The Purpose of Sex

[JASKN]

LOL, that would be a rather concrete-bound interpretation of my post. I wasn't saying, "You became gay because you were religious," I was saying that the premises you were brought up with combined with some specific events in your life to make you think of boys as sexually exciting.

Other people, who had other concrete events in their lives, may associate different things with the excitement of the forbidden fruit.

Saying that "forbidden fruit" is the reason at all is highly speculative. "Forbidden fruit" may lead to some things, but there is a clear connection in those cases, such as your nun example. There is no such clear connection to sexuality as such, that is, which sex turns one on sexually.

In fact, the whole discussion about the cause behind sexuality is speculative without studies on the brain to back up the claims. Anecdotal evidence can go only so far, and this tabula rasa-type argument I think is just rationalizing. Our sex drive is clearly "programmed" at birth, like a heartbeat, and the extent to which that also decides what the sex drive is aimed at is unknown at this time.

And at themadkat, yes, that is essentially how my good female friendships materialize.

[intellectualammo]

CapFo, I have a question for you...do you believe it's possible to meet a wonderful person of the sex you are most attracted to who you deeply care for and admire and who shares many if not most of your values, and not be sexually attracted to them? I am not talking about someone with a horrible deformity here...I mean a basically normal looking guy or girl who you are capable of being fantastically good friends with.

I can answer that with a definate yes from experience and in theory.

if the most amazing incredible woman in the world that shared all his values became his friend, he would probably feel the same way about her as you would feel about your best guy pal - there's just no switch that can be flipped to make those thoughts sexual, even if for some reason he WANTED them to be.

Right, this applies to me, though I am attracted ONLY to female man-made dolls, though I do interact from time to time with people, and have developed my social skills to some degree, it just doesn't turn sexual, no matter what they look like, no matter how much they share my values, interests, my literary passions, my... anything. I had explored through many hundreds of pages two years ago or so, a recontexualization of Ovid's Story of Pygmalion. But now I have gotten away from that story, because I wouldn't want Venus to make my dollie (to be) suddenly spring to life, for I would not pray nor ask for such a thing to occur. I don't want that switch to be flipped, I've disengaged that switch altogether. Pyg actually treats his statue just like how some of the guys do their dollies, dressing her, bringing her presents, taking her to bed, and so on. So instead of an ivory statue, it's a silicone dollie. So I'm like Pyg in a way, but also Narcissus.

Attraction is a physical thing. The relationship is built on much more than that, of course, but the "spark" is all physical.

I don't feel that attraction at all anymore. I think that it slowly went away over the years, I actually thought I was becoming impotent or something, for usually when I'm around women, I'd feel something, but not at all anymore. I don't look at them like that. But when I saw the dolls, that told me, at least so far, that it's not exactly impotency, it's animacy I have an aversion to.

[Myself]

I don't feel that attraction at all anymore. I think that it slowly went away over the years, I actually thought I was becoming impotent or something, for usually when I'm around women, I'd feel something, but not at all anymore. I don't look at them like that. But when I saw the dolls, that told me, at least so far, that it's not exactly impotency, it's animacy I have an aversion to.

I'm not an expert, but this sounds like a mental disorder. The fact that you aren't attracted to humans at all suggests some truly deep-seated issues you need to address.

Have you ever been to a pyschologist?

[intellectualammo]

I'm not an expert, but this sounds like a mental disorder. The fact that you aren't attracted to humans at all suggests some truly deep-seated issues you need to address.

Have you ever been to a pyschologist?

Once (I think, but am not sure if it counts or not) for one session, many many years ago, but it had absolutely nothing to do with this, but more depression, and for the $50.00 I spent, since I didn't have any kind of health care coverage then, I wasted nearly all of it. Oh and when in elementary school whvn I was almost expelled because that didn't know what else to do with me, (even being paddled by the principle while the vice-principle held the principles sport jacket) they thought that going to somv group thing with kids whose parents split up would help? some, but they just determined that I was lazy, because I had to draw a person, and drew a stick fugure. No, I'd rather do somvthing that I want to do. (always been self-centered and have been told it all my life)

But as I mentioned before in this thread I think, is that if I ever were to go to one, or a therapist, or one I can go to through my employer for six free sessions, I would merely be going to get a confirmation on what my personality is, not to go through any kind of treatment or anything of the like. I just want an official confirmation. I definately know that it is psychological, and thank you for bringing it up to me, and specifically it has way more to do with my personality, as such. They are truly deep-seated, and that's where I want to sit, I don't want to get up, for I am completely comfortable and luxuriating in it. Narcissism, of which I read nearly a dozen books in a very short period of time a few months ago, is a personality "disorder" that can vary in degree and in malignancy, and be very hard to change even once a narcissist does go to therapy. I have always enjoyed keeping to myself, and this gives me a chance now to have someone seated next to me, and we are both completely safe. I get tired of hearing "I wish I never met you" or "I wish I could meet you" I'm off the market altogether. I'm quite unique among the narcissists, I'd have to say, and am capturing it all on the white film of the page, as best as I can, to be studied perhaps one day, by scholars? an/or psychologists.

Edited May 20, 2009 by intellectualammo

[Capitalism Forever]

I'm not an expert, but this sounds like a mental disorder. The fact that you aren't attracted to humans at all suggests some truly deep-seated issues you need to address.

Have you ever been to a pyschologist?

Don't be such an objectiphobe!

[Capitalism Forever]

Attraction is a physical thing. The relationship is built on much more than that, of course, but the "spark" is all physical.

Ah, now I get your point. But are you saying that the evidence for this is the possibility of not being attracted and just wanting to be friends? Or if not, what do you think the evidence is?

[Cello]

So what of pedophilia then? If you cannot choose what you are sexually attracted to, then how can you be judged as immoral if you "happen" to be a pedophile.

Let's say someone is sexually attracted to children but has not acted upon their attraction. Is this person immoral?

Also, if this person is in a constant war against their nature, or at least at war against something they had no choice over, isn't that immoral, as they are acting contrary to their nature?

I am not insinuating pedophilia is moral, but it seems like the same argument that is being used to justify homosexuality (It's out of your control), applies to pedophilia as well.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Cello

[themadkat]

So what of pedophilia then? If you cannot choose what you are sexually attracted to, then how can you be judged as immoral if you "happen" to be a pedophile.

Let's say someone is sexually attracted to children but has not acted upon their attraction. Is this person immoral?

Also, if this person is in a constant war against their nature, or at least at war against something they had no choice over, isn't that immoral, as they are acting contrary to their nature?

I am not insinuating pedophilia is moral, but it seems like the same argument that is being used to justify homosexuality (It's out of your control), applies to pedophilia as well.

I cannot see how a pedophile who never touches a child in his life can be considered immoral. He certainly isn't a rights-violator. I think someone in that sorry state of affairs is sick and needs help, unless he does decide to act on his desires in which case then he needs to go to the big house PDQ. To a certain degree I think pedophilia is unchosen, but so are many other personality traits that may make you more prone to committing a crime, for example a violent temper or the absence of empathy (I mean a pathological absence as with sociopaths or psychopaths, where one can't feel empathy even where appropriate or if they wanted to). Nonetheless, whether it is chosen or not is really irrelevant to the act of child rape, which is always a choice and should always be punished when it occurs.

I'm really not sure how pedophilia has anything to do with homo/bisexuality, as the latter concerns the activities of two consenting adults whereas the former by definition does not, hence its immorality. But just to clarify my position (which may or may not be the position of other posters here), I don't think sexual orientation is a choice but even if it is, and this is important, even if homosexuality is a choice I would consider it a moral choice to make, so long as your lover represents your highest values and being with him brings you happiness and satisfaction that you won't find with anyone else.

That said, I could try as hard as I possibly can not to find men or the male anatomy attractive tomorrow, and I guarantee you I'm still gonna find them hot.

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

I disagree. I chose to be homosexual. I am attracted to many attributes which can be found in both men and women, most of them are non-physical attributes, and I chose to pursue relationships with men over women after comparing my attractions to average personality traits of each gender. As far as attraction from a strictly sexual sense, or in other words, arousal, I have found that I can be made to be aroused by nearly anything, from the attractive to the unattractive to the disgusting. I thus reject the claim that homosexuality is not a choice, or that it is simply something you're born with.

To further demonstrate: At what point did you discover that you were gay? What evidence led you to that conclusion? A common test men put on themselves is to watch heterosexual pornography, while masturbating, and then try watching homosexual pornography, again while masturbating, and call the result their proof. Similarly other men say 'I found myself aroused when looking at men, but not when looking at women.' To me these responses show a lack of introspection. Perfectly healthy people of any orientation may get more aroused over homosexual relations than heterosexual ones purely from the 'taboo' factor. They view it as something they shouldn't do, something bad, thus it becomes exciting. Not at all dissimilar to the way some people claim to have less interest in drinking alcohol after they pass the legal age, because it is not 'the bad thing' anymore. I specifically remember all my sexual development in this area, as it has always been an area of interest to me, both physically (heh) and intellectually. My attractions and sexual orientation have been anything but automatic.

Edits: Changed sentence structure for clarity

When ever I see such drivel as that it reminds me of the following:

Edited May 25, 2009 by Kaiwai Gardiner

[Capitalism Forever]

I cannot see how a pedophile who never touches a child in his life can be considered immoral.

Isn't it obvious? His nature is a pedophile, and he is acting against his nature. He suppresses his desires, which is always immoral--and worse, if he suppresses any of his sexual desires, that can only mean one thing: He's a ... gasp ... CHRISTIAN!!!

(Sorry for the drama, just trying to make it obvious that I'm playing devil's advocate so that I don't have to devote my next ten posts to explaining I wasn't being serious...)

I'm really not sure how pedophilia has anything to do with homo/bisexuality

If you accept the "spark" premise, it is at least plausible to hypothesize that some people experience the spark as a result of seeing minors.

That said, I could try as hard as I possibly can not to find men or the male anatomy attractive tomorrow, and I guarantee you I'm still gonna find them hot.

I suppose this is the right place for me to make a confession. There is a certain man I do find to be very sexually attractive. He is an Objectivist, too, and has a sense of life as close to mine as it can ever get. I actually get along with him very well, and may even say that he means a whole lot to me. He has been known to post on certain forums under the screen name of Capitalism Forever...

The point being, I can certainly relate to people finding the male anatomy sexy, but given the physical characteristics I was born with, I think I have more to gain by being a producer in that area rather than a consumer...

[RationalBiker]

I cannot see how a pedophile who never touches a child in his life can be considered immoral.

Something doesn't have to violate someone else's rights for it to be immoral. Remember, according to Objectivism actions that hurt one's self are also considered immoral.

[Jake_Ellison]

When ever I see such drivel as that it reminds me of the following:

I found what he said perfectly sensible, and I also find the moronic attitude that "being gay is genetic, and everyone who suggests otherwise needs to be insulted" irrational. There isn't any real proof that being gay is something people are born with, in fact a lot of research points to the opposite.

Plus, if you don't have anything to add, don't post. If you disargee but can't tell us why, I don't care about your opinion.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

I found what he said perfectly sensible, and I also find the moronic attitude that "being gay is genetic, and everyone who suggests otherwise needs to be insulted" irrational. There isn't any real proof that being gay is something people are born with, in fact a lot of research points to the opposite.

Plus, if you don't have anything to add, don't post. If you disargee but can't tell us why, I don't care about your opinion.

Because they've already made up their mind - any attempt at dialogue is like trying to speak to a stone.

I never stated gay is genetic - I simply stated that it isn't a choice one simply makes out of the blue; you are who you are.

[shadesofgrey]

http://www.catholic-forum.com

I was just thinking the same thing. The original post sounds like a christian fundamentalist. Even some catholics have a more relaxed view of sex.