BS: Sex and morality

Subject: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:10 PM

Most religions teach to delay sex. Are there any non-religious reasons consider sex, or sexual knowledge, bad for you?

Why not treat sex like bonobos do, and have it at the drop of any hat at all?

After all, the only reason not to learn where babies come from is that many religions teach that the knowledge itself is evil...

-Curious George

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:20 PM

I am pro-sex. However some will argue that there is a link between early exposure of women to sperm and cervical cancer. IMHO there has to be a different explanation but I don't know what.

Others will argue that because of the need to raise children sex is intrinsically less an instant matter for women.

Yet others will say that sex encourages emotions that persons below 21 are not mentally equipped to handle.

Others again will say that some types of sex are acceptable (or acceptable when and if sex is acceptable) but that other types of sex are not.

I suspect that most or the religious teachings about sex are a cynical construct. People are going to have sex (which is useful for the preservation of the human race) so if that is a matter condemned by the religion then the religion has a handle on its believers, can press them to confess, make them feel guilty, and leverage them into donating money or doing the religion's bidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:20 PM

diseases for one thing. Economic responsibility of the community for the resulting offspring, which is a burden to those with fewer resources. The fact that people get emotionally involved very easily even if they planned not to. Jealousy. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:29 PM

Told you so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:37 PM

The knowledge is not the problem. Pity there was actully not more knowledge out there then maybe things could improve for teenage girls having babies and the high rate of sexually transmitted disease. I do not see religion having a part to play if it leaves people at more risk of all sorts of things.

As Human Beings there should be a Moral and Ethical imperative to protect our children from being used and abused sexually. For far too long ignorance has left women wide open to STI's - some of which are deadly - needless abortions, infertility, etc., etc.. Early sexual encounters and multi-partnered relationships laeve women especially vulnerable to a great many diseases, cervical cancer being the most deadly. Even though now some countries carry out routine innoculation for HPV in women, there is growing evidence that men may also be at risk, along with women, of later esophageal cancers.

Knowledge and proper education, coupled with openess and honesty, has the be th way forward if we are to have young men and women respecting themselves and others, being safe and yet still being able to have fun in other ways. I see no religious blame needing to be attached to this. Take religion out of it and we still have a need to teach (not preach) to our children so they can make fully informed choices about their sex lives. For many it could mean their parents being educated also, as many adults are not fully aware of risks and choices, it all being mixed up in a bag with myths, fear, bigotry, religion, guilt, true ignorance, etc..

Bonobo babies get raped. Bonobo children get killed. Sex is currency and language to Bonobo society. No religion there and I think it far too easy to blame religion for the ills surrounding sex. If religion did not exists at all, I still think we would and do have a moral and ethical duty to protect our children as they grow, both for while they are growing, through puberty and into adult life.

JMHO

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM

The female body is not ready to bear children as early as it may be ready to conceive - see the medical comments on the Roma child of 10 bearing a son last week. Bone structure, and other physical features simply aren't really up to carrying well and feeding the foetus and delivering it healthily. Leaving aside the emotional readiness. Or the readiness of the father, if also young, to offer care to the infant. Or suitability, if not young.

It is very odd that, given the religious argument for delaying sex given above, that many people to whom it is important that Mary was a virgin find it necessary to believe she was only 14, too young for a healthy pregnancy.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:48 PM

Further, I think that much of the reason for religious constraints on sex lies in the way that religion seeks to control the sort of feelings that are associated with it and make them purely religious. See the statue of St Teresa of Avila in mystic ecstacy. If the only access to endorphins is through the religion...

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:49 PM

Morality has to do with how we treat each other. When sex becomes "objectified" and partners become "objects" then sex loses its meaning as a lovely expression.

When it comes to this issue, I am a romantic. Sex without a loving relationship is meaningless to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 12:54 PM

I think that sex is a health issue, not a moral issue. I don't give a tiddly what some "religion" has to say about it, because I'm interested in spirituality rather than religion, and spirituality does not bow to religious rules or dictates.

One cogent reason for delaying sex is that you may have more time to engender real love for a person if you delay sex a bit. Love arises out of deep respect for another person. Sex arises out of mere physical attraction. There's a difference, wouldn't you agree? I'd rather take some time to actually get to know someone well and appreciate them as a whole person, rather than leap in bed with them at five minute's acquaintance because they have happen to have lovely breasts or a lovely face! ;-) You follow?

I'd also like to take my time eating a delicious meal rather than wolf it down like a starving dog. Sort of similar, I think.

However, that's just me. If it makes you happy to have casual sex with a whole lot of people just on the immediate impulse, fine...go to it. ;-) It doesn't hurt me if you do, and I don't care one way or the other, because that's your life, Mrzzy, not mine.

****

Regarding Mary...I can't say for sure how old she was when she married, and that could depend upon the customs of her time and place, but I am quite sure that she got pregnant in an entirely normal manner. As for the immaculate conception...that was an old religious idea that was being recycled by the Christians to help win converts. It is found previously in Egyptian religious tales that long preceded Christianity.

Anway, as an old friend of mine once said, "All conception is immaculate!" ;-) Meaning simply this: you achieve it through physical sex...but it is immaculate, because it involves a transmission of pure energy by way of the physical processes involved between 2 persons.

I agree with that. All conception is immaculate, and you do it by having sex with someone.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:01 PM

The immaculate conception was the normal one of Mary, which was "protected" so that she did not receive the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. Not the Virgin Birth, which, as you say, has precursors in many myths.

Penny (fed up with religious inventors producing peculiar ideas and unsuitable terminology for them.)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:10 PM

I remember when Sex was Love. I miss those times.

I think we've desensitised Love to our own peril.

Sex is physical and shallow.

Love is spiritual and deep.

Your preference depends on which kind of person you choose to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM

'Having Sex'

'Making Love'

But very rarely is the latter now used, and that strikes me as so odd. WHY would a society choose to go away from Love and into nothing more than a physical act?

And why would that same society want younger and younger people to partake in that physical act?

And if young people experience nothing BUT physical acts, what are they going to be like as older people?   What will they teach their children?

Why have we become so afraid of Love?

Perhaps this is why the world is now so filled with Hate?


How about 'Love and Morality' as a title?


I guess if you have a world filled with Love then you cannot 'sell' 'sex' and all that goes along with it..

I worry that so many children never even get to hear the expression 'making love' any longer. They are seemingly simply reared on 'Sex' at every corner, at every opportunity.

We have done our children a grave injustice...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:39 PM

"All conception is immaculate!" ;-) Little Hawk

LH, I echo Penny S's correction. The 'immaculate conception' of Mary does not refer to how she got pregnant. The Roman Catholic church teaches that Mary herself was born without sin. (Which means that, historically, at least TWO people were sinless)

Frankly, I think the whole thing's a bit of a stretch.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,999
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:56 PM

The Mary story is pre-dated in the literature. The idea of virgin birth I think first appeared in what is now Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 01:56 PM

Knowledge/education does not stop or even improve HIV transmission.

There is more information out there on safe sex etc, than there ever has been, but the epidemic continues unabated.

If people are not going to act responsibly, then they must be compelled to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:04 PM

People are afraid of love because you cannot experience it without also suffering pain and taking on responsibility. Also, it's a longterm proposition. Sex is a very brief experience which you can walk away from. The reason sex is being marketed so vigorously is because it gets people's attention and sells product. You can't market love. It's far too subtle and it cannot be controlled, marketed, or managed by any marketing outfit, therefore they don't bother much with it except to dance around it a bit by selling Valentines' cards and trivial stuff like that.

Ebbie - I think the Bible (and all other great religious texts) were written for 2 levels of comprehension. The ordinary people would read it literally, and end up believing all kinds of strange stuff. The spiritual adepts in the Mystery Schools and other adept orders would read it metaphorically and understand what it really meant. I think the idea of the immaculate conception would have been understood by an adept to refer to Mary's consciousness...in that she was in a disciplined and pure state of consciousness, moreso than your average person is. This would be very significant, indeed it is the primary objective of spiritual discipline...to refine and purify consciousness. The common people would, however, interpret it literally to mean she hadn't had sex with Joseph, and the Church doesn't care, because they are quite content to have the common people believe fables while the inner circle of adepts know something very different from those fables.

I don't know if anyone's born "without sin". ;-) It might be that we are all born without sin...or it might not. In any case, the way you get a pure consciousness is not by being born that way, but by developing it through a lot of hard work and self-discipline and love.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: bobad
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:15 PM

"......the epidemic continues unabated."

Not true. The annual global rate of newly acquired infection has dropped by close to a million cases since 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:22 PM

If people are not going to act responsibly, then they must be compelled to do so.

Lets get rid of alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, cars, motorcycles, parachutes, hang gliders, microlights, paragliders, ocean going motorboats, guns, and so ad infinitum. They all kill and mame.

But then I guess people would just revert to even more the oldest passtime known to man... and woman.

We have still not overcome our own evolution and sex - plus the pleasure associated with it - is just as much a drug to many as some of the above things I mentioned. I would argue it can be even more addictive when mixed with love. Love is a great catalyst for sex. Seldom is just sex a catalyst for Love.

In pure animal terms sex is survival. Everything we do has some survival or sexual connotation on an evolutionary level. Some people are celibate. Some loving people are still celibate. Generally though, sex is the norm for most human beings. We can live without it. Like we can live without love. But we tend not to do so well without either.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:31 PM

True.

It's a very rare person who lives well without a certain amount of sex. I'm met one such....still, it's exceedingly rare. As you say, it's the norm for most human beings, and so is love, but love is more difficult than sex, and yields far greater rewards, whether or not it's coupled with sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:40 PM

Totally agree Little Hawk

Sex is a very easy commodity

Kisses and cuddles, coupled with the love that they engender or vice versa, are rarer and far more valuable

Not a hard and fast rule, definitely, but as people get older the sexual side fades and, if they are lucky, the true love begins. Love without lust or ambition. True romance in many ways. But I am not saying this does not and cannot happen when much younger and I beileve many teenagers really do believe they love the person they are 'sleeping' with. Young men use the love angle a great deal to obtain sex while the teenage girl believes him. In latter years the worm has turned and young women work it on oung men. Chemical love is a powerful cocktail evolutionarily designed to make people bond and have sex. I do not believe that is the only kind of love for Homo sapiens and I do think love evolves in longer relationships

Too romatic a notion?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:43 PM

So we have logical reasons to educate about sex, so teenagers or older adults don't get stds or pregnant. Yes, rape should be a crime, as should child-molestation; but consensual sex for adults? Any reason at all other than education?

Can a bobobo give informed consent? If not, then they can't be raped, either.

And I didn't ask about love - I was asking about sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: mauvepink
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 02:53 PM

Alas, one cannot just talk about sex in human terms without having love mentioned. Chemical love is a big part in human bonding that affects many individuals to have sex they would not ordinarily have. You do not have to call it love but whatever you do call it the chemical affects on human behaviour certainly can and do induce intercourse in the species. Receptivity, orgasm, the actual chance of getting pregnant, are all significantly increased when those chemicals are present.

Anyways. Your thread. You choose the rules. I'll shush :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:00 PM

Sorry bobad......should have read "the epidemic continues unabated among MSM"

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: gnu
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:00 PM

LH... "It's a very rare person who lives well without a certain amount of sex."

I disagree and I find your statement odd and out of character. The sex part is no problem. The lack of "love" and companionship and children are.

Of course, it is far more complicated than that as there are so many variations of situations.

I did not read the whole thread but to answer the OP re "Are there any non-religious reasons consider sex, or sexual knowledge, bad for you?" Re sex... ahhhh, yeah... but I certainly don't have the time to explore all the reasons, either physical or mental. Re sexual knowledge... no.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:01 PM

I would suppose that if a female tries to get away from the male, and continues to try, but fails, it's rape. I've heard of a case of a number of mallard drakes forcing sex on a female, and holding her head under the water so that she drowned. I think that trying to describe such activity as not rape because the concept of informed consent only applies to humans is limiting unreasonably. There needs to be a term for forced sex. Why not rape? (If not, then perhaps we are allowing the general who excused his troops mass rapes as because his men were only human to be correct, whereas most people I know regard them as the complete opposite, and less than human.)

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:03 PM

Most female animals, Mrrzy, have to show willingness or the male can't have sex with them. If he tries anyway, he is attempting rape, I think, but he probably won't succeed.

Let me give you an example. I used to take care of rabbits. As is well known, rabbits have a lot of sex. ;-) That's mainly because the males never stop thinking about it! At any rate, a female rabbit will only consent to sex when she's at the right time for it, and she consents by raising her back end a little when the male mounts her. If she refuses to raise her back end, then he can't perform the act, though he may try mightily.

There was one young female rabbit in the cages who hadn't had sex yet, and apparently didn't want to. Maybe she was shy or maybe she was scared. I don't know. Anyway, she would not cooperate. A number of different males were placed in her cage over a period of 2 or 3 months, and she rebuffed them all, much to their chagrin.

The male rabbits all got obsessed with her. Finally my friend K-sahb who was an American Indian had a little talk with her. He told her that she better give in and mate with one of the male rabbits or we would turn her into stew meat. Later that day a male rabbit was put in the cage...and she cooperated! He got so excited that he nearly had a heart attack...

So, yes, many types of female animals can and do give consent. I can't speak for all of them.

I see no reason for legally banning any form of consensual sex for adults, as long as they do it in private.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:16 PM

Most non-human mammals have rut, or go into heat, or something. Without female reciptivity there is no male desire.

Humans are different because of the menstrual, rather than estrus, cycle.

In humans there are people who don't want sex, and there are those who want it all the time. Most people are somewhere in between.

Personally, I'd rather have sex without love than love without sex - but that's me.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:19 PM

I am not really in my own mind (rather than texts) sure about sex. All I will say is that now I regret the only sex I (aged 37) had. It turnd out to be an affair with someone who had a boyfriend in prison and became part of a mess.

I am more worried about a lust that is called love. There is a love between people that grows and they grow in friendship but it does not seem to be that common. The "must be with her all the while" type "love" IMO can be quite vile, selfish and destructive, at least I believe that way now.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:21 PM

"Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra, as opposed to the Bible? Who wins? "
Frank Zappa, A&E Biography

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:24 PM

Makes one wonder why humans are different, doesn't it? Why wouldn't we be just like all the other mammals, and go into heat or into rut?

Got any theories on that, Mrzzy?

What do you mean, you'd "rather have sex without love than love without sex"?????   Say what? There are a million forms of love that don't involve sex at all, and they are all worth having. Love doesn't just happen in conjunction WITH sex! So what kind of love are you even talking about when you say you'd rather have sex without love than love without sex?

Sex without love is the easiest thing in the world. Specially if you're female and relatively normal looking. Or if you're male, just lay some money down and you can have sex without love any time you want it. Love is more challenging than that, because you have to work at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

Think you may have stumbled onto something important Mrrzy.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:38 PM

" I would argue it can be even more addictive when mixed with love."

MP I respectfully disagree.

Real love is never addictive. Sex can be and the mental
insanity called "being in love" can be. But this isn't real love, it's a state of mind
that is often attributable to emotional reactions.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:40 PM

Yeah, Jon, the "romantic love" obsession in our culture has caused terrible damage in people's lives. But that's not what I'm speaking of when I use the word "love". I am speaking of something which makes you value and care about another person, an animal, a plant, or a nation, or a community or an ideal...or anything...it even makes you value and care for yourself.

But it's NOT something that makes you think you can own the beloved, NOT something that makes you jealous, NOT something that makes you obsessive or demanding.

Real love manifests as a desire to give, not to take. And to give freely. And without expecting anything in return. Real love is relatively rare, but it happens. The more things it is given freely to, the realer it becomes.

Feeling it inside isn't enough. You have to DO it to make it real.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

LH, well put.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:46 PM

I once asked a lover of mine which he would vote for: 1)1Unlimited togetherness but without sex or 2) sex but seeing each other only one day a month.

He said, Oh, number two, for sure.

Men :)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 04:28 PM

Hmmmm. Ebbie, let me think about this. If I choose #1, does that mean no sex with nobody nohow?

I do think that intimacy and continued togetherness is far more important than sex....but why should it preclude having sex at all? That's why I left the seminary and didn't become a Catholic priest - I couldn't buy the arbitrary requirement for celibacy, and the thought of not having a family to go home to.

If a woman who loves me is going to give me two choices, I think I'll take #3 - both sex and togetherness. We humans need both.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 04:37 PM

Ebbie - Given the ludicrous nature of the theoretical "choice" you presented him with, I'd have to go with number 2 as well! And this is why. Unlimited togetherness with a lover, either with OR without sex would drive me out of my mind! I need some time alone. Quite a bit of it, in fact. That's one reason I have never married.

Now, just wait for Spaw to list the other reasons! ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:02 PM

Usual fucking suspects.

No, make that usual no fucking suspects.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:03 PM

"I remember when Sex was Love. I miss those times

Lizzie...You mean like under Queen Victoria? *smile* I am sure you weren't around then, but sex in society has NOT mainly been 'about love' most of history.


"... when a woman married, she had no independent legal status. She had no right to any money (earned, inherited, etc.), she could not make a will or buy property, she had no claim to her children, she had to move with him wherever he went. If the husband died, he could name the mother as the guardian, but he did not have to do so.

Among the working classes in London, many costermongers (street vendors) lived with their girlfriends starting in their early teens. Elsewhere in the working class, premarital sex was generally winked at, as long as the couple got married.In 1800, about a third of working-class brides were pregnant on their wedding day.

For middle- and upper-class men, premarital sex would have been with servants and prostitutes, since "nice girls" didn't go beyond the small kiss or squeeze of the hand.

There were about 80,000 "gay" women (prostitutes) and "fancy men" (pimps) in London in the mid-nineteenth century. They congregated around Covent Garden and in the theater district. They tucked part of their skirts up to indicate their business. They were especially alluring to soldiers, most of whom were forbidden to marry.

For most of the nineteenth century, homosexuality was punishable by death. However, the last execution on the grounds of "homosexuality" took place in 1830."

from this site

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:21 PM

I was talking about having a lover, or lovers, with whom I have sex. In that instance I'd rather have sex without love than love without sex.

I love my kids and don't have sex with them, so I wasn't talking about that kind of love.

Remember, this is a thread about sex, rather than about love. Or such was the intention.

I find it fascinating that we aren't estrous. I have no idea when the change happened in evolutionary terms - bonobos are the closest thing, but they still have estrus, and when they have "sex" they don't usually go all the way to climax.

I have a pet theory about the female orgasm, though: I wouldn't be surprised if that's why all the other hominids went extinct. Imagine having the intelligence to know where babies come from - why would any female hominid put up with it without orgasm, given the loss of estrus? But that is for another thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:28 PM

"Lizzie...You mean like under Queen Victoria? *smile* I am sure you weren't around then, but sex in society has NOT mainly been 'about love' most of history."

Good Lordy, no Bill! Queen Vickie was a bit of a nymphomaniac, if I recall rightly...Poor ol' Albert was always being chased around Osborne House, ad ifinitum...Mind you, I've also heard tell he died with a very big smile on his face. ;0)


>>>"...I've heard of a case of a number of mallard drakes forcing sex on a female, and holding her head under the water so that she drowned...."<<<

Little blighters tried that with me, Penny, but I yelled "Orange Sauce!" at 'em as they tried to drag me under for the third time. Seemed to do the trick.    ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:29 PM

There are many theories about the female orgasm.

But you are right Mrzzy - a relationship (of the sexual, you know, grown up man, grown up woman (or gender preference) kind) without sex is a contradiction in terms. Interestingly it only ever seems to be women (oh, and priests, not a lot of difference unless your young boy is at risk) who say otherwise. They don't seem to get it. Why would any man talk to them (save socially in passing, not on a long term basis) unless it was their turn next?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:38 PM

Right. I remember talking to a Lebanese friend of mine in high school, saying, we've known each other since first grade, why don't we ever hang out? And the answer was, well, would we have sex? No? Then why would we hang out?

That was the end of *that* conversation. But we're still in touch, lo these many years later, on the Internet...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:39 PM

Male animals will go from one female to another... having sex whenever with whichever female they want to have it with. How do our morals compare with animals... or how should they compare with animals....... Swans can get together and spend a lifetime together.... one partner only..... I see something special in that.... We have the brains to do things in a way that will not spread disease, jealousy or anxiety... but do we use that kind of self control???

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 05:40 PM

Lizzie, if you are going to fling terms like "nymphomaniac" about, take the trouble to look them up first.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:00 PM

OK I suppose thinking again on the sex without love or love without sex question. I would take sex without love but I'd rather have neither and it also depends on what the love is.

I can well do without the insanity I'd call lust not love so am answering that way to avoid myself (and perhaps her) a hassle. Sex on its own might seem kind of empty to me even if an attraction existed.

It is totally a wrong time in my life with my problems but I guess that if it was another time and I could genuinely be part of a relationshio that matured in the right way I'd be answering not one or other but both.

Outside my own problems, I can not be sure the relationship is something I want though. At times, I feel (and no Joe, I am not suggesting one must be celibate to be in the clergy - I actually disagree with that stance) I wish I was a monk and free from all temptations of the flesh.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Joe_F
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:05 PM

Sexual morality is properly a department of hospitality.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Penny S.
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:10 PM

One of the problems we humans have is that, unlike most other animals, so much physical contact is tied up with sex - though it hasn't always been in the past. No mutual grooming, huddling together, etc. It means that those not in a relationship are in a pretty unnatural state. Unless they play rugby or something like that.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: mauvepink
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:24 PM

Stringsinger I slightly disagree with you though you have got what I meant. You said it better :-)

I would saying being in love is the stable relationship and when coupled with sex is fine. What I meant was the chemicals of faling in love and sex. It's a puwerful combination. However, your point is taken and I agree with what you mean

It's so complex! :-)

As for Human's having estrus, in some ways females do go into heat (some at least) close to ovulation. Theit ability to smell certain pheromones, be able to tell symetric males better, and to orgasm, are on average increased. The chance of her getting pregnant also increases if orgasm is achieved (where no contraception is used, obviously).

Sperm competition patterns differ in different animals and it is that which drives whether monogamy can exist or not. That said, even some animals considered monogamous do hedge bet with extra pair matings and humans are not above that either!

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:33 PM

Richard, am I to gather that you can't relate to having an extended friendship with a woman that doesn't involve sex? I'm not talking about being a "couple" here, I'm talking about friendship. I've had friendships with various females that have lasted decades, and no sex between us. Why? Because they're my friends, that's why, people I like to talk to, people I enjoy being around, people I've shared a lot of experiences with. Matter of fact, I find that the friendships generally last far longer than the love affairs do, which indicates that friendship has a much stronger basic foundation than sexual attraction does. Sexual attraction's ephemeral. It's of the moment. Friendship tends to last. You can have sex with a vibrator or an anatomically correct doll, but you can't have friendship or a real relationship with a vibrator or an anatomically correct doll. It's not alive. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: bubblyrat
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:54 PM

Oh dear !! Rachel isn't going to be pleased when I tell her what you just said ; she's already feeling quite deflated.....

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:03 PM

bubbles, I've just spluttered all over my keyboard! :0) Very good...and Little Hawk too..wonderful!

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 07:12 PM

heh heh heh "coupled with sex" he he he

And why does the doll have to be anatomically correct? I mean, if you're having sex with inanimate objects...

Our sperm is heterospermicidal, so we did not evolve to be faithful.

Actually, female orgasm only ups the likelihood of conceiving a boy, not just conceiving. Shallow penetration and no orgasm gives you a better chance of conceiving a girl.

Most male mammals don't "choose" a mate - they go from receptive female to receptive female till they run out of females. And they'll go for those signalling receptivity most strongly first - no brain involved, just responses to stimulating stimuli.

Female animals, in contrast, do choose mates, and some theorize that it is that cshoosing ability in particular that got all evolved into intelligence...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:53 PM

"Unlimited togetherness with a lover, either with OR without sex would drive me out of my mind!" Little Hawk

Gracious. Thou has totally misunderstood the word. "Unlimited" is not the same thing is 'endless' or 'constant'. It means without restriction other than from normal events. At least, to me. I could not bear to spend all my time with anyone- being alone as needed is essential to me.

And when I said that about unlimited togetherness but without sex I was not thinking of moral or prudish reservations but of physical causes, whether of being a mermaid (which is the conversation that brought on the question) or impotence or physical injury or damage or incarceration.

And yes. I should think that if I were not able for whatever reason to engage in sexual activity with the one I loved that it would be a given that he would be free to pursue others fulfill that aspect of his life.

Hey. I am not an unfeeling monster nor have ever been.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 08:53 PM

And I keep reading the title of this thread as: Sex and Mortality

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: gnu
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:14 PM

Mrrzy... "Female animals, in contrast, do choose mates, and some theorize that it is that cshoosing ability in particular that got all evolved into intelligence..."

Well now, that is quite a postulate... and very insightful in that it is not only possible but quite likely.

Or, it could be that intelligent males said, "She looks good and she had a good head on her shoulders. I think I should fuck her if I can."

I am just offering a different "choice" theory eh?

Men are not stupid anymore than women, even though saying so is grounds for retribution in this day and age.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:24 PM

One of the reasons sex becomes problematic--and why learning to control it rather than indulge it without question might be wise--is that the drive for sex is highly amplified, while the drive for wisdom is not. It is really easy for the shriek of protoplasm for gratification to lead to unwise choices. When it is present it is so much louder than other vectors it easy--especially for the young--to use it as their sole guideline. This is not the nature of "moral" or ethical wisdom.

This is NOT an argument in favor of shibboleths, taboos and voodoo moralities of the sort the Victorians and Puritans were famous for. But it is an argument for perspective and balance and learning control (which also makes for better sex, ultimately, also).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: gnu
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:44 PM

Wise words, Amos.

Much better said than my old man... "Don't fuck with your dick. Fuck with your head."

Same deal... not as eloquent.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 09:46 PM

From my own perspective which I've no doubt will be unpopular as I'm thinking partly from my own religious beliefs, one can bite into a poisoned apple of desire. And yes, Amos, it can shout and shout louder than your attempted common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 10:19 PM

Just to clarify what I meant. I should have run away from Jayne when I first learned about bf in prison, I could not let go at the time though.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:24 AM

Jon - Yup, romantic love can be quite a snare, can't it?

Amos - Wise words in your last post, compadre.

Ebbie - Right. Okay, I understand what you meant now.

Mrzzy - Here's one for you to think about. I am pretty sure I've lived a number of past lives...actually quite a number of them. What I base that on is various experiences I've had, but it would take too long to explain them. Anyway, I'm also pretty sure that I've been a woman in some of those lives and a man in others...and that what I really am ultimately contains both masculine and feminine potential right across the whole spectrum in equal measure. I'd call that the "soul". I think it's beyond gender divisions.

That being the case, I don't think of myself as being irrevocably male...I'm just male at the moment, that's all...while I'm in this body. And that's fine. I like it. It would also be fine to be a woman. I'd like that too. Either way is great. As you might gather, I see no reason whatsoever for conflict or oneupmanship between the genders, no reason for a "war of the sexes" or anything like that. It strikes me as totally absurd, because my soul is already both genders and always has been. I also see it as absurd to make either gender subservient to the other in any way.

But my body is male in this life, so I'm manifesting as a male in this life and enjoying it just fine...except I'm a bit envious of women's ability to have multiple orgasms! ;-)

Just have to wait till next life for that, I guess...or maybe the one after that. We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 12:59 AM

Richard Bridge says, "a relationship (of the sexual, you know, grown up man, grown up woman (or gender preference) kind) without sex is a contradiction in terms."

I disagree. Through my life, I have had many wonderful relationships with women - at the same time having a permanent sexual relationship with a spouse or longtime lover. And many of those women were very attractive to me. If I had added sex to the equation in every one of those relationships, my life would have been very complicated. There was certainly an element of sexuality in each of those relationships, but sex only in the long-term, committed relationships.

Little Hawk said that sexual attraction is ephemeral. Well, maybe so - but it can last a long, long time. I had a mad crush on a woman in about 1999, and she wasn't interested in a relationship at the time. We went different ways, but have remained friends. But it still drives me crazy when she's around. I suppose I'll carry a torch for her and at least two other women the rest of my life - and I had a sexual relationship with only one of those women. My wife thinks that part of my romantic nature, and she likes it. The three women have other men in their lives.

-Joe, incurable romantic-

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:10 AM

I could have been clearer there. I should have made a clear cut distinction between "RELATIONSHIP" - the thing with cuddles and dinner dates and roses or whatever - and "Friendship" - sort of occasional common endeavours like putting a new manual boost controller on your turbo or sorting some harmony songs or running a CAT5 network through the house or driving you back from an operation when anaesthetic would make you unsafe to drive, etc.

RELATIONSHIP it seems to me must include sex (in the absence of relevant physical disability and there are of course many ways to skin cats).

Friendship - well, a male/female friendship can be a nice luxury if you are getting all the sex you want elsewhere. Otherwise Nicholas Monsarrat had it right "No man ever meets a woman without measuring the sexual potential between them. It may be zero, but he still measures it". I can think of one woman on with whom I get, and we have (I think) a good friendship because while many think her very attractive she is about as far from my ideal of sexual attractiveness as possible, and apparently I hers. That works too. But if that attraction is not zero a long-term close friendship is unsustainable

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:10 AM

It seems that some men have a different way of thinking. When a married man gets caught having immoral sex with someone he swears it didn't mean anything (so that's alright then) and of course the old chestnut, mrn are men. Crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:15 AM

Kind of prejudging the issue "immoral sex".

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: kendall
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:11 AM

The way is easy for one who has no preference. Ohmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:56 AM

Technically I could have got pregnant at the age of 10 and a half but luckily it was in a time when children were not being rushed into adulthood too quickly like now so I would have steered away from any inappropriate behaviour from anyone old enough to know better I just would have known that it wasn't right. At that time I was reading Jackie magazine, most of a girl's problems consisted of spots and greasy hair on the problem page it didn't occur to me that it was possible that someone could abuse me if they took advantage. The first sex education I had was 13. That was just the way it was because not many girls started that early then, the average age was 13 and above so for the last 1 and a half years of primary school I was feeling a little bit of a freak until moving to High School. Morally I think it should have been discussed with me by a counsellor, understanding teacher or something because in my child's head I really thought I had done something evil and it was a punishment from God silly as it may seem.

It is good to try to help the young with sexual knowledge and safety for their own sakes not just from diseases but preventing cervical cancer or later infertility. Something did make me laugh listening to one girl saying to her young friend on my local bus going home that there is less likelyhood of pregnancy making love (not the words she used) standing up. I see that Old Wives Tale is still going around.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:01 AM

Multiple orgasms - phooey. Now, the hour-long orgasm...

And if it was mate choice by females that evolved into intelligence, both men and women would have that intelligence - after all, men have nipples, too. It's easier to do both than one at a time, evolutionarily speaking, of course! That's why feet still have toes. And all those nerves that make it so terribly painful to stub one!

And that last funny story is somehow tragically and redundantly sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:47 AM

Well, gravity being what it is, impregnation from a standing position is less likely. Just not a lot less likely. Indeed I have seen a theory that the female orgasm evolved because it kept women lying down until they got over it - so facilitating the passage of the sperm. I wonder if there are any reliable statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:40 AM

The main point, Mrzzy, is to be happy with what you are in this life. And I am. However, don't you think most people are naturally just curious about what it's like on the other side of the fence, so to speak?

Now, if one thinks that the soul is of both genders, and I do, wouldn't that be a great asset to seeing men and women as equals? I've always seen them as equals. It seems self-evident to me, just in the same way as it is self-evident that different races are equals.

I realize you don't believe in "the soul", but that's your lookout... ;-) I talk about what I want to talk about, and so do you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:41 PM

Sure, LH, but doesn't that mean we should all be having all the sex and orgasms we can?

And the one place the genders are NOT equal is in bed, I would think! It isn't sexist to be gay or straight, nor not-sexist to be bi.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 02:56 PM

If you have ALL the sex and orgasms you possibly can, Mrzzy, you get too tired and worn out after awhile and it actually becomes a bit hard (no pun intended) on the system. ;-) Trust me, I know about that.

However, I think having a reasonable amount of sex and orgasms is a fine idea, and beneficial to both health and emotional state. Moderation in all things is a wise practice.

I place no moral judgements of any kind on people's choices to be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, polysexual or whatever other kind of sexual they choose. That's entirely up to them.

I think men and women ARE equal in bed...but by "equal", I don't mean "the same". I mean equal in showing mutual respect, liking, enthusiasm, appreciation, and general consideration of one another. I mean...it would be best if they approached one another on such an equal basis, right? Some don't.

Chongo tells me that even (some) chimps face these complex issues, and I have no reason to scoff at what he says.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: jacqui.c
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:12 PM

I've been giving this one some careful thought before posting.

From my own perspective I would rather have love without sex than sex without love. Of course, the ideal would be sex in a loving relationship, which I am fortunate to have right now. However, if, for any reason sex was not possible, say for health reasons, I value the relationship that I am in too much to want to abandon it for lack of a physical element.

I have tried sex, just for the sake of it, a couple of times in my younger days but it only left me feeling soiled and missing out somewhere. In the absence of a loving relationship I would prefer to stay celibate. For me, sex for its own sake is not worth the bother.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 04:59 PM

This points out the main difference between men and women.
Men are hard wired to have sex with as many women as will have him. That's just how it is and there is nothing we can do about the urge.
However, as we mature, we get a better picture of consequences and, as my friend Andy says, "Morality gets a lot of credit that should go to cold feet.
Or, I like, definition of virtue; insufficient temptation.

And, Men mature after they have exhausted all other options.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

Little HAwk:

You can also have multiple orgasms, man.   They just take a lot longer. Be patient...


;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:05 PM

Of course we're not the same in bed - only women can get pregnant, men have refractory periods, women have, well, periods, and so on.

And while nobody can do anything about urges, all can do a whole lot about behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:29 PM

We are not responsible for our thoughts; we are responsible for our actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:53 PM

Does anyone besides me gather that 'some' are tending to generalize from their views about male/female relationships and what is 'normal' and usual to a view of what they assume ALL of society does or believes? (Hard sentence to compose)


As to Monserrat's ""No man ever meets a woman without measuring the sexual potential between them. It may be zero, but he still measures it".... that is a pretty subjective analysis.

   I know 3 women that I could 'probably' find today ...long ago and in a far away state... whom I had 'friendly sex' with a couple of times, but who began and ended as just good friends. The brief sexual relationship was lovely and because we understood that's all it was, we remained good friends. I also know 5-6 women who I never had any kind of 'intimate' relationship with, but who were/are also good friends. I suppose the thought crossed my mind ...and perhaps theirs.. as to whether we 'might' be more than friends, but I never dwelled on it and don't remember ever even any 'flirting around the idea' with them. It simply was not an issue. Does that mean that I fall under Monserrat's rule? *shrug*...I don't feel like it.

as to Kendall's remark: "Men are hard wired to have sex with as many women as will have him."...hmm... I just think that's a bit of an exaggeration qua Homo sapiens. I know that male animals DO seek...and fight.. for sexual privileges, and that as primates, we humans are not too far(in anthropological terms) from that situation, but I believe that society HAS in the last few thousand year allowed for exceptions and that, although still common, seeking as many 'conquests' as possible is NOT universal. At the same time, more women are feeling free to safely (as we read above) to increase their 'no committment' relationships, simply for pleasure and companionship.

It is NOT a good idea to assume that the view YOU take on these matters is a given for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: bobad
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:21 PM

How to know if you (♂) are getting enough sex.
http://freakybuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/funny.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:24 PM

When asked, most people reply they have sex three times a week. However, the number is reduced to once a week, if the phrase, with a partner is added (I recall this from the David Letterman show).

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:14 PM

Old fellow goes to the doctor...

"Doc, I need some help... I can't make love to the wife very often"

"How often do you do it, John?"

"Oh, maybe once every week or 10 days."

"Well, John, you're 74, that's not too bad for that age!"

"But Doc, my neighbor is 81, and he says HE does it twice a week!"

"Well, John, can't you say the same thing?"

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:21 PM

If I'm having all I WANT, then I'm by definition not too tired or I wouldn't WANT that much, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:28 PM

Nice thing about gettin' older is that them horror-mones ain't talkin' so loud... Thought it would never happen but sho nuff don't miss 'um and, well, leaves the brain more time fir stuff that matters: like love, living and caring and all that sappy stuff...

I mean, sex ain't the entire ball (no pun intended) of wax... Just nice when it occurs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:49 PM

In my opinion, it is difficult to get too much sex. Very difficult. Maybe if you was on a ship that sunk and the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders was also on the ship, and them and you was the only survivors for a few months on a little island....

Then maybe.

But short of that, I don't think so.

I am willin' to put this theory to the test if Dallas can spare the cheerleadin' squad for a coupla months...and someone else can provide the island.

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:52 PM

Hmmmmm??? And then Chongz woke up...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:55 PM

Mrzzy, your logic in that last post is impeccable. ;-)

Bobert, Chongo has always tended to think positively. It keeps him cheerful.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:03 PM

Have you seen a close up of some o' them Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders, LH??? I mean, yeah, they looks like a million bucks from 50 'er hunnert feet or on TV but a buck waitin' fir change on a dessert island... I mean, these ol' gals make a freight train jump track an' take a dirt road ugly... I mean, if Chongz is plannin' on shackin' up withy them ol' gals I'd seriously recommend him taking a blow up escape boat...

But, hey... Seein' as Jerry Jones ain't gonna let Chongz loose with his cheerleaders this is all kinda, ahhhh, academic...

Maybe Chongz just needs you to take that blockin' thing off his TV...

I donno...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:05 PM

What??? Ain't they bringin' in new young girls all the time? You mean it's the original squad still?   

- Chongo

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:07 AM

Bill, you said a mouthful


It is NOT a good idea to assume that the view YOU take on these matters is a given for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: saulgoldie
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:50 AM

Sex is neither moral, nor immoral. It just is.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 09:20 AM

"Nothing is good or bad; thinking makes them so." (Hamlet)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:26 AM

I think Hamlet was reading the Bible, Kendall:

"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteems any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
   Romans 14:14

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:26 AM

Nonsense, Hamlet. Things which cause unnecessary pain are bad, things which add to the happiness quotient are good.

Of course, you can think them into the other way around... but that doesn't make them So.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:41 AM

When you kill a chicken, Mrzzy, it causes unnecessary pain to the chicken. This is bad from the chicken's point of view...good from the point of view of the person who intends to eat the chicken.

Hamlet was correct, because he stepped back and saw the larger picture, rather than just seeing it from his own angle. This would not prevent Hamlet from feeling that it was bad when his uncle plotted the murder of his father. It was "bad" from Hamlet's point of view, and Hamlet's father's point of view. It was "good" from the uncle's point of view, because it allowed him to become the king.

Most people would have thought of it as "bad", because it was murder...but the few who stood to gain directly would have reasoned it as "good", because it was good for them.

To bomb a city is "bad" from the point of view of that city's population...but it's "good" from the point of view of the military high command on the opposing side in a war.

There are a million other examples.

To be able to see what Hamlet saw is not to justify all harmful actions. It is to recognize that some people will always see a specific harmful action as "good", because they derive a benefit from it. This indicates that our notions of "good" and "bad" are, to a large extent, subjective....although there are certain general types of actions that most of us will agree are "bad"...thus we work out various moral codes to deal with it.

Even Hamlet's statement can be seen as "good" or "bad" depending on how you look at it. ;-)

It's easy to assess an action as to whether it's harmful or not. If it damages, it's harmful. To slaughter the chicken, for example, is unquestionably harmful to the chicken! It dies. But is the action "bad" or "good"????? Well, that depends on the viewpoint of the one making the judgement. Some people feel it's "bad" to kill any animal for any purpose at all, including for food. Most don't think that. Whether it is "bad" or not is strictly a matter of opinion....but there's no question that it is harmful to the animal in question.

Human construction and agricultural are harmful to a vast number of plant and animal species, as they are deprived of habitat by those human activities. But is human construction and agriculture "bad"? Well, that's a matter of individual perspective again. To humans, it's "good"....unless they are people fighting to preserve the natural habitat.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:54 AM

And is killing the chicken necessary???? Well, you might think so. Another person might not. The other person might say, why not just be vegetarian and eat tofu instead? ;-)

But the chicken will ALWAYS think it's bad when you kill the chicken!

Think about it, Mrzzy. Are we talking about "good and bad" (value judgements from a personal perspective) or are we talking about "harmful and unharmful" (rational assessments of what's actually occurring to someone or something)?

When is a harmful action also "good"? When someone deems it good, that's when....but someone else will probably deem it bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:56 PM

Everything is relative. To a germ, good health is a type of disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:09 PM

Yes. And to an empire, war is a useful extension of politics and trade....yet very harmful to those on the receiving end. This is why one person sees heroism and glory in war and another sees waste and tragedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:53 PM

But almost everyone approves of sex--at least tacitly--at least, that of their parents...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:15 PM

Eww, gross, no they don't! I walked in on mine once and was freaked...

Right on, Little Hawk, although to get me to kill a chicken would take a lot, and if I were that desperate, maybe the pain to the chicken isn't unnecessary after all...

Nature red in tooth and claw?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:14 PM

I'd have been horrified to see my parents having sex too! ;-D I mean, really just horrified!!! I'm glad it never happened that I walked in on them in that situation.

Funny how we can't take that sort of stuff, isn't it? I think it's because sex is so deeply suppressed in this society...and because we are taught by the commercial system to only imagine young people having sex. The Hawaiians (before the Whites came) didn't seem to have a problem with stuff like that. Too bad we're not more like they were.

It would take a lot to make me kill a chicken too, because I'm not used to killing animals, but I have no problem eating chickens that someone else has conveniently killed on my behalf. That too is ironical. Most people nowadays are far apart from a lot of the stuff they depend on...they just pass the buck to someone else. That was not so much the case in simpler times.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Joe_F
Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:35 PM

My mommy would never do *that*!

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:29 AM

When I was young and very niave I thought because I was an only one my mum and dad only did it the deed once and I was so proud about that until somebody pointed out that the act would have been repeated often in order to try for me in the first place! Innocence,

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: kendall
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 11:38 AM

I don't remember thinking about it one way or the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:51 PM

Mrzzy, what is something causes unnecessary pain but both parties enjoy it so that it adds to the happiness quotient?

LH - how do you know that cleanly chopping the neck of a chicken (or cleanly breaking the neck of a chicken) causes it pain?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 12:57 PM

They're not as stupid as you think, Richard. They, like slaughtered pigs and cows, anticipate danger. They know they've in trouble the moment you approach and grab hold of them, and that causes the bird emotional pain, physical pain quite aside.

Tell you what. Let's chop your head off and see if it causes you any pain. We'll get a couple of big wrestlers to hold you down while the deed is done, and we'll use a large axe and do it in one clean stroke. You can tell us afterward whether it caused you any pain or not. ;-D If you remain silent, we'll assume you were "okay" with the whole thing, and suffered no pain, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 10 Nov 10 - 01:08 PM

"From 20th-Century Sexuality" - http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com/#88

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Tom - Swords & Songs
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:53 AM

Homophobic bullcrap, WAV.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:58 PM

Mrzzy, what is something causes unnecessary pain but both parties enjoy it so that it adds to the happiness quotient? - Do you mean sadists and masochists getting along? Or did you mean "what IF" insterad of what is?

I hae decided that the only immoral sex is that which you're having when your significant other walks in on you!

What did the late great genius George Carlin boil the 10 commandments down to, wasn't it something like Thou shalt be honest with the provider of thy nookie? I shall have to look that up.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 03:14 PM

Not that they approve of watching or thinking about it, what I meant was that generally people are pretty glad it happened somewhere in the dark and buried past, or they wouldn't have a handy bipedal meatform to drive around.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:14 AM

In an ideal world the one and only lover is a great idea in theory. You can love the one lover with all your mite (if you are unlucky enough to have a bad one) only then to be manipulated and controlled by him or her ruining how you can feel about anyone again. That is not love that is demoralising ownership. Immorality isn't just to do with sexual affairs or promiscuity, the constant mental bullying and the tearing down of a partner's asteem is just as immoral.

If that is what sticking with one lover is all about I would rather be just me, myself and I.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:45 AM

But I don't think that is what it is about, Patsy although I do not want a relationship now...

I think the person who has worked (and IMO and from what I've seen, it takes work, not lust) may be in a very lucky, happy and worthwhile position. As said before, I think it is rare but I have seen it.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 06:50 AM

Right on, Patsy.

As far as I'm concerned the only truly accomplished masters in the art of love are people who manage somehow to love everyone....and I'm NOT talking about having sex with everyone when I say that, needless to say. ;-D

Further to that, the one person I think we are all intended, first and foremost, to love unconditionally is....ourself! And I'm not talking about self-centeredness when I say that. I'm talking about genuine self-love and self-acceptance (in spite of facing the fact that one is not perfect and never will be). Out of genuine self-love arises self-confidence, generosity to others, kindness to others, helpfullness to others, high ideals, courage, and every positive form of behaviour.

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:10 PM

indeed - Thou shalt be honest with the provider of thy nookie, and thou shalt try really hard not to kill anybody.

Unless they pray to a different invisible man than you do, he adds. But that's another thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Art Thieme
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:28 PM

If, like me, you've ever contracted 'cosmological thunder clap' -- you've been made acutely aware that morality had absolutely no role in the sex act that made it a reality!

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:54 PM

The only cure is regular doses of cosmological sulfa.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 07:10 AM

Good posting Patsy


... with one proviso. I do not see promiscuity as immoral in itself. It can be for sure but sometimes it can be a symptom of other things in a very good person. One person's promiscuity is another's open mind on fre relationships. I think to make promiscuity immoral then someone else has to be ivolved who is getting hurt in some way. But, then, often the only person getting hurt in being promiscuous is the person themselves when it is coupled as a behaviour brought about by other's damage.

In short a great many promiscuous people are not immoral and are often very lovely people who may have had a bad deal at some time.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 10:48 AM

Mrzzy - What if it's a visible woman that you pray to? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sex and morality
From: Mrrzy
Date: 13 Nov 10 - 11:39 AM

Hey, I was quoting George Carlin!