In what context? By whom? In what situation?
I suppose that if you go back to the oldest "meaning" of sex, it was procreation. Given that different people now have sex for all sorts of different reasons - procreation, intimacy, pleasure, experimentation, reduction of stress, even as a sleeping aid, then yeah, I guess you could say it has lost its meaning.
However, I think it makes more sense to say that just as the reasons for marrying are more diverse now, so are the reasons for having sex. I don't think it's realistic or wise to idealize the past, when in fact in the past, sex was more often a nasty, rude encounter between a young woman who had been forced into marriage and an older man whom she feels neither love nor attraction for, performed purely for his pleasure. Is that the idealized meaning you would like to see carry on through the centuries?
Not me. There may be more flagrant examples of "sex for sex" these days, but there's also many more examples of cases where sex is not something forced upon someone out of a sense of duty but where it is actually an enjoyable, intimate exchange between two loving partners. And given that that's the case, I'll take modern sex over ancient sex any day.
2006-06-19 08:15:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by magistra_linguae 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
Yes,I believe it has.People are doing it just to do it anymore.I think there are very few people in this world that do it as an expression of love.To me personally it's not only pleasurable,but it's a way for my fiance and I to get as close as two people can possibly be.It's like becoming one together.I don't necessarily think that sex before marriage is a bad thing,but i do think that those two people should be in love or at least are as sure as possible that they plan to be together for a significant amount of time.When my fiance and I first met I wanted to sleep with him(not the same day,of course)but he was a gentleman.he wanted to get to know me and wanted to be sure that i was someone that he not only respected but also that I was someone he could see himself spending time with exclusively.I was beyond baffled when he told me these things.Especially if you saw him.I mean he dresses all thugged out,has tattoos all over and used to be associated with the mafia.Not something you would expect to hear from from someone who looks like that.Just goes to show you that the old saying about judging a book my it's cover is true.Anyway,we've now been together for over a year and are engaged.Had we just jumped into bed right away,i don't think we'd have made it this far.So,yes,I do think sex has lost it's meaning for most but not all people.
2006-06-19 15:18:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by kalasmom3 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends who is making the meaning. In my meaning yeah, you really don't need sex to show love, thats what is happening in todays world(or at least thats what people I've known think). Sex should come after the love part has already been established, i really don't care if their married or not, but most ppl just don't hold it in the standard it used to be.
2006-06-19 15:04:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bryan 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
buddy.....sex has the same meaning even now...it is an act. i guess ur question is whether love lost its meaning.....??
2006-06-19 15:17:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by rock_hard 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not if it is done out of love..... if done out of lust then yeah the meaning is lost
2006-06-19 15:03:28
·
answer #5
·
answered by Spacey~Stacey's Place 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. It still means a lot to a lot of people or we would not be here.
2006-06-19 16:39:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Girasol 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
i do really think so, it's just fun now or a thing to experience and if you had not you would be called dumb....it's really tacky!
2006-06-19 15:07:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by gorgeous 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes...
2006-06-19 15:03:16
·
answer #8
·
answered by Varun G 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
no it still excites me......
wax on, wax off...
2006-06-19 15:08:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just a minute
...
....
....
hang on
...
...
..
....
.....
...
No.
2006-06-24 15:53:40
·
answer #10
·
answered by Ouros 5
·
0⤊
0⤋