|
Sex
Mar 10, 2004 17:17:57 GMT -5
Post by Archagon on Mar 10, 2004 17:17:57 GMT -5
He still is a mod...
|
|
|
Sex
Mar 13, 2004 1:47:29 GMT -5
Post by Monolith on Mar 13, 2004 1:47:29 GMT -5
I believe that Alexei brought this thread back to try to have a REASON for his thinking of Sex every several seconds. In truth, he really just loves this type of talk, beleive me, I should know. ;D ~*~Me just this part, I don't mean to be overly strict but the love jokes are one thing, the sex jokes are another. I admit I overeacted a bit, it was rather late when i posted, but i'm just trying to draw a line. (Note to self, don't post after 11 like I am now)
|
|
|
Sex
Mar 13, 2004 3:00:55 GMT -5
Post by Nature's Fury on Mar 13, 2004 3:00:55 GMT -5
Such interesting subjects...
**DISCLAIMER** Before I reply, I'd like to mention that my opinions on this matter are apparently in the minority. I don't want to offend anyone, and I respect all the opinions that have been aired thus far. I don't wish to alienate myself or anyone else with my answers, so if anything I say begins to offend you, please don't feel compelled to keep reading. Also, I don’t want anyone to think that I am trying to force an opinion. With the current formula of society, I have No Idea what the best thing for individuals to do concerning sex is. Its too complex for a single person to be able to decide for anyone beside themselves. **END OF DISCLAIMER**
I am extremely religious. Those of you who know me well have probably heard me rant more than once on the subject of religion. For any of you who don't know, I follow the Goddess of Earth, Gaia, and the "rules" of my faith are rather different than the rules of many other religions. By my faith, sex, whether before or after a handfasting, is not wrong. It is a physical act, an act designed to have two goals; pleasure and reproduction. Each of these goals is important. Each of these goals is worthy. These goals don't always coincide. My faith doesn't restrict sex to strictly a means of reproduction, this would be demeaning the act of sex by denying it the pleasure it creates. Sex produces pleasure. That pleasure isn't dirty or wrong or something to be treated as an accidental effect. Having sex for pleasure isn't wrong. I haven't heard anyone say that here, I just wanted to mention it because there are any number of religious institutions that say so. (The christian church didn't actually regulate sex quite so strictly as it does now until midway through the 13th century, just for reference... Too many monks who were supposed to be devoting themselves soley to god were with women, so the church stepped in, and for about two hundred years, the monks had to work off their sexual energy without actually engaging in sex, so they thought it to death. They had too much time to analyze and dissect it, and that is when all those rediculous rules started being written.) There are different psychological factors to be considered when reviewing this topic, the main ones being: 1) What are the psychological effects of having sex, and 2) What are the psychological effects of NOT having sex. Now, with the first, they are plentiful and different for each person. My personal take on the issue is that sex is about trust and affection. I don't believe sex is soley about romantic love with a single person. I can't believe that, because I don't honestly believe that romantic love is always restricted to one person, nor that if a person romantically loves several people, that they should either be forced to choose, or be denied interaction. I don't believe sex is about romantic love. I think sex can Add to romantic love. I think that romantic love most definately would add to the passion involved in sex. But I don't think the two MUST go hand in hand. Sex, to me, would be more about trust than love. If I can trust a person enough to allow them to be that intimately involved with my body, then why should a restriction be placed on something that causes pleasure? If there is affection between friends, why should that be less acceptable for sex than romantic love between friends? (And I make a fairly large assumption; that romantic love is based in friendship and trust). The issue there comes down to whether sex for pleasure is wrong or not. And I don’t believe it is. My Gods certainly don’t say so, my body doesn’t say so, and my observations of the nature of humans, and of nature, don’t say so. Long ago, sex was reffered to as a gift from the gods to create pleasure. When that changed, how it changed, I’m not entirely sure. That Why would be useful to know. Part of it was a cultural shift from the nature/woman based society to the agriculture/male based society, and part of it was the shift from polytheism to monotheism. Whatever started it, though, the concept that pleasure was somehow wrong was cemented by the Institution of the church. (I don’t wish to disrespect anyone’s religion, so I would like to point out that the Institution IS Different from the Faith. The Faith is ruled by people’s faith in God. The Institution is ruled by completely human, and therefore fallable, corruptable, political, people, who were, for quite a long time, litterally politicans, and who all have goals and motives that aren’t always truly God’s Will.) Modern American society was founded on Puritan beliefs, and the morals derived in this society, and therefore the mental associations and psychological impulses were also derived from Puritan beliefs. The shame that is associated with sex, especially for females, is really less about sex and more about society. This creates an environment where sex will have Serious psychological effects. Shame, guilt, confusion, entrapment, possessiveness, and incorrect attatchment can all result from sexual activities because of the societal influence on individuals. Sex became wrapped up in religion, culture, and romantic love, rather than in pleasure and reproduction.
Now, as everyone knows, sex for pleasure can also have some unexpected or unwanted complications; children. There are ways to prevent this. Birth control is really very effective. Ancient cultures all had forms of birth control; some used objects with antiseptic or acidic properties to block the opening of the uterus, some used herbs, some used prayer, magic, and sheer luck (I don’t recommend that last one as a reliable method of birth control, btw. Luck is too tempermental.) Modern society has condoms, the pill, the patch, the shot, the intra-uterine device... There are a dozen and a half ways to prevent pregnancy. Abstenence is one way. It is a very effective way. But it isn’t the only way. (and it didn’t work for Mary, just for the record...)
So, to wrap up, IN MY OPINION, there is nothing wrong with sex before marriage, as sex isn’t about romantic love. It is about trust, affection, and pleasurable interaction. It is about opening oneself to a physical reaction to a pleasant action. If people are comfortable with each other, and are capable of rising above the puritanical bounds of a male-dominated, monothiestic, agrarian guilt run society, and are willing to be intimate, then kudos for them.
(These arguments are scattered, incomplete, and probably fairly confusing, and I apologize. It was nearly one in the morning when I finished up, and I’m tired and a little confused myself. I apologize if I offended anyone, and if I was too incoherant for someone to understand a reference or a point I made, please ask, and I will clarify.)
|
|