustain with one person. People grow and change, and relationships change and adapt, if they are strong enough. Strong relationships have the flexibility to endure. You seem to consider the addition of other partners as a bridge too far, but whilst that may be the case for some couples, it is quite the opposite for others.

What does the bond entail?

What does any intimate bond entail? Affection, respect, mutual support, shared interests, the achievement of common goals, and just the joy of sharing one’s life with another.

Sexual relationships are not essential. Many people remain celibate without being unhappy and unfulfilled.

Then how am I devaluing sex and sexuality by considering it one of life’s essentials? Different people have different needs - some people do genuinely prefer celibacy, but others think they can achieve some other goal through the practice of celibacy. The important thing is to make one’s peace with one’s own needs and desires, to accept them and manage them appropriately.

That is a negative interpretation.

As has been your consistent interpretation of polyamory.

The maternal instinct is normally stronger than sexual attraction to other men.

Or at least, women are told it should be, and are consequently made to feel guilty if they have any feeling that doesn’t revolve around their children.

A lover may well be a short-term source of joy and fulfilment but his function is still to supplement the father.

No more than the second child’s function is to supplement the first, or than any friends’ function is to supplement the presence of any other friend. This is your monogamous mindset showing through, not a reflection of the reality of polyamory.

Why only short-term? Do you not think it possible to sustain more than one life-long intimate relationship? Sure, plenty of people find it hard enough to hold down one, but just as this is not always the result of a wandering eye (more often a failure of maturity and commitment), the development of a new relationship does not necessarily entail the diminishment of any existing relationship - unless the existing relationship is already failing.

His very presence is evidence of the perceived inadequacy of the father - which the children, friends, relatives and others cannot fail to notice.

If they are inclined to see monogamy as the only natural way, sure. If not, then the lover’s presence will be a natural addition to the family.

You haven’t explained why it is essential with some individuals and not others.

Because sexuality is as diverse a part of human personalities as any other aspect.

It is still true that it implies that sexual pleasure is more important than self-restraint, self-respect and respect for your spouse and that the exaltation of physical sex is the prime cause of permissiveness in our society with all its devastating consequences.

Sexual pleasure is important in its place. Indulgence in sexual pleasure does not entail a lack of self-restraint when self-restraint is appropriate. Nor does it imply a lack of self-respect, except if you already consider sex to be a debased activity. I don’t. Nor do I see how sharing an aspect of myself with my husband implies disrespect for him, nor him for me. As I said before, the removal of sex from the natural function of bonding and building relationships has turned it into a cheap commodity - that is what is responsible for permissiveness, not the formation of intimate relationships with more than one person (which may or may not involve some degree of sexual sharing)

Having **several **intimate relationships increases the difficulties of intimate relationships. There is obviously a greater probability of dissension and frustration when there are more loverss. Rivalry is inevitable because the sexual instinct is so deep-rooted. Otherwise you wouldn’t believe it is essential to satisfy it in order to be happy.

Rivalry is only inevitable if you approach polyamory from a monogamous perspective. Yes, having more than one intimate relationship can increase the difficulties involved in maintaining them, but on the other hand, the presence of multiple intimate friends and/or lovers can increase the life satisfaction of all involved, rather than attempting to load up one single relationship with all of one’s needs and all of life’s stresses.

How are you going to ensure that immature adolescents have deep respect and affection for their lovers? What are their guidelines for sexual activity? Isn’t it inevitable that they will regard sex as less significant when it becomes a leisure activity with various friends rather than an expression of dedication and love for one person?

It is actually an expression of love and commitment to whomever one has it with. The way one treats partners outside the bedroom is at least as important as what one does sexually with them. That is the side of the relationships that children and adolescents should see, in order that they understand that sex is an expression of the relationship, not an excuse for it.

 

[tonyrey]

There’s only so much variety one can sustain with one person…

So you were unhappy and unfulfilled?

What does any intimate bond entail? Affection, respect, mutual support, shared interests, the achievement of common goals, and just the joy of sharing one’s life with another.

Does the bond entail explicit commitment for the rest of your lives?

Then how am I devaluing sex and sexuality by considering it one of life’s essentials?

Devaluation by dilution! The more lovers there are the less time, energy and attention for each.

The important thing is to make one’s peace with one’s own needs and desires, to accept them and manage them appropriately.

Are you ever mistaken about your needs?

That is a negative interpretation.

As has been your consistent interpretation of polyamory.

It is your negative interpretation of why people have another child…

The maternal instinct is normally stronger than sexual attraction…

Or at least, women are told it should be, and are consequently made to feel guilty if they have any feeling that doesn’t revolve around their children.

The issue is whether several sexual relationships deprive children of the time, attention and love normally devoted to them by their mother. The more lovers, children and relatives the greater the likelihood of neglect, disappointment and jealousy.

No more than the second child’s function is to supplement the first, or than any friends’ function is to supplement the presence of any other friend.

In neither case is a sexual relationship involved. Affection, respect, mutual support, shared interests, the achievement of common goals and the joy of sharing one’s life are all features of the bond with your lovers. No child or friend could ever emulate or aspire to such a deep and comprehensive relationship…

This is your monogamous mindset showing through, not a reflection of the reality of polyamory.

The polyamorous mindset is unrealistic in its assumption that having several lovers does not eventually lead to disillusionment and discord. It underestimates the need for a unique, unconditional love which makes us feel we are adults wanted for ourselves and no one else.

Do you not think it possible to sustain more than one life-long intimate relationship?

Do you have any evidence of couples with children who have successfully sustained several life-long intimate relationships?

If they are inclined to see monogamy as the only natural way, sure. If not, then the lover’s presence will be a natural addition to the family.

They will draw that conclusion because the father and mother are no longer the mainstay of the family. They become more remote from each other and their children as a result of having less time and energy to devote to them.

Sexuality is as diverse a part of human personalities as any other aspect.

Diversity is not a sufficient explanation where such a powerful instinct is concerned.

Indulgence in sexual pleasure does not entail a lack of self-restraint when self-restraint is appropriate.

When is it appropriate?

Nor does it imply a lack of self-respect, except if you already consider sex to be a debased activity.

It implies a lack of self-respect when sex is not reserved for the most important person in your life.

Nor do I see how sharing an aspect of myself with my husband implies disrespect for him, nor him for me.

The issue is sharing one’s private parts… It implies that you are incapable of self-restraint for his sake. Mutual consent doesn’t alter this fact unless sexual activity is regarded as insignificant. The body is no longer sacred but a physical object that can be used in any way one thinks fit.

As I said before, the removal of sex from the natural function of bonding and building relationships has turned it into a cheap commodity - that is what is responsible for permissiveness, not the formation of intimate relationships with more than one person (which may or may not involve some degree of sexual sharing).

How do you propose to overcome permissiveness by teaching children that they alone decide how, when, where and with whom they should have sexual activity?

Having more than one intimate relationship can increase the difficulties involved in maintaining them, but on the other hand, the presence of multiple intimate friends and/or lovers can increase the life satisfaction of all involved, rather than attempting to load up one single relationship with all of one’s needs and all of life’s stresses.

You are also taking on the burden of several lovers whose claims on you are greater than those of platonic friends.

That is the side of the relationships that children and adolescents should see, in order that they understand that sex is an expression of the relationship, not an excuse for it.

They understand that you have an absolute right to decide for yourself what is permissible. How can you then expect them to regard it as an expression of love and commitment when they are too young to commit themselves? When you believe God doesn’t exist everything becomes permissible at every stage of life - from abortion to free love to euthanasia…

 

[joshrp]

Read Pope Benedict’s encyclical God is Love. It is dense material, but it will get you started. You can find other secondary writings that explain it for you once you read the actual document.

 

[tonyrey]

Read Pope Benedict’s encyclical God is Love. It is dense material, but it will get you started. You can find other secondary writings that explain it for you once you read the actual document.

Thank you for that reference. The most significant part of the encyclical in the present context is the following:

"First,* eros* is somehow rooted in man’s very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation,* eros* directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God’s way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature.

Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive.*** Eros*, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity**, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man’s great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but** it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing…

Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift… "

A superb analysis of the balanced attitude of Christianity. Eros - physical love - and agape - spiritual love - are both essential elements of human nature. We are neither animals nor spirits!

 

[tonyrey]

From a purely scientific point of view love doesn’t exist! And sex is merely a means of ensuring physical survival. Sexual pleasure is simply a device for ensuring that individuals mate and produce offspring. All human behaviour is regarded as the outcome of physical causes over which we have no control. Like everything else it has no ultimate value, purpose or significance. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, wrote:

“The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Yet he also wrote:

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

One wonders how he arrives at the distinction between good and evil in a pointless universe! It goes to show that eminent scientists are not always rational… The reality of evil is a matter of common sense. And so is the reality of love - without which life is worthless.

Life is far from being pointless - unless we choose to make it pointless by rejecting love. When we appreciate the immense value of life we immediately have a purpose: to cherish it for ourselves and others. Everything is seen in the context of love - including sex. Anything which detracts from the value of life is evil - including the abuse of sex.

Although sex is precious and beautiful it can be distorted into a source of degradation and suffering. That is why we should teach children to regard it as not only wonderful but highly dangerous so that they do not fall into the honey trap of instinct. To elevate sex as one of the supreme goals in life is to court disaster…