Love, sex, and spirituality

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is a moral issue independent of religious thought with this: When you're having sex only for pleasure, you're basically"using" another person: in essence, objectifying the other.

When you treat someone else like an object, you end up treating them as something less than a person - and when is that ever the right thing to do?

Not so. For me, the biggest pleasure of all has always been the pleasure I can give my partner. Nothing makes me feel better than that. That has been true for me my entire adult life.

 

[Soandso]

I see no contradiction as sex is supposed an expression of love and affection, and facilitates bonding between the partners. It's much more than just the physical.

100% this ^^^

A healthy sex life in the context of a relationship is very important to keep that relationship healthy, imo. Intimacy is important to keep that bond strong

 

[ppp]

There is a moral issue independent of religious thought with this: When you're having sex only for pleasure, you're basically"using" another person: in essence, objectifying the other.

When you treat someone else like an object, you end up treating them as something less than a person - and when is that ever the right thing to do?

I spent the evening at a friend's house just chatting about different things. No particular purpose other than enjoying the pleasure of his company. Was I, to use your terminology, basically using him for pleasure? Was he just using me? And if not, how would it have been different if we had spent the evening having sex instead?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is a moral issue independent of religious thought with this: When you're having sex only for pleasure, you're basically"using" another person: in essence, objectifying the other. When you treat someone else like an object, you end up treating them as something less than a person

I disagree that sex for pleasure only is immoral. How is having sex with somebody purely for pleasure mistreating them? Sex is never immoral between consenting adults unless there is an element of betrayal. People use one another for assorted purposes all of the time, most moral. When I hire a worker, I'm using him to fix a problem, and there's a quid quo pro as with consensual sex. In my opinion, it's only when we exploit (take unfair advantage of) or deceive others that we are acting immorally.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I disagree that sex for pleasure only is immoral. How is having sex with somebody purely for pleasure mistreating them? Sex is never immoral between consenting adults unless there is an element of betrayal.

I'm not 100% behind the idea myself; it's just something I heard. Still, I'm hesitant about using absolute terms like "never," here.

Communication is key - on more than one occasion, I've been in a sexual situation where each of us, through lack of communication, had different expectations...led to some heartbreak down the road.

People use one another for assorted purposes all of the time, most moral. When I hire a worker, I'm using him to fix a problem, and there's a quid quo pro as with consensual sex. In my opinion, it's only when we exploit (take unfair advantage of) or deceive others that we are acting immorally.

Which goes back to my statement about communication. Bad communication might not result in immoral actions, but it leads to preventable pain.

 

[Trailblazer]

A healthy sex life in the context of a relationship is very important to keep that relationship healthy, imo. Intimacy is important to keep that bond strong

All relationships are different. A sex life may or may not be important in a relationship, and as people age it usually becomes less important.
If sex is 'necessary' to keep the bond strong then the bond is not very strong, Imo. What if one of the partners doesn't want sex? Do you think that is a reason to split up? Why can't people be in a loving relationship without sex if they both agree to that? I know a couple who has that situation.

 

[Trailblazer]

I spent the evening at a friend's house just chatting about different things. No particular purpose other than enjoying the pleasure of his company. Was I, to use your terminology, basically using him for pleasure? Was he just using me? And if not, how would it have been different if we had spent the evening having sex instead?

It wouldn't be any different if you were both on the same page and your feelings about having sex were mutual.

 

[ppp]

What if one of the partners doesn't want sex? Do you think that is a reason to split up? Why can't people be in a loving relationship without sex if they both agree to that? I know a couple who has that situation.

How do the couple you know resolve their different wants?

I have seen it work out several different ways. In one relationship, the partner is ace and while they are disinterested in sex, they are not repulsed by it and choose to have sex for their partner. In another, one partner dates. In another, the the sexural partener employs a professional. I am sure their are many other arrangements.

 

[ppp]

It wouldn't be any different if you were both on the same page and your feelings about having sex were mutual.

I agree.

 

[Soandso]

All relationships are different. A sex life may or may not be important in a relationship, and as people age it usually becomes less important.
If sex is 'necessary' to keep the bond strong then the bond is not very strong, Imo. What if one of the partners doesn't want sex? Do you think that is a reason to split up? Why can't people be in a loving relationship without sex if they both agree to that? I know a couple who has that situation.

Well, it is true that different people have different needs, and age is certainly a factor as well that changes the dynamic. Aesexual relationships are a thing too, so that's a part of the factor as well

All that said, would one person changing the sex dynamic be a reason to split up? It can certainly cause relationship problems, and usually is a sign that things aren't all right. Couples therapy might be an option in that case if things can't be worked through by talking about it

 

[Trailblazer]

How do the couple you know resolve their different wants?

They don't have different wants because neither one of them wants sex.

I have seen it work out several different ways. In one relationship, the partner is ace and while they are disinterested in sex, they are not repulsed by it and choose to have sex for their partner. In another, one partner dates. In another, the the sexural partener employs a professional. I am sure their are many other arrangements.

I am sure arrangements can be made and it is workable if both parties are agreeable to those arrangements, whatever they are.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, it is true that different people have different needs, and age is certainly a factor as well that changes the dynamic. Aesexual relationships are a thing too, so that's a part of the factor as well

Age is a factor that can change the relationship dynamic. Physical changes in the body are real much as some people cannot face that reality.

A person can lose interest in having sex but that does not mean they are asexual. It could be due to hormonal changes or just a lack of interest, or it might even be related to religious beliefs.

All that said, would one person changing the sex dynamic be a reason to split up? It can certainly cause relationship problems, and usually is a sign that things aren't all right. Couples therapy might be an option in that case if things can't be worked through by talking about it

A change in the sex dynamic is just a change in the sex dynamic, it is not a sign that other things are not right in the relationship.
Couples therapy might be an option but in the end one partner just might have to face the reality that the other partner is not interested and what they do about that is up to them.

 

[ppp]

They don't have different wants because neither one of them wants sex.

You started your framing of the situation with "What if one of the partners doesn't want sex? " And never explicitly left that framing. Uhg.

I am sure arrangements can be made and it is workable if both parties are agreeable to those arrangements, whatever they are.

Yeah. And we should move towards a society that does not try to police those adukt and consensual agreements.

 

[Trailblazer]

You started your framing of the situation with "What if one of the partners doesn't want sex? " And never explicitly left that framing. Uhg.

In post #166 I said: What if one of the partners doesn't want sex? Do you think that is a reason to split up?

I did leave that framing in post #166 when I said:
Why can't people be in a loving relationship without sex if they both agree to that? I know a couple who has that situation.

I was responding to your question in post #168: How do the couple you know resolve their different wants?

In post #171, I said: They don't have different wants because neither one of them wants sex (as I noted in post #166).

Yeah. And we should move towards a society that does not try to police those adult and consensual agreements.

I see no policing of any adult consensual relationships in this society. In fact I see quite the contrary.

 

[ppp]

In post #171, I said: They don't have different wants because neither one of them wants sex (as I noted in post #166).

Two people agreeing to having no sex is not the same as neither person wanting to have sex.

I agree to not farting in public, but I still want to.
As far as you know.

I see no policing of any adult consensual relationships in this society. In fact I see quite the contrary.

If the society you are in is the US, then you are not paying attention. Or holding your hands over your eyes.

 

[Trailblazer]

Two people agreeing to having no sex is not the same as neither person wanting to have sex.

I agree to not farting in public, but I still want to.
As far as you know.

You are correct. Two people agreeing to having no sex is not the same as neither person wanting to have sex.

But in post #171, I said: "They don't have different wants because neither one of them wants sex."
Is the problem that you cannot even imagine a man not 'wanting' to have sex? Such men are rare but they do exist.

If the society you are in is the US, then you are not paying attention. Or holding your hands over your eyes.

What am I not seeing? This society legitimizes sex and promotes it constantly in every aspect except rape.

 

[ppp]

But in post #171, I said: "They don't have different wants because neither one of them wants sex."
Is the problem that you cannot even imagine a man not 'wanting' to have sex? Such men are rare but they do exist.

Being gray-ace, I may know a thing or two about that. . No, I was grumbling at the ambiguity of your grammar.

What am I not seeing? This society legitimizes sex and promotes it constantly in every aspect except rape.

Not the portion that seeks to keep sex as risky as possible by stigmatizing contraception and restricting access to both contraception and abortion. Or the portion that seeks to disallow medical care in the basis of gender. Or the portion that seeks to abridge civil rights based or orientation. Or the portion that seeks to eliminate sex education. Or isolate and demonize trans kids. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's fine. And his answer to you might be similar: If a woman wants to marry me all she has to do is prove that we are sexually compatible. I would think that you would be neutral about that and say that that's fine, too, but I think you mind that many men feel that way. You seem to disapprove of them, describing them as placing too high a priority on sex.

My 'willingness' to have sex in wedlock is not the same as me proving to a prospective husband we are sexually compatible. Sexually compatible only means we are on the same page, whether we are both interested or both uninterested.

I don't mind if men want a wife with whom he is sexually compatible. In fact, I think it is an important consideration and something one should know before they get married. If a man places too high a priority on sex I would not be compatible with him, but I would not disapprove, as i would consider that his own business, just as it is my own business that I place a high priority on my cats.

Here's something I learned in the practice of medicine. Many women identify themselves with their looks and fertility, and the loss of either as with aging, accident, or medical illness can make her feel like less of a woman. The equivalent for men is their ability to work and their sexual potency. A man made impotent by paralysis and confined to a wheel chair will often feel like less of a man if he can't support or satisfy his woman. That never disappears for many men.

Yes, I think that is true of both men and women.

As I said, we use the word avoidance differently. What you just described would be avoidance as I use the word. I would say that you avoid sex outside of marriage. You probably use a different verb.

Okay, fair enough.

That's irrelevant to the matter. It's not an either-or. We can address both needs at once.

Yes, you can address both at once, although sex is not really a need, it is a desire.

Those are not reasons to avoid sex or extramarital sex if they're not the habits of either partner. You can add alcohol to that list of things that can cause problems and break up marriages, but unless one has a problem there, it's not a reason to abstain.

That's true. The main reason to avoid extramarital sex is one's beliefs about the dangers or harm or moral concerns of engaging in it, and I don't mean only religious beliefs. I avoided extramarital sex long before I ever had a religion.

Why does that matter? Is that an argument against extramarital sex?

It is 'one reason' why extramarital sex can be harmful to individuals and society, unless you think abortion is not problematic.

 

[ppp]

although sex is not really a need, it is a desire.

Is affection(physical or otherwise) a need or a desire? Friendship? Society?

 

[Trailblazer]

Not the portion that seeks to keep sex as risky as possible by stigmatizing contraception and restricting access to both contraception and abortion. Or the portion that seeks to disallow medical care in the basis of gender. Or the portion that seeks to abridge civil rights based or orientation. Or the portion that seeks to eliminate sex education. Or isolate and demonize trans kids. Etc. Etc. Etc.

But 'trying' to police adult and consensual sex has not worked very well to stop anyone from having sex, has it?