Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Why Are We Such Prudes? Part 2

Some people are just into some freaky shit.
And I kinda dig it.
Yesterday I talked about why I think pre-marital sex is not morally wrong, and how Puritanical it seems to view sex in such a derogatory way.  One of my readers, FreeThinke, in his response asked 10 questions.  I will answer some of them, and try to bring my major point full circle.

1.Is bad sex better than no sex?
That depends on how bad it is and whose fault it is.  Bad sex when it's not your fault, ie. your partner is just not doing something right, is better than no sex.  No sex is better than bad sex when it's your fault, because if it's your fault then no only do you go unsatisfied, but then you get to experience the concomitant humiliation and embarassment.

2.Is friendly sex without love better than no sex?
Absolutely.  Sex is the most fun that two human beings can experience together, and if you and another person are attracted to each other sexually, then why deprive yourself?  If when we say "friendly," we mean that it's someone you consider to be your friend, more than an acquaintance, then yes having sex would be better than no sex so long as both parties are mature enough to handle it.

3. Is sex in a loveless marriage out of a sense of duty better than hot passionate sex outside of marriage?
Yes and no.  Sex is a reciprocal, mutual thing so there are two ways to look at it: what am I getting out of it, what is my partner getting out of it?  If you're looking at it in terms of what you're getting out of it, then it's probably better to have passionate sex outside of marriage.  If you're looking at it from "what is my partner getting out of it," then it would be better to have sex in marriage out of a sense of duty, assuming that this at least satisfies your partner.

4. Should "decency" and "propriety" ever enter into sexual encounters, or is it better just to let go and let 'er rip?
That honestly depends on quite a couple of things.  First the type of relationship you have with the person, and second the mood of the situation.  Are you and your partner "together," or just strictly sexual partners?  Are you adventurous in bed and your partner a prude, vice versa, or are you on the same page?  Do you feel like expressing your love to your partner, or are you in a fit of primal passion and you absolutely have to fuck him or her?  At the end of the day you have to know what your partner is into.  If he/she wants dirty, impulsive sex, then why not?

5. Is no sex better than gay sex for a gay person?
No.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: although something might be considered "unnatural," by conventional standards, that doesn't mean there's anything morally/ethically wrong with it.  If a gay person is attracted to another, then that person has just as much right to act on those feelings as anyone else.  Why should they be told they have to supress their natural desires while everyone else is allowed to fulfill them?

6. Is masturbation a sin -- or merely means to relieve sexual tension?
Seeing as how probably every living adult in history with working parts has jacked off at least once in their lifetime, I'm going to say that if it is a sin then there's no one in heaven.  It's better to relieve that tension than to bottle it all up.  But of course, all things in moderation.

7. Is it possible to have love without sex?
Yes.  It's possible to love someone without jumping their bones.  We know that there are three kinds of love that the Greeks thought of--eros, philia, and agape--so it is possible to truly love someone without sex being involved.

8. In a sexless marriage, should the partners be bound to the law against adultery?
Part of the marriage vow is that you will always be faithful to each other so long as you're married.  If you're not having sex in the marriage, then you're still bound by the vow you made to not be unfaithful.  While adultery is not necessarily something that we can legislate against, I would say that having sex with someone other than your spouse is a grave betrayal and is morally wrong.

9. Is artificial insemination a form of adultery in married women -- or of fornication in unmarried women?
No.  Insemination is not the same as the act of sexual intercourse itself.  Sex is more than just the biological processes that it entails.  If sex were only about procreation, then it would not be so pleasurable.  If you believe that humans are the creation of God, then you have to believe that God meant for humans to experience sexual pleasure.  If you don't believe in God, then it's simple as chocking it up to logic.  Artificial insemination is not sexual intercourse, and therefore is not adultery or fornication.

10. Is sex primarily designed for recreation or only for procreation?
That's probably the toughest question out of all of these.  I don't think it's mean primarily for either purpose.  We can't deny the efficacy of neither pleasure or procreation.  Procreation is absolutely important for obvious reasons, but pleasure I think goes a bit deeper than that (no pun intended . . . maybe).  Look at couples who don't ever have children because they can't or don't want any.  They still can end up happy and fulfilled,.  Besides, most people, when having sex, aren't always thinking about spawning children.  The only time when it's all about procreation is when the couple is actually "trying."  The other 90% of the time it's all about making each other feel good.

Every human being on this planet deserves the chance to be happy, so why would we tell some people that they're not allowed to be happy just because we think the junk they're into is "depraved," "unnatural," or "weird"?  If being freaky is your deal, then do it up. 

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very interesting, responsible, clearly expressed answers, Jack. thanks. I hope others weigh in as well, and ask questions of their own. It's an important topic, and deserves serious consideration.

~ FreeThinke

Peter McCullough said...

As Jerome Green, Bo Diddley's maraccas man once siad, "Uh where's the bar, please show me to the bar."

Anonymous said...

3. to me implies that there is no love, by either party. In which case, the ship has sailed, make a break, make it as mutual as possible and move on with your life.
If your spouce still loves you or you still love your spouce, that gets deeper...
If you still hold out hope for the relationship seek counseling etc. but i would put sex on the backburner

8. Again, this is not something i feel you can make a sweeping statement about. If your spouce simply no longer cares or is UNABLE to care for your sexual needs... thats a matter for a long discussion/counsiling.

i tend to lean towards Jack here and say its wrong, but i can forsee a union where one party grows to lothe the other because their basic human needs (and i do see sex as a basic need) are not met.

It may actually help the sittuation at home if adultary was permitted by the spouce.

~Smitty

Harrison said...

Why do Catholic school girls have to wear such short skirts?

Anonymous said...

Well, thanks for trying, Jack.

It looks like only Smitty takes sex seriously. Is that a Sign of the Times -- or just an indication of individual personalities in play?

Someday we ought to discuss bisexuality. I wonder if there is a truly moral way to handle that?

Keep on keeping on.

~ FreeThinke