Let’s Talk About Sex (moral, tradition, experience, sexuality)

[cardero]

There are a lot of sex threads circulating on RF and it seems that people are having a difficult time agreeing on what is moral or immoral, right or wrong, and NATURAL or UNNATURAL about sex. There are many misunderstandings about sex and I figured it would be nice to have a thread where we can at least discuss the foundations of what we do and don’t understand about sex. The following list is what I have learned from GOD and from what I have observed through my own personal experiences and observations. The list is compiled with the idea that all of us are adults and are at the age where we are suppose to know what sex exemplifies to our existences. I am not an expert on the subject of sex nor do I claim to be. I am trying to understand the process just like many people are. If there is anything that anyone wants to share or express you are more than welcomed. I also must request that this thread is by no means to make the moderators work harder so if we can keep it civil, mature and insightful that would be much appreciated.



1. Sex is not LOVE. It can be an extension of LOVE that two people can share but sex is not in the definition of TRUE LOVE.

2. Sex is not TRUST. Sex was not designated to be utilized this way. I have no idea where this concept originated from but it is an illusion.

3. The penis of a man and a vagina of a women were designed to be compatible to each other. Any time these sexual organs are used in a situation where it was not NATURALLY designed to go into it is UNNATURAL. Because it is UNNATURAL does not mean it is right or wrong, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical.

4. People are not sexual property.

5. Humans do not need sex to survive. There are many people who have not had sex for a good majority of their lives and have lived happy, prosperous, joyous lives.

6. Sex works best when all members are consenting and emotionally in agreement about what they want out of the experience. This is an important thing to consider when more than two people are involved.

7. Sex is neither moral or immoral. If you put these types of judgments on sex there is a good chance that you may not enjoy it.

8. There is no right or wrong way to express sex. Many people have many preferences, many uncommon traditions or practices in which they use to execute the sexual act. I do not believe these aspects are up for judgment. In speaking of quality I do believe there exists good and bad sex.

9. There are some people who are not the least bit interested in having, pursuing, or executing an active sex life.

10. Sex offers benefits to the mind, body and soul, it is only when we place uncertain expectations or misplaced emotions about sex is when we start to misuse these benefits.

11. There are no rules/laws/guidelines that GOD has established that I am familiar with or that can be validated about sex.

[michel]

1) I love cheese, I love my God, My wife and my sons -Define love
2)In my limited experience, if trust is to play a part in sex, then most people's idea of fulfilling that trust is debatable.
3)Agree completely.
4) Agree; I use the term 'my wife', but it always sounds like a possession; I usually use her name, and then exolauin the relationship
5)Agree; there is no reson why, to my mind, a good relationship cannot survive without sex.
6)Yes, but the idea of having more than two people 'involved' is one I struggle with, ethically.
7)The same answer can be given to a great range of 'activities'
8)As long as both participants are in accord, yes.
9)Tell me about it!
10) I can see sex 'per se' being good for the body (Excercise) but I believe the other benefits are not from sex, but what emotions are driving the sex.
11)Go forth and multiply is the only one that springs to mind, and that is widely interpretable.
12) Couldnt help this; listen to Edith Piaff's 'Je ne regrette rien'

[SoulTYPE]

Originally Posted by carrdero

1. Sex is not LOVE. It can be an extension of LOVE that two people can share but sex is not in the definition of TRUE LOVE..

Agreed on that. It is to be SHARED bewteen two people that share TRUE love.

Originally Posted by carrdero

2. Sex is not TRUST. Sex was not designated to be utilized this way. I have no idea where this idea originated from but it is an illusion..

I didn't know it had originated..

[quote=carrdero]
3. The sexual reproductive organs of a man and women were designed to be compatible to each other. Any time the sexual organ is used in a situation where it was not NATURALLY designed to go into it is UNNATURAL. Because it is UNNATURAL does not mean it is right or wrong.

Does that include, um..you know? But, for the first part of your statement, it's about friggin time someone agreed with me on that..Have some frubals.

Originally Posted by carrdero

5. Humans do not need sex to survive. There are many people who have not had sex for a good majority of their lives and have lived happy, prosperous, joyous lives.
.

Although there are many that haven't, I agree with you completely Sex is not food, or air, we do not need it at all.

Originally Posted by carrdero

7. Sex is neither moral or immoral. If you put these types of judgments on sex there is a good chance that you may not enjoy it. .

No, actually, IMO, it can be both. Depending on how it is "performed".

Originally Posted by carrdero

11. There are no rules/laws/guidelines that GOD has established that I am familiar with or that can be validated about sex.

Well, if it is engaged through lust, or perhaps even bigomy, then it may do.

Thankyou MR C I enjoyed this post..

Succubi own

[pensive]

Originally Posted by carrdero

2. Sex is not TRUST. Sex was not designated to be utilized this way. I have no idea where this idea originated from but it is an illusion.

Agreed. Though I generally think that being able to trust someone you're having sex with is a Very Good Thing.

Originally Posted by carrdero

3.

Originally Posted by carrdero

The sexual reproductive organs of a man and women were designed to be compatible to each other. Any time the sexual organ is used in a situation where it was not NATURALLY designed to go into it is UNNATURAL. Because it is UNNATURAL does not mean it is right or wrong.

I'm not sure I agree with your definition of "natural," as it implies that nature has some sort of intelligence/design/driving force. Personally, I think that "natural" and "unnatural" are more buzzwords than words that have any valuable or objective meaning. However, I agree that "natural vs. unnatural" and "moral vs. immoral" are two different issues.

Originally Posted by carrdero

5.

Originally Posted by carrdero

Humans do not need sex to survive. There are many people who have not had sex for a good majority of their lives and have lived happy, prosperous, joyous lives.

Um, no. "Majority" means "more than 50% of the population." I agree that sex is not absolutely necessary for survival. I also agree that a large, non-majority, numbe rof people live happy lives without sex. But "majority"? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by carrdero

8.

Originally Posted by carrdero

There is no right or wrong way to express sex. Many people have many preferences, many uncommon concepts in which they use to execute the sexual act. I do not believe these aspects are up for judgment. There exists good and bad sex though.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this one. Nonconsensual sex is immoral. Blackmailing or emotionally manipulating someone into having sex with you is immoral. Having sex with someone other than your normal partner if you have promised to remain monogamous with your partner is immoral. I agree that there are numerous expressions of sex that are perfectly legitimate. However, I would argue that saying that there are no boundaries beyond which sex becomes immoral is taking "tolerance" way too far.

[Pah]

3. The sexual reproductive organs of a man and women were designed to be compatible to each other. Any time the sexual organ is used in a situation where it was not NATURALLY designed to go into it is UNNATURAL. Because it is UNNATURAL does not mean it is right or wrong.

Testicles and a clitoris are not designed to go anywhere nor is the womb. These are reproductive organs. The brain is also considered a large element of sexuality

I guess that eliminates oral sex and masturbation from your definition of natural. Kissing would be out, as well. Sexual thoughts of a loved one would be unnatural.

It may be picky to bring these to your attention but it is a difficult subject and an encompassing definition would be beneficial.

Bob

[SoulTYPE]

Originally Posted by pah

I guess that eliminates oral sex and masturbation from your definition of natural. Kissing would be out, as well. Sexual thoughts of a loved one would be unnatural.
Bob

That was what I was talking about willis..

[cardero]

Pensive writes: I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this one.

You have that right.

Pensive writes: Nonconsensual sex is immoral.

See number 5

Pensive writes: Blackmailing or emotionally manipulating someone into having sex with you is immoral.

I am not saying that situations like this do not happen but one must simply ask oneself how and why they discovered and arrived to a situation like this in the first place.

Pensive writes: Having sex with someone other than your normal partner if you have promised to remain monogamous with your partner is immoral.

Sex is not TRUST. Though I do believe we should exercise respect when dealing with the issue of sex I believe Robtex put it best in another post when he explained that partners should lay their cards on the table and discuss this before a relationship is committed. Can these “card hands” change over time? Possibly.

[SoulTYPE]

Carrdero, this IS relevant, although it may not sound so.

If I hire a "visiting" lady (which I do on occasion), is that immoral? She states what erm.."services" she will offer, as most of them do. This is not discussing beforehand? I do not see anything immoral with these "lady visitors", although many do. Could you expand on this?

[pensive]

Originally Posted by carrdero

You have that right.


I am not saying that situations like this do not happen but one must simply ask oneself how and why they discovered and arrived to a situation like this in the first place.

That may be true, but it has no bearing on the fact that such a situation would still be immoral. In fact, what you suggest here almost seems to be bordering on "blaming the victim" to me. Or perhaps I'm misreading you.

Originally Posted by carrdero

Sex is not TRUST.

What I said has nothing to do with trust. It has to do with being honorable and keeping your word. Note that I specifically put the condition in there that the person has already agreed to remain monogamous. (If no agreement of exclusivity or monogamy exists, then there is no issue.) Breaking that word is immoral. It's a dishonorable act.

Originally Posted by carrdero

Though I do believe we should exercise respect when dealing with the issue of sex I believe Robtex put it best in another post when he explained that partners should lay their cards on the table and discuss this before a relationship is committed.

Absolutely. But once that happens and an agreement is met, a person must be bound to that agreement or acknowledge that they have demonstrated themselves to be untrue and dishonorable.

Originally Posted by carrdero

Can these “card hands” change over time? Possibly.

Absolutely, which would require renegotians and a new agreement (even an agreement to end the relationship altogether). However, until that happens, one is bound by the original agreement one made.

[cardero]

pah writes: Testicles and a clitoris are not designed to go anywhere nor is the womb. These are reproductive organs. The brain is also considered a large element of sexuality

Though people can do some very innovative things with these areas I must apologize but I did not know if I could use the appropriate terms for these organs. It is tough getting around topic of sex using words like "areas", "members", "organs" but you have definately given me the inspiration to express myself sincerely. I will change these points.

pah writes: I guess that eliminates oral sex and masturbation from your definition of natural. Kissing would be out, as well. Sexual thoughts of a loved one would be unnatural.

Though we can perform these functions with the same outcome and desires in mind they are a bit artificial and seem to be only replicating what a penis and a vagina can do NATURALLY. I have heard many people proclaim that these experiences are different (whether it be better or worse) than having NATURAL sex but Bob keep in mind that since they may be UNNATURAL that it is not considered right or wrong.

pah writes: It may be picky to bring these to your attention but it is a difficult subject and an encompassing definition would be beneficial.

I am not even sure if there is an encompassing definition for sex but if someone wants to provide an example, I have no problem with that.