Quote of the Day

[jackofallgeeks]

Prester Scott: People who can only think of sexuality when they think of love are beneath contempt.

I just wanted to point out that, yes! Love does not have to be sexual to be real and meaningful, and the one does not imply the other. This is a point that I hold to, and try to convey. Love does not have to be erotic.

Comments

[queenofstripes.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed -- at the risk of causing somebody great offense, that's one of the reasons I want absolutely nothing to do with the vain, self-indulgent "metrosexual" side of mainstream gay culture (even if I were thin, Aryan, buzzcut, and Armani enough for them). But by the same token, I hold people who can only think of debasement when they think of sexuality beneath contempt as well. I'm not speaking of you or Scott here, who have always been at least reasonably tolerant... But I do often speak of moralists and hedonists as being side of the same coin, because they both cling to the belief that all sexual pleasure is inherently sleazy and ugly. One side fears it, while the other practically insists on it, of course. But both are unwittingly allies against people who want to exalt sexuality as a spiritually and emotionally fertile phenomenon, not a merely self-gratifying or biologically fertile one.

Still, I think you, Scott, and I are mostly on the same side again (it must be that time of year ;> ). People who would deliberately choose sex without affection are like the living dead to me. >_

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

-grins- Glad to hear you think so! And though I think I would more easily err on the side of the 'moralists,' I do agree with you that it's distasteful (to say the least) how some, as you say, insist that sexual pleasure is debased in all it's forms. Sexuality is a natural part of us as human beings, and the most... 'natural' (for lack of a better word) expression of affection. It is only when people make is a self-gratification (in effect objectifying the other person for their own end) that it is debased.

People who choose sex without affection are beyond my ability to understand, though the chief point behind this comment is the fat that people who can't grasp affection without sex are equally as impossible to comprehend.

... I think that's all kind of a backward way of saying 'Yeah, I agree!'

[nif.livejournal.com]

Two things:

1. Sex without love is just another lifestyle, and who am I to judge the way someone else chooses to use his body or the body of someone who would willingly submit to that. Besides, we can always return to the old debate of what constitutes love. Just live and let live.

2. I have to seriously disagree with the generalization of metrosexuals who are firstly, heterosexual by definition, and secondly not always self-possessed or promiscuous. Just to clarify, I don't mean to nitpick, but to say "the metrosexual side of gay culture" is both redundant and contradictory because the term itself is used to describe straight men who act stereotypically "gay".

Oh, and Andrew, I have a new cell number in case you should be interested.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

1) Well, we already know that I, at least, believe that there are things which are objectively good or bad, and though I'll admit I don't know them all, and i'll never know all the factors of anyone's life aside my own (if that), there are things which I believe are damaging and should be avoided. This is, simply put, one of those things. Of course, I never expect anyone to take my opinion as more than it is, an opinion; it
s just something I hold to.

2) *points to Kincaid* That's all his doing. -laughs- Culture terms like 'metrosexual' are beyond my sphere.

[surichan.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear!

(Although, I must say - erotic love is a wonderful thing. It would be less wonderful, certainly, were the "love" bit not a part of the equation - but when it is... ::nods::)

[ambereternal.livejournal.com]

At the risk of starting a debate here, I have to argue that it depends on the type of love to which you are referring. The love between a husband and wife is designed to be, and should be, sexual in some sense. Granted, it's not the most important part of that relationship, and I don't want you to think that I'm implying that. But I do believe that a marriage that has a healthy sexual aspect is healthier in every other respect. On the same token, the relationship MUST be healthy in EVERY other aspect if it is to be healthy sexually. Does that make any sense, or am I just totally insane?

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Well, Tink, I think it's an interesting argument, but... Well, regardless of the intimacy between a man and a woman in marriage or what have you, and though it may be conceeded that a healthy sex life helps the relationship.... -shrugs- Aside from, as I said, sex as an expression of affection, I'm not sure there's much more to it. The sex isn't inrisically necessary to the love, if you will.

Of course, being as I'm an unmarried man and always have been, I'm not sure how qualified I am to comment.

This is kinda embarrassing...

[masqerade.livejournal.com]

considering you are my brother, but i just felt the need to reply to this...The way I see it is that sex in marriage is just icing on the cake. If there is nothing besides sex then it is a very empty relationship, and if you expect sex at a certain time or a certain amount of times in any given month(or week) that just cheapens the relationship. Sex is just the ultimate giving of yourself to your spouse. It should be completely giving with no expectations. I do agree that marriage needs sex, the reason being that it is the ultimate selfgiving act(and gift) that a married couple can give to eachother; it envolves complete trust. I think I have said everything clearly.

[mordainlove.livejournal.com]

i always have viewed sex as being rather second to every other part of the relationship. then again, i'm still a virgin and will probably stay as such for a great while yet, being that i'm not one to rush into anything nearly as heavy as sex without... well, without a pretty secure relationship being in place.

i think sex gets over-simplified in the world today. the mentality that everyone is doing it, so i should be too sort of thing. i don't get it ... but what do i know about the subject, really? ::light laugh::

[higheststar.livejournal.com]

As someone who has almost been married and is not a virgin, I think I offer a different perspective. Sex can be a great way to express affection, that's true. But when having sex within a relationship, if there is trouble with the relationship, I can tell you from frst hand experience that your sexual life is merely a reflection of your intimacy (non sexual) and the other aspects of the relationship. And in this way, is has nothing to do with love. I loved someone very much once but when we developed lots of problems (even before we recognized the problems) the sexual aspect of the relationship no longer exists (and I still love him now, but am not IN love with him)

But it depends on the relationship whether sex without love feels empty.

Hmmm...

[emeraldove.livejournal.com]

I could have sworn I left a comment to this.. was it deleted?

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

To be honest, yes... I felt that it completely missed the point of the post, and so I removed it, which I've never done to any comment before. Thinking back on it, I should have just replied to it stating as much (that I felt it missed the whole point), but what was done is done. My apologies.

[emeraldove.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... my mistake to think someone could have a different opinion that you.

*shrugs*

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

I could make a comment here about how I obviously can't stand those with different opinions than mine, but I fear the meaning behind it would be lost on any but those who know me.

[emeraldove.livejournal.com]

No doubt I would see only more of what I have seen with you deleting my opinion... someone very closed minded and therefore not worth knowing better.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Which is precicely why I didn't. Please leave now.