What's the deal with sex?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by ogden

dolphins have sex simply for pleasure, as do banobo chimpanzees!

Is that just for yours or everybody else's?

[Teena]

Seems the discussion had gone off topic a bit, but regarding the original post...

I guess I can that I feel the same way to an extent. While sex is most definetely a natural & necessary activity as it is with other creatures, there is clearly a big difference between the men & the animals. First of all animals that use sex as a means of reproduction do not seek excess the way humans do. Nor do animals get such a complex experience out of sex as do humans.
So to say that "sex cant be bad" because it is necessary for survival isnt very right in my opinion, because once again, an animal may use sex as a mere way of repruduction but the animal's use & experience differs from ours. If we consider ourselves and our experiences as something of a higher & more complex nature, we simply cant use that exuse.
I was reading something on Hinduism & certain ideas made a lot of sense to me (though its possible that I got the wrong impression). What certain paths seem to teach is that most of our "pleasures" (including sex) arent bad, but they are not the ultimate pleasure/satisfaction. Some exersizes in Tantra for example, focus on a deeper/more spiritual bonding during sex. My point is that of course being of an animal nature we have all the instincts regarding reproduction, but still most of us would agree that we are of a higher nature than other animals & thus theres no reason that we shouldnt seek/need more than our bare animal desires for our full satisfaction.
Personally I do not put this on marriage, but rather on just a true & deep bond between the 2 people.

[ogden]

Originally Posted by Teena

Seems the discussion had gone off topic a bit, but regarding the original post...

I guess I can that I feel the same way to an extent. While sex is most definetely a natural & necessary activity as it is with other creatures, there is clearly a big difference between the men & the animals. First of all animals that use sex as a means of reproduction do not seek excess the way humans do. Nor do animals get such a complex experience out of sex as do humans.
So to say that "sex cant be bad" because it is necessary for survival isnt very right in my opinion, because once again, an animal may use sex as a mere way of repruduction but the animal's use & experience differs from ours. If we consider ourselves and our experiences as something of a higher & more complex nature, we simply cant use that exuse.
I was reading something on Hinduism & certain ideas made a lot of sense to me (though its possible that I got the wrong impression). What certain paths seem to teach is that most of our "pleasures" (including sex) arent bad, but they are not the ultimate pleasure/satisfaction. Some exersizes in Tantra for example, focus on a deeper/more spiritual bonding during sex. My point is that of course being of an animal nature we have all the instincts regarding reproduction, but still most of us would agree that we are of a higher nature than other animals & thus theres no reason that we shouldnt seek/need more than our bare animal desires for our full satisfaction.
Personally I do not put this on marriage, but rather on just a true & deep bond between the 2 people.

If sex is natural and necessarry (or even "instinctual"), then how can it be imoral? The "sex can't be wrong" argument may not "seem very right" to you, but it is a valid argument. Perhaps you meant in excess or in perversion. Excess and perverse are subjective distinctions, and therefore personal judgments. It is bad only if you or I say its bad, relative to each. (I am not advocating hedonism or perversion, i'm just pointing out the subjectivity of the statement.)

The difference between animals and humans is another thread so I wont expound on the idea more than to say your talk of "higher order" and "our animal nature" are confusing. What part of us is animal, and what part is not?

Here, however; you view human and animal sex differently; assuming to understand the complexity of the animals sexual experiance? How could you (or I) know the complexity of animal sexual experiance? While paramiceum sex may seem boring and utilitarian to us ther is no way to measure thier experiance. Many animals mate for life, an action seldom observed in primates; does that make them more moral than us? Banobo chimpanzees engage in sexual activity for a miriad of reasons other than procreation (read "our inner ape" by Franse De Waal), does that make them imoral?

Clearly sex beyond procreation is usefull in social relationships, and just as clearly some sex/sexuality is not healthy (as in rape or pedofilia). As for sexuality among consenting adults (including homosexuals), I dont think nonparticipants should be judgedes. I do agree that for our motivations to be less hedonistic and our experiance more spiritualy bonding would be leaning in the right direction, but lets not vilify our own human sexuality.

sorry if I sound confrontational I really do apreciate communicating with you! Thanks.

[Teena]

Originally Posted by ogden

If sex is natural and necessarry (or even "instinctual"), then how can it be imoral? The "sex can't be wrong" argument may not "seem very right" to you, but it is a valid argument. Perhaps you meant in excess or in perversion. Excess and perverse are subjective distinctions, and therefore personal judgments. It is bad only if you or I say its bad, relative to each. (I am not advocating hedonism or perversion, i'm just pointing out the subjectivity of the statement.)

The difference between animals and humans is another thread so I wont expound on the idea more than to say your talk of "higher order" and "our animal nature" are confusing. What part of us is animal, and what part is not?

Here, however; you view human and animal sex differently; assuming to understand the complexity of the animals sexual experiance? How could you (or I) know the complexity of animal sexual experiance? While paramiceum sex may seem boring and utilitarian to us ther is no way to measure thier experiance. Many animals mate for life, an action seldom observed in primates; does that make them more moral than us? Banobo chimpanzees engage in sexual activity for a miriad of reasons other than procreation (read "our inner ape" by Franse De Waal), does that make them imoral?

Clearly sex beyond procreation is usefull in social relationships, and just as clearly some sex/sexuality is not healthy (as in rape or pedofilia). As for sexuality among consenting adults (including homosexuals), I dont think nonparticipants should be judgedes. I do agree that for our motivations to be less hedonistic and our experiance more spiritualy bonding would be leaning in the right direction, but lets not vilify our own human sexuality.

sorry if I sound confrontational I really do apreciate communicating with you! Thanks.

First of all I'd like to say in no way do I view sex as bad overall OR that sex beyond the purpose of reproduction is imoral.
You're right that we cant judge for certain what an animal's experience is like. Furthermore of course different animals may experience it very differently.

Excess

and perverse are subjective distinctions, and therefore personal judgments. It is bad only if you or I say its bad, relative to each. (I am not advocating hedonism or perversion, i'm just pointing out the subjectivity of the statement.)

Would you say something is bad though if it can be harmful to the person himself or somebody else? A person lacking any control (towards excess in general) and overindulging can very much harm himself. An example would probably be food. You can give a large amount of food to a tiger & it will not eat more than is beneficial/necessary for him. Humans do not seem to have such limits, we have to use our rational side in order for it to not lead to obesity for example. Humans are not limited in this way when it comes to sex either, we do not only "mate" when its necessary to mate. Humans CAN indulge in excess or like you said perversion, rape of whatever.

The difference between animals and humans is another thread so I wont expound on the idea more than to say your talk of "higher order" and "our animal nature" are confusing. What part of us is animal, and what part is not?

Apologies if that didnt make sense, what I meant is that though we might've evolved from an animal & thus share certain animal instincs, I also believe that a more "rational" side or a more complex consciousness is present in humans. & I do believe that can affect the way we "experience" our experiences & makes us quite different from animals ( Of course I do admit that that I can not say for certain that an animal does not have a complex inner psychic life). I'm not usually very good at explaining, what I mean is that it appears to me (& nothing more than that) that we're standing in the mix & can either go backwards or forward. I do believe that quite often we simply degrade ourselves (matter of opinion).

....experiance more spiritualy bonding would be leaning in the right direction

I agree completely, & that is pretty much my main point. Once again I'd like to clarify that I am not saying that sex is bad or that sex for pleasure is bad. What I am saying is that if we are capable of a deeper experience, I do not think its a good idea to disregard it (wheather there are animals that are capable of this on some level or if it is exclusive to humans, does not change my view of this in any way) & that is precisely what I see happening... especially with people in my age group.


& no worries. I understand its just shareing opinions & no person attacks or anything.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by ogden

If sex is natural and necessarry (or even "instinctual"), then how can it be imoral? The "sex can't be wrong" argument may not "seem very right" to you, but it is a valid argument. Perhaps you meant in excess or in perversion. Excess and perverse are subjective distinctions, and therefore personal judgments. It is bad only if you or I say its bad, relative to each. (I am not advocating hedonism or perversion, i'm just pointing out the subjectivity of the statement.)

It is not acts which are immoral; but people, because of their motivation of those doing act against morality, which, if they are not for some good are always immoral even if the outcome is not injurious or evil. Either you are with society, and follow the sense society has -of long duration- of what is healthy and desireble behavior, or you go your own way, sufficing with your own intelligence, and serving yourself with your own fork. Now; no mere mortals are born as wise as I have become, and it is rare that any man has the sense to see the point of moralism in youth. Sooner or later, most people get the point. The moral point is this: All good, virtue, and beauty lie in community, and all evil, vice, and ugliness lie beyond the bounds of community. Morality is where each person, by choice is joined with his family, friends, and society. It is not made of rules, but is a feeling, and an emotional sensing of reality made up of every relationship. And if you think of it, every relationship has its morality. Some times it is do unto others, and some times it is screw onto others, but each person has to choose between the two.

[ogden]

Originally Posted by Fido

The moral point is this: All good, virtue, and beauty lie in community, and all evil, vice, and ugliness lie beyond the bounds of community. Morality is where each person, by choice is joined with his family, friends, and society. It is not made of rules, but is a feeling, and an emotional sensing of reality made up of every relationship.

Interesting! Are you quoting or paraphrasing? I would like to understand that idea, right now i'm confused. No good outside of community and no bad inside community? Very normative approach. "emotional sense of reality"? Your use of the word emotion make me think of emotivism, and I tend to be more of a logical positivist.

I see your point about not a ridged set of rules though, and how individual motives (and actions) are inseperable from the group. I see a difference in community and society though; community being less encompasing than society. Ultimately the group/communuty itself can be imoral and harmfull to others in society. I can think of several communities that members might have a moral sense of rightness while being harmfull to others (el-quida).

In the US If someone is law abiding, caring, spiritual, productive at work, helpfull to others and just happened to be gay, that person could be concidered imoral in the community? What community, the gay community? I'm also sure that there are motives and actons within the gay community that are deemed imoral, so you are probably right in describing ethics in an emotional sense, it just sounds so ambiguous and sketchy when I would like it to be defined, and emperical. Perhaps my confusion is in how individuals merge and seperate from the group/groups.

I am hetero sexual, but I do advocate for my gay and lesbian friends. I think they have a right to thier relationships and thier identity without anyone imposing thier morality on them. I do not think it is right (imoral) for them to be denied civil union with all the benifits that comes with. I think they are being denied thier civil rights.

[de Silentio]

fido - All good, virtue, and beauty lie in community, and all evil, vice, and ugliness lie beyond the bounds of community

I also find this interesting. If a community starts defining what beauty and virtue are, they essentially say what ugliness and vice are by the very fact that they are defining what virtue and beauty are. (thus the community also defines what vice and ugliness is) Or am I reading you incorrectly?

-----

Now, just jumping into the thread, and I'm sure someone has stated this. Sex, in and of itself, cannot be immoral because it is necessary. (I think I agree with Ogden on this one) However, Human sex is never just sex (like in nature). There is always additional elements that are thrown in. Sex becomes more than what nature intended it to be (merely reproduction). Once sex is used for means other than reproduction, it is no longer 'natural', in the sense that this is what nature has intended for sex. So once we go above and beyond the 'natural' status of sex, we can begin evaluating what is and is not immoral about it. And I suppose I do have to agree with Fido that, to an extent, cultures determine what is moral and immoral about sex. However, I do think there are certain things that are inherently immoral (for example, in Africa a man can sew his wife’s genitalia shut to ensure that no other man sleeps with her).

On the other hand, I do not know if there is anything that is anything inherently moral about sex.

[ogden]

Originally Posted by de Silentio

Once sex is used for means other than reproduction, it is no longer 'natural', in the sense that this is what nature has intended for sex. So once we go above and beyond the 'natural' status of sex, we can begin evaluating what is and is not immoral about it.

"beyond natural" thats a tuff one. Could there be natural purposes for sex beyond reproduction? I have found evidance that suggests that multiple male partners actually increases the survival of the offspring. It works like this: the multiple male partners are all unsure of thier paternity so they all feel obligated to care for the offspring. Maybe sexuality is usefull at cementing familial bonds (as noted by teena). That would also be a reason beyond reproducton that is useull but not necessarily imoral. Indeed the family bond is usefull to the individuals and the group as a whole.

I have observed in myself (and others) a desire to "be with" other females, even though I am married. I never gave in to this compulsion, and I felt guilty for it. But I suggest that this urge is natural, posibly to pramote genetic diversity, I deemed it imoral but not unatural.

If we had a psychologist in this thread, I bet they could point out physiological benifits to sex. Is the pleasure of it usefull in nature? Is deriving pleasure imoral? You don't need a cup of tea, you just want it for the pleasure, and there is no harm in it. Is tea imoral?. Witch brings the discussion back around to point: "what's the deal with sex?"

[Teena]

Regarding the "beyond natural" bit (which I also find curious) It's pretty hard to judge what's natural & what isnt. I know I sort of held an assumption that only humans are capable of "unnatural" behavior, & thus, if a similar behavior can be observed in animals, then it must be natural. Could animals be capable of "unnatural" behavior?
I'm not even sure what exactly I'm classifying as natural/unnatural here. I guess just use of a thing for something other than what nature intended it for, or its prime use?? Either way I think its quite possible/likely that there is more than one (natural) purpose for sex.
& how morality ties in with whats natural is also a question.
I think I'll just look more into what information is available regarding animal/human sexual behavior before saying anything else.

2 articles I just read & found interesting:
The Gay Side of Nature - TIME
Oxytocin, chemical addiction and the science of love

[de Silentio]

"beyond natural" thats a tuff one. Could there be natural purposes for sex beyond reproduction?

You are right that is tough. Good catch.