Feelings on Love/Relationships/Sex?

Hey guys,

I'm wondering what your thoughts are on these topics?  Personally, I've come to see just how instinctive and animal like these emotions are. It's a fact, it takes some kind of attraction to sustain a relationship. Whether that be money, looks, or personality.

This is a little personal, but I've been on a site that's primarily just for hooking up with local women/men/whatever and I have no issue with it since I realize nothing has to be attached to the actual act of sex.

Your thoughts? 

I'm going through some girl problems at the moment. We had an argument last night and I said some inapropriate things. The girl I have my eye on already has a boyfriend, but their connection is going downhill. I would never support the idea of getting her to cheat on him, but I can't help how I feel about her. Sometimes cupid will shoot you at the most inconvenient moments. :P

She's flirted with me a lot, and since I took that as a sign that she liked me, I was surprised when she said that she's entirely devoted to her current relationship. I don't know if it's her fault for saying those things or if it's my fault for thinking with my heart. I never thought I'd meet someone who understands me so well. As you can imagine, I feel really bad for acting like a jerk last night. What's important is to find someone who works with you to improve any quality you're lacking in, and help them do the same. We had that in spades.

I suppose that's more of a personal note than a direct answer, but I think I indirectly answered it.

As much as I agree with you about having no emotional connection during the actual act of sex, I feel as though making it a casual act downplays its' importance in a broader sense. I feel as though having constant, casual sex would have some sort of lasting psychological impact on the importance of it when you DO decide to involve yourself in a relationship.

Remember, women see sex much differently than us guys, and to women it's usually something they aren't casually giving away to random strangers.

This is just my own opinion, and I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my sex life.

(Read this in Borat's voice).

I like sex! Is nice!

A romantic relationship should be between a man and a woman. Love requires patience and loyalty. Sex should be an emotional experience. I am a single heterosexual. I'm not in a position where I feel like I should be looking for a woman, but I will whenever I'm comfortable with the thought. I find beautiful women attractive and I would love to have a beautiful women myself. I would also like her to be intelligent, loyal, and ethical. I dream about marriage a lot and the ideal partner I seek. I think the Ayn Rand quote in my signature sums up about what I think regarding a man's choice in a partner.Genetic_Code

I agree, and resonate, with this post entirely.

Love

Is a concept that is understood differently by people, so means different things to them. It's harder defining love than it is trying to nail a heart-shaped jelly to the wall. My conception of love is also influenced by the nature of my "loving" relationships with my wife, family, friends or personal interests.

I think that to come to a personally meaningful definition of what love is, people need to have loved and lost someone. It is most important that people can find out about themselves and their feelings, rather than holding a concept of "love" as being something they expect from a (married) relationship.

Relationships

Relationships are most important in establishing how we relate to ourselves and each other. The strength of a bond between two people, when they pull together for a common objective, is a huge benefit to them both. My marriage has been a wonderful, positive experience for 7 years. But we started dating 10 years ago and lived together for 2 years before deciding to join forces legally. Prior to that, I'd had several long term relationships and various other short term ones. They taught me much about what relationships and love are and what they are not. This is my first marriage and I think it will continue being successful because of my wife's and my expectations, communication, co-operation, support, interest, respect and vision (i.e. love).

Sex

On reading some CU threads and ideas on onanism, I can only baulk in surprise at the attitude many Christians take towards this most physically obvious ability us humans have. Sexual gratification is not a gift for humans to despise and be ashamed of. Anyone that thinks this should see my friends Jack Russel Terrier go at his fluffy toy teddy after a walk.

I think any attempt to repress a natural bodily function can only lead to a damaging phsycholical effects on the abstainees. Perhaps this is why such hypocracy, confusion and "misconduct" are so prevalent amonst the clergy and their flock. I've noticed some confusion in this thread already:

Remember, women see sex much differently than us guys, and to women it's usually something they aren't casually giving away to random strangers.

This is just my own opinion, and I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my sex life.

chrisrooR

I suggest you go meet some women.

[QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

Remember, women see sex much differently than us guys, and to women it's usually something they aren't casually giving away to random strangers.

This is just my own opinion, and I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my sex life.

RationalAtheist

I suggest you go meet some women.

A romantic relationship should be between a man and a woman.Genetic_Code

I personally believe that acts of intense intimacy, like sex, should be reserved for marriage. As a Mormon, and one who plans on going on a two-year mission to only God knows where, I plan to remain abstinent until after my mission and marriage. I am going to prefer to marry a woman who has also kept the same standards I have. And while I think sex has a definite purpose, I do not downplay it's pleasurable effects, although the overall purpose of it is not, I think, pleasurable effects. One can already tell where I stand on the majority of this issue from what I've written.Android339

Why was pluralism abadoned from Mormonism?

What was its purpose?

Do you think it was rightto change the Mormon doctrine?

That really had nothing to do with my post, but since you are so intent on being contentious, I suppose I'll throw you another bone. Polygamy wasn't so much abandoned from Mormonism as it was no longer required of the Church by Heavenly Father. They held true to their doctrine even in the face of persecution, and Heavenly Father wanted to see His Church grow, not stifled and destroyed by the United States government. It's purpose was to "raise up a righteous nation unto the Lord", and one can already see that many descendants from polygamous parenthoods back when it was allowed are serving in the Church in great capacities. It was not changed, essentially. Heavenly Father has only really allowed it for periods of time, not as a standing commandment. We were stuck in between the doctrine of polygamy and the doctrine of being good citizens of our country, and it turns out that being good citizens of our country was more conducive to the Church's growth.

Android339

Funny thing - human perception. I thought you were being contentious in an atheism union. Thanks for your "bone". I thought this point was entirely valid here though.

How are these periods of time defined and when will the next one be?

It is good to know that the rules of the church have bent to the rules of society in this case.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Funny thing - human perception. I thought you were being contentious in an atheism union. Thanks for your "bone". I thought this point was entirely valid here though.

How are these periods of time defined and when will the next one be?

It is good to know that the rules of the church have bent to the rules of society in this case.

Android339

Sorry. I don't mean to try to be contentious, but after a long hiatus from GameSpot, I wanted to return and not have to deal with defending my every point on every matter, and I get irritable sometimes. Although, I suppose that's not going to happen with my recent reading of the latest Mormon post: Selling seats in heaven. *sigh*

I'm not blaming you, though. I like to be argumentative, too.

It will probably never happen again, according to Mormon thought. It happens when the Church is small, and it needs to flourish, basically. The Jews practiced polygamous relationships in their time.

There was a time when the rules of society allowed for polygamous relationships. This society is different, it's true, and we are to obey the laws of the land like we are to obey the rules of the Church, unless they are contradictory to an unreasonable extent.

You don't mean to be contentious but you do like to argue. That must be tough for you. Why would you think you didn't have to defend each point you make, like the rest of us? After all, extraordinary claims do need some form of evidence.

The rules on polygamy are rather fundamental to religious belief. I think changing them on a whim to suit the needs of the church, rather than sticking to what was previously believed, to be rather hypocritical. In countries where laws do allow it, is Mormonism a many-wived faith?

You can argue without being contentious to an annoying degree.

Android339

Not sure I understand that one.

My claims were hardly 'extraordinary'. In any case, I did not come here, one of my first days here, to argue, but to simply present my opinions. There are many threads where people can present their ideas without expecting to be attacked. Not here, I guess.

Android339

I thought you like to argue. I'm not sure if being "attacked" is a fair description of your treatment here.

Not in this case, and not necessarily in any other.

Android339

Don't you think polygamy its a big deal? Obviously other Mormons think differently to yourself and do have polygomous relationships.

Did the polygomy go both ways, so a woman could take many husbands. Surely that would have increased the numbers more than the singular husband - multiple wife option.

It wasn't changed on a whim. It was done with prayerful consideration and after they had suffered much persecution for practicing what they believed.

Android339

"Prayerful consideration" can change the rules of your religion? Who's prayerful consideration is considered and what threshold is reached to change a rule about how people live their lives?

No. The Manifesto was applied to the entire Church. Not just within the bounds of America.

Android339

Are fundamentalist Mormons a different religion? I thought they still think its ok.

I can argue with someone without it being heated.

Android339

What about intellectual reasoned debate?

There's a time and place for everything. Attacked is just an easy way of saying that no matter where I post, there you are to disagree with everything I say. And you're free to do that. It's just annoying.

Android339

You are hardly posting just anywhere - surely you realise that. You intimating that I'll "disagree with everything you say" comes across as somewhat presumptious. I'm not free to post in many of the Christian unions here. I don't post that much in other religious unions, since I like to think I respect their right to focus more on the postive aspects of their faith.

I find it baffling how you seem annoyed, yet still have posted so much in this union. Debate is welcomed here though, although faith does tend to get deconstructed, more than evangelised.

Yeah. They're not part of the Church.

Android339

Fundamentalist polygomous Mormons are not part of the Mormon church. Now I'm confused!

You're a smart guy, I think. You can't look this stuff up on your own? It did not go both ways. And no, it wouldn't have increased the numbers. One male with multiple wives can (and this is being written blatantly) impregnate all those wives, but one wife with multiple husbands can only be impregnated one time by any one man.

Android339

Well, I looked up stuff about polygomous Fundamentalist Mormons, that you say is wrong. You also said other posters are wrong in their assertions on Mormonism in this union. So perhaps you do have the cult of expertese on these matters.

Biologicvally speaking, the chance of conception would be far higher in the one woman - multiple husband scenareo. Basic biology would show you that. Aside from being illogical for the reasons you gace, isn't is awfully sexist too?

People were being killed and persecuted for their belief in polygamy, and you would have rather them stuck to their guns? Heavenly Father doesn't work that way. He took what was offered, and that was the end of it for our time. As for what threshold was reached - the Church had a very real possibility of getting run into the ground.

Android339

What I'd have rathered is moot. It's what they chose (or some of them chose) to do. I still see no real basis for the decision either for being poygomous, or for deciding to stop.

They're not members of the Church.

Android339

They are members of a church. And its a Mormon church. It may not be your Mormon church though.

They are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, although they claim to abide by the teachings of Joseph Smith. Some even up to later Prophets. There are splinter groups, just like everything else.

Android339

Not everything has splinter groups. In fact stuff like science and rationalism tend to conjoin and coalesce. You define these other LDS members as an entirely seperate religion for not agreeing with a change of view made by members of your own faith.

I studied for quite a bit before I converted. I'm different than most Mormons in that I had to be intellectually convinced before I let myself be faithful towards it.

Android339

Are you saying most Mormons are not as intellectual as you? Intellectual justification may not be rational, so do intellectual arguments really make any difference?

Or how about one man just trying a lot of times? Brigham Young had enough children for his own school. A one woman - one man scenario would not have been able to repeat that unless she gave birth every 9 months, and that's stretching it. I wouldn't say it's sexist. It's practical, though. The women had a right to refuse any such marriage proposal.

Android339

That's the whole point. Suppose the man was impotent - all those wasted wives! Wheras the husbands of the similarly infertile single wife wouldn't have babies anyway. I'm almost ashamed I had to spell it out for you.

If a woman can't do something a man can, why wouldn't you say its sexist?

Basis to start: raise up a righteous nation. Basis to end: persecution to an unsustainable degree.

Android339

I thought it was a revelation from God and the pressure of US federal law on Utah.

Some aren't even members of a specific Church. The main one, though. The one from Brigham Young on, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These are the typical Mormons of the world. Others are splinter groups.

Android339

Most say they are Mormon and align themselves to particular Mormon "elders". Some say that your variety of the faith is not the true faith of Smith and Bingham, based on a relevation to Woodruff, made after their earlier revelations.

I am perfectly aware that not absolutely everything has splinter groups. If you were to take such little statements made offhand a little less seriously, then maybe this would run a little smoother. In any case, by definition they are not LDS members because they are not part of the LDS Church. It's more than a change of view: they completely denied and rejected the continuing authority of the LDS Church, and therefore took no further part in it.

Android339

Oh right - it was what you said though. Perhaps our interpretations of big and little statements differ, so I'd suggest being more accurate and less off-hand.

From what you say, do the LDS church consider themselves as Mormons? Perhaps they may have rejected one part of the teachings. Do you think a divine revelation really did happen at the same time as the political wrangles?

I wasn't trying to say that. What I was trying to say was that I know a little bit more about my own faith than some of those who were born into it. Also, I know a little bit more about it than those not of the faith. And we've been intellectually arguing this entire time, so I guess what you're trying to say is that none of this matters?

Android339

I always think making claims about what other people know is venturaing onto dangerous territory. I can only speak for myself. My point was about the "intellectual" value of faith based beliefs. I was contending that intellectual arguments are not always valid, so basing your faith on an intellectual level might be a mistake.

If the man was sterile, he probably would have been denied an opportunity to marry plural wives. In fact, that's almost a certainty, considered the purpose of polygamy. So, no need to feel ashamed, because your little scenario could not have happened. There were many rules with polygamy back then. Hardly anyone practiced it, because you had to be able to support that many wives on your own, first of all, and because the purpose of polygamy was to raise up a righteous generation, you couldn't be sterile.

Because women can have babies, and men can't. It's a practical thing.

Android339

How would he know he was sterile until his wives repeatedly failed to conceive? You miss my logical argument about the increase in population by inverting the husband/wife polygomy to ensure the greatest chance of conception. You seemed to raise "increasing numbers" as the reasoning for male-based polygomy, whereas female-based polygomy would have provided more off-spring.

Yeah. The revelation of God stating that He no longer required it of His Church. They had done enough. I think you mean Mormon "Prophets". No one has aligned themselves with someone who is just an Elder. And some do say that. I naturally disagree.

Android339

So did it have anything to do with US politics as well?

I think you are right - I am referring to what you'd describe as prophets. But these people were human, just like us, weren't they?

I think you need to be a little more observant about the types of statements people make. It obviously wasn't an important aspect of what I was trying to convey, but apparently, to you, every little word is important, and even the change of the word "convey" to "express" may throw you off. It's not a mark of an intelligent mind to only be able to comprehend statements literally.

Android339

Surely its better to say things that aren't off hand, rather than expect people to guess how you're feeling. I guage a level offense here again - 2nd warning. I can moderate in this thread, you know!

I'm not basing my faith on my intellectual beliefs, but I'm saying that's how I approached Mormonism in the first place. I did pray about it, and it was then confirmed unto me that the Church is true.

Android339

Oh, I thought you said you did. I thought you said "I'm different than most Mormons in that I had to be intellectually convinced before I let myself be faithful towards it." I must have mis-read, copied and pasted it here.

You don't get that many wives that fast. That's not how polygamy worked. And no, female-based polygamy would not have provided more offspring. I still fail to see how you can maintain this argument. One man, with 10 wives, will have more children than one woman and 10 husbands.

Android339

No more than two until one's pregnant, eh? Was that in the rules? I know that 10 women can have more babies than one woman. But given a certain percentage of sterile people in society, the more sexual partners a woman has will increase the level of childbirth, rather than restricting female access in society to one man in ten women. It is a shame if you can't grasp this logic.

If the United States hadn't persecuted the LDS Church, then no, Heavenly Father probably wouldn't have told them to stop. I don't know, though. I don't know His mind. And yes, they were human, just like us.

Android339

Wasn't there a certain amount of political give and take with respect to this agreement of monogamy? It is an interesting comment you make about the intervention of politics. Doesn't it validate the fundamentalist Mormons rather, though?

It should have been an easy guess. I'm sorry you couldn't figure it out on your own.

Android339

You would know when you're being off-hand, so I guess you would think it easy. But try imagining those who don't know you and can only understand you based on what you type.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Oh, I thought you said you did. I thought you said "I'm different than most Mormons in that I had to be intellectually convinced before I let myself be faithful towards it." I must have mis-read, copied and pasted it here.

Android339

Even as you copy and paste it, you do not understand it. I had to be intellectually convinced before I let myself be faithful towards it. That's how I approached it. But I am ultimately basing it on my faith that it is true, regardless of intellectual conviction.

Thanks for clearing that up. So it didn't really matter about your intellectual enquiry really, did it?

You had to show that you could steadily raise a family before you were committed to another wife. Which was in the 'rules'. I can understand what you're saying, but the level of sterility ultimately does not come into effect. What if the woman is sterile? The number of husbands she has will not matter, either. Is there any evidence that men have any higher level of sterility than women? The issue of sterility plays on both sides, and thus it goes to show that man with more wives will have more children than a wife with multiple husbands. 'It is a shame if you can't grasp this logic.'

Android339

Thank you doctor. I was banking on an even number of men, women and sterility between them in my role reversal example. Are there loads more women than men in Mormon society?

[

It does not validate it. Yes, the revelation was given during a time of turmoil in the life of the Church, but it would never have been given if there was no such persecution. Not being religiously-minded, you can very well believe that it was purely for political reasons, but I do not believe so, because I see no reason that it has to be.

Android339

Its patently obvious to me that the motivation was entirely political, as a casual observer. It does raise questions over what if anything a revelation is.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="chrisrooR"]

Remember, women see sex much differently than us guys, and to women it's usually something they aren't casually giving away to random strangers.

This is just my own opinion, and I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my sex life.

foxhound_fox

I suggest you go meet some women.

Well, you guys seem pretty well versed when it comes to relationships and sex, so I will take your advice as best I can.

It's not even a matter of me trying to 'making sure it's perfect', I only want to share it with, as you have, someone special to me.

Unfortunately, I've known quite a few friends who, after having sex (and in some cases, dating) initially with someone they felt an emotional connection to, have gone and had sex with multiple partners (and I'm talking multiple, multiple here, if yaknownwhatImean) simply because they "had sex once. Once you have sex, you need to keep having sex...".

Is this a case of my friends having low self-control? Or is it true that the most conservative person, sexually, can go from being someone reserving sex for that special someone to a silverback gorilla during mating season?

This is really off topic, bro. This needs to wait until there is a more relevant thread.Android339

I'm an officer here. It's ok - we're fine.

I'm not basing my faith on my intellectual beliefs, but I'm saying that's how I approached Mormonism in the first place. I did pray about it, and it was then confirmed unto me that the Church is true.

Android339

The thing that my mind has to turn to here is all the other people I've encountered in other religions who also prayed about it, and who also say that it was confirmed unto them that their religion is true.

I'd be more than happy to debate this and other topics about Mormonism if there were a more appropriate thread to do so.Android339

Why not make one then?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Android339"]This is really off topic, bro. This needs to wait until there is a more relevant thread.Android339

I'm an officer here. It's ok - we're fine.

It's still off topic.

Is this the level of debate I should expect?

Weren't we discussing polygomy, which is all about love, relationships and sex.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]A romantic relationship should be between a man and a woman.Teenaged

Well, you guys seem pretty well versed when it comes to relationships and sex, so I will take your advice as best I can.

It's not even a matter of me trying to 'making sure it's perfect', I only want to share it with, as you have, someone special to me.

Unfortunately, I've known quite a few friends who, after having sex (and in some cases, dating) initially with someone they felt an emotional connection to, have gone and had sex with multiple partners (and I'm talking multiple, multiple here, if yaknownwhatImean) simply because they "had sex once. Once you have sex, you need to keep having sex...".

Is this a case of my friends having low self-control? Or is it true that the most conservative person, sexually, can go from being someone reserving sex for that special someone to a silverback gorilla during mating season?

chrisrooR

I can also tell you, that once you have sex, it is much harder to not want more of it. But that doesn't mean you are going to go from a committed relationship to being a promiscuous man-whore. You just have to deal with the desires as they come up, much like with anything else. You can't be having sex all the time, so its best to really enjoy it when you have it.

Indeed. Most women view sex in the same way most men do, they just don't talk about it as openly. It is true that a lot of women view their virginity as a "special" thing, but so do a lot of men (I know I did before I lost it). In the end, it really isn't anything but a theoretical standard placed arbitrarily on something that really doesn't need it. The first time is always going to be awkward or weird, because you haven't done it before... doesn't mean you have to put it high on a pedestal and make sure its "perfect." Because its not going to be. That's fine you want to share it with someone special (I know I did), but just do it already, you're missing out!foxhound_fox

That's exactly the advice I was given, and why I got onto this hookup site.  My reasoning is really the reverse of what chrisrooR mentioned in his post, that I need to become more experienced before I get into a serious relationship so I don't screw it up with inexperience.   As far as my response from women on the site, I've had more than 15 requests to meet/chat.  Doesn't mean that I'll sleep with them or they me, but I think it says something about women and their desires.

For an atheist perspective, I think sex is sex and nothing else like fox alluded to himself feeling. 

I could give you many examples, but to keep it clean and moderation free I can tell you this: when my girlfriend wants it, she gets it. When she's got her "motor running" its like trying to stop a freight train from 100 mph to a dead stop in 100 feet. You just can't. I would go as far to say that women are just as horny as men, and in many cases, get much more out of sex than any man can even imagine.foxhound_fox

I want to add on to what I originally said, specifically about love. Love should be a reflection of how much you value that person. It should not be an assignment, much like what is encouraged in Judaism and Christianity by the commandment, "love thy neighbor". You should only love your neighbor if you value them enough. You should always value a person's right to life certainly, but you don't have to value themselves if you don't find it necessary because of your values or your tastes. To make matters worse, Jesus says to love your enemies, but this is a corrupt teaching which fortunately, many Christians don't follow literally (although ironically enough, the ones who do are more likely the ones who interpret the Book of Genesis as a historical document). You should hate your enemies. Enemies should not be shown one ounce of compassion, that is of course, if they're in the wrong.Genetic_Code

Aren't we a bundle of joy. :P

Also, romantic love should only be reserved between you and your partner. Romantic love is the highest form of all love. As such, sharing it would diminish it.Genetic_Code

This piqued my interest, because this is literally, word for word, the justification a lot of churches give for why couples should remain monogamous. Romantic love and sexuality are God's gifts to us to enjoy, and since they are among the most precious (and enjoyable!) of his gifts to us, we should treat it respectfully, by indulging in it only in the safety of a committed monogamous relationship. That was one of the biggest reasons the sacrament of marriage was such a big deal in the church where I grew up... for "the mutual joy" husband and wife will have of each other. ;) I'm curious to hear how an atheist arrived at the same conclusion. :)ChiliDragon

I'll quote myself again, "Romantic love is the highest form of all love. As such, sharing it would diminish it." If you have one romantic partner, you can say that you love them more than anyon else. However, with two, you may be tempted to not play favorites. If so, then that defeats the purpose of it being the highest form of love, because then you'd have to share the love between two individuals, thus diminishing it.

Another problem is the conflicts between your two lovers. They may not agree on the same methods to raise children or where to spend an anniversary. Of course, this can occur in a monogamous relationship between a husband and wife, but a husband and wife should sort these issues out before they get married. You can say that you can do the same with two wives but it still adds an extra dimension to the conflict. Also, one woman might not want to be related to another woman through marriage.

Finally, polgamious relationships open the door to promiscuity and that can lead to unhealthy sex choices. Yes, there's protection, but being in a monogamous relationship is always safer, assuming your partner is clean to begin with.

Emotionally, I cannot stomach the thought of my wife with another man while we're in a relationship, whether I know of it or not, so it wouldn't be fair for me to conceive of such an act if I can't bear the thought of her doing it. Loyalty is a virtue which comes with love and such a breach of that concept would be irreconciable.

You should be cognizant of the fact that polygamy is not part of the subject matter. Especially how it came to be, and the reasons, and whatnot, and any attempt to make it about 'love, relationships, and sex' is going to be overshadowed by your insistence in talking about U.S. politics and its relation with polygamy. That's taking it a bit too far. If you want to talk about polygamy, then start a thread on it. Android339

I rather think that polygomy gives a valuable insight into love, relationships and sex.

I was not aware that polygomy was allowed for political reasons - I thought it was banned or those reasons. Isn't it the case that without political intervention, the LDS group and the fundamentalist Mormons would be united and polygomy would be allowed under the religion?

You're not using this discussion to gain 'valuable insights' into love, relationships, and sex. You're using it in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the LDS Church. The more you talk about political intervention on the case of it's arrival and departure, the more your goals are clear, and this is not the thread for that. Android339

Once again, you profess to "know" what I think. I wonder if this imaginative mirage is some sort of psychological transference technique of yours.

I'll accept that you are unable to answer the question. Can you?