Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Is it really THAT big of a deal???Follow

#127 Jun 02 2008 at 1:58 PM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
My only question to those who say that sex really does not involve intimacy ever, or it shouldn't, at least, is why is it when a spouse or partner goes outside the marriage bed and has sex with another person, that their partner gets all huffy about it?
Betrayal of trust, which is why sex with a Prostitute (the ultimate of none intimate sex) is considered worse than A random girl from work.
#128 Jun 02 2008 at 1:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Mistress DSD wrote:
My only question to those who say that sex really does not involve intimacy ever, or it shouldn't, at least, is why is it when a spouse or partner goes outside the marriage bed and has sex with another person, that their partner gets all huffy about it? Why does that act hurt the person cheated on? If it really didnt mean anything to that person, and really, it's just an act but holds no intimacy, why does it cause marriages to fail, relationships to flounder, and people to move on? If having sex holds no intimacy, than to have your partner have sex with someone else other than you should mean nothing or little to you. It should mean as much as a hug or a handshake, less so than your partner going out for a beer with his/her buds.


1. I'm unsure anyone has said that sex does not or should not involve an aspect of intimacy...just that it doesn't inherently...that we construct it to be so.

2. If a couple has agreed upon monogamy, it is a failure of trust, and that's what most people will tell you when a relationship has failed due to infidelity...that they lost trust in their partner. Relationships have failed when the other person spent all the couple's money, developed a drug addiction, etc, etc, all due to the loss of trust. If my partner had sex with another person, it would be a failure to adhere to one of the most basic tenets of a monogamous relationship...not to mention the risk of disease, impregnating another woman, etc. It would bother me *more* if it was not intimate than if it was, because that would essentially mean that they threw away what we had for something meaningless to them.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#129 Jun 02 2008 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Mistress DSD wrote:
My only question to those who say that sex really does not involve intimacy ever, or it shouldn't, at least, is

In attempt to avoid a very unnecessary discussion, who do you believe is saying that "sex does not involve intimacy ever?" If you believe that is what I have been trying to say then some major clarification is required.

Sex can involve intimacy, and in a great many relationships it does, enough to say that sex probably predominantly involves intimacy. What I've tried to make clear is that sex is not intimate, necessarily. It is something people add on, but it is not a fundamental quality of sex.

Several terrible analogies to follow.

Rice is not salty. It's not a property of rice itself. But people often add salt to rice to make it taste better. It's not that rice can never be salty, but that rice is not salty by its own nature.

Inline skating does not have to involve protective gear. People often wear it to prevent or lessen injury, but it is quite possible to skate without protective gear at all. It's flawed to think of inline skating an automatically link the idea to protective gear.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 5:00pm by Pride
#130 Jun 02 2008 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
Pride wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I think it's because it's one of the only "ordinary biological processes" that we share with another human being.

We share lots of ordinary biological processes with other people. I typically eat with friends/family. Kids will often be forced to share a room; parents almost always share a bed.


Smiley: dubious I think you're grasping at straws on this one. I mean, it might be the same if I went out to dinner with my friend and expected her to chew up my dinner and spit it into my mouth.

Eating is a biological process that can be accomplished alone. Now, if you want to tell me that breast feeding isn't an intimate, shared biological process, you might have an argument. But to me, that's just as intimate as sex, just in a different way, and it helps the child bond to the mother.

I have no idea what you're talking about with sharing a room. There is no shared biological process there.
#131 Jun 02 2008 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
Quote:
1. I'm unsure anyone has said that sex does not or should not involve an aspect of intimacy...just that it doesn't inherently...that we construct it to be so.


I've never argued that fact, but anytime I seem to mention sex and intimacy in any way shape or formed sometimes linked I've had people argue against it, hence my question.
I can see it as being an issue of trust. But then, if sex does not equal intimacy on some level for those in a relationship., I then wonder why it would have to be something only they can participate in together? Money issues, I get it. To spend money that someone else worked hard for is a lack of trust. Addiction of drugs, alcohol, gambling can change a person and make them not the same, nor necessarily safe to be around. But sex? If intimacy was attached to sexual intercourse, it makes sense. But if sex holds no intimacy in a relationship, or "shouldn't" then would the person cheated on then be causing more hardship by making such a big deal about it? I mean why would someone want to trust another not to do something that really doesnt mean anything except for physical release? See where I'm coming from?

Again, this is why I said a few times, for the majority of people out there, sex does not always equate intimacy, but it does not mean that sex never equals intimacy. There is no black and white. Never is, never was. And anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, plain and simple.

#132 Jun 02 2008 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
But sex? If intimacy was attached to sexual intercourse, it makes sense. But if sex holds no intimacy in a relationship, or "shouldn't" then would the person cheated on then be causing more hardship by making such a big deal about it?


Sex "holds intimacy in a relationship", or "should", only because that's the norm in society. Not the other way around.

Jealousy exists because we've been told, from birth, that couples couple because they're in love and coupling with anyone else is a betrayal of that love. Also: love is more sacred than anything else, and betraying it is the worst thing you can do.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#133 Jun 02 2008 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
I agree and I've never said anything that goes against that logic in these posts.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 6:35pm by DSD
#134 Jun 02 2008 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Mistress DSD wrote:
Quote:
1. I'm unsure anyone has said that sex does not or should not involve an aspect of intimacy...just that it doesn't inherently...that we construct it to be so.


I've never argued that fact, but anytime I seem to mention sex and intimacy in any way shape or formed sometimes linked I've had people argue against it, hence my question.
I can see it as being an issue of trust. But then, if sex does not equal intimacy on some level for those in a relationship., I then wonder why it would have to be something only they can participate in together? Money issues, I get it. To spend money that someone else worked hard for is a lack of trust. Addiction of drugs, alcohol, gambling can change a person and make them not the same, nor necessarily safe to be around. But sex? If intimacy was attached to sexual intercourse, it makes sense. But if sex holds no intimacy in a relationship, or "shouldn't" then would the person cheated on then be causing more hardship by making such a big deal about it? I mean why would someone want to trust another not to do something that really doesnt mean anything except for physical release? See where I'm coming from?

Again, this is why I said a few times, for the majority of people out there, sex does not always equate intimacy, but it does not mean that sex never equals intimacy. There is no black and white. Never is, never was. And anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, plain and simple.



I think you're missing the point, honestly...I must not be communicating very effectively. Simply, what we're saying is that there is nothing inherently intimate about sexual intercourse, that the intimacy aspect of sexual intercourse is a social construct. That doesn't mean that ones feelings of intimacy being tied to sex are any less powerful or moving or any of that. I feel that sex with a partner is INCREDIBLY intimate. The danger lies in believing that it's intimate for everyone *because* SEX IS INTIMACY...it's NOT. Some people find nothing intimate about sex, that is the point we're trying to make. Some people do, some people don't, because it's not intimate by nature...it's just a behavior...and when people attach something to an act that is not an inherent part of the act and assume that it applies to everyone or should, then they are making an assumption about how the world *should* be because it is *for them*. These people go on to design a government, public policy, and educational system around something that is try for them and not true by nature. Do you understand what I'm saying? I can try to explain it differently if I'm still not making sense, sorry.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#135 Jun 02 2008 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
Then I guess we've been trying to make the same point and are two ships passing in the night. because I think I've said something similiar in my original posts
#136 Jun 02 2008 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yay! Now let's all have a drink and some casual sex to celebrate.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#137 Jun 02 2008 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Samira wrote:
Yay! Now let's all have a drink and some casual sex to celebrate.



Samira, I'll thank you to be less personal.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#138 Jun 02 2008 at 2:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
We really need an "innocently whistling" icon around here.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#139 Jun 02 2008 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Samira wrote:
We really need an "innocently whistling" icon around here.



That and an "idly ****************** icon.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#140 Jun 02 2008 at 2:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
14,454 posts
only if it has fap fap fap glide across underneath
#141 Jun 02 2008 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Eating is a biological process that can be accomplished alone. Now, if you want to tell me that breast feeding isn't an intimate, shared biological process, you might have an argument. But to me, that's just as intimate as sex, just in a different way, and it helps the child bond to the mother.

Fine, breastfeeding. Also sex can be accomplished alone. I don't think this is an especially relevant path we are going, but I will continue if you wish to.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about with sharing a room. There is no shared biological process there.

I was intending sleep to be the shared process.

Edited, Jun 2nd 2008 7:14pm by Pride
#142 Jun 02 2008 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Eating is a biological process that can be accomplished alone


So is sex, lightnin.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#143 Jun 03 2008 at 6:27 AM Rating: Good
Pride wrote:
Fine, breastfeeding. Also sex can be accomplished alone. I don't think this is an especially relevant path we are going, but I will continue if you wish to.


************ can be accomplished alone, sex (for procreation, which is the "biological process we were talking about) cannot.

Honestly, though, we are arguing pretty much the same thing. That the intimacy surrounding sex is intimacy that we assign to it, not something that is inherent.
#144 Jun 03 2008 at 6:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Pride wrote:
Fine, breastfeeding. Also sex can be accomplished alone. I don't think this is an especially relevant path we are going, but I will continue if you wish to.


************ can be accomplished alone, sex (for procreation, which is the "biological process we were talking about) cannot.


Well, sexual intercourse without protection would be for procreation, and may be what you're talking about, but I think some folks were talking about all variety of sexual acts that you might do with or without a partner (or with a partner watching, or with a parter doing their own thing, or on the phone, or via closed circuit television from your S&M Dungeon..you know, whatever). But this part:
Quote:
Honestly, though, we are arguing pretty much the same thing. That the intimacy surrounding sex is intimacy that we assign to it, not something that is inherent.


Yes, absolutely!

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#145 Jun 03 2008 at 6:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
or via closed circuit television from your S&M Dungeon


And remember kids: closed circuit. Otherwise some lame WiFi surfer will have the cops at your door.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#146 Jun 03 2008 at 6:35 AM Rating: Good
Nexa wrote:
Well, sexual intercourse without protection would be for procreation, and may be what you're talking about, but I think some folks were talking about all variety of sexual acts that you might do with or without a partner (or with a partner watching, or with a parter doing their own thing, or on the phone, or via closed circuit television from your S&M Dungeon..you know, whatever).


True.

I guess my point was going out to dinner with someone isn't the same sharing of the biological process that sex is. And that we need to procreate to further our species, we don't need to ********** to live.

Not that it matters, really. I was just trying to explain why we might attribute that intimacy to the act. And, honestly, I think there's more to it than the fact that it's a shared biological process. I think part of it has to do with the vulnerability of the act itself, as well as the societal influence and taboo on the act. Actually, the societal influences are probably the more likely reason for the value we place (or do not place) on sex, much more so than the shared biological crap I was going for.
#147 Jun 03 2008 at 6:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:

I guess my point was going out to dinner with someone isn't the same sharing of the biological process that sex is. And that we need to procreate to further our species, we don't need to ********** to live.


Maybe not...but to keep from killing other people?

I know everyone I come in contact with is, whether they realize it or not, better off for my ability to ****** all by my self.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#148 Jun 03 2008 at 6:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Nexa wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:

I guess my point was going out to dinner with someone isn't the same sharing of the biological process that sex is. And that we need to procreate to further our species, we don't need to ********** to live.


Maybe not...but to keep from killing other people?

I know everyone I come in contact with is, whether they realize it or not, better off for my ability to ****** all by my self.

Nexa


Oh, and good morning everyone! How was breakfast!?

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#149 Jun 03 2008 at 6:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Belkira wrote:
I think part of it has to do with the vulnerability of the act itself


I'd go with "perceived vulnerability" but again that's a social construct. I've done things with people I barely knew that made me much more vulnerable to actual harm.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#150 Jun 03 2008 at 6:44 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
************ can be accomplished alone, sex (for procreation, which is the "biological process we were talking about) cannot.

There are a myriad of forms of sex that don't fit the standard usage. IS a person having sex with an animals special an intimate? What about with a picnic table? What about in a huge group? If you accept any of these forms as being sexual activity then you have to accept ************ as sexual activity as well.

Merriam-Webster offers a definition of sex to be "sexually motivated phenomena or behavior," which ************ certainly fits under.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Honestly, though, we are arguing pretty much the same thing. That the intimacy surrounding sex is intimacy that we assign to it, not something that is inherent.

Yeah but tangent semantic arguments that are completely irrelevant since we both agree on the main topic can be fun too.
#151 Jun 03 2008 at 7:22 AM Rating: Default
***
1,450 posts
Eating dinner with people gets me off.

Ok not actually, but I wanted to throw it in there.

I think that people need sex to mean more because if you disect just about anything in this world it boils down to some biological process or other. There is no wonder if you take the wonder out of everything. The best way to live life, imo, is to make up a bunch of wonder and insert it liberally into everything. That way you actually have something to get out of bed for.

It is also why I make sure to wear my superman costum when I have sex, nothing better than a man of steel laying down pipe!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 375 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (375)