I think people are attracted more to the intimacy that can result from it than to the mere physical pleasure. The only reason sex seems like a necessity is that we live in a culture which PUSHES people to have sex, and treats sex as the highest good for man, and thus sees those who do not have sex, or who do not relentlessly pursue it as somehow stupid/wrong. We don't live in a society which is tolerant of sex - but rather intolerant. It hyper-sexualises people, and oppresses them if they refuse.Perhaps sex is like an addictive drug. Once you try it you need to keep having it! Some, perhaps those not exposed to this drug, don't think it's a necessity. — TheMadFool
Necessity for achieving the highest good for man. The highest good isn't to reproduce. It is to know and understand the world. In order to be able to do that, your real needs have to be provided for - food, shelter, water, education, health.Anyway, necessity for what? Clearly, sex is a necessity evolutionarily. — TheMadFool
In this context, the facilitator may not be having "sex" with the client. We used to see people who have touch deprivation at the Chiropractic office and how a full body massage would change their stress levels in many areas of physical pain, aggression and overall feeling of well being.We're allowed sex but others aren't obligated to provide sex. — Michael
Yes, I would grant that sex can be another good of man. In my assessment, the highest good is the good in virtue of which everything else is good. The highest good is virtue (which is the same, as Socrates said, with knowledge). That means that virtue is what makes everything else that we call good, good. Sex, money, and everything else have no goodness in themselves alone, but only in-so-far as they share in virtue ;) . Think by analogy to Plato's forms. Ultimately the forms also have no real existence except in-so-far as they share in Agathon - the form of the Good, which alone makes all of them possible.I agree with you. I don't think sex forms an essential part of the highest good in man. Would you grant that it does have a contributory function to our happiness though? One feels more relaxed and happier after sex. — TheMadFool
I don't disagree with any of this, I merely disagree with the state providing this. If it was a loved one, etc. then I wouldn't mind it.Picture yourself deprived of physical pleasure for lack of physical capacity, for years on end. Can one survive? Yes. Is there any virtue in experiencing zero physical pleasure vs. experiencing intense physical pleasure? No. — Bitter Crank
If by sexual pleasure you mean intimacy, then I am very inclined to agree. People who are physically handicapped, etc. require to be cared for, with love, not with duty. It's not the state that must do this - but rather kind human beings.Sexual pleasure may not be the ultimate good, but it is never-the-less well worth having. — Bitter Crank
I am aware of this. This is also apparently a better way to achieve stronger orgasms than actual sex, however, one of the main purposes of sex (intimacy) cannot be achieved by this (at least when done by oneself), and thus this experience still misses what is most important in the sexual experience (which is not pleasure itself). Nevertheless, this is not to say I am against such techniques (in fact I would highly recommend it to those who are interested in sex purely for pleasure).There is a erotic massage program (The Body Electric) which teaches people how to give and receive safe, sexual experiences through tantric practices. In sex therapy it's called "sensate focus". In current parlance it's called 'edging".
The object is to provide extended time in erotic arousal through light massage (front side of the body) and sexual stimulation short of orgasm. (Avoiding orgasm is part of the tantric bit; experiencing orgasm doesn't invalidate the experience, but it should be quite delayed.) Deep breathing and relaxation techniques are also part of it.
This program was developed primarily for persons with AIDS. But the basic techniques work on anyone. (Do try it at home.) — Bitter Crank
Do people have a right to sex that entitles them to social assistance in obtaining sexual pleasure? — Bitter Crank
Sex has no other meaning but intimacy or reproduction. A subjective feeling of pleasure in itself is never meaningful, unless it is associated with an objective perfection. It can however be percieved as meaningful (even though it really isn't) when it is associated with a sense of SUBJECTIVE perfection.intimacy adds more meaning to sex; — Bitter Crank
I would disagree most find the intimacy and loving relationships they desire. Most THINK they do at times of their life, only to later realise that they've deceived themselves. Some remain completely blind to the potentials of sex for their whole lives and never realise. In any case - people who truly enjoy and are helped by sex are few. Sex is a very sharp double edged sword. It can be a great help, or it can be a great impoverishment - use with care ;)Most people (somewhere above 90%) go out and find the sex and intimacy they desire, and they engage in mutually loving relationships -- at least sometimes. — Bitter Crank
Indeed, I agree. But I would favor looking at creating communities where such people are cared for voluntarily - or where such people can and do get in touch with other people with disabilities (maybe not as severely disabled as they are). Then bonding and love can develop amongst such a community, don't you think so? I'd be much more in favor to setting that up, then having a state funded "doctor" masturbate or have sex with them.Some people, though, can't perform the acts necessary to engage in social interaction as a first step. They have a range of neurological and physical disabilities which prevent normal socializing, let alone normal sexual interaction. Who will provide them with loving, intimate care? Families usually do this for children, but as children age into adults this often becomes physically and psychologically impossible to continue. (The parents, remember, are getting older too.) — Bitter Crank
Yes - by creating communities of people in similar circumstances and enabling these people to get in touch together. They best know how to take care of each other - we are just guessing here. Then amongst such a community bonding and love can develop - including sexual gratification.Can we, as a policy of compassion, assure that those who are disabled physically (and mentally in terms of mental illness rather than severe cognitive impairment) have the opportunity to live a fuller life which includes sexual pleasure? — Bitter Crank
Good point woof woof! :D See, you're a good boy, even though you bite hands sometime *gives Scooby snack* :DAnd no, sex isn't necessary. — Sapientia
I agree 100%. Excellent points!Sex is not a necessity to exist. Just look at the ascetics, monks, and nuns who (supposedly) did not participate in the realm of sexual affairs. If you imprison someone but give them enough food, water, exercise, and sleep, they will not die.
Is it uncomfortable to abstain from any sexual gratification, particularly when you are bored and have nothing to do? Yes. Is it impossible to do so? I hardly think so. — darthbarracuda
Indeed - but intimacy, and the desire for love which are underneath the desire for sex DO need immediate attention for people in such dire circumstances.So sex is hardly what I would say to be something that needs immediate attention. — darthbarracuda
:-O What? Prostitution?? Who talked about prostitution?But I do think that prostitution should not be illegal, at least not to adults (18+, or perhaps 21+). Prostitution without the use of contraceptives should be illegal, though, and generally prostitution should not be advocated as a legitimate business practice when there are safer alternatives. You want to sell your body? Go ahead, I won't condemn you but neither will I applaud you. — darthbarracuda
Sex has no other meaning but intimacy or reproduction. — Agustino
objective perfection ... SUBJECTIVE perfection. — Agustino
[cope with] a fear of commitment, — Agustino
subtle feeling of superiority — Agustino
a situation of ruling over — Agustino
achieve good social standing — Agustino
[satisfy the] need to be desired by another — Agustino
most people don't know how to properly masturbate — Agustino
How's that for, pace Spinoza, a more geometrico breakdown of the psychology behind the pursuit of sex? — Agustino
I would disagree most find the intimacy and loving relationships they desire. Most THINK they do at times of their life, only to later realise that they've deceived themselves. — Agustino
Those meanings I listed later are illusory and unreal. They SEEM to be meaningful, in truth they are not. They just show vileness of character, and egoism - the pettiness of man. Not that I condemn that to the fires of hell... absolutely not, in the end it is human, all too human, and most of us, including myself, have passed through such stages. I have noticed most of those "meanings" i listed there in my own soul. That's how I came to know them. By watching keenly why I wanted to have sex. And that's how I also freed myself from this bondage, by understanding the causes, and how it brings a harm to myself and others - how it is motivated by ignorance.I would say it either has more meanings (some of which you listed later) or it has no meaning at all. I prefer not to think it has no meaning. — Bitter Crank
Objective perfection is an actual perfection. Intimacy or reproduction are actual perfections - we can look at people and say they have objectively achieved these perfections when we see that they bring forth children, and when we see sustained love and compassion and consideration of beloved over self over a long period of time. Subjective perfections are things which temporarily seem to be perfections - ie FEEL like perfections to the individual in question, but may not feel like perfections in the long run, or when viewed from the outside.I have no idea what these two phrases mean. — Bitter Crank
Do not confuse perception with reality BC. People can (and do) percieve things, and yet can be decieved by those perceptions.Yes, casual sex can do all this and more for individuals. You or I may not like it, but these are contributions to the meaning of sexual encounters. — Bitter Crank
Again, the requirement for external validation is ultimately a short-coming - a sign of weakness, not of psychological strength. Do you mean, per Maslow, to say that gaining psychological strength requires the passing through such stages? If so, then I would disagree, in a limited kind of way. I think one FIRST starts with self-actualisation, and THEN can go on and fulfill the rest - if they start anywhere else, it's merely a false start. Ultimately they will have to begin with self-actualisation anyways.Example of more meaning : A gay man just coming out is likely to experience validation in the act of sex with another man, in a way that straight men or women might not. — Bitter Crank
For the simple reason that most people do not know, nor practice tantric forms of masturbation.How the hell did you come to this conclusion? — Bitter Crank
:DIt's a breakdown, alright. — Bitter Crank
On an investigation of their relationship and what is actually going on among the two people. On watching the two people together, and looking at their behavior towards one another. On watching how their relationship evolves over a long period of time - most relationships crumble - there simply is no real love, just a fake imitation.If X says he has found intimacy and a loving relationship, on what basis would you be so bold as to dismiss his claim as an error? — Bitter Crank
I can't do it, they would have to do this themselves. I don't spend my time next to them all the time. But - there are signs of intimate love that aren't there in the case of self-deception. If one analyses both their actions and their feelings clearly, one will start to see. That is why I ultimately advocate self-knowledge. YOU must come to know whether you are decieving yourself. That's what matters. I can say they are decieving themselves because I know and understand the motions of their souls sometimes, in comparison with my own, and having travelled (some) of these roads, know they are deceitful.How would you sort the deceived from the truly and intimately loved? — Bitter Crank
No they won't have a DIFFERENT experience, the experience will just be expanded. I couldn't have felt with my girlfriend when I was 17 the depth of intimacy I could feel now with someone I love. Even though I do not have a girlfriend at the moment, I KNOW my capacity for intimacy has increased - I do feel this more in my soul, and I am attuned much more closely than I used to be to other peopleAn 18 year old will have such and such an experience of intimacy and love. The same person 18 years later will probably have a different experience of intimacy and love, and at 65 yet another sort of experience. It isn't that they were wrong in each instance, just that their horizons probably expanded. — Bitter Crank
This is a non-sequitur. Sex is a biological and psychological capacity of man (to call it normal - what do you even mean by that?). Being forcefully stopped from actualising your sexual capacity is wrong because it deprives you of your freedom and the potential that exists within your being. But this is not to say that you have a RIGHT to sex - no one has to guarantee that you actually actualise your sexual potential. What has to be guaranteed on the other hand is that you have the opportunity to actualise your sexual potential if you so desire. This means removing barriers which are oppressive towards people when it comes to the achievement of the goods of sex (reproduction and/or intimacy). Removing stigma from homosexuality for example - people must have the free choice to make whether they engage in homosexual sex or not - and they must be respected in their choice, even if others see the choice as morally wrong. The fact that we live in a society which still largely condemns gay people - thus forcing them to be promiscuous, etc. in pursuit of their sexual desires - THIS is what is wrong. That such people are isolated, that such people are left uncared for - that they are forced to resort to sex in order to come together with other people like themselves, or to validate themselves - this is what is wrong. Not only does it deprive them of their freedom, it also deprives them of their self-worth, and makes their self-worth depend on misusing their sexual potential, such that if they fail to get sex, their whole psychological well-being is destroyed (which is almost guaranteed to happen for many of them due to the oppressive structure of society).Sex is a normal biological function, meaning its pursuit and attainment is part of leading a normal life. Therefore, being deprived of this facet of life does constitute leading an abnormal life. Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex. — TheMadFool
Right. So someone who chooses not to have sex (for whatever reasons), does not live a normal life? :s (notice what you're doing - you're condemning someone to lust and desire after sex - otherwise they're not normal according to you. Again - you seek to associate someone's sense of self-worth with sex)Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex. — TheMadFool
Living a normal life does not require actualising your potentials. — Agustino
Living a normal life does not require actualising your potentials. — Agustino
This reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!Sex is a normal biological function, meaning its pursuit and attainment is part of leading a normal life. Therefore, being deprived of this facet of life does constitute leading an abnormal life. Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex. — TheMadFool
Since every person has the right to a normal life, we all have a right to sex. — TheMadFool
This reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution! — ArguingWAristotleTiff
Wow we agree again :-O ... what is happening with this world? I do agree with the thrust of your point. Given her first initial post in this thread, it is blindingly obvious that Tiff has been biased in picking that reply out, and not an opposing point of view. Confirmation bias :p - which I would go as far as saying is disgusting when seen on a PHILOSOPHY forum, a place where the truth, and not personal preferences, are supposed to be the essence.Typical. My comments never get picked, but flawed comments like the one that you quoted do.
I suppose it does have a ring to it, if you think that that's more important than critical analysis...
But anyway, congratulations! Don't let me rain on your parade. :D — Sapientia
Indeed. Rights can only be things which it makes sense for a community to guarantee.That's nonsense, since it fails to account for at least two very important factors: capacity and consequence. Firstly, if someone is not capable of living a normal life, then it makes no sense to say that they have the right to live a normal life. And secondly, if the cost of what it would take for someone to live a normal life outweighs the benefit, then they do not have such a right. Hence, with regards to the latter point, I'm against forcing people to have sex with those who are disabled in that regard as some sort of twisted notion of social assistance. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.