What Number of Sex Partners is Optimal?

[atanu]

... maybe even in most cases -- if you've had 12 or so partners, ....

What about Trump?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about Trump?

Personally, I would not want Trump as a sexual partner.

 

[Trailblazer]

- the prohibition on sex outside of marriage.

I include that last point because I see prohibitions on premarital sex as being a way to try to ensure that the husband/bride-buyer is the biological parent of any children his wife might have. IOW, this rule is fundamentally about breeding, IMO.

In a way you are right since the primary purpose of marriage is to raise children and the primary purpose of sex is to have children.

 

[Sunstone]

In a way you are right since the primary purpose of marriage is to raise children and the primary purpose of sex is to have children.

Nature has functions, but no purposes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In a way you are right since the primary purpose of marriage is to raise children and the primary purpose of sex is to have children.

The primary purpose of sex and marriage depends on the intent of the people involved.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nature has functions, but no purposes.

God has purposes for things to exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

The primary purpose of sex and marriage depends on the intent of the people involved.

Purposes for sex and marriage are determined by God, but if you do not believe in God you can determine your own purposes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Purposes for sex and marriage are determined by God, but if you do not believe in God you can determine your own purposes.

And did God tell you his purposes?

We can infer from "God's design" that human sex is much less about procreation than it is for other species:

- humans can get aroused any time; many other species only get aroused when conception is most likely (i.e. going into heat).

- human females have covert ovulation; many other mammals - including some of our closest relatives - have overt ovulation:
during ovulation, the female has obvious external physical signs.

If we're going to assume that God designed us, then it certainly seems he went out of his way to encourage humans to have non-procreative sex.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Purposes for sex and marriage are determined by God, but if you do not believe in God you can determine your own purposes.

And did God tell you his purposes?

Yes, God did tell me, through the revelation to Baha’u’llah. Below it says that we are enjoined to marry and have children. That does not mean we have to marry and/or have children; that is not a Baha’i Law. There are circumstances under which one does not marry and sometimes one cannot have children, for physical reasons or even emotional reasons.

God hath prescribed matrimony unto you...Enter into wedlock, O people, that ye may bring forth one who will make mention of Me amid My servants. This is My bidding unto you; hold fast to it as an assistance to yourselves.
A selection of extracts from the Bahá’í writings on family life and marriage

We can infer from "God's design" that human sex is much less about procreation than it is for other species:

- humans can get aroused any time; many other species only get aroused when conception is most likely (i.e. going into heat).

- human females have covert ovulation; many other mammals - including some of our closest relatives - have overt ovulation:
during ovulation, the female has obvious external physical signs.

If we're going to assume that God designed us, then it certainly seems he went out of his way to encourage humans to have non-procreative sex.

Can you think of other reasons why this might be the case? God made it possible for humans to have sex whenever they want to but that does not mean that God wants humans to have sex whenever they want to with whomever they want to. This is in effect a test, a way to allow people to choose between their physical desires and other things that are more important for spiritual growth so they can differentiate themselves. God, being All-Knowing, already knows what we will choose, but God wants us to choose and thereby elevate or abase ourselves.

That does not mean that sex is bad, not in its proper context, which is marriage, but it is not more important than God, so we should not put our emphasis on it.

The Bahá’í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expression such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá’ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.
A selection of extracts from the Bahá’í writings on family life and marriage

Admittedly, I have a bias because when I was first married, for about 15 years I placed far too much importance on sex, to the neglect of God and other people, so now the pendulum has swung back the other way. I see the inherent dangers in being attached to physical pleasures, not just sex but anything in the physical world, because I have run the gamut of addictions in my life… No thanks, I am much happier now than I ever was now that God and other people are my entire focus. Some people have called me repressed but I know I am just free from the chains of bondage.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, God did tell me, through the revelation to Baha’u’llah.

Sounds more like you have hearsay that you attribute to God.

Can you think of other reasons why this might be the case?

Sure: polyandry.

When God arranges things so it's unclear to the males which is the father of a given child, he creates a system where a female's multiple male partners all have incentive to help care for all of her offspring.

... but I'm guessing that this isn't what you were going for, was it?

God made it possible for humans to have sex whenever they want to but that does not mean that God wants humans to have sex whenever they want to with whomever they want to. This is in effect a test, a way to allow people to choose between their physical desires and other things that are more important for spiritual growth so they can differentiate themselves. God, being All-Knowing, already knows what we will choose, but God wants us to choose and thereby elevate or abase ourselves.

That does not mean that sex is bad, not in its proper context, which is marriage, but it is not more important than God, so we should not put our emphasis on it.

The Bahá’í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expression such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá’ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.
A selection of extracts from the Bahá’í writings on family life and marriage

Let me get this straight: you're saying thst God did design people to be predisposed to non-procreative sex, but he did this because he wanted people not to do it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Yes, God did tell me, through the revelation to Baha’u’llah.

Sounds more like you have hearsay that you attribute to God.

Call it what you like, God does not speak directly to anyone except His chosen Messengers.

Trailblazer said: Can you think of other reasons why this might be the case?

Sure: polyandry.

When God arranges things so it's unclear to the males which is the father of a given child, he creates a system where a female's multiple male partners all have incentive to help care for all of her offspring.

... but I'm guessing that this isn't what you were going for, was it?

Why would God want to arrange for that? The man who fathered the child should be responsible to care for it...
No, that was not what I was getting at.

Trailblazer said: God made it possible for humans to have sex whenever they want to but that does not mean that God wants humans to have sex whenever they want to with whomever they want to. This is in effect a test, a way to allow people to choose between their physical desires and other things that are more important for spiritual growth so they can differentiate themselves. God, being All-Knowing, already knows what we will choose, but God wants us to choose and thereby elevate or abase ourselves.

That does not mean that sex is bad, not in its proper context, which is marriage, but it is not more important than God, so we should not put our emphasis on it.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that God did design people to be predisposed to non-procreative sex, but he did this because he wanted people not to do it?

No, that is not what I meant. God wants them to do it, but only with the person they are married to, not with anyone else.

The test I spoke of is for people to keep sex restricted to the marriage partner and not have sex out of wedlock. For many unmarried people it is a huge test to not have sex.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Call it what you like, God does not speak directly to anyone except His chosen Messengers.

If you say so.

What I was getting at is that the credibility of your position on this issue is tied to the credibility of the Baha'i scriptures as a whole. Anyone who thinks the Baha'i scriptures were messages from God will probably be Baha'i, so you can't expect this line of argument to be compelling to a non-Baha'i.

Why would God want to arrange for that? The man who fathered the child should be responsible to care for it...
No, that was not what I was getting at.

I have no idea why God would want that. Personally, I find the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe would have strong feelings about the form of human relationships even more far-fetched than the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.

I was playing the game of inferring God's intent from "God's design" - presumably, if we were all designed to play a part in some overall goal, then we should be able to deduce at least parts of that goal by seeing what we're optimized for... and we're optimized much more for non-procreative sex than other species.

Edit: we're also optimized much more for doubt about parenthood than other species. Human males have much more reason to think they might be the biological fathers of offspring that aren't theirs and might not be the biological fathers of offspring that are theirs than males in the many other species where sex only happens once in the female's cycle and only when conception is most likely.

But I'll turn your question around on you: why would God want sex only to be in a marriage?

No, that is not what I meant. God wants them to do it, but only with the person they are married to, not with anyone else.

The test I spoke of is for people to keep sex restricted to the marriage partner and not have sex out of wedlock. For many unmarried people it is a huge test to not have sex.

So you do agree that God designed human sex to be mostly non-procreative, but you think that God wants this non-procreative sex to be in the context of a marriage?

I hope you realize that this is a change from your original position when you said that sex is primarily for procreation.

 

[Stanyon]

When one finds that one love, that true love one should hold on to it and hold it forever.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Call it what you like, God does not speak directly to anyone except His chosen Messengers.

If you say so.

What I was getting at is that the credibility of your position on this issue is tied to the credibility of the Baha'i scriptures as a whole. Anyone who thinks the Baha'i scriptures were messages from God will probably be Baha'i, so you can't expect this line of argument to be compelling to a non-Baha'i.

Of course, I do not expect it to be compelling as an argument, but it is not really an argument.
I was just “sharing” what I believe so you will know where I am coming from.

Of course, unless someone is not a Baha’i there won’t be any reason to believe it.

Trailblazer said: Why would God want to arrange for that? The man who fathered the child should be responsible to care for it...

No, that was not what I was getting at.

I have no idea why God would want that. Personally, I find the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe would have strong feelings about the form of human relationships even more far-fetched than the idea of an intelligent creator of the universe.

I was playing the game of inferring God's intent from "God's design" - presumably, if we were all designed to play a part in some overall goal, then we should be able to deduce at least parts of that goal by seeing what we're optimized for... and we're optimized much more for non-procreative sex than other species.

If you are just looking at the human body, you are not going to figure out what we are “optimized” for, since the body has nothing to do with the purpose of our existence. The body is not who we are. It has certain physical functions, but if all you look at is our physical functions you are not looking at the person himself. The soul is the person himself, the very essence of who we are. The physical body is only an outer shell, a vehicle that is needed to carry the soul around while we are alive on earth. After we die, the body decomposes and the soul goes to a spiritual realm and takes on a form made up of heavenly elements that exist in that realm.

Edit: we're also optimized much more for doubt about parenthood than other species. Human males have much more reason to think they might be the biological fathers of offspring that aren't theirs and might not be the biological fathers of offspring that are theirs than males in the many other species where sex only happens once in the female's cycle and only when conception is most likely.

It was not part of God’s Plan for us to have these doubts. There would be no question who fathered children if people only had sex in marriage.

But I'll turn your question around on you: why would God want sex only to be in a marriage?

The answer is in the Baha’i Book of Laws, which is called The Kitáb-i-Aqdas. It is considered the “Most Holy Book” of the Baha’i Faith.

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

In short then, sex outside of marriage threatens the institution of marriage because people do not have to get married in order to have sex. Not only that, but permissive sex leads to unwanted pregnancies and fatherless children. If people can have sex with whomever they want to without being married it diminishes the sanctity of the sex act as a bonding between those who are committed to one another in love and marriage.

This might sound harsh, but people can wait until they are married to have sex. I doubt most people wait, but what most people do should not be the basis for deciding what best for us as individuals and as a society. We only need look at the harm caused by promiscuous sex and adultery to know that. What we “want” is not always what is best and in fact it usually isn’t. That is why religions have teachings and laws.

All that said, it might seem innocent enough to live together and have sex out of wedlock, but there are good reasons for not doing so.

This is a BIG subject. If you are curious about the Baha’i views, which differs greatly from societal norms, you can read this: Chastity and Sex Education

Trailblazer said: No, that is not what I meant. God wants them to do it, but only with the person they are married to, not with anyone else.

The test I spoke of is for people to keep sex restricted to the marriage partner and not have sex out of wedlock. For many unmarried people it is a huge test to not have sex.

So you do agree that God designed human sex to be mostly non-procreative, but you think that God wants this non-procreative sex to be in the context of a marriage?

I cannot say what God designed human sex to be “mostly for.” All I have to refer to are the Writings of Baha’u’llah and from those I draw inferences. I believe that God designed sex to be mostly procreative; that is its primary purpose. Other Baha’is would not agree with me so this does not represent the Baha’i view. I tend to strictly adhere to what Baha’u’llah wrote and I apply it to married as well as unmarried people.

For one example: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 117-118.

For another example: “Disencumber yourselves of all attachment to this world and the vanities thereof. Beware that ye approach them not, inasmuch as they prompt you to walk after your own lusts and covetous desires, and hinder you from entering the straight and glorious Path.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 276

But then we have this:

“Should a man wish to adorn himself with the ornaments of the earth, to wear its apparels, or partake of the benefits it can bestow, no harm can befall him, if he alloweth nothing whatever to intervene between him and God, for God hath ordained every good thing, whether created in the heavens or in the earth, for such of His servants as truly believe in Him. Eat ye, O people, of the good things which God hath allowed you, and deprive not yourselves from His wondrous bounties. Render thanks and praise unto Him, and be of them that are truly thankful.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 276

So from that passage above one might infer that since sex is “allowed” in marriage there are no holds barred! I thought that for many years and I took full advantage of it, but in retrospect I now know what it cost me, a relationship with God. I have now read more of Baha’u’llah’s Writings, the fine print. Had I known before it might have made a difference, but I doubt it because I just wanted what I wanted, my own selfish desires. Back then I did not care about God.

By fine print I mean that there are many passages that say we are not to be “attached” to worldly things and mundane desires. I consider sex a mundane desire but other Baha’is do not see it that way... I have a certain bias so I think that they are just rationalizing so they can have what they want as opposed to what Baha’u’llah said we should want. However, we all have to make our own decisions. If the “good things” do not intervene between them and God they can have them. I know they would for me so I’d rather play it safe.

I hope you realize that this is a change from your original position when you said that sex is primarily for procreation.

I have not changed my original position, as you can see, but this is just my personal opinion and in no way represents the position of the Baha’i Faith. Personally, I do not want to be held captive by the desires of the flesh.