Would casual sex be OK if not central to Love?

[DoubleNature]

Imagine viewing any physical interaction and exploration, such as kissing or sexual intercourse, as mere recreation between two or more people, in the same way people decide to eat an ice-cream for its taste or listen to music because it stimulates their curiosity; watch a movie because it entertains them and brings laughter, or take a hike in the mountains to relax their mind and body - to sum it up: it pleases the senses.

If this was the case, and if we detach sexuality from any notions of love and commitment, i.e. you don't need to limit sex to one person in order to be committed or demonstrate love, and if we don't consider the practical consequences of sex (procreation, STDs, etc.), would fornication be acceptable in the eyes of God?

I ask this to understand better why Christianity prohibits fornication.

Personally, I think that any sexual expression is to strengthen the bond of two people, provide intimacy and therefore should be strictly combined with the idea of love and one's "most important person", i.e. marriage.

However, many people, especially those who embrace ideas of open relationships and free love, are able to truly love one person while having sex with others. I am trying to understand their point of view, and I think the main attitude is to detach sex from love, i.e. the idea that having sex is nothing "special" in the context of love and spiritual development.

Talking about pleasure: there are many other things that bring pleasure and used to be dangerous, but thanks to civilization they are no more dangerous and go beyond their original functions. Traveling was dangerous and was mainly meant for connecting people, but now also serves to provide development and pleasure. Food was only about nutrition, but people have created chocolate, and other foods that bring pleasure. While they have been dangerous at a time (obesity, etc.), our civilization has made those things healthier.

From this point of view, would sex and kissing, if done danger-free (no STDs) and beyond its original function (procreation), be something good in the eyes of God?

Please see this question as an exercise to better understand and explain why we choose not to have casual sex.

 

[bsd31]

No.

 

[Life2Christ]

Sex was created to be a bonding activity and is very sacred in the eyes of God. So if you are bonding with many people you are not building a godly relationship. You are building relationships based on your own pleasure with no intention whatsoever other than selfishness. Open relationships are usually not Christian ones. They are from other worldviews and faiths. Ones that cannot be trusted.

 

[DoubleNature]

Sex was created to be a bonding activity and is very sacred in the eyes of God. So if you are bonding with many people you are not building a godly relationship.

Firstly, can you not create godly relationships with many people?
Secondly, what makes sex different from other bonding activities such as a reading club, a prayer group, a family dinner, a sports event?

You are building relationships based on your own pleasure with no intention whatsoever other than selfishness.

I am not sure whether you understood everything I wrote. In their view, it is possible to deeply love someone without limiting pleasure to that someone.
e.g. I love Jeannette, the most important person to me in the world, but I can play chess with Angela, discuss about religion with Helena, have sex with Diana, have sex with Lacey, organize a parent's meeting with Paula, and none of that would diminish my love for Jeannette.

Open relationships are usually not Christian ones. They are from other worldviews and faiths. Ones that cannot be trusted.

I was looking for some reasons to counter what they are saying, because on a merely logical level, they make perfectly sense to me.

 

[Life2Christ]

Firstly, can you not create godly relationships with many people?
Secondly, what makes sex different from other bonding activities such as a reading club, a prayer group, a family dinner, a sports event?

How can you compare sex with a sport or activity like this? Reading clubs and family dinners are activities that involve many people sharing ideas and communicating. Sex is exchanging bodily fluid and becoming mentally intimate. Don't understand your logic.

I am not sure whether you understood everything I wrote. In their view, it is possible to deeply love someone without limiting pleasure to that someone.

It is possible for them to believe this because they are rationalizing their immorality. It is natural to explain away when you do not want to face reality. Like I said, they have other worldviews that are not of God. They are basically making up their own rules so they could continue. They do not know what Love is, they think love involves pleasure but love means sacrifice too. Love means putting someone above you. Love is giving instead of receiving. They do not know what love is.

I was looking for some reasons to counter what they are saying, because on a merely logical level, they make perfectly sense to me.

First you have to define what love is before you take someone's word for it. This is a good place to start. God is love and whatever is Godly is good. I thnk you should get more intimate with the Gospel of Christ before you start talking about love with non-Christians. You need a standard before you can compare it to others' definition and compare.

 

[Morphane]

Here is the way I see it DoubleNature:

All the forms of love we have are designed to lead us toward a spiritual form of love. A kind of love that is unconditional. The kind of love that God has for us.

The affection for one another that sex inflames in a couple is meant to get them rolling. Then comes troubles, ageing, sickness, all of which love is meant to transcend.

So sex is kind of like the honey that makes the medicine go down. A crude analogy I know, but I'm not a poet.

Now if there was a magic wand that made sex utterly harmless. Or if they could make utterly life like robots - I can't see any evil in partaking of such meaningless gratification. But to do this would be missing the point.

"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.

The passion of lovers is but a shadow of the all consuming fire that God seeks to awaken in our hearts.

 

[Tenacious_Believer]

Actually, what you are proposing, taking the emotion out of sex, is the exact opposite of what God wants you to do.

Sex is supposed to be kept between two married people, it's supposed to be the way for two to become one, and it is a very sacred thing.

Secondly, what makes sex different from other bonding activities such as a reading club, a prayer group, a family dinner, a sports event?

The Bible tells us it's different.
Malachi 2:14-15
You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

Sex is supposed to be reserved for marriage, and only with the married person.
I actually heard a speaker over the summer who said sex was the novocain of marriage. In saying that, he meant it was also a tool to keep two people together and be able to look past each others flaws, because they would be unified. However, like with most drugs, if you use it too much, it'll start to lose effectiveness. And he went on to talk about the divorce rate and how that related to how many different sexual partners one has before they are married. Less sexual partners=less chance of divorce.
If nothing else than because you're doing it the way God intended.

I am not sure whether you understood everything I wrote. In their view, it is possible to deeply love someone without limiting pleasure to that someone.
e.g. I love Jeannette, the most important person to me in the world, but I can play chess with Angela, discuss about religion with Helena, have sex with Diana, have sex with Lacey, organize a parent's meeting with Paula, and none of that would diminish my love for Jeannette.

What does that say about your relationship then? It might sound ok on paper, but when you're actually emotionally invested, and truly in love, it's not the same.

 

[Sketcher]

You might as well ask about what would happen if gorillas sprouted wings all of a sudden, could they fly or not? No matter what people pretend that sex is, reality is that it is the way God made it to be. This is why so many hippie communes failed - people were instinctively possessive of their significant others, and that they didn't want to share them sexually with the other people in the commune. They could not fully shed the sexual instincts that God programmed them with: Sex is for exclusive relationships. But even though some may stop there, God didn't. Sex is directly tied to love, and love is directly tied to our morality. If a man cannot be faithful to the woman he loves, he is an immoral man - regardless of how he views sex. Indeed, if he removes the love aspect of sex from himself completely, he is rightly called heartless.

 

[Life2Christ]

DoubleNature: this is a good topic to discuss, thank you for bringing it up.

 

[Macx]

But to do this would be missing the point.

The passion of lovers is but a shadow of the all consuming fire that God seeks to awaken in our hearts.

Pretty well summed it up right there. If you can do it while

detach(ing) sex from love, i.e. the idea that having sex is nothing "special" in the context of love and spiritual development.

then you aren't doing it well.

to rephrase: I was VERY promiscuous as a teen, I mean, other kids played sports or got jobs or . . . . while I was basically just having sex. I mean my condom bill was outlandish, at least a box a week. I grew up and got married. Never have cheated. As the voice of experience, I can tell you that sex in the context God intends (one man and one woman, in a loving, committed relationship) is much better. The sex is better, more intense, seems to be getting better with time. Looking back over it, I can compare "free love" sex with "marriage sex" and say, without hesitation, doing it God's way is much, much better.

 

[Saucy]

There are so many consequences that come with casual sex. Is it really worth it for a few minutes of "bonding"? People who engage in casual sex have no restraints. They sleep with people they've barely even met just for pleasure sake. Not for love or bonding.

The only safe sex is waiting until your married for a various of reasons. If two virgins get together in the marriage bed, you don't have to worry about diseases etc...There have been all kinds of studies that show that the "bonding" created by a sexual act actually hurts an individual when said relationship ends. You've given the most intimate parts of yourself to someone whom you don't even really know.

 

[DoubleNature]

How can you compare sex with a sport or activity like this? Reading clubs and family dinners are activities that involve many people sharing ideas and communicating. Sex is exchanging bodily fluid and becoming mentally intimate. Don't understand your logic.

Not with the innovations of civilization. If the focus is just on the physical pleasure and you use contraception, you transcend from the original function of sex. This way, it becomes just like a sport. The logic is:
"Athletics (recreation) is to hunting (essential to survival/procreation) as casual sex (recreation) is to marital sex (essential to survival/procreation)"

[...]but love means sacrifice too. Love means putting someone above you. Love is giving instead of receiving.[...] First you have to define what love is before you take someone's word for it. This is a good place to start. God is love and whatever is Godly is good. I thnk you should get more intimate with the Gospel of Christ before you start talking about love with non-Christians. You need a standard before you can compare it to others' definition and compare.

Of course, but how does any of this mean that you shouldn't have sex with people outside of your love/marriage?
I am not re-defining love, but reducing the value attributed to the act of having sex, which, consequently, even increases the value of Love.

The affection for one another that sex inflames in a couple is meant to get them rolling. Then comes troubles, ageing, sickness, all of which love is meant to transcend.
So sex is kind of like the honey that makes the medicine go down. A crude analogy I know, but I'm not a poet.

Would you say there can be no Love without sex/sexuality? According to this view, sexless love (e.g. in the form of Agape, or relationships starting from friendship) would be worthless?

e.g. I love Jeannette, the most important person to me in the world, but I can play chess with Angela, discuss about religion with Helena, have sex with Diana, have sex with Lacey, organize a parent's meeting with Paula, and none of that would diminish my love for Jeannette.

What does that say about your relationship then?

Most importantly, it says that I love Jeannette more than just for sex. (While I can have sex with many, I truly love only one.)

 

[benny1989]

It's not okay to make up your own rules based on your own pleasure.

 

[heron]

if done danger-free (no STDs) and beyond its original function (procreation)

How do you guarantee that???? Some people don't even know they have STD's until they have already passed them along.

"Nearly 60 percent of the six million pregnancies that occur annually in the United States are unintended, including eight in 10 pregnancies among teenagers". -Population Institute


For the man, the consequences are primarily financial. For the woman, it changes her entire plans and ability to support herself. It is selfish for a man to insist to the woman that it is safe. It is one of the biggest risks you will ever take.

 

[salida]

Imagine viewing any physical interaction and exploration, such as kissing or sexual intercourse, as mere recreation between two or more people, in the same way people decide to eat an ice-cream for its taste or listen to music because it stimulates their curiosity; watch a movie because it entertains them and brings laughter, or take a hike in the mountains to relax their mind and body - to sum it up: it pleases the senses.

If this was the case, and if we detach sexuality from any notions of love and commitment, i.e. you don't need to limit sex to one person in order to be committed or demonstrate love, and if we don't consider the practical consequences of sex (procreation, STDs, etc.), would fornication be acceptable in the eyes of God?

I ask this to understand better why Christianity prohibits fornication.

Personally, I think that any sexual expression is to strengthen the bond of two people, provide intimacy and therefore should be strictly combined with the idea of love and one's "most important person", i.e. marriage.

However, many people, especially those who embrace ideas of open relationships and free love, are able to truly love one person while having sex with others. I am trying to understand their point of view, and I think the main attitude is to detach sex from love, i.e. the idea that having sex is nothing "special" in the context of love and spiritual development.

Talking about pleasure: there are many other things that bring pleasure and used to be dangerous, but thanks to civilization they are no more dangerous and go beyond their original functions. Traveling was dangerous and was mainly meant for connecting people, but now also serves to provide development and pleasure. Food was only about nutrition, but people have created chocolate, and other foods that bring pleasure. While they have been dangerous at a time (obesity, etc.), our civilization has made those things healthier.

From this point of view, would sex and kissing, if done danger-free (no STDs) and beyond its original function (procreation), be something good in the eyes of God?

Please see this question as an exercise to better understand and explain why we choose not to have casual sex.

No.

God didn't design sex outside of marriage.

 

[anon_my]

As a Christian we believe certain principles concerning God. he is all knowing,omnipotent and omnipresent.

Keeping this in mind I believe that as Christians we must keep our faith in His words and not question it. when we begin to do so, we shld think abt another religion maybe something like agnostic.

there r many things we dnt understand in this world and our great God has given us a set of commandments to abide with. y don't u question killing and adultery? they're right when we can fit a condition into them? NO!

I dnt believe that this way of trying to rationalize God says is acceptable to Christians.

We must follow unconditionally. earthly pleasures r nice to the flesh but corrupt us even more.

sex outside marriage is a is a no no and this is non-negotiable no matter what.

 

[DoubleNature]

The reason I try to rationalize is to give a more logical backing to what my faith commands, explain it to those outside my faith, and understand those outside my faith - without any prejudice as to "rights" and "wrongs" - so I may also show them the practical morale of my faith.

For example, if someone believes that it is OK to deceive for self-protection, and asks me why I believe that deceiving is ungodly, I tell him that according to Christianity, there is hope that people will learn to appreciate honesty and make better, more peaceful decisions, when they know the truth.

"God likes x" or "God hates x" is good, but not the complete story.

 

[L2becomeCL]

Hi,

How do you subscribe to posts???? This post. Just new to this forum.

I too am surrounded by hedonistic people who argue all the time the point double nature brings up.

I too also used to live my life pursuing pleasure and self gratification until God touched my life. Coming from the other side and having walked in the shoes of someone who had multiple partners and open relationships, all I can say is its false, its an illusion and its a fantasy. People seek to fill their void by seeking sexual relationships because it provides them with relief, acceptance and fulifullment.
Why? Because they long for it. They long for something more. It may not appear it, but I have no doubt there hearts are longing for something greater then sex can ever bring to these relationships. Outwardly they appear happy, but inwardly they are starving emotionally. People who have open relationships, multiple partners and who are pursuing these behavours more often are using sex to relieve some deep pain or to be in control as their lives are so out of control. They can rationalize it anyway they want, but I believe they are using sex to meet a need. A need only God can meet. Even if they have a partner someone will be affected by it. Having open relationships and multiple partners does bring a whole other dynamic to emotional longing and baggage.

So how do I subscribe?

 

[Sketcher]

^ It should be automatic, since you responded to the topic.

 

[Morphane]

Would you say there can be no Love without sex/sexuality? According to this view, sexless love (e.g. in the form of Agape, or relationships starting from friendship) would be worthless?

I think biological forms of love, like sexual attraction, or non-sexual attraction, such as we might feel for a friend, or someone who reminds us of a parent - even the maternal/paternal feelings we might have for a pet - I think they are meant to inspire us towards Agape love.

Eventually what attracted us to someone might fade. They might become ill, they might go down a bad track of life, whatever. This is when spiritual love begins. It is a recognition that the beloved is still the same underneath. It's just that their external qualities have changed. It is a determination of loving that person no matter what.

Once you see past the illusory nature of external circumstance, it then becomes possible to make the leap of recognising something of value no matter what the external appearance, behaviour, conditions are.

So the natural affections we feel are the hook. The initial motive. If we are faced with what seems to be a completely unlovable person, we might imagine them once as a sweet, innocent child - entirely adorable.