The Purpose of Sex

[halplm]

So I'm pretty sure I'm the oldest virgin around this place... and I'm certainly the oldest I know outside the internet. I say this for no other reason except that I think that gives me a rather unique perspective on the discussion I'm hoping to start. Perhaps in the end it's a meaningless tidbit, but then it might help explain why all this stuff runs through my head constantly.

Anyway, be prepared as this is going to go off in a bunch of directions, and I'm not sure which part will start any discussion, although I imagine some of it will...

---


What is the purpose of sex? Woohoo, there's a lot of places to go with that... and I honestly don't have an answer myself. I guess that's why I'm asking the question.
Obviously, you could start from a biological standpoint, and say that the purpose of sex is to concieve and have children. It's safe to say that for many people on this planet, that is the purpose.

However, for many people, it's their biggest concern. How much money do we spend every year to avoid that pesky little side effect of sex? So clearly, it is not the purpose for a lot of people.

Which brings us to topic number one in the many that caused me to start this thread: To me it seems sex must be viewed differently for homosexual rather than heterosexual couples... as there is no possability of conception.

On the other hand, it could very well be in NO way different from heterosexual couples that do not want children... which implies there is a fundamental "purpose" for sex that is not procreation.

And that brings us to topic number two that inspired this post: I'm a rather firm believer in the Bible, and would argue that it is essential to pay attention to what it says about sex... as sex is SUCH a large part of our lives. To some, the Bible clearly defines a very narrow range of situations where sex is acceptable: With your husband or wife... when you're trying to concieve.

Personally I don't find this to make much sense with my own personal concept of God and the fact that he created us to be the way we are. That is, disregarding the marriage bit for the moment (we'll get back to that), the whole "only for when you're trying to concieve" bit implies that God made sex pleasurable... and then set out to deny us that pleasure in most cases. I don't thing God is out to deny us pleasure.

I do think he doesn't want us to put that pleasure above any personal relationship we might have with him... But that then begs the question... what is the purpose of sex? Why is it so pleasurable? If we were created that way, why? Can it improve our lives both with a partner, and with God?

Ok, that might go off in who knows what direction, so maybe that's too much for this thread. But anyway, back into my train of thought...

So, I don't think sex is just to have kids. But on the other hand, I don't buy into the concept that sex is purely for the pleasure of the participants. There is some mix, as children can not simpley be a side effect that is either avoided or embraced. On the other hand, sex adds a lot more to a relationship between two people. It's not just physical pleasure...

And so we reach the third topic I had come up with: What do two people get out of the sex in their relationship? Obviously, books can be written about this, and obviously I have no personal experience to draw upon, but I think it's critical to the question of what the purpose of sex is. I think it fulfills a fundamental need we all have to not be alone.

Which ties back into the second topic, if we have that fundamental need, why should it be constrained by the goal of the sex, or the marital status of the individuals? Is sex outside of a marriage not really meeting that fundamental need because there is no commitment (I realize I'm implying you can't be commited outside of marriage, which is obviously not true, but I'm talking about it from a religious perspective... where marriage is specifically designed to BE that commitment)?

Or, to tie it back to the first topic, if we have that fundamental need, why should it be constrained by gender? Should two people seeking that connection be forced to abandon it because they can't have children or because no one will marry them? On the one hand that sounds absurd, but on another hand I can see the argument, even if I disagree.

So what it comes down to, then, is what the purpose of the sex is. From a religious perspective that question would be: What does God intend the purpose to be. I'm obviously not restricting this conversation to the religious point of view, it's just where I come from.



Ok, so I've gone all over the place in this post, and I'm not even sure I'm making sense. HOpefully a little discussion can focus things where others might be interested in discussing them. I would hope we don't get hung up on arguing specifics of religion or law, as there are other threads for that, but they are so tied together I'm not sure how it will work.

Here's my current conclusions, but I have no doubt they will change in the future:

I think God created us as sexual beings. I think we have a fundamental mental and spiritual drive to find someone to share that part of ourselves with. I think the pleasure such a union provides is also supposed to result in children, but not all the time, and for some not at all. I also think that it will be best when it's reserved to be shared with only the one person you're commited to, because the connection happens not at only a physical level, but also a spiritual one.

[vison]

Nature designed sex to be pleasurable so that babies would be born. Sex between two people is very pleasurable and more than mere physical pleasure if there is an emotional attachment between the partners.

Virginity is a much over-rated state. I am sorry to report that to you, halplm, but it is true. There is no mystical attachment to virginity in Nature, far from it. I was once a virgin, and the day after I wasn't a virgin any more was much like the day before: except that I was pretty enthusiastically interested in repeating the experience.

I don't know what God is supposed to have purposed with Sex since every religion, every sect, every religious person almost, has a different idea on the subject.

If you, or any other person, has decided to restrict sexual activity, to observe certain restrictions, then you are stuck with the result. I think it is a horrendous mistake, but then, I can quite see it would be a horrendous mistake if your opinion of yourself, your self-esteem and sense of virtue, would be destroyed if you acted against these self-imposed rules.

Chastity might be your choice, evidently it is. Unfortunately, in my mind, it puts *Sex* into an unreal realm, granting it far, far more importance than it has in reality. It is an appetite built in to us, as is our appetite for food, water and air. Various religions teach believers that suffering, denying appetites, creates or preserves virtue. I don't see it, myself.

[Cerin]

I don't believe there is any Biblical support for the notion that one should only engage in sex with one's spouse when one wants to conceive.

[halplm]

I know people who would say that's biblical... and they would point to the verses to show it. Doesn't mean they're interpreting it correctly... just one point of view I brought up...


vison, I don't think chastity puts sex on a pedistal, I think it puts relationships on a pedistal, one with God (which is appropriate), and potentially one with a future spouse (also appropriate, as long as it doesn't interfere with the first one).

It's a choice, not a constraint. I certainly also believe that if I wanted to go out and have sex a lot, God's not going to hold it against me, just like any other thing I do that is a sin.

But I didn't really start this to be about me, or anyone else that had made similar choices to me...

[yovargas]

I didn't make that choice but our results seem to be about the same.

[halplm]

well, one of the reasons I'm interested in discussing all this is because of that choice.

It seems as if that choice is more and more rare... and among people that make that choice, it's rarer and rarer that they actually stick with it.

Now, I'm not trying to justify myself if I change my mind, or stick with it, even though I doubt I'll have any opportunities any time soon ... but I'd like to at least understand what it is I actually think about it all, rather than blindly sticking with a decision I made 15 years ago (granted, I've reaffirmed that decision many times since ).

[Cerin]

I know people who would say that's biblical... and they would point to the verses to show it.

What I'm saying is that I don't believe there are verses that could be said to show it. This seems like a distinctly non-Biblical teaching to me. Have you actually had Bible-oriented Christians point out verses to support the idea that sex shouldn't be engaged in unless conception is desired?

The reason I ask is that I would not want to stand by and see an erroneous idea about the Bible casually put forth without any evidence to support it. Now I think that might -- might, I say -- be more of a Catholic idea since Catholicism is against birth control. But of course Catholicism has sources other than the Bible for their beliefs.

So to clarify, have you had occasions when Bible-oriented Christians (as opposed to Catholics, for example) have made this claim to you with support? If so, do you happen to remember the verses they used? Or are you assuming there are Bible-oriented Christians you know who would point to Bible verses to support this idea?

I hope I've made it clear why I'm asking. I don't mean to make you uncomfortable. If I have, I apologize.

[MithLuin]

halplm, I recommend reading The Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. Or, if you're not into stuff that dense, try Christopher West's explanations of it. Better yet, if you are interested in this topic, find a TOB discussion group in your area. (I dunno where you're at, but I can probably find you one ).

I cannot condense those ideas into a post. It is not possible, because it requires outlining a world-view first.


But here's a glimpse....our only connection to the world and to each other is through our bodies. We are not strictly spiritual beings - we are physical beings, too - and it is only the physical aspect of ourselves that can forge these connections.

And yes, that includes talking

Not everything physical is sexual, of course.

But as for the purpose of human sexuality, I think that sex is an opportunity for us to express love to another person. It is not always used that way, of course - but that's what it's for. And yes, the love that is expressed should be total and committed and life-giving if it is to mirror God's love for us. Again, this does not always happen....but it is what we're designed for.

A loving marriage is pretty much the best thing you can experience in this life. It should be on a pedastal, but not to be admired from afar . It's something to strive for within each actual real marriage. There are days when it seems a fairy tale, because people are just people, not romantic princes who wisk you away and make all your problems disappear. But there are also times when (listen to any married couple reflect on it) everything just seems so right about being together and you are a wonderful support to each other.

This joy, this opportunity to love someone else, should not be given up for 'ascetic' purposes (I mean the bread-and-water one, not the artsy one). You don't deny this to fortify yourself or prove you have a strong will. You should only give it up for something that would be worth it. Deferring until you are married is just deferring, not giving it up.

I have some idea of what is worth it. Marriage is a sacrament of the love of God for the soul - and so, if you want to start living heaven on earth, you could start your heavenly marriage relationship early . Granted, it won't be consummated until after death, so it will more be an experience of intense longing, but it's still love, and it's still a relationship, so that is something good. Also, there is an intense freedom in not having a family, so that can be put to very good purposes. St. Francis' commitment to Lady Poverty was romantic, but it also allowed him to live the life he did. He could not have wandered from place to place begging food and lodging if he had a wife and children to care for and support - it would be irresponsible. (He himself realized this, and when he was 'tempted' one night, he went out and built snowmen to represent his 'family' he would have to care for. Not having any clothing for them, he gave up on that fairly quickly ).

Each person has a unique life. There is no 'one path' that we all have to take. I know people who have never married who love that, and others who have never married who regret it, or at least are sad and lonely and wish they'd had the opportunity. I know widows who have remarried and had a second great marriage, and widows who have remained single after losing their husbands.

My cousin, who is one year younger than I am, entered the convent 3 years ago, and loves it. My sister has been considering that since she was a child, and may make a decision within the year. I can certainly understand why they want to make a commitment to that lifestyle, and it is a vocation, something they are called to. My other sister is engaged to be married in August, and that is definately the best choice for her. She has known since she was in high school that she wanted to be married some day. My cousin's sisters are both married/engaged. Another cousin and his girlfriend had a son when they were 16; they are not married, but they have been together for several years now, and I imagine they would intend to get married someday (when the finances work out). They are committed to each other, and love their son. I have a cousin who is older than I am who eloped with her abusive boyfriend - eventually, they separated. I have another cousin who was a lawyer who married her mechanic boyfriend, and that marriage fell apart in 3 years. And yet another cousin who went to rehab while she was pregnant with her son, and then eloped after he was born. (I have a lot of cousins - that's not even all the different families )


People all have different paths - those are all just in my immediate family (first cousins only). Some of them are happy, some are not; some regret their choices, some do not. The goal of identifying an ideal is not to then bash everyone over the head with it for not living up to that high-in-the-sky ordeal...it's to give people direction, a guide, what to hope for. And to understand why some things hurt and why others are so fulfilling. It's helpful to put it all together.

So, halplm, whether you choose to continue as you are, or seek out someone to share your life with, I hope that you will make the choice that is best for you.


Cerin, Catholic theology is based on the Bible as well. We have a rich tradition of how we interpret the Bible, of course, but that's what it all comes back to. Catholic teaching holds that the use of artificial contraception is not the moral way to control when babies are born, but it does not suggest that sex without the possibility of procreation is wrong, bad, demeaning or in any other way 'less' than sex that does in fact result in a baby. To be fully self-giving, neither partner can withhold their fertility (hence the problem with birth control), but there are many cases where couples simply aren't fertile. Some Catholics may share the ideas halplm mentioned, but that is not what the Church teaches.

If you are in search of the Biblical basis of that idea, I would think the story of Onan would be the place to start. Also, the parts of the law dealing with the times when a woman should not be touched by her husband certainly put a limit on sex within marriage, and do coincide with the times when she is likely to be infertile. I am not suggesting these passages should be interpretted that way, just a place someone who thinks that way may have gotten their ideas.

[Cerin]

Thank you, Mith. That was very helpful, as always.

I hope you'll forgive the awkward 'Bible-oriented'. I wasn't sure how to put that, but perhaps I could say SS-Christians, meaning Sola-Scripture. Isn't that the phrase by which we differentiate those Christians who rely on the Bible alone, from those who don't?

[nerdanel]

To me, it is one type of physically pleasurable experience that can enrich life, and can also cause any number of complications. (As you say, there is a difference for people who deliberately engage in only non-procreative acts, whether gay or straight.)

I was taught all the traditional notions, both religious and secular, of "saving yourself for marriage," of the importance of preserving this "special gift" to give to your husband on your wedding night. First, I lost interest in the husband, then I lost interest in "saving myself" for anyone else. Being intimate with another became one experience of many that I had not had, but wanted to have. Further, I wanted to have it before meeting Ms. Right, as I think it would be tremendously awkward to meet The One and have no experience or clue what you are doing.

My first experience was much like vison's: the day before I was a virgin, and the day after I was not, and the principal difference between the two days is that on the latter, I understood what all the hype was about. In my opinion, once you divorce it from procreation, then there is not necessarily a grand meaning or purpose - it is two (or more - at least so I'm told) people experiencing physical pleasure together. With apologies to V, I keep wanting to pervert his quote - "Sex is what you make of it." If there is something more to it than experiencing physical pleasure together, such as an expression of love/commitment, that is for the parties to define.

I always feel uncomfortable with the expression of "losing one's virginity," as I do not see anything lost. Rather, I see it as an experience gained - a first experience of something that it is a vital part of the human condition. I cannot conceive (no pun intended - really!) of a Creator who creates us with the capacity for such physical pleasure, imposes such onerous conditions on how we can experience it, and excludes many of us from experiencing it altogether. That is fundamentally incompatible with my understanding of God, such as it is.

[yovargas]

Is this thread about our individual views of sex or about trying to understand the biblical view of sex?

[vison]

Both, I guess.

[nerdanel]

According to hal's original post, the question is (1) what is the purpose of sex or (2) what does God intend the purpose of sex to be. He made clear he was not restricting the discussion to religious perspectives.

[halplm]

I made something clear? Go me!

Mith, you continue to amaze me with how clearly you explain things. You're explanation of how Catholics view contraception was much much more clear and what I meant to say about the concept.

And that just shows how my concept of it has been twisted around, as the way I explained it really wasn't bibilical, as Cerin was pointing out. It is much more the idea of "not withholding fertility." Nothing wrong with sex... just something wrong with trying to avoid that possible result.

See, I'm making more sense to myself... as that was a particularly nagging bit that had gotten stuck in my head.

On another note, I don't claim any "specialness" for being a virgin, nor do I expect it of anyone else, nor would I hold anyone else "special" for it. I fully understand the idea that before and after nothing really changes, except you've had that experience. I just haven't had it yet, and I felt that was relevant (for some reason) to this discussion...

Anyway, thanks, I look forward to hearing more people's opinions.

[baby tuckoo]

I arrive late in the day to this thread, but Cerin has spoken my mind so far. I know my bible pretty well, and it is hard to find blanket strictures on the circumstances of a coital encounter. I don't buy that Onan's story is a warning against at all. And, as Cerin said, Catholic theology is penumbra at best, ad hoc at worst, in its ideas regarding exclusivity.

Many old testament figures had concubine/multiple lovers. The gospels speak of love and faith and charity, but little (if anything) of sex. I'm not aware that Jesus comments at all, except perhaps obliquely in his attitude toward Mary Magdalene.

The restrictions built into the teachings of most western Christianities is based on a folk tradition of conservative inclinations among believers and a basic suspicion of all things pleasurable. (Exceptions include the Oneida colony and the Latter Day Saints, so long as the pleasure was male.)

Cerin, I'd never heard the SS code, but it is a good point of cleavage for the flavors of Chrisiantity, both Orthodox and Roman. I disagree with Mith that Roman Catholocism is bible based, and I do so with respect, but with the conviction that comes from study of the issue. Most of the valued Catholic dogma, the ones that appeal to the masses, are folk tradition wearing clerical garb and are inherited from a time when an average guy/gal couldn't read the bible for him/herself.

The Protestant revolution was sparked by the excesses of the Renaissance popes, but it was fueled by the puritan spirit that asked "what does the scripture actually say and how should we understand it?"

I realize that halplm has sought to keep the discussion out of the religious arena, but I don't think it's possible. Most people think that god is watching and they want his approval. After they have appeased themselves with pleasure, they want his forgiveness.

We know from the example of the priestly cast in many religions that self-denial is considered an a priori virtue by those who believe in the constant eye of god.

[Glawariel]

I am the prudiest of all prudes and I can't believe that I'm actually reading and posting in a thread that has the word sex in the title but here goes...

In terms of a biblical view towards sex from a non-procreative standpoint, I think that it is interesting to point out that in the context of marriage a man has a biblical obligation to satisfy his wife sexually. The source of this obligation (which, if I'm not mistaken, is in the Book of Exodus chapter 21) has nothing at all to do with procreation.

Quote from jewishvirtuallibrary.org: "...A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual intercourse is referred to as onah, and is one of a wife's three basic rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not reduce."

In fact, the biblical obligation to procreate "be fruitful and multiply" is not contextually related to discussions regarding sex (it comes just after Man-male/female- is created in the first chapter of Genesis).

On a personal level, it's hard for me to separate my religious beliefs from my personal feelings in this regard. I have definitely grappled with trying to resolve the restrictions that Jewish Law-both biblical and rabbinic- puts on physical relationships (not only relating to the marital relationship) and the fact that we are created as physical beings. It's a tough one to figure out.

Still trying to sift through my thoughts (and get over my extreme prudishness while doing so) but I'll start with that.

[Sunsilver]

And that just shows how my concept of it has been twisted around, as the way I explained it really wasn't bibilical, as Cerin was pointing out. It is much more the idea of "not withholding fertility." Nothing wrong with sex... just something wrong with trying to avoid that possible result.

My understanding of that bit of the Bible is that Onan was slain for DISOBEYING GOD. Period. End of sentence. I think many people totally get the wrong idea about that passage. It's not the 'spilling of the seed' that's evil, it's not the refusal to procreate, it was that he was told by God to do this, and he changed his mind at the last second.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think (at least for me) the purpose of sex changes throughout your life. For a teenager, it can be a 'holy grail' type thing (particularly when everyone else is doing it and you are not ). For myself, even when I started to have some sexual experiences, it never really was all that special until I met the love of my life. Then it was like an explosion of passion, with sex being only one part of that (but admittedly a very big part). As an expression of being so incredibly close to another human being, sex finally felt "right". And 20 years plus later, that sense has never changed. But of course, no one can sustain that level of passion over that amount of time. So though the purpose of expressing that closeness has never changed, the level of feverish intensity has obviously been greatly reduced. And I've come to learn over time that a well-timed hug can be just as special. Well, almost.

But there is certainly an element of an expression of committment when it comes to sex. There are many people that I am glad to hug. But there is only one person that I would make love with. No matter how attractive I might find some other woman, and even no matter how much I might care about her, I would never even be tempted into having an affair. There is no way that I could imagine it being a remotely pleasurable experience, because my mind would be obsessed with the fact that I was doing something that would cause pain to someone that I love.

I'm not sure that at all answers your question, hal, but those are my thoughts.

[halplm]

Well, I don't know that it answers MY questions, but it's clear that any questions YOU had you were able to find answers for... which is always good to hear about.

My most recent thought has been wondering how much of my choices have been influenced by circumstance. Would I have made the same choices if I found someone earlier in life? Will I be willing to wait if I find somone in the future? Would I be willing to wait if I found someone tomorrow? What would I think of myself afterwards if I didn't? Would I feel the need to justify my actions, or would I have to come to terms with some sort of failure in my own mind?

Which brings to mind the question of how much is what people think about sex determined by their own experience, choices, and desires?

Of course, that's a much bigger question that can be generalized to pretty much anything... I mean, I think it's ok to eat raw cookie dough that I've made from eggs I know aren't goign to make me sick... but that might just be because I've never gotten sick from doing it...

[nerdanel]

Voronwë, that brought a smile to my face. Beth and you are both so very lucky.