A Conservative view of Sex, QnA

[_Rambo]

I take that back, I don't think there is such a thing as casual sex. It either costs one of the participants more than they bargained for, or it was just masturbation, and you turn a fellow human being into some kind of object that enabled you to get your due, so to speak.

What happens if you both consider each other objects? I'm pretty sure there is such cases.

[_EAllusion]

First, sex is not about tactile sensations or procreation,

Well, it can be. I think people get themselves in trouble when thinking about sex when they think there is but one end for it. Sex can adequately satisfy a variety of ends that are perfectly appropriate. And some that are not. Some of those ends might be more meaningful to us in the long run, but that does not invalidate the others by that mere fact. Sex is about pleasure, emotional connection, entertainment, procreation, exercise, and several other things. Often several of those at once, but not necessarily. And that's Ok.

I think there's a case to be made against promiscuity, but that case is in health risks and emotional consequences rather than sex having to be about one particular thing.

[_Morley]

Stak- For clarification: How is your manifesto 'conservative'? (I'm not insinuating that it's 'liberal,' either.)

I think it's conservative because I heavily favor traditional monogamous couples, who don’t have sex outside the relationship. I view most Pornography as crass and can be damaging to someone’s sexuality. I hate it when promiscuity is exalted in pop culture, and the notion that “hook ups” are some how cool.

I don’t like deviant sexualities where people have sex with animals, and I don’t like religions who promote or have promoted deviant practices, like polygamy.

I'd have to agree much of your original statement as well as with all of the above. And I'm a self-identified liberal. Good thread idea. Thanks.

[_MrStakhanovite]

What happens if you both consider each other objects? I'm pretty sure there is such cases.

I'm sure that is the majority of cases, shame on the both of them.


Give to him Babu....

[_EAllusion]

I take that back, I don't think there is such a thing as casual sex. It either costs one of the participants more than they bargained for, or it was just masturbation, and you turn a fellow human being into some kind of object that enabled you to get your due, so to speak.

I think that's hyperbolic. If I play tennis with someone, I don't think I'm really engaged in solo play with a person who is serving as my personal ball machine. That there is another person involved with me in a mutual, cooperative act makes it a shared experience.

And it's not immoral to masturbate in any case.

[_Chap]

I'd just like to say that it seems to me probable that when he has lived for a few more decades he may find himself less clear about what sex is or is not than he seems to be today.

Oh goodness... really? That's what you have to offer? That Stak needs to wise up?

Wow!

No, I said that he may feel less clear than he seems to be now on the subject of what sex is or is not as his life goes on and his experience grows. That can happen to the cleverest people, and does not imply anything so trivial as that they 'needed to wise up'.

[_EAllusion]

I think lots of people find that as they age and gain sexual experience it loses its appeal as a special, sacred act. When it becomes commonplace and done in a variety circumstances for different reasons over a period of years, that teenagy "specialness" fades. And with that, people aren't as inclined to argue Stak's flowery thesis about submission and two halves forming a whole. Now, I don't think this is reason to dismiss Stak and I don't think Stak is some 18 year old near-virgin. But I get what Chap's sayin'.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think that's hyperbolic. If I play tennis with someone....

Tennis isn't sex, it does not involve the same emotional comminitments, nor do they elicit the same physiological reactions.

And it's not immoral to masturbate in any case.

I think it can be, if you are doing it at someone elses' expense.

I’m not talking about the guy who uses porn as an aid, I’m talking about the guy who takes home the insecure chubby girl, because he wants an orgasm, and he knows she’ll have sex with him. He’s not recognizing the severity of the act, and in doing so, reduces her from a person to just a thing to get off on.
I consider that masturbation, and not sex.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think lots of people find that as they age and gain sexual experience it loses its appeal as a special, sacred act. When it becomes commonplace and done in a variety circumstances for different reasons over a period of years, that teenagy "specialness" fades. And with that, people aren't as inclined to argue Stak's flowery thesis about submission and two halves forming a whole. Now, I don't think this is reason to dismiss Stak and I don't think Stak is some 18 year old near-virgin. But I get what Chap's sayin'.

I don't think Chap was dismissing me, I just don't think he agrees. I don't want sex to become some mundane biological function, like urinating, and I think the best way to avoid that is to take my Hegelian approach here.

We can reduce sex to biological explanations alone, but it doesn’t do reality justice and cheapens the effect.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'm out for the night, but I look forward to reading people's thoughts and reactions.