Tesunie, on 30 January 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:
Umm... We each have our own opinion, as I said. I may disagree with someone else's opinion, but that's all I can do on a subject like this. I can state why I disagree and where my stance is on the subject. I'm not "failing to understand" their point of view. I just don't agree with it. (Poor choice of words on your part maybe?)
As I said, FOR ME I view it as an intimate and personal "activity". Sex involves revealing yourself to someone else, and need I remind that those parts are often referred to as "privates"? This indicates that their use and viewing is considered "private", and thus personal, by many people. Maybe not you. Maybe not the person I was responding to. But it is a common concept not unique to just me.
Unless someone brings up a specific situation to talk about, all I can do is generalize. I also realize that there are people who don't fall within the generalized concept I discussed. As I said, it's the individual's choice. However, if you wish to go this way:
- It's healthier to have sex with only a single person, as it prevents or stop the spread of many diseases.
- People often feel better when they can clearly identify linage, parentage, family lines and genetic history. So on average it is still best to stick to one partner (or at least one partner at a given time).
- Abstinence is still the best way to prevent unplanned/unexpected/unwanted pregnancy.
- Abortion may be considered to be an option by many people, but the process causes physical damage to the subject, as well as emotional trauma.
- Legality wise, it's best to have only one partner within your life. If anything happens to the relationship and there are kids involved, and this includes the "one night stands", it's a lot easier to prove parentage and who is responsible for child support payments, as well as possible inheritance.
- In a single relationship, sex can be used to increase the bonds between people. Sex outside of a one on one contact has often brought with it doubt, jealousy, etc.
These are actual, and in many cases scientific, reasons why humans are better benefited by a one on one sexual relationship. This isn't to say that people can't, as it's completely their choice. I'm just explaining why I think it as unwise to have sex with multiple partners, or partners whom you may not know. Many people don't know the prostitutes that they hire, or what possible diseases they may be carrying, inadvertently or knowingly. I am not implying that "all prostitutes are diseased/dirty" here, only that one does not often know. Same goes in reverse for the prostitute, as they don't know what diseases their client may be carrying. The more sexual partners one interacts with, the easier the spread of some diseases become, and some of them can be very deadly, especially to females.
The human body does contain several desires. To call them needs is a great "generalization". Does this make your point invalid too? I don't believe so, so don't "invalid" my generalized points either. I can say, the sexual urges are there with me. I'm still a virgin. My brother is too. We are almost 30 years old. It's not a "need", it's a "desire". Please, refrain from calling it something it isn't.
You present a good "generalized" point about jobs. There are many jobs that need to be preformed for society to run, such as sewer repair as one such example. Many of the jobs you are talking about are required by a social structure, be it a desired position to work in or undesired. Be it a part of a business or society itself. However, the process of sexual release is not a required job, of course in my opinion. But, then again, I'd be a fool to deny that there is a demand for the job, even if it isn't a requirement.
"So for YOU it is what you descried, but thats not true for everyone, and its not degrading anyone to anything."
Isn't that what I said? I find it degrading. I'm not alone with that statement. However, I realize some people are different. Then again, I find murder degrading and wrong as well. I'm sure people could come up with concepts and reasons to legitimize murder as a social need to release violent tendencies and/or remove the weaker genes from the gene pool to create a stronger race and social structure... Most of what we discuss can be stated in many different ways. One can legitimize just about anything, given enough time and thought on the subject. We each also will have our own standing on said subject. Many times, it will be something trivial in the face of greater society, such as what is being mostly discussed here, and those people will be subject to their own moral code/conduct and are entitled to their own opinion. Others, such as a murderer who has conceived an above notion, are going against the social norm for the human race, but until he murders he is entitled to his opinion and even voicing it. As soon as he murders though, he has broken a rule that society places on all of it's members, and if caught he becomes punished by a socially deemed reasonable punishment.
Overall, Sex is a matter of choice. I feel it's degrading to sell out sex. As of this time in the US, the generalized public seems to be in agreeance as we live by a social law forbidding it's practice. Here it is a crime. Thus, my opinion seems to match the current social standings of my area. This doesn't mean that social standings can't change, as my opinion can become an unsocial one and the law changes to match, but then it'd be a standard I live up to for myself, as it doesn't effect the overall rest of the social standings. I can still speak out against it, but that doesn't make me right nor wrong in what I say. It is my belief, and I can only hold myself accountable to it. It isn't a belief that effects society as a whole, and I respect that people have a right to make their own choices when it comes to sex and sexual acts.
And... once you mention "metagame" and "life" you lost it. Life isn't a game, so it can't have a "metagame". Please, consider your words better. However, I get what you mean. If, by the time I die, I don't find a mate to reproduce with, it would have been by my choice. However, I'd like to add that claiming your sexual urges as "needs" places it amongst the need for food or sleep. You let your sexual urges control you at that point, instead of you controlling your sexual urges. At that point, you take your life out of your own hands, and place them into your base urges and desires. Does this mean, by your generalizations, that when I am angry and I bash someone's head in with my car, it was a need as I had the urge/desire to cause them harm because they made me angry? Is it suddenly okay for you if my need to smack a customer across the face because they don't seem to grasp that "they are returning an item if they are exchanging it for another one, as they have to return the item they bought to be able to grab another item off the shelf in it's place and that they are beyond the 30 day limit of returns so they can't do it"? The answer to each of those is, no. You can't do those actions without having serious repercussions, often placed upon you by society.
Do not confuse an urge and a desire with a need. If you start to argue down that path, many other things become valid. Things I believe we all can agree are not valid and are urges that should not be met.
PS: Nature tends to follow the rule of "survival of the fittest". Need I remind you that we humans don't live by the laws of nature so much, as we take care of the infirm, the sick and the dieing? Every day we preform kind acts, on each other and other animals, we essentially are breaking the "rules of nature". This makes the human race a distinct species on this planet, with only a few other races possibly in a close category with us on this, such as Dolphins and some other monkeys, each of which have been known to help the weaker parts of their races, and occasionally even other species.
see the entire post is not objective it is your opinion, but you write it the way to make it look like GENERALISATION. So its oyur wording beign the issue. Never generalise when it is reflecting only your society or surrounding, becuase that is when you lost objectivity.
as you said: its an intime and private thing. as you even said being naked is something private. But thats what YOU said.
But the truth is, this is a cultural thing and you can NOT generalise this. With christian missionaries there came the shame of being naked and sexuality by educating people thinkign different. Yet many populaces never knew this "shame" being naked was normal because its rather natural. In many societies, sex in public was not even unnormal, until a society thinking different came over and forcing THEIR OPINION over someone elses culture and society.
"feelign degrading" is then again just YOUR OPINION from your point of view.
you say it yourself "here it is a crime" because this is YOUR society and surrounding yet this is not reflecting reality and also what people think about it.
you lack the imagination outside your ethics thats the issue why you will never udnertsand people thinkign different AND jdging this objective.
So tell me, those people going to sex parties, swinger clubs or orgie events (that mankind does for thousends of years already), how they are "degrading" themselves. They don't other would reword it as "focusing" because those events focus about sex, like other events focus on music, dancing or sports. Becaus eon an objective note, Football also just "degrades" people to their physical attrubutes in being able to paly football. Thats the nature of any event that focuses on a specific subject. Sex isn't any different. Its a normal thing in the life of any human as many other thinsg too, since the beginning of mankinds existence. Just the fact of 2000 years major dominance of christian society putting an official "opinion" on that topic does not change this objective facts.
Its weird how this education made people think subjective about it, while it is the same EVERYWHERE.
the mechanic, degraded for his handy skills
the scientist, degraded for his inventional skills
the footbaler, degraded for his football skills
the pornstar or prostitude, degraded to her related skills.
All they have a skills or a set of skills, and all kinda deliver any service. The skills and subjects differ, but the rest is entirely the same, and just based on the opinion of SOME societies, but not all.
And the other side?
The pornstar, the footballer and the scientist have probably high honors or lots of fans. How is that negative? Well its negative for a set of them, because you put YOUR subject judgement over them. But thats yours so DO NOT generalise that.
And the mechanic? wow he hardly has any "fans" why? he is probably amongst the mentioned guys the most "common" gets the lowest "glorification" yet is probably of those named groups the most important for our society to exist and work.
And carefull, when you generalise your opinion and want to convince others to think the same, then you are getting closer to discrimination at the moment you start to "devalue" someone by some of his attributes or his behavior. And soon the black guys for being black harvest cotton, or sex is suddenly a bad thing or offering services in that category.
But the truth is: its just like ANYTHING else in Life. Different societies have different opinions about it, and non has the right to claim their opinion as the right one. But opinions do not change the fact that sex is a natural need (even one of the most basics), that there are events focusing on it and that there is a group of people offering it as a service.
Anything past that is very much subjective judgement of specific societies.
And why do I lose my Life out of my hand when I follow one of my most basic needs? Guess why we got all those people in psychological treatments? Because they all are lost in our modern society trying to tell them what they should do, what is right and wrong, how to look like etc etc. And people fail to furfill these "societey needs" and suddenly have breakdowns and other psyhcological issues.
Do you lose control over your life because you eeat and poop and sleep? No its just for you an accepted common thing that it's part of your life and so you integrate it into your Life. Sex isn't any different. And many psychologicla studies would show you what the lack of sex in many individuals has. Things you may not recognizse if you never had it, because you can not always sort the cause and effect out of this.
Your customer example is very invalid because it is an act that is acting AGAINST someone other, while sex does not. Otherwise its also a crime. It's quite saddening to see you putting this example in relation with sex, WOW, really sad.
And your society part as next, We are not totally off the "survival of the fittest" rules. Society starts to ensure that we can still follow these rules. In a fully uncontrolled kills and get killed surrounding life your be harsh, and your survial very random. Mankind established society where every individual including yourself decreases the risk of getting clubbed to death your wife stolen and reproducing with someoen else. The reason for charity is sololy to help the society to survive. Imagine we would entirely stop any of those charities? it would cause anyone needing it to revolt, and this is a risk for the rich and wealthy to get along and survive. So keeping society in status quo ensures their survival. Just think about french revolution, and peasant revolutions in the middle age. Why did they happened? Because the need for survival is primal, and if this is in danger, people do not care about society anymore, they revolt. And so clever "ruling" is about ensuring that people do not revolt, while you still keep the power. Society even if complex is just there to still help us with survival. With the help of Society we just changed the subjects of what endangers us from dying.
EpicWarrior202, on 01 February 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:
To the people who think sex is a human need, that isn't true. Humans evolved to have societies, and evolved so that one guy could have all the girls, and the rest to be servants. Sex is a desire, not a need like food or water. If you believe you are doing something for society you don't need sex.
Sex is a basic need, it is the entire thing that keeps your species alive, the society however is not a basic need, its a kind of luxury good on top of the basic need. Societies can differ, vanish or whatever, they are not required to keep your species alive. Only food and sex, probably shelter (depending on the region you live) is needed.
The above described society of yours is just a method to select the "fittest" individual to reproduce more frequent than the lesser fit individuals. Because the need is to mate and reproduce which on human level is bound to sex. A few species don't even need a partner for reproduction, so for those sex is not a need, yet it is a desire because when they find a partner to do so it ensures evolution and genetic diversity.
Think about Triops,
They are nearly all female, and can lay eggs to reproduce. if they find a few of the males they do mate. They have no society. they even would eat each other. Our society however made us on top of the food chain, and all we managed is to create some nice gadgets to kill each other more easy. The trips exist since Millions of years and I wonder which species will survive longer.
Edited by Lily from animove, 02 February 2015 - 03:30 AM.
3
