These are fair questions.
Let me ask you this rhetorical question: how did you form the concept "mature" -- as in "mature behavior"? (Just an example.)
I do not really seem to understand why you ask this question at some point, but I will of course answer it anyways (however, if I knew the purpose for which you ask it, it would be easier to answer in a way that is congenial with your intention...).
Unfortunately, "mature" isn´t a term that I use often, and it isn´t a term that I have formed a particularly clear concept of. It doesn´t play any significant part in my thinking, so I guess it´s not a good example in this particular case.
Forming concepts is probably a very complex process. To make a long story short, I suspect that as a child I heard abstract terms and tried to find out what they might mean - from the context in which I encountered people using it. As a child, I am assuming, you don´t question abstract concepts. If the adults talk about "X" then this must be a term for something that is a necessary, use- and meaningful concept. You are glad if you think you have figured it out, and you will use it in the way you feel the adults use it. With growing experience you learn that different people use the term for (sometimes only slightly, sometimes completely) different concepts. However, the way you have learned it first remains very strongly that which it "means for you".
It takes a lot of effort to re-investigate the usefulness and meaningfulness of concepts that have always been used naturally in your environment. This is a process that I have been going through very intensely for a couple of years. The main question when it comes to sorting out or modifying concepts and categories for me is: Which purpose does it serve (what does it help with), which purpose does it not serve, in which context is it usable, and in which context different concepts and categories are more helpful.
As for "mature" (thanks for offering it - I haven´t really made subject to these investigations so far, mainly because it´s not a term and concept I had much use for anyways): I feel it is redundant. I don´t know what it could possibly help me with.
My guess is that this wasn't the result of a strictly deductive process, but came from integrating different ideas, observations, experiences, etc. It may be difficult to explain the full process by which you formed such a concept.
Agreed. However (not sure whether it is important here or not, though) I´d like to point out that my questions were not about forming concepts, but about forming valuations and/or preferences - and which determines which and how.
Regarding sexuality, I'll offer some of my views.
Thanks. I will respond to some of them. Please keep in mind that I am not out to question anyone´s feelings or convictions.
I am merely trying to find out whether there is a logical, rational way to the idea that sex is sacred.
The mind-body dichotomy is false. As living persons, we have both mind and body, and both form a single, unified whole. As such, sexuality is no less a mental phenomenon than a physical one.
Agree.
Also, it is dangerous to treat reality as anything other than what it is. Reality is what it is, not what we might like it to be. To treat something as something other than what it fully is -- even unintentionally -- carries risks and the potential for mistakes.
Well, we have different concepts of "reality", but if trying to work from your concept I think I would agree. "Dangerous" seems to be a bit of an exaggeration, but yes, disregarding certain aspects comes with risks.
And so, is dangerous to treat oneself or others as disembodied minds (or to treat the body as a less important "part"), or as unminded bodies (or the mind as a less important "part"), and that includes sexual treatment.
Agreed, too.
My actual question, however, is why you single out sexual treatment as "sacred". If following your reasoning so far, it would not only include sexual treatment, but literally
everything that we do. Yet you picture sexuality as essentially different from, say, sports, music, dish washing and nose picking (all of which are matters of body/mind) - in that you consider it "sacred".
These general contemplations about body/mind (as interesting as they are) don´t help one bit to explain this distinction.
Falling on the "disembodied mind" end of the spectrum, the body will be seen as a prison that may be shameful or threatening to one's "soul". The body will be at best the source of one's "lower nature", and viewed with suspicion.
On the "unminded body" end, the mind may be seen as a threat to one's bodily interests. To deny one's bodily urges will be seen as denying one's fundamental nature. Sexual encounters will be little more than scratching an itch and will have no particular meaning, because the mind is the realm of meaning. Sex becomes mutual masturbation, and you might as well be having sex with a fembot.[/quote]
Ah, come on, Mark.
I guess there are some people who see it this way - and this would according to what you have said above - not only a disembodiment in matters of sex, but in everything that affects the body.
But: As far as I can see not a single one of the persons who advocate casual sex in this thread has even only faintly said or displayed such an attitude. Rather the opposite: Most of the participants have expressed that they hold sex in high regards, they value it greatly, and they give it an important meaning. None of them has said that it doesn´t matter who they have sex with, nobody has reduced it to a bodily function.
So - while there may be such people as you describe out there - this is pretty much a slippery slope argument.
People who buy into the body/mind dichotomy will miss something important in any case. Those who overemphasize the mere functionality of the body will miss something in sex - no matter whether it is casual sex or sex within a committed relationship. People who hold the body in low regards or even condemn it will also "not take reality for what it is", no matter whether in a committed relationship or in casual sex.
To me it seems like you have it backwards. These opinions may come with risks and harm, but these opinions aren´t necessarily linked to (or even the result of) the number of sex partners someone has.
Whatever: Again I would like to remind you what my actual question is:
What justifies singling out sex as "sacred"? So far all these philosophical contemplations can be taken as an argument for playing tennis, making music together, giving someone a massage or any other human interaction being "sacred", and - if performed in the "mistaken body/mind dichotomy" - potentially dangerous, risky and harmful. Treating the other person only as an object, reducing him/her to a bodily function, etc.
My biggest issue with treating sex casually is that it seems to treat people as mere bodies, and not as complete persons. Also, it seems to treat oneself in that same way. (I should reiterate that I don't view all "one night stands" in this way. It is rather one's overall attitude towards sex; its role in one's life-plan. Sexual experiences can be stepping stones to something else.)
Again: Since none of the persons advocating casual sex here are even only somewhere near to such an overall attitude, something seems to be wrong with your analysis.
You picture a scenario that is neither logical nor necessarily following and use it as an argument against "casual sex".
I mean - should I point to the weird, careless, loveless, mindless, merely functional, forced upon... sex that is the reality in many marriages and make it an argument against sex in committed relationships and for the idea that sex in committed relationships is dangerous and risky? It would be the same sort of argument you are making here....
My views on sex arise from the requirements of integral living. In this view, an integrated view of mind and body, I think it is natural to gravitate towards a view of sex that respects both, and I think this leads to a "romantic" (or meaningful, or personable) view of sexuality. When one is attentive to the existence of one's partner as a complete person, then the kind of intimacy involved in sex is going to mean something, and that is likely to preclude taking it casually. It will likely involve hopes for something more, if it isn't fully valued for its own sake.
As much sense as all this might make (I have some objections, though, but they would lead too far off-topic), I still don´t seem to understand why you apply all these statements to sex, and not to all other human interactions.
Look here:
I think that playing musical duets should be reserved for people in a committed relationship. My views on playing music together arise from the requirements of integral living. In this view, an integrated view of mind and body, I think it is natural to gravitate towards a view of playing music together that respects both, and I think this leads to a "romantic" (or meaningful, or personable) view of playing music together. When one is attentive to the existence of one's musical partner as a complete person, then the kind of intimacy involved in playing music together is going to mean something, and that is likely to preclude taking it casually. It will likely involve hopes for something more, if it isn't fully valued for its own sake.
This makes as much (or little) sense as an argument for singling out playing music together as "sacred" as your version makes sense as an argument for singling out sex as "sacred".If you´d ask me why I feel that playing music together should not be taken casually but only be performed in a committed relationship, I´m sure the above answer would leave you as frustrated as yours leave me.
Do you see my problem?
