Reason and sexuality
- Thread starter KingMerv00
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sexuality issues
Bjorn
Off Topic
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2002
- Messages
- 2,968
Well,
Other appropriate places for sex might be in the life of not-so-committed couples, not-committed-at-all couples, and in the life of singles. And in the not-so-private life, at least if spectators know what to expect.
I don't think sexualtiy is a "very low animanl instinct".
The whole "I can overcome my baser instincts" argument about sexuality sounds to me a lot like the extreme far-left anti-competition "We can overcome our baser instincts of competing, and just all get along in harmony in a communist system" thing. I think they are both ludicrous view points.
Evolution has made us they way we are. There is no point in trying to pretend we are something different than we are. I can pretend that humans can fly, but it doesn't change reality. So why pretend that sexuality (which also, not-too-coincidentally, happens to be very competitive) isn't a real part of who we are?
I did not say "Give into any urge of any type whenever it comes up." Responses to my argument based on that will automatically be discarded as the straw men that they are.
ETA: I realize that there are exceptions. Some people really are not very sexual. Or they insist on sexually repressing themselves. But that doesn't mean that they are somehow in some enlightened state, above the rest of us. They are just different, that's all.
The whole "I can overcome my baser instincts" argument about sexuality sounds to me a lot like the extreme far-left anti-competition "We can overcome our baser instincts of competing, and just all get along in harmony in a communist system" thing. I think they are both ludicrous view points.
Evolution has made us they way we are. There is no point in trying to pretend we are something different than we are. I can pretend that humans can fly, but it doesn't change reality. So why pretend that sexuality (which also, not-too-coincidentally, happens to be very competitive) isn't a real part of who we are?
I did not say "Give into any urge of any type whenever it comes up." Responses to my argument based on that will automatically be discarded as the straw men that they are.
ETA: I realize that there are exceptions. Some people really are not very sexual. Or they insist on sexually repressing themselves. But that doesn't mean that they are somehow in some enlightened state, above the rest of us. They are just different, that's all.
Last edited:
Well, I don't view porn sites as being good or bad, but I do view "excessive passions" as resulting in unprofitable states.
One person might view porn, get aroused and go have sex with their spouse. Another person might look at porn, have thoughts of sex with unwilling participants and go act on those lusts.
The actions can be labelled as good, bad, or neutral, but porn is simply images (visual, audible or written) of sexuality.
The notion that sexuality is to be reserved for comitted couples is one that I am fine with, but not dogmatic about. I have never been one for casual sex, others enjoy it. Who am I to judge another's actions/experiences when I know nothing about them?
However, I do believe that uncontrolled passions are a dangerous thing. The uncontrolled passion may be a sexual or non sexual passion. The point is that I believe being consumed with any particular passion leads to an imbalance which leads to unhappiness. If that is what the quoted text is trying to say then I agree. If the quoted text is saying something else, then I don't know if I agree or not.
El Greco
Summer worshipper
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2003
- Messages
- 17,604
All I want to ask is "why" ? Why does sexuality have its place ONLY in the lives of commited couples ? Who says so ?
We have a lot of "animal insticts". We all do. And in different degrees. There's hunger, there's sleep, there's thirst, there's need for shelter and reproduction. Where exactly do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable "animal insticts" and why ? Where did you get that idea that whatever comes from the core of the brain must be suppressed ? Do you think that just because we are a more evolved species we have somehow ceased to be animals ?
Why isn't your need to feel loved and have a commited relationship an "animal instict" which you must suppress ? What makes it more acceptable than other "animal insticts" ? What makes it a function "higher" than the need to have sex ?
If we are to talk rationally, "love" has made people do much more crazy things than "sex". Unrequited love has driven people mad or depressed. On the other hand, when you don't have much sex you can always find a substitute.
Are you aware that the functions of "love" and "commitment" that you consider to be somehow "higher", are -exactly like sex- hormonally driven ? Is there some secret hierarchy of hormones that you'd like to share with the rest of us ?
You can consider prudence a title of honor if you so wish but it certainly isn't an indication of rationality. On the contrary, it speaks volumes about the way people leave skepticism aside when it comes to certain issues. I've talked about such issues in the past, most notably sports, politics, and in our case love. I recommend reading my post in the "Can love be equated with addictive substances?" thread. Then try to give us a rational reason why exactly is sex only acceptable in "the life of commited couples".
We have a lot of "animal insticts". We all do. And in different degrees. There's hunger, there's sleep, there's thirst, there's need for shelter and reproduction. Where exactly do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable "animal insticts" and why ? Where did you get that idea that whatever comes from the core of the brain must be suppressed ? Do you think that just because we are a more evolved species we have somehow ceased to be animals ?
Why isn't your need to feel loved and have a commited relationship an "animal instict" which you must suppress ? What makes it more acceptable than other "animal insticts" ? What makes it a function "higher" than the need to have sex ?
If we are to talk rationally, "love" has made people do much more crazy things than "sex". Unrequited love has driven people mad or depressed. On the other hand, when you don't have much sex you can always find a substitute.
Are you aware that the functions of "love" and "commitment" that you consider to be somehow "higher", are -exactly like sex- hormonally driven ? Is there some secret hierarchy of hormones that you'd like to share with the rest of us ?
You can consider prudence a title of honor if you so wish but it certainly isn't an indication of rationality. On the contrary, it speaks volumes about the way people leave skepticism aside when it comes to certain issues. I've talked about such issues in the past, most notably sports, politics, and in our case love. I recommend reading my post in the "Can love be equated with addictive substances?" thread. Then try to give us a rational reason why exactly is sex only acceptable in "the life of commited couples".
Last edited: