The Purpose of Sex

[Primula Baggins]

What freedom, to be able to live life without having temptation distract me from things truely important to me.

Exactly, Griff! And it goes beyond that. I can feel completely free to be friends with a man because, well, that's as far as it can possibly go. There is something liberating, in all but my one central relationship, to simply leave sex out of it. I felt the same way when I was much younger; I had good male friends in college that I think I could not have had if I hadn't already, at that point, been committed to Mr. Prim (even though we weren't yet married, we knew we would be as soon as I graduated). Those friendships added a lot of richness to my life.

Fortunately I'm not the kind of person people tend to fall in love with , so it's always been uncomplicated on all sides. I'm just inherently better suited to be friends with people, and my marriage gives me that freedom.

[Glawariel]

...But there is certainly an element of an expression of committment when it comes to sex.

I think that this is a very poignant word in describing the meaning of sex. That of it being an expression. A very unique expression. One that often surpasses anything that can be communicated through language.

And it can express many things depending on the context. It is an expression of love and devotion to one’s partner. An expression of commitment and fidelity. An expression of trust and an individual’s willingness to share on the most intimate level. It can also express an emotional need not necessarily related to any of the above. A need for attachment. For acceptance. For closeness. And, of course, an expression of our own sexual desires as physical beings that is more fully realized with a partner. I also think that how meaningful the act is, is also dependent on the context and the understanding between the individuals involved.

I was always bothered the opnion that sex is the ultimate expression of love between 2 individuals. My ex-husband and I did not sleep together until after we were married because Jewish Law does not permit sex before that point. However we had already been together for 2 years. Does that mean that we were unable to fully express our love or commitment to each other until we were married? I certainly don’t think that’s the case from my experience nor would I want that to be so. Especially being that the first time is not necessarily the earth-shattering experience that is portrayed in television and movies (at least that wasn’t my experience). It was, however, a powerful moment of closeness that we had never shared before making it very special and something that I would only want to share with someone who I cared for in a very profound way.

I think that if sex was the ultimate anything (which I don’t feel that it is), it would be the ultimate expression of trust and a willingness to give in the most intimate way. At the end of the day, I think that our bodies, regardless of how we may feel about them, are our most personal and precious possession and that making love is an individual’s way of saying, ‘I am willing to share with you, or even more strongly- I want to share with you, that which means most to me, and I trust that you will not take advantage of what I am giving you’. It is definitely the case that as my marriage deteriorated, my willingness to give in that way deteriorated as well.

Sometimes I feel that society puts too much emphasis on the meaning of sex within a relationship and that it is one of the only ways of fully expressing a profound level of closeness and commitment. It certainly is a very powerful way of doing so but to put it up on such a pedestal severly limits the way in which a couple can express their intense love and devotion to each other.

[MithLuin]

To piggyback on what Glawariel is saying, I think that there are many ways of expressing commitment, and that all of them are part of a relationship.

The first guy I dated told me he loved me before the end of the summer. My response was, "what did you say?" He shook his head and wouldn't repeat it . He continued to tell me this throughout our relationship, and I would respond with "thank you" or (to be annoying) "I know." Two years into the relationship (when I was all of 17 years old), I still had not told him that I loved him.

He was okay with this, strangely. I felt the imbalance of our relationship (he was far more interested in me than I was in him), but at that point, he was content. I figured out that I either had to decide I loved him, or break up with him, so I decided to tell him I loved him. I meant it, but I should have just broken up with him.... the next 2 1/2 years of the relationship were very rocky, and he basically accused me of saying something I didn't mean. He said that he had trusted that I loved him, even when I didn't say it, because my actions showed it. Afterwards, I might say it, but he didn't see me acting like it.

Obviously, commitment is not my problem - I stick with things til the bitter end . But it did teach me that there's more than one way of showing your commitment and dedication to each other. [For the record, this guy is now happily married, so I didn't ruin his life or anything.]

When my next boyfriend asked me out, he asked that we not have a physical relationship, at least at first. I was fine with that, but thought "no kissing" was rather hard. But I found that we were much more "affectionate" than I would have been otherwise. People always assumed we had just started going out, because he'd nuzzle my cheek and hug me when we met between classes and such. I really liked that closeness, and the fact that we had to think of more creative ways to let the other person know we were thinking of them. I would leave flowers I'd broken off of trees on the windshield of his car, and show up at his dorm unexpectedly. One time, he knew I was walking back to my room late at night, so he waited along my path to walk me home. I can't really describe any of that, but there was something...unique about that closeness. And no, it wouldn't have lasted for ever and ever (way too cutsey for my tastes!), but it was valuable to have and to know nonetheless. Later, when I had a cold and so we couldn't really kiss or anything, we very comfortably fell back into that.

I know this post hasn't really been about sex at all, but I would be hardpressed to think of sex outside of a relationship, and so the meaning and purpose of sex naturally reflects the relationship that it belongs to.

[halplm]

I want to thank everyone for their input here... I've clarified some things for myself, and had some questions answered, and some new ones to ask myself

[narya]

I'm hesitant tell you my thoughts on the subject, halplm, since the Catholic view is clearly not accepted or respected in this thread. However, I do have things I'd like to share, so I'll plunge in.

I studied Humanae Vitae in (Catholic) high school and had/have great respect for it. It doesn't ban contraception, but it does speak powerfully (and yes, sometimes a little obscurely) as to why contraception can distort the full meaning of sex. I was on contraceptives for the first few years of my marriage, and when I went off of them - when we became open to procreation - the whole mood of the act changed. It wasn't just mutual recreation and self indulgence anymore. It was a profound act that could lead to the creation of another man or woman. It was a little scary and awe-inspiring. I learned to observe my cycles of fertility so that I knew when conception was possible and when it was less likely. Having sex during the infertile times did feel different than during the fertile times. Each act during the fertile times was preceded by an unspoken commitment, by both of us, to be responsible for anyone we created by that act, for the next 18 years or more. The act was only procreative 3 times in our 29 years of marriage, but many other times it had the serious potential. That commitment was both to my husband, to stay with him to raise the kid, and to the kid, if we created him. My son is 22 and disabled by severe depression, so we are still responsible for him. It is this long-term commitment that, unfortunately, many don't think about, and don't have to think about, when they have "protected" sex.

You made a good point, Hal, comparing contracepted sex to gay/lesbian sex. When the issues of gay marriage first came into the spotlight, my thoughts mirrored the general public consensus that it was "unnatural" because it was sterile. But then I realized that the overwhelming majority of heterosexual relationships are just as sterile, thanks to contraception, and therefore just as "unnatural". It was an epiphany for me, and thereafter I was not opposed to gay relationships, contrary to what my church and other churches were teaching. (Do some of you remember Anita Bryant?)

I also liked the way you said that you were honoring a commitment to a future wife, though you weren't sure who she was yet. You sound like you have the potential to be a very faithful husband, once you find Ms. Right.

[Túrin Turambar]

I'm hesitant tell you my thoughts on the subject, halplm, since the Catholic view is clearly not accepted or respected in this thread.

?

[JewelSong]

I'm hesitant tell you my thoughts on the subject, halplm, since the Catholic view is clearly not accepted or respected in this thread.

Ditto with the ???

Many points of view have been put forth in this discussion and while obviously not everyone agrees with everyone else, I do not see any disrepect towards anyone's viewpoint, Catholic or otherwise.

In fact, I think it is an excellent topic for a thread and there have been some excellent posts on the matter.

[narya]

Reread the posts by Cerin, Lidless, and the baby. They were dismissive. If you didn't see that, then it was probably because you carry the same beliefs. But I didn't want to discuss what they said about Catholicism or why it bothered me. I just wanted to let you know that it took me a long time to work up the courage to post in this thread, because I knew I would not be able to answer Hal's question about the sex/God connection without bringing in strong Catholic beliefs. And then I spent a long time composing what I said about this very sensitive topic because I thought it deserved a deep answer. Others on this thread have opened their hearts and souls as well, and I thank them for being so thoughtful. It is especially heartwarming to hear from people who have such strong fidelity after so many years.

[vison]

Sex with mutual committment is the best kind. I say that since I never had any other kind.

But I can tell you this: there is a real intimacy about waking up beside your partner, after the night before. That's when it's intimate, when the "heat" is turned off. If you can survive that? You can survive anything.

Anonymous sex could only have been attractive to me if I could be like a cat. Get what you want, and get out. Scoot over that fence and vanish into the darkness.

I simply can't imagine what it would be like to have sex that "meant nothing" and have to face the person the next day. Jeez. What on earth would you say to each other?

However. Not everyone is the same.


Consensual sex between adults is theoretically OK in my book. Mostly, it's none of my business.

[anthriel]

Thank you for coming into this thread with your thoughts, narya.

But I didn't want to discuss what they said about Catholicism or why it bothered me

I will respect your wishes here. But just to let you know? I saw it, too. And I'm not Catholic.


As to the "purpose" of sex? Why, to have babies, of course. If you believe only in the firm hand of evolution, you as an individual are eternally invisible unless you procreate, and are only important in some small way as long as your decendents procreate. Evolution has no patience with infertility.

But if you believe in something more than just being a placeholder in time, your life (and sex life) CAN have meaning even if you don't reproduce. Even if it's not coldly, clinically all about moving DNA down the line.

When it is part of a relationship, sex can have a place in creating a level of intimacy in a that is unavailable in all others. It can be a bit... magical. Wonderful. Stronger over time, because having this bond with someone over TIME is not only a byproduct of the commitment, but a way to strengthen the commitment. It's circular strength. The strength and joy can feed into more strength and joy.

It can be joyful or playful or incredibly intense, or it can hit you on some emotional level that brings tears to your eyes. But if it's none of the above for any specific instance, that's okay, because your relationship doesn't depend on certain conditions being met any time you have an encounter.

It IS about the relationship... at least, to me. Yes, the ultimate "purpose" of sex is to make babies, and I sure could have been churning them out, with my unexpected "Fertile Myrtle" performance.

But it's not the ONLY purpose, I would think. And that would be the flaw in the question "what's the purpose of sex"?

Depends on who is asking.

[halplm]

I think I was asking...



And I saw it too, Narya.

In fact, I think I've found it rather odd that a lot of the ideas I've formed about sex, are quite similar to a Catholic view... although I wasn't aware of that at the time, as I am not Catholic either.

On the other hand, I know other Catholics with wildly different views, so that can be a bit confusing as well... but that's true of any group.

I think I LIKE the Catholic view, but I'm not sure if it takes a rather liberal interpretation of that view for me to like it, or if it really is in line with what I think... I'll have to learn more about it.

[anthriel]

I think I was asking...

So what do you think, hal? What is the purpose of sex, to you?

[halplm]

Hmm... you turned that right back at me, didn't you...

Right now, and this is of course subject to change at my whim... I would say the purpose of sex, to me... is the physical expression of a spiritual and emotional bond that is so close and commitment that is so strong, that you are comfortable enough to consider yourselves a single unit, rather than two individuals...

and that the idea of sharing in creating a child together doesn't send you screaming from the room... although that might be too much to ask of anyone...

[axordil]

Anthy asks the only question that matters.

It's one of those questions for which there are as many correct answers are there are happy people in the world, even those who follow a creed (and there are more than one) that addresses the topic in detail.

You have to figure it out for yourself. And there's really only so much you can do in the abstract...trying to predict what it "should" be is a recipe for disappointment, in my honest opinion.

In other words, don't worry about it until you need to.

edit--xposted with hal.

[Maria]

that you are comfortable enough to consider yourselves a single unit, rather than two individuals...

I think there is danger in that- in a psychic sort of way. My husband and I are very close, even feel each other's physical pains sometimes (and THAT can be annoying, let me tell you!) but there are times when I feel I have to pull away a bit mentally, not merge so much. Somehow, there is danger in that, I feel it in my bones! I suppose if one personality is much stronger than the other, one might suffer damage from a full .... "mind meld". I'd always assumed that I was the one in danger of being overwhelmed... but recently- investigating a self hypnotic technique that involves communicating with the subconscious- I found that deep down, I fear that HE is the one that would be damaged by too intense an exposure to my mind!

I don't know the why or how of it- just that that's what comes up when chatting with my subconscious. That mental drawing back in *fear* that I've instinctively done since our 2nd or 3rd date-- isn't fear for me. It's fear for him, the big , strong judo master, ex Army Ranger guy. Very strange....

[baby tuckoo]

Reread the posts by Cerin, Lidless, and the baby. They were dismissive.

I just re-read my only post on the thread (page 1) and saw that I was in my explicatory mode, mostly regarding the religious bases for sexual attitudes in the western religions.

You chose the word "dismissive" to describe the tone. I don't think so. I dismiss no one's religion, though I might want to examine its tenets and, yes, its frailties. Anyone is free (and encouraged) to do the same with me. I find that enormously interesting and very close to the bone of humanity.

A person of faith (which I am not) might find any close reading of their belief system from the outside to be shallow and any commentary on its frailties to be "dismissive." It's not. I did say "with respect" (which is true) in the course of my observations, all of which I stand by after re-reading. If there is an error of fact, I will quickly grant it and apologize. My many religious friends know that I bear no a priori judgement against them. I spent last Christmas Eve/Day at Midnight Mass at the Church of the Holy Sacrament in downtown Sacramento. I followed the lead of my friend: I knelt when appropriate, I repeated the lines, I bowed my head. I sang. I did not receive the host.

The opinions stated in my post seem founded in fact also. I have no prejudice against Catholics at all, nor against the creed of any believer. But how can an informed outsider not see that sexuality is at the very heart of Catholicism (just look at Mary in her ovoid frame of cherubim) and that control of the flock's sexual habits by celibate priests is, at best, ironic?

It is an observation of fact, and it responded directly to the initial posting. Though pointed, it was not dismissive, unless any contrarian view is so.

[MithLuin]

In suggesting that Christian viewpoints towards sexuality have little to do with Jesus' teaching but are rather folklore enforced because people are suspicious of pleasure and think that God is watching....well....can you see how someone might mistake that as dismissive?

halplm opened up this thread for everyone to express their opinions, of any variety. So, certainly, no one is required to post from a religious perspective, and on such a fundamental topic as human sexuality, we are all bound to have various thoughts and opinions. But I don't see any reason why narya can't say "that makes me uncomfortable."

In general, it is a good idea to spend more time saying what you do believe or think, rather than what you don't think. But I understand that it is sometimes important to offer counter-examples or contrast your view with a commonly-held one. And not everyone seeks to avoid confrontation - we're in *this* forum, not the *other* forum, so we don't have to play nicely


Jesus did make a few comments on sex, actually. (And I'm not referring to the woman caught in adultery)

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5: 27-32

Sounds like the exclusivity is pretty explicitly spelled out, there.... and that sexual morality is in your head, not just a matter of what you do with your body. Lust is a choice, not a blind force of nature. Of course this is a dangerous teaching. It hits home no matter who you are. I have not been in a romantic relationship of any sort recently, so I don't have to worry about doing anything I shouldn't do. But I am not immune from lust - I still have eyes, and I still have thoughts. If I am only "good" because I have to be - I'm not good at all. I know we have had several testimonies in this thread of people who cannot imagine ever cheating on their spouse - and I believe you all, I know you are sincere. But even in that situation, it doesn't mean that lust is *never* an issue - it is still something that must be dealt with.

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Matthew 19:4-12

I do not find it strange that a celibate man would know the meaning of sex. All you have to know is what it truly means to be human - and that is to love. If you do not know love, you will never understand sex.

Jesus knew people very, very well. So did Pope John Paul II. What they said on this topic holds true....
(Resists urge to say "TOB" again....)




Sorry, I just watched Boondock Saints on TV, and I'm in a vindictive mood. Where's that duel, bt?

[baby tuckoo]

I was not being dismissive when I attributed this Catholic attitude to "folklore". I consider "folklore" a stronger basis than scripture.

And I thank you, Mith, for the citations from the gospels that deal with this issue. Outside of John's book, they are among the harshest words assigned to Jesus. I know that the striking off of limbs and the gouging of eyes is metaphorical, but some adhere to the literal meaning of such passages. The patriarchical attitude comes from the Hebraic tradition and, to me, is grating. These words don't come from the Jesus I admire.

A non-believer, I have the luxury to choose which aspects of this philosophy to embrace and which to question.

Boondock Saints? I know not of what you speak. Duel . . . or duality???


With affection for all,

bt

[themary]

Nice post hal Before I read all of the replies I'd like to say my piece.

I was going to break it down into chunks like your intial post but I would probably just end up repeating myself three times

Sex for homo and heterosexuals is a way to connect with someone. Those in love whether married or not have sex to feel closer to that person. Then there are some that have sex just for the fact that it feels good. Not everyone is religious but everyone has the bits and pieces to have sex which makes the reason for having sex personal.

The purpose of sex for some is to procreate, but those same individuals probably have sex just for the feeling at some point as well because we have hormones and attraction to deal with. The purpose of sex for others is to, pardon the termanology, "get off" they do it soley for the sensations and release.

If God only wanted us to use sex for procreation He probably could have come up with a better model. Then again he knows we are sinners so maybe having sensitive procreation bits is supposed to be a challenge. Who knows! If sex didn't feel good people probably wouldn't procreate, but since it feels good those who aren't interested in procreating do it anyway, it's a Catch-22 if you will.

[MithLuin]

Boondock Saints is a movie about two good young Irishmen in Boston turned vigilantes. It is a surreal movie, there's no other word for it. The premise of the movie is that it is okay to kill bad people (I mean, if you take it at face value), and thus, these brothers can be good even if they are killers. Or something. Even the detective (the guy who plays the Green Goblin in Spiderman) eventually goes along with it. Rated R for language, sex and violence (probably in that order....), so I wouldn't have been able to watch it at all except that it was edited for TV - every other line was bleeped out . (According to IMDB, the f-word is used 246 times, and the body count is 33.)

I mention this only to verify that there is no way I could be in a reasonable frame of mind afterwards
The duel was in reference to the duel you challenged me to in Anthy's thread.

Connor: [picking out weapons and gear] Do ya know what we need, man? Some rope.
Murphy: Absolutely. What are you, insane?
Connor: No I ain't. Charlie Bronson's always got rope.
Murphy: What?
Connor: Yeah. He's got a lot of rope strapped around him in the movies, and they always end up using it.
Murphy: You've lost it, haven't ya?
Connor: No, I'm serious.
Murphy: That's stupid. Name one thing you'd need a rope for.
Connor: You don't f***in' know what you're gonna need it for. They just always need it.
Murphy: What's this 'they' sh*t? This isn't a movie.
Connor: Oh, right.
[picks up large knife out of Murphy's bag]
Connor: Is that right, Rambo?
Murphy: All right. Get your stupid f***in' rope.
Connor: I'll get my stupid rope. I'll get it. There's a rope right there.

Connor: We haven't really got a system of deciding who, Roc. It's just...
Rocco: Me! *Me*! I'm the guy! I know everyone! Their habits, who they hang out with, who they talk to! I've got phone numbers, addresses! I know who they're f***ing! I know where they *live*! We could kill *everyone.*
Murphy: So what do you think?
Connor: I'm strangely comfortable with it.

Connor: Now you will receive us.
Murphy: We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry.
Connor: We do not want your tired and sick.
Murphy: It is your corrupt we claim.
Connor: It is your evil that will be sought by us.
Murphy: With every breath, we shall hunt them down.
Connor: Each day we will spill their blood, 'til it rains down from the skies.
Murphy: Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
Connor: These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
Murphy: There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth, not to push the bounds and cross over, in to true corruption, into our domain.
Connor: For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day you will reap it.
Murphy: And we will send you to whatever god you wish.

The McManus Brothers: And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth unto Thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be, In Nomine Patris, Et Filii, Et Spiritus Sancti.

Sorry for the derailment of the thread. There is probably no subject as interesting as sex, so it is a shame to go off on tangents....it's just that I seem to be more fascinated by death. I should probably get my head checked....



Yes, Jesus' words are harsh, but he is making important points. He's not saying "gouge your eyes out," he's saying, "pay attention, this is more important than being able to see." So, in a way, it is no different than when he says "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind." ... "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." John 9:39-41 He is speaking of purity, and love. I know he doesn't say those words, but that is the opposite of lust. Looking at someone with lust is looking at them with desire to use them to acheive your own ends, treating them as an object. It is a failure to recognize them for who they truly are or to consider what would be good or best for them. Lust is grasping, calling something "mine" My own, my preciousss.