BS: Sex and morality

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: 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: 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: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Nov 10 - 05:15 AM

Kind of prejudging the issue "immoral sex".

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:14 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Joe_F
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 06:05 PM

Sexual morality is properly a department of hospitality.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM

LH, well put.

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: 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: akenaton
Date: 07 Nov 10 - 03:25 PM

Think you may have stumbled onto something important Mrrzy.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.