Why sex is so disgusting

[The Sum of Awe]

It does seem that Antisocial and Autism have similar symptoms:

From the MayoClinic website:

1. Socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior

2. Limited interests or preoccupation with a subject

3. Repetitive behaviors or rituals;

4. Peculiarities in speech and language;

5. Problems with nonverbal communication

6. Lack of empathy

7. Clumsy and uncoordinated motor movements

8. Inflexibility or rigid thinking

9. Fear of changes; sameness in daily routines

From the Psychcentral website:

Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults

Reckless disregard for safety of self or others

Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations

Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why do the average individual engage in and hold an interest in sex? It seems to drive the current media and common interest of so many.

Simply put, it's fun and it feels really good.

I know my opinions are not held by the average person and I am not trying to espouse them on other claiming mines are correct as sexuality is a matter of personal preference.
I view sex is a highly annoying, materialistic desire that is an utter waste of time. If I want sex it can be fulfilled by simulating it with masturbation every year, or 3 years for that matter. The concept of another human being wanting to engage with fleshly contact between another is just mind boggling to me. Diseases, bacteria and STD's are spread this way so instead of taking a 85% chance hoping to avoid the 15% why have sex at all? (This was my first excuse to avoid sex actually. I used it twice and it left the female hurt somehow due to petty emotions)

Or, a female could get pregnant. Or, somebody might walk in on you. Or, you might say or do the wrong thing to annoy or tick off the person you're with. Or, your preferences wind up not matching up at all. Or, you find out the best friend or one night stand really turns out to be a nervous wreck.

There are plenty of "what ifs" when it comes to sex. I look at it as if it's a microcosm of life in general. So, the risks are not ignored, but looked at and all precaution is taken to lessen the risk. Like driving a car or riding a bike or flying in a plane. You just lessen the risk as much as possible during the act.

Romance and marriage as well are also equally confusing. The thought of another person wanting to "be with you" is like a virus wanting to be attached to a tissue cell. It is disease like and viral in comparison the same way obsession ruled John Hinckley's life with Jodie Foster. Sleeping with another person and expecting "intimacy" are just things I find highly abnormal which would (and will) ruin someone's privacy which is for some their life.

It's a level of vulnerability, honesty, and companionship that is not seen in other relationships. If I personally am to share a home with somebody, it really is best when there is transparency so we can find solutions to whatever life throws at us. These solutions are much better when there is a flow of information back and forth.

How do you sexual and romantic people manage these 'impulses'? I am just at loss as to how people manage this

As my Aunt once told me, "Just ride the wave, dear." You don't try to control the powerful ocean wave underneath you. You just ride on top of it and enjoy the thrill as you keep your balance throughout. And to do that, it's important to pay attention to what you're doing and to pay attention to your surroundings.

Just your friendly polar-opposite RF member answering your questions, SA. I love sex. LOVE sex. So, I'd be happy to offer answers to questions about how somebody who loves sex lives her life.

 

[MattersOfTheHeart]

I love sex. LOVE sex.

And there is little on the planet more attractive and enticing than a gorgeous women saying just that.
Thank you, whoever you are!

 

[Alceste]

Your metaphor does not resonate with me on any level sadly. I do not understand its implications honestly.

I do not find romances false but instead I find their foundations baseless in their function and soulless in their actions. They are the unions of two INDIVIDUALS trying to get along.
The only proper relationship to me would be that of a lord and his quiet servant. That is about as romantic as it gets for me. The concept of a personal relationship involving feelings being expressed has no merit for me. I do not wish to share, I do not wish to be bothered, or have such an incipient unstable emotion such as love be introduced. People do all sorts of vile actions int he name of love. I do not wish to take part in something that offers me no benefits.
Love does not clean my shoes, it does not make me happy, it does not do as it is told either. I can do this with dominion and fear but not with love.

I propose to you a challenge, name one thing love can do better that fear can't. I am not saying fear is ideal for people yet alone me but it is better then love.

That's odd. You're the first person I've heard say they prefer to feel fearful than affectionate.

 

[Sunstone]

I've always been a staunch proponent of the notion that everyone else is wrong about sex, while I am perfectly correct about it.

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

Life would be pretty empty if you didn't have anyone to share it with, unless you're one of those people who are really into their field of study and don't care much for anything else. But for the average Joe, we want relationships, and we want a spouse to spend our lives with, and we want intimacy, and we want to raise children. Not everyone feels this way, but seeing how many people exist on Earth today, I think it's safe to say that most of us do.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That's odd. You're the first person I've heard say they prefer to feel fearful than affectionate.

I never said I wish to be feel fear, I just said I would rather be feared. The narrative mode you are expressing is wrong

 

[Vouthon]

The only proper relationship to me would be that of a lord and his quiet servant. That is about as romantic as it gets for me. The concept of a personal relationship involving feelings being expressed has no merit for me. I do not wish to share, I do not wish to be bothered, or have such an incipient unstable emotion such as love be introduced. People do all sorts of vile actions int he name of love. I do not wish to take part in something that offers me no benefits.
Love does not clean my shoes, it does not make me happy, it does not do as it is told either. I can do this with dominion and fear but not with love.

I propose to you a challenge, name one thing love can do better that fear can't. I am not saying fear is ideal for people yet alone me but it is better then love.

Why would you wish to dominate and induce fear in others? You say people do vile actions in the name of love. Do people not do vile actions in the name of "domination and fear"? That is an inane argument to me.

Does that not suggest a lack of comprehension on your part ie the inability to put yourself in the other person's shoes and intuitively understand how you would feel in their situation?

A relationship based upon fear is not a real relationship at all. It is fake; like acting. It lacks will on the part of the dominated if he/she is motivated by fear. He/she is simply an actor performing tricks to ensure his/her safety or survival. If I am afraid of you, I may do things for you out of fear of being hurt by you in some way however this means that my actions are false. They are not done because I want to but because I have no alternative as a result of my fear. There is therefore an inherent lack of "chemistry", understanding, shared understanding etc. between the dominant lord and the servant. It is designed solely for the perverse satisfaction of the lord and the abuse of the servant. This devalues entirely the dignity of the human person, relegating him/her to a mere "object" to be exploited through fear by the Lord.

In suggesting that you prefer fear to love, you are therefore essentially saying that you would prefer a false, hollow engagement with another person whose actions towards you, motivated by fear, lack any true depth to a relationship between equals of shared interests, motivations, mutual understanding, empathy and care for each other.

A "relationship" founded upon fear is simply not a true relationship in any meaningful use of the term. It is cold, unfeeling and fruitless.

 

[Vinayaka]

Life would be pretty empty if you didn't have anyone to share it with, unless you're one of those people who are really into their field of study and don't care much for anything else. But for the average Joe, we want relationships, and we want a spouse to spend our lives with, and we want intimacy, and we want to raise children. Not everyone feels this way, but seeing how many people exist on Earth today, I think it's safe to say that most of us do.

There is also the tradition of monasteries, found in may religions. But even monks and nuns have no hatred for sex, they just have made vows not to participate, usually in search for something on a higher level of consciousness.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Why would you wish to dominate and induce fear in others? You say people do vile actions in the name of love. Do people not do vile actions in the name of "domination and fear"? That is an inane argument to me.

If I am the own proposing a method of fear or dominion (they are not mutual although the latter is better) the likelihood of my life being hindered by the other partner is very low.
This is a game of odds.

Does that not suggest a lack of comprehension on your part ie the inability to put yourself in the other person's shoes and intuitively understand how you would feel in their situation?

I know how they would feel and it would not bother me whatsoever. What should male me feel compelled to cease my actions knowing they result in another person's misery? Humanity has been doing similar for all of its existence and it has not become an issue until recently.

But even if fear was the case I am not wholly talking about fear but just general subjugation and ironically love does this also. Have you not heard of the romantic partners being "whipped" (influenced by obsession).

A relationship based upon fear is not a real relationship at all. It is fake; like acting. It lacks will on the part of the dominated if he/she is motivated by fear. He/she is simply an actor performing tricks to ensure his/her safety or survival. If I am afraid of you, I may do things for you out of fear of being hurt by you in some way however this means that my actions are false. They are not done because I want to but because I have no alternative as a result of my fear. There is therefore an inherent lack of "chemistry", understanding, shared understanding etc. between the dominant lord and the servant. It is designed solely for the perverse satisfaction of the lord and the abuse of the servant.

I would not care if it is a relationship because I obviously would not want one. If I would ever be put into such a spot this is about as socially engaged I would become.
I am quite affectionate though and just because any relationship would be based off subjugation does not imply the abuse of the subjugated. You keep depicting me as a wrathful king or maniacal dictator.

In suggesting that you prefer fear to love, you are therefore essentially saying that you would prefer a false, hollow engagement with another person whose actions towards you, motivated by fear, lack any true depth to a relationship between equals of shared interests, motivations, mutual understanding, empathy and care for each other.

No subjugation over love although I believe I said fear but this does not change anything as I said I would rather be feared. I never said I would desire a social union based off fear.

A "relationship" founded upon fear is simply not a true relationship in any meaningful use of the term. It is cold, unfeeling and fruitless.

Did you know you that as Americans we are subjugated by the government yet we love our politicians and their views. The president for example can declare Marshal law at will yet he is highly loved and revered as a god like person.
Look at the relationship between dogs and humans. A relationship based purely from the dominion the owner has over the pet. I have a dog and she crawls into my bed when I sleep (she is my backup pillow). She loves my affection yet like any dog the relationship is purely an owner caring for his pet(subjugated animal).
Having dominion over something does not mean lack of love whatsoever. It just means the type of relationship.

Did you know my avatar was specifically chosen from a movie due to the relationship the character had with his wife? The relationship was viewed as hollow and void of love for mos audience members which was how it was depicted yet at the very end despite the "hollow" relationship the wife committed suicides (unrelated reasons) not knowing the husband loved her despite his wordless and shallow union with her. The end result was the difference on the opinion of love and romance.

 

[Vouthon]

I do not wish to take part in something that offers me no benefits. Love does not clean my shoes, it does not make me happy, it does not do as it is told either.

Actually, loving acts and the very emotion of loving and receiving love, is scientifically proven to stimulate the brain in a similar way to orgasm. I once read a study which said that it stimulates the same region, although I don't know if that is true or not. It produces a feeling of comfort, calm, happiness and peace in the person knowing that they have done a selfless deed, or simply selflessly care, for another person.

That aside, there are around 7 billion people on this planet. You are a tiny, miniscule dot, not even a grain of sand in comparison to the collective body of humanity - as am I. Why should your pleasure be of paramount importance?

If everybody acted only to receive personal benefits and gratification, there would no societies, no family units, no friendships, no social institutions, no genuine morality...nothing that is important to humanity and stems from that most wonderful of human, emotive capacities known as empathy the ability to care for the plight of others as if it were your own. If everyone acted only from self-interest, the human species would have perished long ago. Self-interest is necessary sometimes but not all the time. Therefore pure self-interest all of the time is unnatural, since it would be detrimental to the survival of our species which rests upon mothers and fathers caring for their children, the formation of emotional bonds and meaningful relationships. This is not just pious romance, it is necessary.

That is evolution's greatest gift since it ensures the salvation, future and survival of our human species even if individual lives are selflessly, and wilfully sacrificed, to ensure this - such as a mother sacrificing her own life to save her drowning child. The gene pool lives on. Empathy, from a purely logical and evolutionary perspective.

 

[Pagan_Patriot]

There is also the tradition of monasteries, found in may religions. But even monks and nuns have no hatred for sex, they just have made vows not to participate, usually in search for something on a higher level of consciousness.

Yup, I agree. Some even get married and have kids.

 

[Vouthon]

Did you know my avatar was specifically chosen from a movie due to the relationship the character had with his wife? The relationship was viewed as hollow and void of love for mos audience members which was how it was depicted yet at the very end despite the "hollow" relationship the wife committed suicides (unrelated reasons) not knowing the husband loved her despite his wordless and shallow union with her. The end result was the difference on the opinion of love and romance.

Is that not contradictory? Earlier on you said:

I can do this with dominion and fear but not with love.

Here you contrast "fear" and "love" as two opposites. Above you describe a relationship that apparently lacks love, is based upon fear, yet in your opinion is actually loving in a different way.

I do not see the "connection" between these two points.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Actually, loving acts and the very emotion of loving and receiving love, is scientifically proven to stimulate the brain in a similar way to orgasm. I once read a study which said that it stimulates the same region, although I don't know if that is true or not. It produces a feeling of comfort, calm, happiness and peace in the person knowing that they have done a selfless deed, or simply selflessly care, for another person.

That aside, there are around 7 billion people on this planet. You are a tiny, miniscule dot, not even a grain of sand in comparison to the collective body of humanity - as am I. Why should your pleasure be of paramount importance?

My pleasure is of my importance as is yours, if nobody wishes to aid in that pleasure then so be it. I am not complaining nor have I asked anyone to be apart in my life.
Why should I care about somebody else's pleasure? As long as I am not interfering in it I see no objection. Are you saying I SHOULD be in a relationship to make others happy?
I could do this easily and I noticed its results. I am not trying to be vain but I am often viewed as good looking and sort of handsome because of my mixed ethnicity and the constant factor throughout life is that women feel "insulted" when I reject them based on the grounds that I do not like romance nor sex nor overly attached social interactions. I can explains this any shape or form and the result is the same.
Why should I dedicate my life to please another person when it only displeases me?

Personally I view love as an emotion not under control by most people. It is poisoned by greed and powered by selfish hedonism.

If everybody acted only to receive personal benefits and gratification, there would no societies, no family units, no friendships, no social institutions, no genuine morality...nothing that is important to humanity and stems from that most wonderful of human, emotive capacities known as empathy the ability to care for the plight of others as if it were your own. If everyone acted only from self-interest, the human species would have perished long ago. Self-interest is necessary sometimes but not all the time. Therefore pure self-interest all of the time is unnatural, since it would be detrimental to the survival of our species which rests upon mothers and fathers caring for their children, the formation of emotional bonds and meaningful relationships. This is not just pious romance, it is necessary.

Societies are created under the need of survival and social order. This is not the same as love.
Families in the past were based from patriarchy as a whole and the party that was subjugated was generally the female . Societies in the past were dictatorships and monarchies not democratic liberal nations.

That is evolution's greatest gift since it ensures the salvation, future and survival of our human species even if individual lives are selflessly, and wilfully sacrificed, to ensure this - such as a mother sacrificing her own life to save her drowning child. The gene pool lives on. Empathy.

Not all human beings share such traits sadly and instinctive actions do not equate to social constructs.

 

[Vouthon]

Look at the relationship between dogs and humans. A relationship based purely from the dominion the owner has over the pet. I have a dog and she crawls into my bed when I sleep (she is my backup pillow). She loves my affection yet like any dog the relationship is purely an owner caring for his pet(subjugated animal).
Having dominion over something does not mean lack of love whatsoever. It just means the type of relationship.

But you said that love is different from fear? You intimated this quite clearly

Overlooking that, the owner in question still cares for his pet. It is not all about "personal benefit". You said that you do not like love because it is does not offer you personal benefit. An owner cares for the needs of his animal. In many cases, there is an emotional bond. A scientific study conducted on the brain of a dog when it received affection from its owner, found that feel good hormones were stimulated in both partners. This demonstrated care, the lack of fear and mutual comfort, when they shared affection with each other. Fear causes distress and suffering.

Now, that is strange argument IMHO to apply to relationships between humans because human beings are the same species, whereas dogs are a different species. Human beings are biological equals on account of their common human nature. We spring from the same origins, have the same DNA and so on. Primitive, pre-industrial, pre-developed civilisation societies are naturally egalitarian:

Hunter-gatherers practiced a system of "reverse dominance" that prevented anyone from assuming power over others.

The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown

Hunter-gatherers, the original human mode of living, are thus the polar opposite of the view you espouse.

Social hierarchies are later man-made institutions. Human beings originally lived in close-knit, egalitarian, equal "groups" of hunters who mutually cared for one another. Distinctions of class, race, sex and so on developed at a later stage - artificially when human beings gave developed agriculture and started to settle in cities. Kings were then appointed.

Semitic creation myths, such as the one in the Bible, metaphorically relay the "fall" which in reality was the "fall" of man from egalitarian hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural one based in settled dwellings, usually around cultic sites, which developed hierarchies with "kings and chieftains" to sustain order in the community.

I therefore posit that your view is "unnatural" to the human species.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Is that not contradictory? Earlier on you said:



Here you contrast "fear" and "love" as two opposites. Above you describe a relationship that apparently lacks love, is based upon fear, yet in your opinion is actually loving in a different way.

I am referring to control of the other party and you are only assuming it lacks love. Basing a relationship off of love is very uncharacteristic of any plausible action I would partake in.

I do not see the "connection" between these two points.

I differentiate fear and dominion from love and fear and and dominion from each other. All 3 are separate to some extent but both fear and dominion are entirely extinct from your view of love. The basis of a 'romantic' union according to you are based upon love and with the usage of love as its guiding source.
My idea of a romantic relationship are based upon the gratification of myself and maintained by either fear or dominion but as I said earlier dominion is better as it can express love (at least in my form).

 

[Sha'irullah]

But you said that love is different from fear? You intimated this quite clearly

Fear and control/dominion/subjugation are not equivalent to fear but can be ruled by fear and I keep providing their distinction from each other and from the idea of love you have.

Overlooking that, the owner in question still cares for his pet. It is not all about "personal benefit". You said that you do not like love because it is does not offer you personal benefit. An owner cares for the needs of his animal. In many cases, there is an emotional bond. A scientific study conducted on the brain of a dog when it received affection from its owner, found that feel good hormones were stimulated in both partners. This demonstrated care, the lack of fear and mutual comfort, when they shared affection with each other. Fear causes distress and suffering.

I never used the word fear, I used dominion. Please use a virtual dictionary and I can assure you they can be used mutually but they are not equivalent at their basis.

Now, that is strange argument IMHO to apply to relationships between humans because human beings are the same species, whereas dogs are a different species. Human beings are biological equals on account of their common human nature. We spring from the same origins, have the same DNA and so on. Primitive, pre-industrial, pre-developed civilisation societies are naturally egalitarian:

But it is us humans who are implimenting the relationship. You are removing the human aspect of ourselves loving another being(the dog). The same way that if I was to even love a person it would not imply that he or she loves me back.

Social hierarchies are later man-made institutions. Human beings originally lived in close-knit, egalitarian, equal "groups" of hunters who mutually cared for one another. Distinctions of class, race, sex and so on developed at a later stage - artificially when human beings gave developed agriculture and started to settle in cities. Kings were then appointed.

And? This correlates to my viewpoint that this is merely based off of survivalist instincts.

I therefore posit that your view is "unnatural" to the human species.

:biglaugh: I expressed in the OP that my view was unnatural which is quite obvious. Hence there would be nothing to discuss about. I am trying to understand you guys and your acceptance towards sex and romance.

 

[Vouthon]

The basis of a 'romantic' union according to you are based upon love and with the usage of love as its guiding source.

And what is "love"? Can you please define your understanding of it. Otherwise it can be a vague term. The Greeks had a variety of words to encompass different expressions of love such as eros (erotic love), phileo (brotherly love) agape (self-donating love). I want us to be on the same page as to the terminology we are using.

My idea of a romantic relationship are based upon the gratification of myself and maintained by either fear or dominion but as I said earlier dominion is better as it can express love (at least in my form).

My understanding of love would be along the lines of the following Catholic mystic:

"...All for you and nothing for me..."

- Saint John of the Cross (16th century)

Would that be how you would view the meaning of "love"?

Love for me is the gift of self to another. It includes the intent to will the good of another. For it to be genuine love, we must hold nothing back. Everything must be given. We must give a complete gift of ourselves to another person. If we hold "something back" then we create a distance between ourselves and the other person.


Pope John Paul II stated in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem that “Man – whether man or woman – is the only being among the creatures of the visible world that God the Creator has willed for its own sake; that creature is thus a person. Being a person means striving towards self-realization, which can only be achieved through a sincere gift of self. The model for this interpretation of the person is God himself as Trinity, as a communion of Persons.”


Love cannot be lived by oneself or for oneself. Love connects us with others beyond ourselves and our self-centred needs.


Now, your definition of "love" if you would oblige me

 

[Vouthon]

:biglaugh: I expressed in the OP that my view was unnatural which is quite obvious. Hence there would be nothing to discuss about. I am trying to understand you guys and your acceptance towards sex and romance.

I simply feel that the natural human impulse to "love", in the sense of empathising, caring and having affection for others with the capacity to form lasting bonds, is natural for a reason: it is an imperative, a necessity for the human species. That you seem to lack it, as some do with antisocial disorders, troubles me.

If you care only about your own happiness, and if your own happiness might be to the detriment of another person's happiness and therefore lead them to experience suffering, human life is rendered meaningless. There is no point in living if it is only to satisfy a personal ego/self that cuts itself of from the rest of the human race and benefits the universe in no way.

I wish you would become a Buddhist. You could really do with Buddhist psychology that would scrub away your attachment to this self-possessed "self", or "me" that you think to be so important and the sole purpose of your earthly existence being to satisfy it.

If the Buddha is right and your "self" is an illusion - a fleeting, ephemeral thing made up not of anything solid but aggregates such as form, sensation and consciousness - then your entire existence, your entire life philosophy and drive is...'for nothing', meaningless. You would be in affect living a lie, completely attached to satisfying something that does not really exist when you could actually just "give up" this self once in a while to another person.

Is it not better to give this "self" wholly to another person, holding nothing of it back, so as to be "released" from it and experience a true peace not contingent upon the avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasures, but which is constant at all times?

Otherwise you will be forever "elated" and "grieved" by exterior circumstances affecting your ability to satisfy your "self". That is not peace, that is lifelong agony and distress. A continual "striving", rather than just "being" at peace.

 

[Apex]

I differentiate fear and dominion from love and fear and and dominion from each other. All 3 are separate to some extent but both fear and dominion are entirely extinct from your view of love. The basis of a 'romantic' union according to you are based upon love and with the usage of love as its guiding source.
My idea of a romantic relationship are based upon the gratification of myself and maintained by either fear or dominion but as I said earlier dominion is better as it can express love (at least in my form).

Well this is easily the most disturbing thing I have read all week.