A Conservative view of Sex, QnA

[_Morley]

The whole thing is wonderfully mysterious.

The orgasm itself is not the goal for me. It just happens.

Disclaimer: I don't engage in casual sex since I have an understanding with my wife.

Sex is what each person brings to it, and seldom if ever do two people enter into sexual relations with one another with the same set of expectations, purposes, and goals. If you think it has to mean the same thing for both participants, you'll be sadly disappointed by all the 'misunderstanding.' In a way, I think it is each participant's responsibility to achieve his or her own purposes for engaging in sex with another. I'm not saying reaching orgasm is each participant's own responsibility. My own sensations of titillation and orgasms are great. But over the years, they have become predictable, and the excitement from them has waned. In inverse proportion over time, I have replaced that waning excitement with a different excitement--making sure that my sex partner loses control and has an over-the-top orgasm. As I've aged, I've found that much more satisfying, even though it takes concentrated effort. For me, not only am I responsible for my partner's orgasm, but that has become the only way for me that sex is satisfying. And yes, as I've become older this has involved sexual encounters that did not involve me having had an orgasm, but which have been some of the most satisfying encounters of my life.

When I was under age 40, I could not have fathomed a sexual encounter having been satisfying for me if I did not have an orgasm. That was then, this is now.

Well done.

[_Rambo]

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....

haha that was funny. Alright, what happens if they both really like each other but they are not yet in a relationship with that person. Is it immoral for them to have sex? Let's say they have known each other for 2 weeks.

[_MrStakhanovite]

But that's not relevant to the point I was making.

Sure it is, sex and tennis are fundamentally different in almost every way, to the point where I don’t think the analogy is no longer probative. The disconnect is that you are talking about the descriptive, and I’m talking about the normative in a conservative sexual ethic.

In your scenario you've completely depersonalized the chubby girl.

If you wanted to get technical, I’ve depersonalized them both as être-en-soi (being-in-itself), two things I created to make an example. It is mere an example of Sartrean bad faith that I’m pointing out.

She can have her own positive, not-being taken advantage of motives for having sex too.

You are mistaking the project here; I’m assuming a certain sexual ethic before making a moral judgment on an act.

[_MrStakhanovite]

It’s casual sex I think of as immoral.

Casual sex is immoral by definition? You seem to be saying that casual sex will always be somewhat exploitative. Really?

Casual sex as in "Friends with benefits" type of thing, not a couple waking up in the night and having impromptu sex.

[_MrStakhanovite]

what happens if they both really like each other but they are not yet in a relationship with that person. Is it immoral for them to have sex? Let's say they have known each other for 2 weeks.

Probably should have held off until they were in an exclusive relationship, but biology can be a bitch.

[_Rambo]

what happens if they both really like each other but they are not yet in a relationship with that person. Is it immoral for them to have sex? Let's say they have known each other for 2 weeks.

Probably should have held off until they were in an exclusive relationship, but biology can be a bitch.

Fair enough. I would agree with you too.

Especially the biology being a bitch.

[_Fiannan]

Of course there is always the scientific view of sex:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

[_EAllusion]

Stak -

When you asserted that sex without emotional commitment amounts to masturbation, I disagreed because masturbation necessarily implies a solo act. The intent of your comparison seemed to be that the partner was acting as a mere sex toy. I disagreed with this as sex can be a cooperative, shared experience without the monogamy and emotional attachment. I used tennis simply to illustrate the distinction between solo and shared.

If you are instead arguing that it is ethically equivalent to masturbation, I agree. Both casual sex and masturbation are morally permissible, though not obligated, with some notable exceptions. I find that to be an unhelpful and strained analogy.

As far as the rest, your argument seems to be a variation of "the moral end of sex is X" argument and I don't see how that is justified anymore than it is in the case of procreative arguments. I can see how a person might advise against promiscuity due to the health and emotional risks involved. Like heroin, some people can try it and be fine, but others are hurt, and who is going to be who isn't obvious beforehand. But to assert as a blanket rule that it is wrong strikes me as wrong.

It isn't inherently harmful. Plenty of people can manage to have casual sex or multiple partners (possibly at once) without getting hurt (or hurt enough to not be worth it). Consequently, I can't get on board with your assertion that invariably one partner will be hurt or what they're doing amounts to masturbation.

[_Some Schmo]

Casual sex is like masturbation... heh.

I don't even know what to say about that, except that I could only explain this opinion by stating that you've either been subject to the worst casual sex possible or you are one phenomenal masturbator.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I disagreed with this as sex can be a cooperative, shared experience without the monogamy and emotional attachment. I used tennis simply to illustrate the distinction between solo and shared.

It can be a cooperative and shared experience, sure, but I think the qualitative difference between the experience within monogamy and emotional attachment is categorically better than without, I think that is sufficient enough to drive a person to discard the experience that is lacking.

If you are instead arguing that it is ethically equivalent to masturbation, I agree. Both casual sex and masturbation are morally permissible, though not obligated, with some notable exceptions. I find that to be an unhelpful and strained analogy.

They are not ethically equivalent, masturbation is a normal human function, sex goes above and beyond just being normal human function by virtue of the shared experience. To squander that experience is a failure to see the other person as they should be seen, you disregard the potential in favor of an orgasm and some perceived emotional safety.

As far as the rest, your argument seems to be a variation of "the moral end of sex is X" argument and I don't see how that is justified anymore than it is in the case of procreative arguments.

It isn’t an argument, since I’m not seeking to persuade anyone. Sex is an end to itself, but without certain components, it ceases to become sex and becomes a form of masturbation, feeding a desire, at the expense of yourself, the other person, or both. The “sex is only for procreation” arguments can follow their same line, but fail to address issues of same sex intercourse, infertility, and a host of other problems.

It isn't inherently harmful. Plenty of people can manage to have casual sex or multiple partners (possibly at once) without getting hurt (or hurt enough to not be worth it).

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet isn’t inherently harmful either. Plenty of people ride their motorcycles sans any form of head protection without getting heart. That still would not stop me from saying everyone should wear helmets.