Philosophy Now Forum

reasonvemotion wrote:There is only one true reason people seek sex. We are programmed to do so.

That may be as well, but I give a damn "why" people do it, that wasn't my question.

To take from what you said: if we're "programmed", then all programs have their components, and I inquire about the whatabouts of those components.

Bernard wrote:Mostly all about babies

Yes, I see that this is extremely important. One must ALWAYS treat sex with the utmost respect in terms of beginning a new life. That is where it's all about planning.

The Voice of Time wrote:

Dunce wrote:If you wanted it to be purely symbolic, couldn't you just go to sleep and dream about each other?

"purely" yes, but it could be "just symbolic" without having to remove the actual physical interactions, because "just symbolic" refers to interpretation whereas "purely" means "stripped of anything else".

I understand. What I had in mind was that your symbolic model for sexual relations has the potential to elevate wet dreams to the status of acts of love-making, which is not how they are normally viewed. If a couple are both wet dreamers, they could make love without even touching physically and whilst being largely paralysed by sleep. This provides a new way of seeing 'wetdreamosexuality'. I don't know if the same could said of sexsomnia. Sexsomniacs - from the accounts I've read - have no memory of their sexual acts, which seems to suggest a lack of conciousness and therefore not the same potential for a symbolic act as in a dream.

my question is: what matters in sex? Which ones would we prefer to achieve? Expressed symbolism (meaning/purpose) or communicated understanding (intention/result)?

What about sex in a situation which involves pressure from your partner or for example duty or sex for money.

Are the whatabout components in action in these situations or are they on automatic pilot and blocked out.

reasonvemotion wrote:

my question is: what matters in sex? Which ones would we prefer to achieve? Expressed symbolism (meaning/purpose) or communicated understanding (intention/result)?

What about sex in a situation which involves pressure from your partner or for example duty or sex for money.

Are the whatabout components in action in these situations or are they on automatic pilot and blocked out.

"Which ones would we prefer to achieve?". I have a hard time putting psychological rape anywhere near a question of "preference", but when it comes to duty and sex for money I guess that, on the average, the first one involves a desire of expressed symbolism (because duty not affected by personal desire has nothing to communicate, it's an introverted self-justifying view of sex, least it's coupled with pressure, where it then turns back to the psychological rape thing) whereas the later is more likely to be communicated understanding as there's, let's be sexist and call it a woman; communicating with her actions the preferences of her customer, she is striving for achievement, for satisfying the customer's body (at least in an ideal situation, many factors could cloud this ideal situation and it could turn into expressed symbolism for instance if the woman takes an introverted self-justifying view of her actions and does not care for her customer any further in the deal than the minimum requirements of what could be considered to fulfil her end of the bargain, at that stage, the minimum actions becomes her symbol for her self-justification, as in telling herself "I did it").

.






......................................................................





Could you please restate your last paragraph?

I can't seem to understand what you were trying to say.



Thank you in advance...






.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:Could you please restate your last paragraph?
I can't seem to understand what you were trying to say.
Thank you in advance...

I didn't try to say anything else than what I said. I'm quite literal. Unlike the man always short on words, but very willingly puts up images of fucking reindeer, which I find most unnecessary, and I would please ask you to stop putting up garbage like that. I also please ask you to stop using drastically oversized typing, it's very annoying and disturbing the reading-flow of the pages.

.





Look, I wasn't confronting you or criticizing your ability to write.

I know you can write quite well.


I just didn't understand what you were trying to say in your last paragraph.


Could you compress your meaning of that paragraph into one sentence?



As far as the GIF I used, I might remind you, this thread is. Sex as either/or.


You and everyone else here has been talking about sex.


Sex is instinctive.


The deer in the GIF are doing what you and everyone else here on this thread and over the ENTIRE planet are doing.


Welcome to the real world.





The only difference is that images are more dynamic & powerful than words.

That's why you are impacted by my images and NOT by the written word when describing the exact same thing...



As far as me using a slightly larger font I think I'm going to keep it that way for a bit.

In my mind, I symbolically presents a more important, more confident message, than members such as yourself who have a smaller one.






...................................................................................





I enjoy owning & using more real estate upon the postings.

Should you use less? Maybe a smaller font? I don't know. I would never tell someone else here on the forum how to post.




Who say's you are right?





.

sex is for PROCREATION

however who would join together and procreate if it were not enjoyable?

since human children take many years to grow enough to look after themselves we have a family unit a mother to nurture and feed us a father to provide for and protect us.

of course social and technological advancements have muddied the waters over te years.

so a mother and father need an emotional bond to keep them together to raise te child properly

james1951 wrote:sex is for PROCREATION

speak for yourself, an increasing amount of people die childless or with just one kid for instance, out of choice. Sex is not for anything else than what you make. This thread is about the choice, not some fanatical imagination of sex abstracted to an idea having an inbuilt meaning.

james1951 wrote:sex is for PROCREATION

however who would join together and procreate if it were not enjoyable?

since human children take many years to grow enough to look after themselves we have a family unit a mother to nurture and feed us a father to provide for and protect us.

of course social and technological advancements have muddied the waters over te years.

so a mother and father need an emotional bond to keep them together to raise te child properly

Actually, sex was just another step along the evolutionary ladder to maximize the success rate of offspring, So I can see where you'd reduce it as such. But in a world of overpopulation, it is no longer seen, by the the truly intelligent, as such. It is in fact enjoyable, with an associated sense of relief, so much so, that same sex partners exist, I believe, at a much greater rate, hopefully to compensate.

No, like VoT said, sex is what you make it, as long as it's good for all involved.