The Church's Responsibility and the Responsibility of Those Who Are Spiritual to Bring Salvation to Modern Sexuality When Problems Are Identified

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2015 1:03 AM GMT
    Modern sexuality has occurred in five phases writes Jonathan Grant, an Anglican pastor in New Zealand in his book Divine Sex: A Compelling Vision for Christian Relationships in a Hypersexualized Age.

    1
    the separation of sex from procreation
    through contraception

    2
    the separation of sex from marriage
    through the rise of cohabitation

    3
    the separation of sex from partnership
    through sex becoming temporary and recreational

    4
    the separation of sex from another person
    through online pornography

    5
    the separation of sex from our own bodies
    through questioning the very categories of male and female

    Source: Christianity Today, September 2015 issue
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2015 10:11 AM GMT
    I have no idea where you're going with this. I know where I'm going, to the toilet to lose my lunch.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 06, 2015 2:27 PM GMT
    Because when I think about the best person or group of persons to provide a detailed commentary on sex, I think of a host of celebrate, frock-wearing, hysterical virgins.

    Anyway, putting on my neutrality hat which I normally wear, I actually took a bit of time to read up on the Anglican Church and their views regarding sex. But, like all things religious, there's a war within the culture, and the Anglican church still hasn't come to terms with things like pre-marital sex (and homosexual sex and relationships). Sticking with New Zealand, I found blog posts by priests saying sex is a totally wonderful god-given blessing (and that gay people are a-okay!), and then found other blogs from priests decrying churches who support out-of-wedlock sex, even in-wedlock sex, and especially homosexuality (and sex). So while I don't really have an interest in their internal struggle coming to grips with the 21st century, it was still an interesting read, and a reminder that yet one more religion is in turmoil because they're split in two on an issue, when god's word should have clearly spelled everything out. If their god were a better communicator (dare I say, "perfect"), this might not be happening.

    Anyway, onto the whole 'dissection' thing I usually do.

    StephenOABC saidModern sexuality has occurred in five phases writes Jonathan Grant, an Anglican pastor in New Zealand in his book Divine Sex: A Compelling Vision for Christian Relationships in a Hypersexualized Age.


    "Hypersexualized"? Maybe it's hypersexualized to you, but to the rest of the modern world, sex is just a normal thing people do when they are intimate with one another and want to have a good time. It's only hypersexualized when you look at it from the perspective of..well, a "celebrate, frock-wearing, hysterical virgin," again. Note, I do not "accuse" Grant of being one such virgin, because the more liberal views of New Zealand lead me to suspect he's okay with the concept of love making, furthered by an evaluation of some reviews on this here book of his.

    To critique you personally, Stephen, I'm surprised you didn't offer a link to a view of the book which is available on the Christianity Today website, and offers a far more in-depth look at the book's contents, as well as doing a comparison to the article writer's particular brand of christianity.

    By reading the review, however, I wonder if the book author, Grant, does indeed offer thoughts parallel to the review writer. If so, I can launch a few objections there.

    For one, the very order of "sexual evolution" seems flawed. Sex didn't begin purely with "sex from procreation". Sex is fun, for humans and animals, and for as long as sex has existed for the "purpose" of procreation, it has likely also been used as a form of recreation. Sex is a bit of stress relief for the wild animals who fight for survival day after day--a way of clearing the mind, engaging the senses, and gaining pleasure, just as much as it is used to produce offspring, as according to their biological needs. Even among early humans, sex wasn't merely for the purpose of conception--it could be anything from recreation to subjugation. Tribal societies trading or selling women to become wives or sex objects--sex there was merely a form of service offered to the husband--or forcefully obtained.

    Marriage and cohabitation have existed for a much longer time as well--even disregarding ancient societies and human ancestors who didn't have ritual practices, the act of monogamy wasn't unfamiliar to our ancient ancestors, and sex is certainly something they would have done.

    The review writer claims (whether a summation of the book, or their own personal opinion (I can't tell which):
    In making sex so easy and individualistic, we have cheapened it and thereby emptied it of its power. We tried to make it simpler, and we ended up making it smaller.


    This is an opinion that some people very likely believe--but I disagree, because it all depends on the person, and it depends on the sex. Yeah, a five minute quickie in the restroom of a truck stop isn't the mind-blowing, life-fulfilling sex that people (especially ones who have been brought up in a religious society teaching them that sex is a forbidden fruit only to be touched a very few couple of times in the course of their entire life), are often raised to believe, but as social animals, we have social needs, and sex is a good way of tending to those needs in a very direct, intimate, personal way. Sex can be easy, it can be cheap, it can be simple, and it can be small--but that doesn't diminish its value.

    And why the hell is "individualistic" considered a negative thing? I'm confident I'm not speaking for myself, when I say people who have had lots of sex with different partners, find different experiences with each and every one of them. That's a good thing! Variety is the spice of life!

    But then the review article says this:
    After all, if our vision of sexuality gives rise to a parade of horribles—a hypersexualized culture, sexual dissatisfaction, rampant porn use, unhappier marriages, and young men who deny, with a straight face, that sex has any mystery—then why would we keep it?


    And this is where it just gets weird to me. I already covered "hypersexualized culture", it's no more sexual than it has ever been. With advent of 21st century communication, it's more likely we're just hearing about sex more, and thus the shroud of ignorance set forth by religious powers in the world is being peeled away, revealing a new and interesting world to a generation who is tired of being forced into living with their parent's ideologies.

    "Sexual dissatisfaction" is too broad a topic for me to try to cover--after all, there are many reasons for "bad sex". One of the things I will reference however, is Issac Asimov's book Robots of Dawn, Asimov writes about the planet Aurora, a place where sex is freely offered as a means of recreation. His book shows a rather polyamorous view, of a society where people know and are perfectly comfortable with not just the idea or concept of sex, but of having sex. Conception is reserved for married couples, but the act of sex itself is not held in high regard, nor is it considered something to be discussed only in a whisper--personally, this idea is liberating to me--a society without artificial barriers and walls set to dissuade people from expressing themselves, or to prevent them from expressing the most basic of their biological instincts and desires.

    "Rampant Porn Use". Do I even need to go into this zeroth-century, puritanical fear held by celebrate, frock-wearing, hysterical virg--jeeze, I'm really over-using this line, aren't I...

    "Young men who deny, with a straight face, that sex has any mystery," is just a weird quote that calls back to another portion of the book review which I don't have time to go into. Again, I'll just say it depends on the partner and depends on the sex.

    As for "then why should we keep it?" That's also a weird thing, considering it's kind of important to procreation and all. But I think I've written enough on the subject in this post, that my own reasoning should be readily understood in regard to answering this strange question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2015 1:21 AM GMT
    Fine_Young_Cannibal saidI have no idea where you're going with this. I know where I'm going, to the toilet to lose my lunch.


    I'm SO happy to block your profile and ignore all your future posts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2015 1:56 AM GMT
    An exceptionally important and timely book.

    The gap between what passes for sexual and relational wisdom in contemporary culture and what actually makes for genuine human fulfillment has opened up so quickly and grown so wide that the lives of an entire generation are sliding headlong into frustration and despair.

    Grant addresses the issues directly yet sympathetically, countering contemporary folly with solid data, biblical wisdom, and grace.

    I wish it could be made mandatory reading for the entire millennial generation."

    --Craig M. Gay, Regent College, Vancouver
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2015 1:59 AM GMT
    the troubles our younger contemporaries face in love

    or you're overseeing a group of people desperate for your loving leadership in their troubles
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2015 2:03 AM GMT
    What images does the word "sex" brings to mind?

    Are they positive images of beauty or negative pictures of filth?

    Are they from respectable publications or are they from erotic tabloids?

    "What is it about our cultural moment that has led to such a complex dysfunction in sexual relationships?"


    "In what significant ways is our secular context shaping our sexuality?"


    "What is the Christian vision of relationships, and how can Christian leaders give that vision power in people’s real lives?"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2015 2:06 AM GMT
    My niece picked up my copy of Divine Sex, while my wife took her two year old down to a playground. After she had read a while, I asked her for her first impressions.

    She promptly asserted that the author had nailed a major issue. This was said with some feeling as someone who married in her late thirties.

    The men have all the choices but couldn’t commit to one relationship,

    The women only wanted to be approached by the “right” guy and treated anyone they perceived as “wrong” with disdain.’
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 07, 2015 2:08 AM GMT
    Divine sex is a very rich treasure.

    One's sexuality that is dysfunctional is not representative of personal Salvation (Christian).

    Stephen
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2015 2:38 AM GMT
    Kodiak

    Yet one more religion is in turmoil because they're split in two on an issue, when god's word should have clearly spelled everything out. If their god were a better communicator (dare I say, "perfect"), this might not be happening.


    StephenOABC saidModern sexuality has occurred in five phases writes Jonathan Grant, an Anglican pastor in New Zealand in his book Divine Sex: A Compelling Vision for Christian Relationships in a Hypersexualized Age.


    "Hypersexualized"?

    Maybe it's hypersexualized to you, but to the rest of the modern world, sex is just a normal thing people do when they are intimate with one another and want to have a good time.

    By reading the review, however, I wonder if the book author, Grant, does indeed offer thoughts parallel to the review writer. If so, I can launch a few objections there.

    For one, the very order of "sexual evolution" seems flawed. Sex didn't begin purely with "sex from procreation".

    Sex is fun, for humans and animals, and for as long as sex has existed for the "purpose" of procreation, it has likely also been used as a form of recreation.

    Sex is a bit of stress relief for the wild animals who fight for survival day after day--a way of clearing the mind, engaging the senses, and gaining pleasure, just as much as it is used to produce offspring, as according to their biological needs.

    Even among early humans, sex wasn't merely for the purpose of conception--it could be anything from recreation to subjugation. Tribal societies trading or selling women to become wives or sex objects--sex there was merely a form of service offered to the husband--or forcefully obtained.

    Marriage and cohabitation have existed for a much longer time as well--even disregarding ancient societies and human ancestors who didn't have ritual practices, the act of monogamy wasn't unfamiliar to our ancient ancestors, and sex is certainly something they would have done.

    The review writer claims (whether a summation of the book, or their own personal opinion (I can't tell which):

    In making sex so easy and individualistic, we have cheapened it and thereby emptied it of its power. We tried to make it simpler, and we ended up making it smaller.


    This is an opinion that some people very likely believe--but I disagree, because it all depends on the person, and it depends on the sex.

    Yeah, a five minute quickie in the restroom of a truck stop isn't the mind-blowing, life-fulfilling sex that people (especially ones who have been brought up in a religious society teaching them that sex is a forbidden fruit only to be touched a very few couple of times in the course of their entire life), are often raised to believe, but as social animals, we have social needs, and sex is a good way of tending to those needs in a very direct, intimate, personal way.

    Sex can be easy, it can be cheap, it can be simple, and it can be small--but that doesn't diminish its value.

    And why the hell is "individualistic" considered a negative thing? I'm confident I'm not speaking for myself, when I say people who have had lots of sex with different partners, find different experiences with each and every one of them. That's a good thing! Variety is the spice of life!

    But then the review article says this:

    After all, if our vision of sexuality gives rise to a parade of horribles—a hypersexualized culture, sexual dissatisfaction, rampant porn use, unhappier marriages, and young men who deny, with a straight face, that sex has any mystery—then why would we keep it?


    "Sexual dissatisfaction" is too broad a topic for me to try to cover--after all, there are many reasons for "bad sex".

    One of the things I will reference however, is

    Issac Asimov's book Robots of Dawn

    Asimov writes about the planet Aurora, a place where sex is freely offered as a means of recreation. His book shows a rather polyamorous view, of a society where people know and are perfectly comfortable with not just the idea or concept of sex, but of having sex. Conception is reserved for married couples, but the act of sex itself is not held in high regard, nor is it considered something to be discussed only in a whisper. Personally, this idea is liberating to me--a society without artificial barriers and walls set to dissuade people from expressing themselves, or to prevent them from expressing the most basic of their biological instincts and desires.


    "Rampant Porn Use".

    {Kodiak, you said nothing of merit against this.}

    "Young men who deny, with a straight face, that sex has any mystery."

    It depends on the partner and on the sex.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2015 3:57 AM GMT
    StephenOABC saidKodiak
    Huge amounts of text text text...

    "Rampant Porn Use".

    {Kodiak, you said nothing of merit against this.}

    "Young men who deny, with a straight face, that sex has any mystery."

    It depends on the partner and on the sex.



    Okay, typing this a second time because accidentally went back a page and lost my work. Damn. But it went something like this:

    Considering the huge amounts of text I had already written on the subject, considering the arguments and opinions I expressed in favor for and against the various positions offered by the book's author, and given the nature and role of porn in the 21st century, I really didn't feel it necessary to provide any response to that particular line. Surely the merit of my other arguments was strong enough that I didn't need to go into detail on the subject of porn. But alright, I can do so here no problem (except for when Firefox deleted everything I typed before).

    "Rampant Porn Use"
    A zeroth-century, puritanical belief by celebrate, frock-wearing, hysterical virgins, is what I put here in my full already-too-long-post before. Granted, that may not carry much merit as a detailed and well-constructed argument, but I believe it does highlight an issue, which I may address in a future post.

    Fist off, what is porn? The general definition of porn (pornography) is, to quote Google:
    Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

    Mmmmmm...Anywho, so, that's what porn is. Now, porn seems to be held in a negative light by the author and the reviewer, somewhat suggested by the use of the word "rampant". Now, could it be that they think use of porn is okay, but that only rampant, uncontrolled porn use is bad? Possible! After all, there are some fairly liberal priests out there, and if you can go from a religion that condemns and orders homosexuals to be put to death, to a religion that is comfortable with homosexuals, possibly even endorsing them--then surely porn might no longer carry such stigma as it did at one point in time.

    Based on what I've read from them however, I don't think this is the case, and thus I'm going to interpret the phrase "Rampant Porn Use" in the same way one says "rampant drug use". A sort of, "it's all bad, but people using them all the time is even worse than it already is," take on pornography.

    Now, why do they think it's bad? It's clear that the writer (Grant) feels sex has value (I agree!). It's also clear however, that to him, certain aspects of sex (hypersexualized culture, sexual dissatisfaction, rampant porn use, unhappier marriages, young men who deny that sex has any mystery) have negative value. Since "rampant porn use" is in that list, it's pretty clear Grant thinks it's a bad thing! But why? Well, it seems like Grant feels "rampant porn use" diminishes the value of sex. After all, that's the entire point of the book itself: trying to put forward the position that sex is divine and special, and that these negatives are thus diminishing the value of sex.

    Now, what evidence does he have for this? I don't know, I haven't read the book. But from what I know based on reports, articles and studies I've read on the subject of sex and physiology, sex and psychology, and sex and society, is that porn may actually be beneficial, for a lot of reasons.

    Sex is part of our biology. It is something that has evolved as long as we've been evolving. It evolves with change in time, change in society, change in partners, change in stimuli (like porn!). Sex is important, and critical. "Our brains are hardwired for sex," is a phrase that's been tossed about. So what happens when something that is so integral to our DNA, is denied. Well, lots of strange things as might be imaginable. People begin to get frustrated, people begin to change in terms of their body chemistry, neurology, physiology.

    And what happens when we masturbate, or observe sexually stimulating materials? We do what our body wants us to do. Our body distributes chemicals that are vital to our health and well-being. It gives us pleasure, satisfaction.

    But for a society or religion to impose "THIS IS WRONG", and prevent people from doing these things, that is where you get into trouble. You begin to tell people masturbation is bad, they stop masturbating, their body's chemical composition changes, and before you know it their very psychology begins to be affected. They don't get the endorphin that sexual relief grants, or any of the other numerous effects that usually have positive effect. Sexual suppression is a bad thing for us physiologically.

    And what is porn for? Porn is for stimulating that arousal, for giving us that pleasure. Porn can be fun--porn can give new and exciting ideas for sex, fun games to play, fun ways to have intercourse. It can be amusing, it can be even hilarious--porn is just one of the many toys to play with, in the toybox of sexual fantasy.

    And what about the fact that those who watch more porn tend to have higher levels of sexual arousal, the desire for "solo-sex" and sex with a partner? Take a look at this neat little study conducted just this past March (2015)!

    So that's my short take on pornography. I have a few more points I can think of making, including going into the history of pornography which is fascinating, but I think this will do for now.

    --------------------------

    ...on a side note, I'm going to break my usual impervious, friendly, neutral demeanor here and point out that I have been unable to find one of your replies to my huge posts that addresses the points, counter-points, arguments, and counter-arguments I raise regarding any subject offered. What I normally see from you is skipping my points entirely, and retreating back to an initial position or argument, despite all the points made around it.

    I wrote that huge post above this one, tackling so many different points, and the one point you decided to single out, was the one that I purposefully left unanswered because I found it so absolutely irrelevant when compared to the points I addressed throughout the rest of my post.

    I would be seriously, honestly, thrilled if you did a point by point deconstruction of one of my posts, directly responding to points I make.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 10, 2015 7:30 PM GMT
    I'm just going to throw this out there, to you Kodiak.

    Not too long before I left New York after more than 20 years without getting a domestic partner, I was on the subway and overheard a gay guy in Astoria refer to a gay sex partner as a receptacle.

    THERE'S YOUR NON-DIVINE, SMALL, AND DEGRADING SEX.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2015 4:58 PM GMT
    Kodiak

    "Hypersexualized"?

    Maybe it's hypersexualized to you, but to the rest of the modern world, sex is just a normal thing people do when they are intimate with one another and want to have a good time.

    Steefen

    It is hypersexualized to Jonathan Grant who uses the term in the subtitle of his book.

    Compared to the 1960s in Louisiana where adult entertainment shops had glass windows painted in yellow, adult entertainment today is on the internet with far more producers of it. The adult entertainment shops in the 1960s did not have hours of free porn but today much free porn can be consumed. In comparison to the 1960s, sex, with the advent of Madison Avenue's mantra Sex sells, personal video cameras and the internet, has become hypersexsualized.

    You only counter that sex is between intimate partners. That fails to address and refute the points Jonathan Grant, the modern world, and I bring to show how sex is unusually highly energetic (definition of hype) in comparison to earlier times (1960s is used as an example).

    Even with the sexual freedom of the 1960s, sex is far more available, cheap, if not free, and consumed.


    Andrew Wilson's review of the book includes:

    "At the same time, Divine Sex is peppered with vignettes putting a human face on the headier stuff. Some are tales of the rich and famous: John Mayer's remark that he sometimes sees 300 naked women before getting up in the morning."

    That is more than one magazine's worth of photographs. The internet compared to a magazine is a hyper source of sex. It provides more stimulation to morning wood. One person cannot compete with a magazine. One person cannot compete with online porn. The other in acts of sexual intimacy cannot compete porn. A woman may be able to wear different wigs and different outfits to give a man a variety of appearances of his object of desire but doing that will not win the war, especially as she (and he) age every day.

    A handsome gay man may put on some leather to give his partner some variety of visual stimulation but that cannot compete with internet gay porn and open marriage. Yes, there are men losing the battle of monogamy to the hypersexualized age's pressure to open the marriage sexually.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 11, 2015 6:53 PM GMT
    The Reviewer

    In making sex so easy and individualistic, we have cheapened it and thereby emptied it of its power. We tried to make it simpler, and we ended up making it smaller.

    Kodiak

    It depends on the sex.

    A five minute quickie in the restroom of a truck stop isn't mind-blowing, life-fulfilling sex.

    Steefen

    His point, exactly.

    Quickie: simpler than sex to start a family.

    Not mind-blowing, life-fulfilling sex: smaller sex than sex for grander ambitions

    Kodiak

    But as social animals, we have social needs, and sex is a good way of tending to those needs in a very direct, intimate, personal way.

    Steefen

    Wrong. All social needs do not boil down to sex.

    Kodiak

    Sex can be easy, it can be cheap, it can be simple, and it can be small--but that doesn't diminish its value.

    Steefen

    When sex is cheap, its value has already been diminished, by definition.

    Kodiak

    And why is "individualistic" considered a negative thing?

    Steefen

    Because it cheats the social. You, yourself, said sex is social.

    Social - for procreation
    Social - for pleasure

    Kodiak

    People who have had lots of sex with different partners, find different experiences with each and every one of them. That's a good thing! Variety is the spice of life!

    Steefen

    And people who do this can empower another person in a marriage and prove to that person there is sexual loyalty?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 12, 2015 1:09 AM GMT
    ...jeeze. I'll get back to this in a day or two. I need a break.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2015 2:18 AM GMT
    StephenOABC said
    It is hypersexualized to Jonathan Grant who uses the term in the subtitle of his book.

    Compared to the 1960s in Louisiana where adult entertainment shops had glass windows painted in yellow, adult entertainment today is on the internet with far more producers of it. The adult entertainment shops in the 1960s did not have hours of free porn but today much free porn can be consumed. In comparison to the 1960s, sex, with the advent of Madison Avenue's mantra Sex sells, personal video cameras and the internet, has become hypersexsualized.

    You only counter that sex is between intimate partners. That fails to address and refute the points Jonathan Grant, the modern world, and I bring to show how sex is unusually highly energetic (definition of hype) in comparison to earlier times (1960s is used as an example).

    Even with the sexual freedom of the 1960s, sex is far more available, cheap, if not free, and consumed.


    I didn't type, "sex is between intimate partners," I typed:
    [...] sex is just a normal thing people do when they are intimate with one another and want to have a good time.


    I was trying to address a specific point, that there are many reasons for wanting and having sex, but they are more than often intimate in nature--it's an intimate act, to have sex; to literally 'be inside them'. In this case, the definition I'm using for the word intimate is, "close, private and personal." Even having sex with a stranger in a restroom stall, is an act of intimacy.

    Sorry if this definition doesn't match yours, and led to confusion--it's a point I'd recognize, as intimacy is often seen as a connection word ("I'm intimate with my husband" or whatnot). But, sex isn't something you see on the street (in civilized countries), it's something that's done in places with some degree of privacy (thus, my use of the word intimate).

    As for sexual freedom, I'd argue that until the past few decades, sex has been largely suppressed. It may seem like the 1960s were the age of sexual freedom, but from my perspective, I'd call it the decade in which people started pushing the social boundries that were enforced by religions and other social organizations. It was the dawn of sexual experimentation, and the uprising of individuals who were no longer afraid to discuss the subject.

    Just as there have always been homosexuals, there has always been sex. The difference is, today, with mass communication methods, we hear more about it, which makes it seem like it's happening more often--when in fact, the numbers may very well be the same (except, perhaps, around the more youthful generation, who are no longer being chastized for discussing the subject, in the same way as they would have been before and after the 1960s' by their parents and community).

    Andrew Wilson's review of the book includes:

    "At the same time, Divine Sex is peppered with vignettes putting a human face on the headier stuff. Some are tales of the rich and famous: John Mayer's remark that he sometimes sees 300 naked women before getting up in the morning."


    The quote is actually, "[...] there have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed," referring to early morning binges on online pornography. Now, to you and to the authors of this book, definitely, 300 vaginas will certainly seem a lot--but have you ever been to a porn website? Considering the number of images usually on a single page, 300 is maybe, only five or six pages deep.

    That is more than one magazine's worth of photographs. The internet compared to a magazine is a hyper source of sex. It provides more stimulation to morning wood. One person cannot compete with a magazine. One person cannot compete with online porn. The other in acts of sexual intimacy cannot compete porn. A woman may be able to wear different wigs and different outfits to give a man a variety of appearances of his object of desire but doing that will not win the war, especially as she (and he) age every day.


    ...are you honestly trying to say Masterbation is better than Sex? That Romantic Relationships can't exist because Porn exists?

    Yes, there's a lot of variety when it comes to porn--it's fantasy as much as it is sexual gratification. Masterbation is a wonderful tool to relieve sexual desire, and in some cases, may be a substitute. But you seem to actually be saying that Masterbation is killing off loving, sexual relationships. Like someone is going to masterbate, when there's a perfectly willing partner right there, willing to indulge them--bloody hell, I haven't been in very many intimate relationships, but even I know that kind of assertion is absolutely ridiculous!

    A handsome gay man may put on some leather to give his partner some variety of visual stimulation but that cannot compete with internet gay porn and open marriage. Yes, there are men losing the battle of monogamy to the hypersexualized age's pressure to open the marriage sexually.


    There are??? Where!?! Because your argument (and the author's by proxy...?) essentially seems to be, "because people no longer need to have an actual partner in order to ejaculate, there is no need for actual two-partner sex to take place." Guess what, for as long as loving couples have existed, masturbation has existed, and considering the fact that men especially can become aroused for all kinds of reasons, we'd have gone extinct millennia ago if what you're saying were the case.

    You could literally draw two spheres on a piece of paper, put a dot in the middle of each, call them tits, and jack off if you wanted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2015 2:36 AM GMT
    StephenOABC saidThe Reviewer said: In making sex so easy and individualistic, we have cheapened it and thereby emptied it of its power. We tried to make it simpler, and we ended up making it smaller.

    Kodiak said: It depends on the sex. A five minute quickie in the restroom of a truck stop isn't mind-blowing, life-fulfilling sex.

    Steefen said: His point, exactly.
    Quickie: simpler than sex to start a family.
    Not mind-blowing, life-fulfilling sex: smaller sex than sex for grander ambitions


    ...A quickie is sex. Sex is simply sexual intercourse. You don't need mind-blowing, life-fulfilling sex to enjoy the act of sexual intercourse. Sometimes when you have a desire, or arousal, you simply want to make the most of it, and enjoy a good wank, whether you have a partner, or not. Sex doesn't need to be this special thing you hold on a pedestal and claim to be divine and untouchable except during the rarest moments--our biology isn't programmed to accept that kind of thinking. Sex is something we do, and I would argue, need--for our physical, as well as our mental health. Sexual suppression causes very real psychological alterations which can lead to very real and potentially very brutal acts (note, I'm not saying everyone who has sex is a dangerous person or anything, I'm just pointing out the physiological significance of sex and the detrimental effects that may occur through suppression of sexual release and gratification).

    Kodiak said: But as social animals, we have social needs, and sex is a good way of tending to those needs in a very direct, intimate, personal way.

    Steefen said: Wrong. All social needs do not boil down to sex.


    Wrong wrong. I didn't say "all social needs boil down to sex". I typed:

    [...] as social animals, we have social needs, and sex is a good way of tending to those needs in a very direct, intimate, personal way.


    I said it is a good way, not 'the only way', or anything close to what you claim I said. I'm pointing out that as a direct, intimate, and personal way of fulfilling a very specific social need, sex is just one of the ways in which we can fulfill that need.

    Kodiak said: Sex can be easy, it can be cheap, it can be simple, and it can be small--but that doesn't diminish its value.

    Steefen said: When sex is cheap, its value has already been diminished, by definition.


    I think I mentioned this issue already, but to rephrase/clarify: It depends on what you want out of the sex. Some people want a quickie. In that case, actually having a quickie with someone is the most effective way of satisfying their desire, because it's what they want. Some people just want a quick release, and don't have a partner, so they masturbate. Masturbation, is therefore, equal in value to their goal, and thus satisfies their need.

    It's just like when you're hungry. You may enjoy a delectable steak au poivre whilst you remain in a hungry state--but that doesn't mean you're forced to see a peanut butter and jelly sandwich as being of 'less value'. You're hungry, you need food, so you eat. It's as simple as that. And when you do have the steak au poivre you so desire, it's just as delicious as it would ever be! That doesn't mean you go without eating until you're able to get a steak au poivre!

    Kodiak said: And why is "individualistic" considered a negative thing?

    Steefen said: Because it cheats the social. You, yourself, said sex is social.
    Social - for procreation
    Social - for pleasure


    I'm not sure if I don't understand you, here--or if you didn't understand me, there. I'm a little confused with this one. I guess I'll respond by clarifying: "I don't think 'individualistic' is a negative thing, because variety is the spice of life."

    Oh, I actually did mention that in the next one--

    Kodiak said: People who have had lots of sex with different partners, find different experiences with each and every one of them. That's a good thing! Variety is the spice of life!

    Steefen said: And people who do this can empower another person in a marriage and prove to that person there is sexual loyalty?


    Okay, you're bringing in an entirely different concept to the ones discussed before.
    Before now, it seemed to be all about how masturbation (solo sex, as it were) was taking away sex between two individuals. Now you've brought up this concept of monogamy, or "sexual loyalty." And sure, there are lots of folks who feel that the best course of life is to find one person (Mister Special!) and only have an intimate, sexual connection with that one person for the rest of their life. And that's fine! But it's also fine to meet people who simply enjoy having sex, and having sex with them, as long as it's consensual and preferably safe with protection being used--and the argument that "one is more special than the other" is rendered moot because it all depends on the individuals in the relationship! And that's where this all boils down to the primary point I've been struggling to make:

    The author of this book is claiming that there is only one form of Sex that is "proper sex". They're claiming that there is one, specific method of achieving Sex that must be followed, and that all other forms of sex (whether solo or otherwise--did the author go into threesomes? Or Foursomes, or other kinds of sex between more than two people? How would that change things?) are inferior. And that's the point I disagree with.

    Sex has been around a hell of a lot longer than religion, or even the concept of spirituality. We evolved through sex, and sex is what lets us evolve. But already knowing your position on this particular issue, I think we've finally struck the bedrock that is the foundation disagreement we have with each other.

    So, I'm willing to close this topic if you are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2015 5:02 PM GMT
    Kodiak said
    StephenOABC said
    It is hypersexualized to Jonathan Grant who uses the term in the subtitle of his book.

    Compared to the 1960s in Louisiana where adult entertainment shops had glass windows painted in yellow, adult entertainment today is on the internet with far more producers of it. The adult entertainment shops in the 1960s did not have hours of free porn but today much free porn can be consumed. In comparison to the 1960s, sex, with the advent of Madison Avenue's mantra Sex sells, personal video cameras and the internet, has become hypersexsualized.

    You only counter that sex is between intimate partners. That fails to address and refute the points Jonathan Grant, the modern world, and I bring to show how sex is unusually highly energetic (definition of hype) in comparison to earlier times (1960s is used as an example).

    Even with the sexual freedom of the 1960s, sex is far more available, cheap, if not free, and consumed.


    I didn't type, "sex is between intimate partners," I typed:
    [...] sex is just a normal thing people do when they are intimate with one another and want to have a good time.


    I was trying to address a specific point, that there are many reasons for wanting and having sex, but they are more than often intimate in nature--it's an intimate act, to have sex; to literally 'be inside them'. In this case, the definition I'm using for the word intimate is, "close, private and personal." Even having sex with a stranger in a restroom stall, is an act of intimacy.

    Sorry if this definition doesn't match yours, and led to confusion--it's a point I'd recognize, as intimacy is often seen as a connection word ("I'm intimate with my husband" or whatnot). But, sex isn't something you see on the street (in civilized countries), it's something that's done in places with some degree of privacy (thus, my use of the word intimate).

    As for sexual freedom, I'd argue that until the past ten years, sex has been largely suppressed. It may seem like the 1960s were the age of sexual freedom, but from my perspective, I'd call it the decade in which people started pushing the social boundries that were enforced by religions and other social organizations. It was the dawn of sexual experimentation, and the uprising of individuals who were no longer afraid to discuss the subject.

    Just as there have always been homosexuals, there has always been sex. The difference is, today, with mass communication methods, we hear more about it, which makes it seem like it's happening more often--when in fact, the numbers may very well be the same (except, perhaps, around the more youthful generation, who are no longer being chastized for discussing the subject, in the same way as they would have been before and after the 1960s' by their parents and community).

    Andrew Wilson's review of the book includes:

    "At the same time, Divine Sex is peppered with vignettes putting a human face on the headier stuff. Some are tales of the rich and famous: John Mayer's remark that he sometimes sees 300 naked women before getting up in the morning."


    The quote is actually, "[...] there have probably been days when I saw 300 vaginas before I got out of bed," referring to early morning binges on online pornography. Now, to you and to the authors of this book, definitely, 300 vaginas will certainly seem a lot--but have you ever been to a porn website? Considering the number of images usually on a single page, 300 is maybe, only five or six pages deep.

    That is more than one magazine's worth of photographs. The internet compared to a magazine is a hyper source of sex. It provides more stimulation to morning wood. One person cannot compete with a magazine. One person cannot compete with online porn. The other in acts of sexual intimacy cannot compete porn. A woman may be able to wear different wigs and different outfits to give a man a variety of appearances of his object of desire but doing that will not win the war, especially as she (and he) age every day.


    ...are you honestly trying to say Masterbation is better than Sex? That Romantic Relationships can't exist because Porn exists?

    Yes, there's a lot of variety when it comes to porn--it's fantasy as much as it is sexual gratification. Masterbation is a wonderful tool to relieve sexual desire, and in some cases, may be a substitute. But you seem to actually be saying that Masterbation is killing off loving, sexual relationships. Like someone is going to masterbate, when there's a perfectly willing partner right there, willing to indulge them--bloody hell, I haven't been in very many intimate relationships, but even I know that kind of assertion is absolutely ridiculous!

    A handsome gay man may put on some leather to give his partner some variety of visual stimulation but that cannot compete with internet gay porn and open marriage. Yes, there are men losing the battle of monogamy to the hypersexualized age's pressure to open the marriage sexually.


    There are??? Where!?! Because your argument (and the author's by proxy...?) essentially seems to be, "because people no longer need to have an actual partner in order to ejaculate, there is no need for actual two-partner sex to take place." Guess what, for as long as loving couples have existed, masturbation has existed, and considering the fact that men especially can become aroused for all kinds of reasons, we'd have gone extinct millennia ago if what you're saying were the case.

    You could literally draw two spheres on a piece of paper, put a dot in the middle of each, call them tits, and jack off if you wanted.


    Have you countered the assertion, "Today is hypersexualized compared to the 1960s?" No you have not.


    What was in the news this past week related to the assertion?
    Hugh Hefner will not post fully nude photographs in Playboy (not true for Mexico, however).

    Playboy helped move sex from furtive to ubiquitous; so, comparatively speaking, society has become hypersexualized.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/media/nudes-are-old-news-at-playboy.html?_r=0

    “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 17, 2015 6:05 PM GMT
    StephenOABC saidHave you countered the assertion, "Today is hypersexualized compared to the 1960s?" No you have not.


    I thought I did, twice. Anyway, here's the bigger counter, again. Quoting myself:
    As for sexual freedom, I'd argue that until the past few decades, sex has been largely suppressed. It may seem like the 1960s were the age of sexual freedom, but from my perspective, I'd call it the decade in which people started pushing the social boundaries that were enforced by religions and other social organizations. It was the dawn of sexual experimentation, and the uprising of individuals who were no longer afraid to discuss the subject.

    Just as there have always been homosexuals, there has always been sex. The difference is, today, with mass communication methods, we hear more about it, which makes it seem like it's happening more often--when in fact, the numbers may very well be the same (except, perhaps, around the more youthful generation, who are no longer being chastized for discussing the subject, in the same way as they would have been before and after the 1960s' by their parents and community).


    If today were "hypersexualized," I'd expect to see Starbucks baristas wearing nothing but a bra and panties. Your grocery-store clerk might be wearing a leather bikini, your personal trainer in the gym nothing but fetish-gear. That would be hypersexual. What we have today is just normal sexuality, people unashamed and unafraid of expressing themselves.

    What was in the news this past week related to the assertion?
    Hugh Hefner will not post fully nude photographs in Playboy (not true for Mexico, however). Playboy helped move sex from furtive to ubiquitous; so, comparatively speaking, society has become hypersexualized.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/media/nudes-are-old-news-at-playboy.html?_r=0
    “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”


    I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Are you saying "Because Hugh Hefner says 'sex is passé'," that supports your point? From my angle, it's the complete opposite:

    The reason why Playboy sold so well is because it opened up a venue that generations had been forced to suppress their entire lives. Culture in the 1960s and prior was hypo-sexualized. We're experiencing sexual freedom today, not "hypersexualization". As a result, Playboy is no longer as popular as it once was. The Modern "Playboy" has transitioned to the internet, in the form of online pornography.

    As for the whole online porn angle, most of my previous post was trying to explain how and why porn isn't a bad thing, and can in fact be beneficial for not only society, but also for relationships. Yes, there are cases where porn is "abused", maybe someone spends way too much of their time viewing it, but that's their issue. It's not the fault of porn. Some people spend way too much time in the bath, such that get wrinkly--that's not the fault of the bath. But you didn't respond to that, so...



    ...just going to point out, you're doing that thing I called you out on doing again, where you latch on to a single point you feel I didn't refute and say 'checkmate'. Am I'm just going to have to start assuming that you agree with everything else I typed?
  • Kazachok

    Posts: 415

    Oct 17, 2015 11:02 PM GMT
    No time to elaborate...
    HIEROS GAMOS!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 18, 2015 2:32 AM GMT
    Kodiak said
    StephenOABC saidHave you countered the assertion, "Today is hypersexualized compared to the 1960s?" No you have not.


    I thought I did, twice. Anyway, here's the bigger counter, again. Quoting myself:
    As for sexual freedom, I'd argue that until the past few decades, sex has been largely suppressed. It may seem like the 1960s were the age of sexual freedom, but from my perspective, I'd call it the decade in which people started pushing the social boundaries that were enforced by religions and other social organizations. It was the dawn of sexual experimentation, and the uprising of individuals who were no longer afraid to discuss the subject.

    Just as there have always been homosexuals, there has always been sex. The difference is, today, with mass communication methods, we hear more about it, which makes it seem like it's happening more often--when in fact, the numbers may very well be the same (except, perhaps, around the more youthful generation, who are no longer being chastized for discussing the subject, in the same way as they would have been before and after the 1960s' by their parents and community).


    If today were "hypersexualized," I'd expect to see Starbucks baristas wearing nothing but a bra and panties. Your grocery-store clerk might be wearing a leather bikini, your personal trainer in the gym nothing but fetish-gear. That would be hypersexual. What we have today is just normal sexuality, people unashamed and unafraid of expressing themselves.

    What was in the news this past week related to the assertion?
    Hugh Hefner will not post fully nude photographs in Playboy (not true for Mexico, however). Playboy helped move sex from furtive to ubiquitous; so, comparatively speaking, society has become hypersexualized.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/media/nudes-are-old-news-at-playboy.html?_r=0
    “You’re now one click away from every sex act imaginable for free. And so it’s just passé at this juncture.”


    I'm afraid I don't understand this point. Are you saying "Because Hugh Hefner says 'sex is passé'," that supports your point? From my angle, it's the complete opposite:

    The reason why Playboy sold so well is because it opened up a venue that generations had been forced to suppress their entire lives. Culture in the 1960s and prior was hypo-sexualized. We're experiencing sexual freedom today, not "hypersexualization". As a result, Playboy is no longer as popular as it once was. The Modern "Playboy" has transitioned to the internet, in the form of online pornography.

    As for the whole online porn angle, most of my previous post was trying to explain how and why porn isn't a bad thing, and can in fact be beneficial for not only society, but also for relationships. Yes, there are cases where porn is "abused", maybe someone spends way too much of their time viewing it, but that's their issue. It's not the fault of porn. Some people spend way too much time in the bath, such that get wrinkly--that's not the fault of the bath. But you didn't respond to that, so...



    ...just going to point out, you're doing that thing I called you out on doing again, where you latch on to a single point you feel I didn't refute and say 'checkmate'. Am I'm just going to have to start assuming that you agree with everything else I typed?


    Yes, Kodiak, it is a checkmate: we do live in an age that is hypersexualized. In the 1960s, personal computers with internet did not exist in 51%+ of homes.

    You do not win the points that

    our age is not comparatively hypersexualized
    sex is not ubiquitous because of online porn, online hook-up sites, and cell phones that gave rise to sexting

    In the sixties when we were watching television, we did not see the sex we have seen in later decades.

    You also do not win points against the statement that there has been an explosion of sex via media channels and new media (cable and internet) as opposed to three network channels. You do not win that by saying porn, in your opinion is good. That is a different argument.

    Was there sexting in the 1960s? No.

    We appreciate that you like to communicate but we all know you are incorrect.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 18, 2015 2:38 AM GMT
    Kazachok saidNo time to elaborate...
    HIEROS GAMOS!


    Hieros gamos or Hierogamy (Greek ἱερὸς γάμος, ἱερογαμία "holy marriage") refers to a sexual ritual that plays out a marriage between a god and a goddess, especially when enacted in a symbolic ritual where human participants represent the deities.

    The notion of hieros gamos does not presuppose actual performance in ritual, but is also used in purely symbolic or mythological context, notably in alchemy and hence in Jungian psychology.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 18, 2015 3:03 AM GMT
    Kodiak,

    You're really being an advocate of NSA sex.

    So, with your many sex-partners, spice of life defense, you're ignoring what society has already learned from trying all of that out.

    NSA sex, NO strings attached sex allows not even seeing your intimate act as involving, as you have corrected, having an intimate partner. And what stops that selfishness and depraved indifference from the other person not as a human being but as a receptacle?

    Medical News Today

    Human Papillomavirus (HPV)

    The virus is common in the United States, there are approximately 14 million newly diagnosed cases of HPV annually. HPV is comprised of approximately 100-150 viral strands, with more than 40 affecting the genitals.

    Who is at risk for contracting a human papillomavirus infection?

    There are certain risk factors that place a person at a higher risk of contracting an HPV virus including:3

    Age: common warts occur most commonly in children, genital warts occur most commonly in adolescents and young adults, and plantar warts occur most commonly in adults but initially occur in adolescents and young adults
    A higher number of intimate partners
    Having sexual intercourse with a partner who has had a higher number of intimate partners


    But your defense of quickie NSA sex, grants a person to be uncaring, to have no obligations, the "you did this" and now, you're gone M.O.

    How about, the male homosexual created HIV/AIDS death of another person and left the care of what he created to lesbian friends of the victim?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 18, 2015 3:06 AM GMT
    It is NOT divine sex to cause sexual illness and not be your brother's keeper.

    = = =

    Oral HPV 'can be transmitted by oral-to-oral, oral-to-genital routes'

    A new study claims to provide further evidence that oral human papillomavirus infections can be transmitted via oral-to-oral and oral-to-genital routes.

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/246670.php
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2015 12:24 AM GMT
    Kodiak,

    Let's not forget Skype sex should also be on the hypersexualized age list.

    Stephenoabc