no I never said nor suggested anything outside of sex between two consenting adults was okay.
And I'd call that assisted suicide anyway.
If you love someone and enjoy sex then it can be just as fulfilling, of not more so, then cuddling, kissing or any other physical intimacy two people can do. It's a way of expressing love the same way hugging someone or saying "I love you" is. For some people it isn't though, either because they don't connect love and sex or they dislike sex. Both are fine. But for some people lack of sex means lack of love between them (especially if they were having sex then stopped.)
Getting horny is a normal biological occurrence that even asexual's will experience. SHaring that intimacy with your partner rather than whacking one out in the shower will always be seen as an expression of love within the correct circumstances.
See how people (myself included) are simply incapable of being coherent? Calling it "assisted suicide" is just an excuse to say it's okay, but if you're against murder, you're against murder, and "assited suicide" is mutual murder.
Nope. It has absolutely no rational meaning behind it, it's just two people being as animalistic as they possibly can and calling it "love" as an excuse to justify their backwards behavior. While I understand that humans are forever trapped in what I call "evolutive limbo", it only makes sense that we try to leave behind the animalistic things in favor of the rational things, and not the other way around. Cuddling, kissing, saying "I love you" or any, ANY other form of truly expressing love has a rational meaning behind it, like wanting to make someone feel safe and proctected (for cuddling), saying you'd like to feed a person and therefore prevent their death (evolutive meaning behind kissing)etc. However, the only possible meanings I see in sex are "I think your genes would make for good offspring, I'll use you to keep our species alive, even though there are already 7 billion people on Earth" and "I love it when our brains liberate so many chemicals it's impossible to think straight, let's get high on hormones."
Responding to a biological occurence, be it with assistence or not, doesn't sound very romantic to me. Maybe it'll always be seen as an expression of love, but even though I still have a long way to go with my theories, losing hope that one day people will see me as "ahead of my time" is not an option.
murder vs assisted suicide isn't even what we're talking about and I don't have a clear stance on that anyway.
By your logic you can de-rationalise EVERY human behavior down to "outdated instinct". Love itself is only chemicals in the brain telling you to settle down and breed.
You see "we make good babies" in sex, other people see "I was saving this for you" "I'm the only one you can do this with" "show me how much you love me" etc. I'll admit that hookups and one-night stands are purely for pleasure but between a couple there is no comparison.
Besides, until IVF is a safe and highly affordable alternative (rather than highly expensive and doesn't always work) then you will have literally NO hope of trying to convince people we don't need sex any more.
It's been a while since you'd last replied and in this meantime I've been trying to figure out what I really think about sex, so forgive me if what I say here contradicts anything I'd said before and forgive me, aslo, if I repeat myself.
Sex for babies is okay, because that's what it IS for, but sex for "love" is humans being fooled by nature (and making up all sorts of excuses to say otherwise). See, the emotional bonds that sex can create are just so the offspring has a proper environment in which to be raised and therefore have better chances at survival. Other types of emotional bonds, however, chemical/hormonal as they may be, are based on the fact that humans are social creatures and need "allies" in order to survive. Sure, both have to do with survival, because everything ultimately does, but non-sexual love has to do with actualy love, while sexual love has to do with child-raising.
Is it normal that I have no sex drive?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
To put it simply: sex with no love = using someone as a sex toy; sex with love = animalistic and degrading form of "expressing love".
'Kay, I might be a stupid bigoted asshole, then, even though I'm not religious :D
--
quentari
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
sex with love = way of physically expressing love between two people
sex without love = MUTUAL and (hopefully) consentual. Totally legal and not anyone's business but between the two consenting adults.
You might be, hard to gauge how bigoted someone is without meeting them in person.
--
YouKnowWho
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How is it a way of expressing love? Why choose sex over any other way of expressing love?
So mutual, consensual murder is okay to you?
--
quentari
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
no I never said nor suggested anything outside of sex between two consenting adults was okay.
And I'd call that assisted suicide anyway.
If you love someone and enjoy sex then it can be just as fulfilling, of not more so, then cuddling, kissing or any other physical intimacy two people can do. It's a way of expressing love the same way hugging someone or saying "I love you" is. For some people it isn't though, either because they don't connect love and sex or they dislike sex. Both are fine. But for some people lack of sex means lack of love between them (especially if they were having sex then stopped.)
Getting horny is a normal biological occurrence that even asexual's will experience. SHaring that intimacy with your partner rather than whacking one out in the shower will always be seen as an expression of love within the correct circumstances.
--
YouKnowWho
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See how people (myself included) are simply incapable of being coherent? Calling it "assisted suicide" is just an excuse to say it's okay, but if you're against murder, you're against murder, and "assited suicide" is mutual murder.
Nope. It has absolutely no rational meaning behind it, it's just two people being as animalistic as they possibly can and calling it "love" as an excuse to justify their backwards behavior. While I understand that humans are forever trapped in what I call "evolutive limbo", it only makes sense that we try to leave behind the animalistic things in favor of the rational things, and not the other way around. Cuddling, kissing, saying "I love you" or any, ANY other form of truly expressing love has a rational meaning behind it, like wanting to make someone feel safe and proctected (for cuddling), saying you'd like to feed a person and therefore prevent their death (evolutive meaning behind kissing)etc. However, the only possible meanings I see in sex are "I think your genes would make for good offspring, I'll use you to keep our species alive, even though there are already 7 billion people on Earth" and "I love it when our brains liberate so many chemicals it's impossible to think straight, let's get high on hormones."
Responding to a biological occurence, be it with assistence or not, doesn't sound very romantic to me. Maybe it'll always be seen as an expression of love, but even though I still have a long way to go with my theories, losing hope that one day people will see me as "ahead of my time" is not an option.
--
quentari
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
murder vs assisted suicide isn't even what we're talking about and I don't have a clear stance on that anyway.
By your logic you can de-rationalise EVERY human behavior down to "outdated instinct". Love itself is only chemicals in the brain telling you to settle down and breed.
You see "we make good babies" in sex, other people see "I was saving this for you" "I'm the only one you can do this with" "show me how much you love me" etc. I'll admit that hookups and one-night stands are purely for pleasure but between a couple there is no comparison.
Besides, until IVF is a safe and highly affordable alternative (rather than highly expensive and doesn't always work) then you will have literally NO hope of trying to convince people we don't need sex any more.
--
YouKnowWho
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
It's been a while since you'd last replied and in this meantime I've been trying to figure out what I really think about sex, so forgive me if what I say here contradicts anything I'd said before and forgive me, aslo, if I repeat myself.
Sex for babies is okay, because that's what it IS for, but sex for "love" is humans being fooled by nature (and making up all sorts of excuses to say otherwise). See, the emotional bonds that sex can create are just so the offspring has a proper environment in which to be raised and therefore have better chances at survival. Other types of emotional bonds, however, chemical/hormonal as they may be, are based on the fact that humans are social creatures and need "allies" in order to survive. Sure, both have to do with survival, because everything ultimately does, but non-sexual love has to do with actualy love, while sexual love has to do with child-raising.