Let me express myself - thank you ever so much for answering my questions - but one response I got is "sex is just a basic biological function." I am not ashamed to ever say that I've never knowingly had sex with anyone who thought of sex in those terms - we've had a great time! Sex is an expression of love between individuals that are married, single, divorced, friends, lovers, sometimes enemys(until they have sex), and I've never heard it described in that manner, honestly! Could you share with me - is this how you categorize your sexuality?
2006-07-11 19:18:46 · 6 answers · asked by twinklecomfort 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
By reducing sex to a "basic biological function" some people think they can walk away the responsibility that should come with having sex with another person. It also makes it sound like it's a need, like food or shelter and sorry, it's not. If people had to live in a more primitive age, growing their own food, making soap, etc., they wouldn't have the time (or energy) for sex to be casual.
One reason women often confuse sex with love is because of the physiology of sex. A woman has to allow a man's penis inside of her. Think about that. Your body is all you really own, it's YOURS, and sharing it with another is a major act of trust. To be left behind as a "basic biological function" is a major insult to the physiological/emotional ties that intercourse has for women. And no matter what you call it most women have those connections with the act of sex.
And I realize some women feel sex is a "basic biological function" as well as men. I suspect that they might be suffering from some low self-esteem and haven't learned that they deserve respect and they deserve to be loved in a respectful manner that doesn't just use their vagina's as a sperm receptacle and leaves. And I realize that some women have high sex drives too.
Sex is important. Our bodies are important. Trust and love are important. If a person "needs" sex then they might have a problem and it could be physical or emotional. Self-control (while not as fun for the short term) is supposed to be one of those things that raise humans above their animal nature.
Sex is great, sex is fun, but it's not a toy.
2006-07-11 19:40:32 · answer #1 · answered by Polly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exxactly, but not always! Or at very few occasions it seems like a "just basic bodily function". But I feel sex is something eternal, it’s the way express love. Not really with spouse, but can be a love showing factor to anyone we love. We don’t share bodies with the one you have no trust. If sex is just a biological need, it’s just way when you have it with a totally new person. But it’s not like that, you can’t have sex with a guy/gal whom you met just a second, with the same pleasure and comfort when you do normally. (Am I moving on the right track?) So, sex needs a least trust, means you have some mental barriers to accept that easily. Want more… (mail me!)
2006-07-11 19:36:15 · answer #2 · answered by Artin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sex is 'just a basic biological function'. As human beings we can choose to ingage in sex in a casual way only thinking about the physcial and disonnecting ourselves from any emotion. Men seem able to do this quite well. On the other hand women seem to be more concerned about these human emotions and sex and almost any physical contact becomes enertwined with a host of 'feelings'.
How we are raised and what moral compass we had instilled in us from an early age generally dictates what approach we take to sex. Culture also plays a large part in shaping in our attitudes.
Personally, I've never had a one night stand and and never intend to. Women tend to will themselves to think they are in love
when deciding to have sex . It seems like guilt and sex kind of go hand in hand with them.
Who's to say what's right or wrong? People should do or not do
what they feel is right for them without other people judging them.
2006-07-11 20:03:36 · answer #3 · answered by chai'namarie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
those morons who blather on about their "freedom of moral experience" and "freedom of speech", appropriate to similar sex marriage, are purely farting contained in the wind. What about the freedoms of those they proceed to oppress? Being called a bigot or a "homophobe", isn't some thing. They see it as an insult and call calling, yet then once you listen a Presbyterian minister, or a Catholic bishop communicate on the placement, their insults make "homophobe" or "bigot", light into insignificance. human beings propose that an self sufficient Scotland may see an end to conservative domination over Scotland. They ignore that in the SNP, there are some frighteningly conservative human beings. they're only contained in the SNP, for the only issue of independence. once they were given their way, they could be off forming a sparkling celebration and may be campaigning for his or her fascist agenda. "organic and organic cul-de-sac" - What finished twaddle. it isn't any longer going to be mandatory to be gay. i will not see how gay human beings being married, is biologically, any distinct to them no longer being married.
2016-12-01 02:59:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sex is only for married couple. The bonding is there. We are human being and not animal.
2006-07-11 19:24:02 · answer #5 · answered by Puck Wah G 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what? hell no
2006-07-11 19:22:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋