Love, Marriage, and Sex--what is the truth?!

[Mars Man]

We have these problems in our societies, as far as I am concerned, and it's this seemingly perpetual denial of the nature of the animal construct which comes to play in the three areas which I would like to discuss again--but in a more focused nature. Yeah, this area is old, we've been down that road before here on JREF, I know, but it seems to me--as far as my ability to comprehend goes--to have been somewhat scattered and unfocused. In this thread, I'd hope to focus and define carefully.

A couple of points seem to have been raised which I think need to be shared with the world, and some points are in constant adjustment, or fine-tuning, if you will, as studies progress and the areas like neurology, evolutionary psychology, biolology, and sexology produce clearer and clearer results.

And, I will admit. I wanted something to replace the less scientifically proned threads which have been of late in this sub-fora as well, AND to continue under the tone of academical discussion and argument, some factors which have come to light in a recent thread on this very matter--love, marriage, and sex.

I'll kick it off (oh but be my guest in the meantime) tonight by firstly going into definitions--LET'S PLEASE FIX THOSE FIRST.

[Mars Man]

By love I would like to keep four areas in mind--agape, phlias, eros, and mating drive. 'Agape' is basically altruism with it's several shades or areas, and 'phlias' is the touching, affectionate love of family members, best friends, bosom buddies, and so on. 'Eros' I think should be held to be the love of and allurment to the sexual element--which would involve more than just sexual activity itself, including even characteristics of physical and mental traits that within a bell-curve-norm, come with the sexual identity. By 'mating drive', I hope to develop a referent which describes the love associated with the act of 'falling in love'--that 'love coctail' which brings (particularly) humans together for propagation.


By marriage, I would like to hold a definition which equates a civil union. This can involve any sex, so we need not limit our other defintions to the standard male and female union either. Part of the discussion may raise points about what is socially acceptable in one social group somewhere in the world, but not in another, so what is socially possible has to be left open--thus helping understand what marriage has been, and can be.


By sex I would like to hold the referent as simply being the sexual act--though that would be broad. (which would be ok, I think) Of course this would not be limited to the more common male-female activites alone.


This area being 'Love and Relationship (Advice)', I intend to argue that while the socially acceptable definition of 'marriage' in many countries could have room for a more pragmatic adjustment, marriage requires knowledge and application of love and sex. These are the keys to communication, inter-action, bonding, and relationship maintenance.

ps-the order (Love, Marriage, Sex) is purely alphabetical.

[leonmarino]

Originally Posted by Mars Man

By sex I would like to hold the referent as simply being the sexual act--though that would be broad. (which would be ok, I think) Of course this would not be limited to the more common male-female activites alone.

So what classifies a sexual act? This "whatever gets you off" definition is a bit too broad..

[Mars Man]

Originally Posted by leonmarino

This "whatever gets you off" definition is a bit too broad..

I agree, therefore let's narrow it down to at least the activity in which two or more individuals are equally intent on fulfilling the drive to bond and physically interact through a generally normal usage of at least one of the members sex organs.

The effort here is to allow for non-hetrosexual activity as well. If any further notes on the definition are deemed needed, I would hope to discuss them. By setting good and solid definitions from the get up and go, the ensuing discussion should prove to be less prone to randomness.

I'll get back here after the weekend...sorry

[SushiShin]

Sex is a good in some sort of ways, but we aren't discussing it here

Love is good and so is marriage it binds us all.

i like romance and love. So this is a cool thread

[moffeltoff]

I tend to see marriage more romantic thats why I wouldnｴt want to have children if Iｴm not married but Sex is totally ok outside marriage =D
Anyway my future plans are to marry a beautifull woman and have 3 kids the two oldest should be boys and the youngest one a little girl.

[Damicci]

Are we attacking these one at a time or all at once? Also what are we looking for in this dicussion? Personals views, experience and such?

[Mars Man]

While I hope to cover the ground related to the comments and sentiments made by both Kayo and moffeltoff, I would like to first address your point, Damicci.

Originally Posted by Damicci

Are we attacking these one at a time or all at once? Also what are we looking for in this dicussion? Personals views, experience and such?

In the last paragraph of my second post, I laid out the abstract, as it were, of what I hope to accomplish in this thread. In the meantime, I would think that discussion and comments would kind of be all over the place, with an effort to make connections, cross-examine, and then strenghten some positions and points, refute some, and others simple prove completely incorrect.

Personal views are of course ok and I think it is good that we share, yet I do intend to examine them in light of 'what is known' in the fields under consideration, and perhaps point out where any particular view may be incorrect, or weak as opposed to another understanding that is fairly accepted through the process of peer-review and scientific method.

Kayo chan...one point if I may. In a way, to some extent, we would be discussing the sex act--for example, it is well enough shown through studies in sexology, that role playing (fantasy projection) for the sex act is a healthy thing, and is very good for couples who have experienced 'the thrill is gone' (to quote my good ole friend B.B.King).

Putting such knowledge out into the open is good. I'm quite sure 'father sex' ( the author of Everything You Have Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask) himself would agree with me on that one. Let's beak the chains that hold society in denial of this reality, and by doing so help streghten the marital relationship--and by extension, the family unit and society itself.

[Goldiegirl]

As a woman growing up in the USA in a Catholic family, we were taught that love comes first, then marriage and then sex. Well, for none of us siblings was that the way life happened. I can say that it was just too old fashioned and the guilt or shame that all of us were made to feel either directly or indirectly kept us from making the right choices in our lives at times. I thought it was ok to have sex outside of marriage. I wanted to know that there was more there than just sex; love or at least caring for the other person. Yet no matter how much I cared for the other person, there always was this nagging doubt that I was doing something wrong and against God. I am not a practicing Catholic, and have finally been able to get rid of some of the shame that was forced on me and can now make decisions based on what I think makes a person good. Life, love, sex aren't always about being married or getting married.

[Anohito]

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

As a woman growing up in the USA in a Catholic family, we were taught that love comes first, then marriage and then sex. Well, for none of us siblings was that the way life happened. [snip]

Oh my! I can't resist describing an experience I had with a correspondent (the two of us never actually met each other). He had not been out very long (he was in his early forties), and in one of his letters he told me of an experience he recently had that shocked him. He had contacted someone in his own state that he found on a sort of name & address contact list. After a brief exchange of letters, he had agreed to travel to the other guy's home and spend the night with him. Well, my correspondent was shocked, yes, shocked when this other guy proposed having sex. My correspondent had not set any ground rules beforehand. After relating this incident, my correspondent firmly stated that he did not intend to have sex until after he was in a relationship. Even though I had not been out much longer, I was quite surprised by his attitudes. Perhaps my years in the military had made me more "worldly" about such things. Anyway, as gently as I could, I pointed out that he had not discussed the matter of sex in advance with his host, and that sexual compatibility issues were a major consideration among gay men, making the "no sex before a relationship" plan highly impractical. I did not hear from him for some time, and although he did respond to my letter, I am convinced that he did not like what I told him. I think I only got one more letter (at most) from him. Oh well, I did the best I could.

[maushan3]

Originally Posted by moffeltoff

I tend to see marriage more romantic thats why I wouldnｴt want to have children if Iｴm not married but Sex is totally ok outside marriage =D
Anyway my future plans are to marry a beautifull woman and have 3 kids the two oldest should be boys and the youngest one a little girl.

Tell it straight like it is!

Yeah, I don't know what the deal is about sex outside marriage, I was taught that God was gonna punish me if that happens, but I have my doubts, the main purpose for the Church telling people that sex is only for marriage, is, from what I understand, that there might be a mishap and one might have an unwanted child since children is supposed to be only for marriage. But, that's what condoms and other things are used for: not having any children.

Mauricio

[Mars Man]

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

As a woman growing up in the USA in a Catholic family, we were taught that love comes first, then marriage and then sex.

(bold, italics, and underline mine.)

This is an interesting thing to highlight at this moment, I'd reason. I would argue (based on what I have learned) that without doubt, sex comes first ! Now some may be reacting, "Say what !!???" But please let me explain.

Firstly, it's important to keep in mind that if it were not for the placental mammal's internal fetilization method, we wouldn't be talking about the same concept of copulation that we are talking about, anyway. Then, we can see that the most very important act in living organisms is that of self-preservation, which includes, of course (since life is to be seen as a overall state of being) procreation/propogation. What follows then, with a little bit of a jump over some details, is that the act of doing just that--procreating--is the driving force behind eros. It is the major effect of this eros that we pin the expression 'fall in love' on. In this very natural and wide-view way of looking at it, sex comes before love. More on that later.

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

I thought it was ok to have sex outside of marriage.

In that case, it is ok to have sex outside of marriage--but it would be best, for a degree of social adherence, to have sex with one who thinks likewise. That's the position that seems to win out in the arguments I've come across.

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

Life, love, sex aren't always about being married or getting married.

I think that is a fair, and well enough supported observation. I hope to detail more of just why that is so, as the thread goes on.

[Mars Man]

Why sex? Well, I very seriously doubt humankind will ever figure that one out. Darwin's Sexual Selection Theory really seems to have been weakened enough that some say it is simply wrong. Nevertheless, sex is here to stay--unless some of the more absurd elements of science even do away with that. (which I really, really doubt would ever happen)

I'm willing to bet all my future Social Security on the truth of the statement that not a single poster on this forum is not a child. And what would that land me? Only my future Social Security, because not a single poster would want to challenge the truth of that statement !! That is the importance of sex. The species survive !!

The 'instinct' of survival is not only an animate creature matter, but is also an inanimate creature matter. We humans have it too--although (and I think it's unfortunate) we don't usually admit to what such an 'instinct' seemingly leads to. We don't even usually want to admit that it's an instinct--for non-homo sapien animals, yeah, of course (survival instinct), but humans?. . . we're not animals. That misguided concept has now long been, or at should have been buried with the 'dumb animal' cliche-like terminology.

We can start with the research and works of the entomologist Alfred Kinsey. His work's findings stirred up, most ironically, the WASPs -1- in the United States when his Sexual Behavior in the Human Female showed that (American---as the opponents saw it) women were also having sex before and during marriage, along with a few other points.

To quote Dr. Kinsey:

Some structural characters in my insects vary as much as twelve hundred percent. In some of the morphologic and physiologic characters which are basic to the human behavior which I am studying, the variation is a good twelve thousand percent.

We must keep in mind that his first volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Male had come out in 1948. That era had not been ready to admit to the truth and diversity of human sexuality, so he really was like that artist, whose works become so great and valuable only after the artist has died.

What his work laid the foundation for, and gave a spark of life to, was the area of sexology that studied human sexuality as it would animal sexuality. Here is where we find the animal that homo sapien is also. From this point we can learn more on the importance of sex--from an up-coming post. (for easier reading and discussion)


1. WASP=White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Dr. Kinsey had originally done much research and observation on gall wasps.

[Goldiegirl]

A survey/test was done and it was a great looking girl on a college campus and she was to ask random guys she had never met if they wanted to go back to her room and have sex. All of the guys said yes. Then they asked a hot guy to ask girls the same question in the same situation and not one girl said yes. I think it was a Discovery Channel show on the human sex drive. Basically it came down to the fact that men wanted to pass along as much genetic material they could; women on the other hand want a man who is investing more than just genes because otherwise she'll be raising children on her own. She needs a commitment, he just needs a moment. It was an interesting thought.......

[Mars Man]

And here, on this rainy, cool and cloudy Sunday afternoon, I return--at long last--to this thread; in hopes of carrying on the discussion that had begun, not only here, but also there.

I pick up at this point in this thread from there--following Goldigirl's # 26 on page two. I wish to make clear here, that I am not playing the devil's advocate for the sake of argument--which is tautology, though, but just to make clear--yet as with the spirit of this thread, intend to present, test, and further the learning process for us all. Again, I am willing to bet all my future Social Security income that there are more members here on JREF who have not looked so deeply into these matters, as there are those who have.

At post #25, by Tokis-Phoenix chan, I'd firstly like to take up the following question: (and I quote) "...for a start, where are you getting this fact that human love only lasts for a set amount of time from?"

The likes of the following, in short--
The Human Brain, by Susan Greenfield
The Blank Slate--the modern denial of human nature, by Steven Pinker
The Science of Good and Evil, by Michael Shermer
Eve's Seed--biology, the sexes, and the course of history, by Roberts McElvaine
Anatomy of Love, by Helen Fisher
Why We Love, by Helen Fisher
Why Men Don't Listen & Women Can't Read Maps, by the Pease's
Why Men Lie and Women Cry, by the Pease's
...among a few other books on the psychological elements of human pair bonding by Dr. Grey, various reports from the Kensey Foundation, and from papers and reports in Science, Scientific American, NewScientist, and various sites and newspaper articles.

Then, here, I'd like to quickly respond the Goldiegirl, before going on in a following post (I have to go out after this, and won't be back until late)

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

We are more than our hormones, we are more than basic instincts. That is why we don't eat our offspring, or mate with our siblings or parents (generally the excepted norm). I do believe that we can control our emotions. Perhaps not perfectly and probably with great difficulty but that is what sets us apart from animals. We have CHOICE. Animals can't override their natural, basic instincts, we can. I wouldn't want to be just like an animal...

Thanks for that reminder, it is good to keep in mind the emotional/rational balance that gives us 'big-brained' beings a push above a certain mark on the intelligence level.

Now if I have read you wrong, Goldiegirl, please do correct me. Academically speaking, it has been clearly enough shown that the argument that the human today (or at any time, for that matter) is something [imore[/i] than the aggregate of molecular structures that make up the cells that make up the bone, meat, and flesh of the human, along with the hormones and chemical components, is extremely lacking in evidence. To say that we are more than our brains and the things that make the brain work, and our body work, must be supported with evidence to clearly state just what that 'more would be--and that has not been done yet.

Cannibalism would not be relative enough to the primary topic at hand, so we should probably set that aside--although it cannot be denied that there have been, and thus can be, social groups within which there is nothing wrong with eating people.

Time is short, so I must be concise. The rest presented can be summed up as boiling down to brain size. I hope to look more into that too, especially as it relates to human sexuality. Please forgive my having to run now.

[Goldiegirl]

I forgot about this thread MarsMan! Thanks for waking it up.

As for being "more than our hormones" I guess it's like this...

When I raised Maine Coon cats, when the female went into heat she had to have sex, she couldn't "not" do it. All aspects of her being at that moment went into reproduction. My male stud cats were ready at any second to get to the female and copulate. They couldn't say to themselves, well jeez I don't have enough money to support my offspring, hey that's my sister (brother) I shouldn't have sex with her/him. They were ruled by nature alone. Sorry, this is written a bit sloppy, my coffee hasn't kicked in yet!

[Mars Man]

Yes, I fully understand the point you are making, Goldiegirl. Also I fully understand the value that your experience as a vet can add to this discussion, and really appreciate your joining in !! I hope the coffee kicks in fast--speaking of which, that too, is a drug. That too, kind of falls right in line with the evidence. All of what we are, and can be, is in the brain.

There are some interesting studies among our nearest relatives, the great apes, and you may well know of some of them already. You probably already know that between us and the bonobos there is really less than 10% difference in DNA. You also probably know that the neural distribution is not that different in some animals--even the whales have spindle cells in the pre-frontal cortex area, and those are the very cells that quite likely produce much of our moral reasoning. In your experience with animals, I'm sure you can add a lot to this discussion, and I really look forward to that !!! Really.

We should strive to look at each point from as many sides as we can !! Thanks for joining in !! I'm sure TP chan will join in too !!

[Goldiegirl]

As for our close relationship with chimps, there's an interesting book called "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond. It goes on to say that we are basically 98% the same as chimpanzees, so what in that 2% difference of DNA makes us so human. Why aren't we closer to them and vice versa.

[Mars Man]

Yes !! I am very familiar with the author. I greatly appreciate his works and studies.

Yes, the similarity in DNA is often misunderstood. What that means is that our molecular build is very relative to each other, that our development along the lines of evolutionarily built creatures is very close. We are very far from, say, frog.

What is often over looked by the masses, is that it is the brain that make us different, for the most part, not any minute difference in the DNA.

Yes, Jared Diamond has done a lot of work on showing us just what we are, just how we fit in the animal kingdom.

[Mars Man]

If I may, for the moment, go back to the argument you had presented before about we homo sapeins being more than just our brain structure:

This argument is the one presented especially by the average religionist. The effort is to support understandings that the whole of consciousness is more than just the neural system and all that that involves. These understandings, however, are ancient and are based on understandings that are very lacking in knowledge and experience.

Animals have choice just as we do (although descending in proportion from the great apes and whales/dolphins downward) and can control themselves just as we do. They have individual personalities as we do. Really, when most all of the research, study, and data analyzing is finished, it is true--the difference is brain quality and build.

[Mandy]

just to throw a cat among the pidgeons, I am a massive supporter of the 'marriage first' idea.
Now before you all come running at me with pitchforks, hear me out.

I work with children, and come from a protestant church background. I obviously grew up with the 'no sex before marriage' thing drummed into my head. As a teen, it didn't bother me as I was a late bloomer, and the guys weren't interested.
As a 18yo, it started to matter. My mates were having sex, and loving it, and I copped heaps for not giving it a go. My boyfriend at the time was also keen, but I wasn't ready.
As I watched, my mates went from partner to partner, becoming more and more disillusioned with the idea of love. Not to mention, half of them are now single mums with very little, if any support from the child's father.
Studies (not very popular studies) have shown that people who are sexually active before marriage have a 50% higher chance of divorce.
Tying in my work with kids, kids with broken families, in my experience, have more difficulty concentrating in school and have more emotional baggage at a younger age.

Take what you will of these thoughts.

I chose to wait until I married to have sex, and I'm proud that I waited. My husband is also pretty stoked that he's my first and only.
It's a very unusual situation, I know, but what a wedding present..... *grin*

[Mars Man]

Thanks for joining in, Mandy ! I appreciate your presentation, and would like to take a closer look at some portions of it...as time goes on. I do think that some of what may come up in the future pages of this thread can have some bearing there--such as ways of handling divorce or separation, and attitudes towards human sexuality, among others.

It may be a bit of a process, but I hope you'll join in the discussion as it slowly plays out. One question I'd like to ask here, do you happen to have the authors of that study? I'd be interested in seeing if I can check it out.

[Goldiegirl]

There's a difference between bouncing from one sex partner to another and being in a committed relationship. Promiscuity is bad for everyone involved. I can understand where the disillusionment of what love is could be a problem when you base love solely on sex. Sex doesn't equate love necessarily.

[Mars Man]

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

There's a difference between bouncing from one sex partner to another and being in a committed relationship. Promiscuity is bad for everyone involved. I can understand where the disillusionment of what love is could be a problem when you base love solely on sex. Sex doesn't equate love necessarily.

Again, I would argue that there would be some finer print that should be laid out with the arguments; alas...the forum format doesn't so easily allow for that tendency. It could be argued, to whatever degree of success, that there would be some discrpency between how bouncing around would primarily affect the male as opposed to how it would primarily affect the female.

I would think that enough of the basic studies have shown convincingly enough just how this could be said to be so--there is, in the first place, for example, a major difference in the result of sexual activity for the two sexes, which has much bearing also.

However at this point, I'd mostly like to suggest, that by piecing together the various things I have talked about regarding 'love,' it should be clear that I would probably go just a little further, and say that the sexual act alone, in no way equates 'love' alone. I'd be ready to argue for this any ole day--the simplicity of the word usage is at fault. I'm glad your still joining in, and always look forward to your thoughts, Goldiegirl chan !!

ps, Mandy, I have been married twice, and never had premarital sex①: which is one reason why I'd like to check out that study, and see if I can find any fault with methodology. Thanks !


①By this I mean before the first marriage only, of course.

[Mars Man]

On this thread--as is clear through the title--we have the room to discuss three basic elements which underpin social structure. If a person were to think about it so very carefully, it really should be clear:

if there were no genetic material to invest in gene propogation, there would be no sex. If there were no sex, there would be no need for bonding between two beings for that purpose. (even having given consideration for certain species which switch between sexes in that single body--which of course requires no bonding for species continuation) If there were no bonding between sexes of different beings (male and female in two beings) there would be no family unit. If there were no family unit, there would be no 'strong' society.

This is the way of nature, and this is the way that, far more clearly than any previously imagined format by the human mind, has brought us human beings to where we are today. For this very reason, it is so important to have a firm understanding above and beyond social conditioning spurred on by the socio-religious belief-systems of days gone by--those which worked in social/cultural presuppositions not based on what we know today.

On another thread, the matter of marriage has come up. A common weakness has appeared in the presentation which seems to have not taken into to consideration the fact that in the general social/cultural 'over norm' (as I call it) 'marriage' as it stands today, in much of the minds of social groups, is a fairly new concept. To that degree, therefore, it is more of a contract than not. This is not to say that there is any overt, conscience awareness that a contract is being entered into, but effectually, by the bounds, laws, and customs--not to mention predominate religious belief-systems--the institution of marriage is a contract...nothing more, nothing less.

I say that is a sad thing. Too much has been overlooked. As this thread unfolds, and plays itself out, I intend to do my best to alleviate as much of the misconception and lack of knowledge as I can. At present, I am dealing with sex, since it comes first chronologically.