Sexuality, language and society.

[rangrz]

So this arose out of a conversation with one of my friends, and I figure a bunch of strangers on a drug forum are as qualified as anyone to posit opinions on it, so here we go: Get ready for an abstract, meta type discussion on sexuality, inter-personal relationships, society and some of the language around sexuality,

(Bounce it to P&S if you see fit, but it will probably get more replies here)

So, me and her are chilling together, railing lines of blow, talking, and enjoying each others company. I'm fingering her a bit as we discuss fourier transform mid infrared absorption photospectroscopy anyways, she interrupts my rambling verbal run on sentence about Planck equivalence that describes the energy of the photons of a given frequency and the off-topic aspect of how mathematically beautiful it is. and asks something on the lines "Why is it that society would call what we are doing to be immoral/wrong/dirty, and would call me a slut because we are engaging in sexual activity without being 'together' + that we open and sexual with more then one person, despite this being simply friends sharing affection, love and closeness, while making each other feel good, yet it endorses us in the capacity that your job, at the bottom line is to kill/maim total strangers(I'm in the forces) and that mine is to design more capable ways of delivering materials to incinerate people at supersonic speeds (she's an aerospace engineer and her work frequently involves missiles) They call you a hero for it, they call me an upstanding and productive member of society for it and they pay me a lot of money to do it. But they call us negative things for sharing affection."

I thought she had a good point on both counts, but I'm only addressing why is it not kosher for "friends" to be sexual intimate with each other, generally speaking? Why is looked down upon to not be sexual with exclusively one person across a given time measure? It is not hurting anyone (and even if it was, as she pointed out, it seems hurting people is a good thing according to society) Yet to make someone feel nice, to give them that tingly electrical but deliciously pleasant feeling is naughty? How in the fuck does that make any sense?! Why is sexuality seen as so taboo with oh so many little rules and requirements as to when it is acceptable? As long as it's consensual, it should be acceptable and seen as a positive thing imo. Think of the pejorative labels applied to women (men too, but not so much) who are open with their sexuality. Sluts, ho's, whores, easy, skanks, etc. Why is it a pejorative thing?

Lets look a bit more at terms and language related to friendship, sexuality and relationships:

"Oh, we're just friends" or "I like you as a friend" I am not even sure what that statement means. To me, it is meaningless. But generally, it seems to imply that a) Romantic partners are not friends... I myself NEED anyone I say "I love you" to to be my friend. b) It is often used in context to imply that friends do not have sex/should not have sex/ it is wrong to do so. Why is that? Why is this one particular form of otherwise amicable and positive form of human interaction restricted from being something friends do together? I enjoy it! It's a great way to spend time with a friend! It's free! It's fun! It makes both of you happy/feel nice! Sounds like a good activity to me.

Next up "she/he is boyfriend/girlfriend." This just seems sexist, why must it be the case that a friend who's gender is specified and opposite of yours (That is, if I'm a guy and I say 'my girlfriend', it somehow a different meaning then 'my friend who is a girl'. Lets look at this as 'I have a black car' is now somehow different from 'my car is black' and of course, it is implied if I say "My friend" that this friend is a male) is a special class of friend, of which you can either exactly 0 or 1 of, and with which you are sexual with, and is the only one permissible to be sexual with. Why do we need to make this distinction? Can't I just say "My friend" and NOT have you assume their gender, or if I do or do not engage in a certain aspect of human interaction with them?

Last up: "Friends with benefits" First off, ALL my friends have benefits. If a person provided me nothing positive (That is, if they gave me no benefits) I don't consider them a friend.They have to give me something positive, someone to talk to, someone to play video games with, someone to go drinking with, something, no? Following from that, why is sexual interaction seen as some sort of privileged frame of reference by which "benefits" is defined? I like doing sexual things with some people. For example, the girl in talk of in the start of this post. I like doing sexual things with her, its fun! Yup, it's a benefit of being her friend. But so is talking about FTIR spectroscopy! That's fun too, it's also a benefit of being her friend. But why would no assume I mean I mean discussing shining a multichromatic beam of light though a material and measuring how much of what wavelengths are absorbed by that material and inferring what the material is made from/it's structure is from those results, as being the benefit if I said "She's a friend with benefits" they'd instead assume I meant the sex part.

It's also a loaded term, it carries an implication that ALL we do is meet up for sex and then go our seperate ways. Why don't you think that I actually am FRIENDS with her, that we chill, go drinking and talk science together, and sometimes we have sex too, when I say shes a F.W.B.

"I'm in a relationship" means: "I'm in a certain type of exclusive sexual relationship." Remember kids, A friend is also relationship, so is Boss/employee for that matter. All "relationship" means is that two or more things/concepts are somehow related/connected to/ a function of each other. Everyone is in several relationships at all times. The term is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. i.e. To say "That the fine-structure constant describes the RELATIONSHIP between the elementary charge and the Planck charge as the square of it's ratio" is just as accurate as to say "Me and that girl are in a relationship defined by me sticking my penor in her vagoo" Why is there again some special super duper power attached to that action that makes it the DEFINITION of a "relationship"

Seriously, all in all, sexuality with more then one partner, and with partners who don't meet some arbitrary and abstract category is frowned upon and seems to be a pejoratively understood concept. Why is this. It is harmless, it is between consenting adults, it is simply another way to interact with a fellow human being, and at the end of it, IT DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, A THIRD PARTY if someone and their friend have sex, or if they have sex with 3 people in the course of a day, so why is it so heavily and negatively judged and discouraged. Sex is awesome. The world needs more people making each other feel nice, less of the incineration, and less of the judgement for making each other feel nice.

 

[P A]

why is it not kosher for "friends" to be sexual intimate with each other, generally speaking?

Because of all the attendant emotional baggage that often comes prepackaged (as it were) with said intimacy, whether one is fully conscious of it or not.

Why is sexuality seen as so taboo with oh so many little rules and requirements as to when it is acceptable?

Come on mang, couldn't one could say the exact same thing for [everyday socialization]. As in, you don't - generally - walk around nude in public in the middle of Summer, nor do you tend to pick your nose within optical range of other, fully sentient humans. I'm sure there's quite a lot of fascinating history that underpins the topic of sexual normalization and repression, but I'll second your suggestion that this be transferred to P&S. Who knows, maybe a little SEX will draw >3 people per day to our lowly neck of the woods...

 

[DeathDomokun]

I figure a bunch of strangers on a drug forum are as qualified as anyone to posit opinions on it, so here we go:

As qualified, or more qualified?

"Why is it that society would call what we are doing to be immoral/wrong/dirty, and would call me a slut because we are engaging in sexual activity without being 'together' + that we open and sexual with more then one person, despite this being simply friends sharing affection, love and closeness, while making each other feel good, yet it endorses us in the capacity that your job, at the bottom line is to kill/maim total strangers(I'm in the forces) and that mine is to design more capable ways of delivering materials to incinerate people at supersonic speeds (she's an aerospace engineer and her work frequently involves missiles) They call you a hero for it, they call me an upstanding and productive member of society for it and they pay me a lot of money to do it. But they call us negative things for sharing affection."

Because society is stupid in that way.

Why is looked down upon to not be sexual with exclusively one person across a given time measure?

Because possessive relationships and monogamy are good!

Yet to make someone feel nice, to give them that tingly electrical but deliciously pleasant feeling is naughty? How in the fuck does that make any sense?!

It doesn't. Just because society, in general, holds an illogical notion it doesn't mean everyone does (as displayed by you and your fuck buddy)

Lets look a bit more at terms and language related to friendship, sexuality and relationships:

Okay.

Lets look at this as 'I have a black car' is now somehow different from 'my car is black'

They are 2 different types of relationships. A black ferrari is not equal to a black volvo.

I can't be fucked addressing anything else.
Why do you care what society thinks?
You're not going to be friends with such people, and your friends aren't such people.
I see no issue here, maybe I'm missing something?

P A, I don't think physical intimacy inherently creates emotional intimacy. Not at all.
I'm part of those 3, but maybe I'm just here for the SEX

 

[Pagey]

I agree with you. There's no reason whatsoever for that, but then again when was society ever right?

 

[Belisarius]

1.) Because friend means whatever anybody wants it to mean, whether it's:
*Someone you're fanatically loyal to without really liking.
*Someone you banged once and haven't seen since but still communicate with via SMS.
*Someone who did a single random act of kindess that profoundly moved you.
*Someone you truly are close to.
*Someone you've known your whole life but are not very close to.
*A regular customer at work.
Etc., etc.

In my op, the term and the way people respond to it is no more or less contradictory than other nouns, like country, honor, fun, and so forth. Humans are messy, and language is messier.

2.) One could argue that the definition of a friend has changed quite a bit already in the last century, and may yet "catch up" to practice.

3.) Language is constrained by consensus; the why is, to me, less important than the is. Why did English keep the Anglo-Saxon wrath, but not costnunge (temptation)? I don't know, but we're stuck with what we're stuck with.

 

[DeathDomokun]

That's why there's Lojban

 

[P A]

P A, I don't think physical intimacy inherently creates emotional intimacy. Not at all.

Neither do I. However, it's a hard thing to deny that, like it or not, there often does exist a close correlation between sexual intercourse and emotional attachment. Separating the two outright is disingenuous. One may have as much affection for the person with whom they're sleeping as they share with, say, their coworkers. But when's the last time you heard of someone marrying a coworker (with whom they'd never had sex nor dated in any way)? The historical relationship between sex and societal expectations of, e.g. marriage, is a complex one that certainly deserves discussion; but the union of sexuality and emotional investment is a simple and perennial element of the human experience, most likely of Darwinian origin, the details of which I shouldn't have to spell out.

 

[rangrz]

Because of all the attendant emotional baggage that often comes prepackaged (as it were) with said intimacy, whether one is fully conscious of it or not.

I would question if this is an inherent, fundamental aspect of an anatomically and physiologically normal human brain, or if this is (I REALLY hate to endorse this term, but I feel it valid here) a social construct, a learned behavior. If it is the second, one could take conscious effort to think critically, reject it and overcome it. (Unlike socially constructed gravity)

Come on mang, couldn't one could say the exact same thing for [everyday socialization]. As in, you don't - generally - walk around nude in public in the middle of Summer

Not the kind of rules and regulations I meant. I was referring to the unwritten social rules of whom one may consensually sleep with in the privacy of your bed-room. "Don't give it up on the first date, he'll think you're loose" or "She's older then you dude, guys are not suppose to fuck older girls" or perhaps "Oh, but he and Lisa to date, you can't fuck him!" That sort of thing.

I'm sure there's quite a lot of fascinating history that underpins the topic of sexual normalization and repression, but I'll second your suggestion that this be transferred to P&S. Who knows, maybe a little SEX will draw >3 people per day to our lowly neck of the woods...

I bet there is too. Yeah, Lysis, can you move the thread?

Because possessive relationships and monogamy are good!

Oh, but aint they?

It doesn't. Just because society, in general, holds an illogical notion it doesn't mean everyone does (as displayed by you and your fuck buddy)

I don't. I am seeking to understand why they hold it, that is all. It is purely as an exercise in understanding (and therefore, having empathy with) other people's emotions and thoughts.

They are 2 different types of relationships. A black ferrari is not equal to a black volvo.

But notice that you used the words "ferrari" and "volvo" to distinguish the two, perhaps a different word would make the terms for a romantic partner and a platonic one easier to understand, indeed, the words romantic and platonic work really well, why not fucking use them instead of this "boyfriend/girlfriend" nonsense with its hidden implicit meaning? Clear communication is a wonderful thing folks, try it sometime. (Not directed at you DDK, directed at the world in general)

Why do you care what society thinks?

As i Said, I it's an exercise in understand other people and the world around me.

You're not going to be friends with such people, and your friends aren't such people.
I see no issue here, maybe I'm missing something?

Because I am sick of the sneers undue judgement of other people? Also, it might be useful at some point to be able to give some of these some food for thought and something to think about, who knows, maybe they'll change their mind even. It's also as, again as I said, an exercise in critical thinking about my own choices in life.

@Bela: Yes, language is messy, but it is sometimes good to think about we use words, and the biases and implicit judgments we assign to words and phrases. Like other terms and phrases, it is sometimes good to check ourselves for loaded language and pejorative terms, as they influence how we think about things. "Look at that jungle bunny" is not quite the same as "That man is an African American" is it?

but the union of sexuality and emotional investment is a simple and perennial element of the human experience

Perhaps it is, so then, if I am emotionally attached to my friend, I want to share sex with her because it helps develop that bond, I LIKE being attached and intimate with people, and sex is a good way to do that. Why is it a problem for other people who don't have to be involved in anyway with it, how one chooses to develop one's relationship with one's friends.

The popular media I believe strongly reinforces these norms what conditions are attached to sex. How often is it on T.V shows or in movies that free and open sexuality is portrayed in a positive, or even a neutral light? It is usually shown very negatively and I think that is a damn shame.

 

[DeathDomokun]

While I'm not refuting a correlation, meaningless sex does exist and it does not always carry 'emotional baggage'
Now you're just twisting things. Yes, you can share the same affection. You can share less affection for the vagina you're masturbating with than your co-worker.
You marry people based on other shit, you wouldn't marry someone just because they sucked your dick.
I think you do have to spell it out, because I don't understand. I can sit here and have a wank, and there is no emotional shit to go with it.
I could fuck a random person, and feel the same way, only more tired because I used more energy.

 

[DeathDomokun]

Also, if you're able to use critical thinking to come to the conclusion why couldn't you just lay that shit out?
Why worry about the origin of a problem when you've already got a magical, permanent solution?
Logic can't rust or anything, just apply once and you're set for life.

 

[BeachBum4u]

Logic can't rust or anything, just apply once and you're set for life.

My goodness, if only? I'd love to live in a world where most people used logic (i.e. common sense) more freely!

 

[thujone]

Why is this?

Long story short: because you live in pseudo-Puritanical English Canada.

I never forget what it's like to land at YYZ and be greeted with cold reminders that I am once again home in New Britannia. Every position is an office. The janitor has a title, so does his mop. Everything and everyone comes filed under a label. The carefully-selected words for everything just give this place and its people a distinct vibe that distinguishes it from anywhere else. These labels have made it into daily jargon and spill out of our mouths like ciphers, incomprehensible to outsiders but part of the familiar "things we say" which we decode into "things we mean" with mixed results.

As for why people make a big deal about the labels when it relates to sexual relations, I'd say it probably has to do with the Puritan virtues we're taught growing up. I really wonder about the upcoming generation because my generation is the first that has begun to stop passing on those outmoded values. Unfortunately, we have no better values to pass on. We have fundamentally become an amoral society which is why cementing our cultural identity has become such an important issue on the federal level. The next decade will tell if Canadians have the energy left to contribute to the ultranationalistic fervor on the horizon.

I don't know how things are in the U.S., but I feel that they are definitely somewhat different just from all the interactions I've had with people from there (and no, I don't mean internet interactions).

 

[Cohesion]

However, it's a hard thing to deny that, like it or not, there often does exist a close correlation between sexual intercourse and emotional attachment. Separating the two outright is disingenuous.

Sexual intercourse is a chemical reaction. Hormones flood the mind-body... including oxytocin. The same chemical released during childbirth. Attachment is instantaneous -- This doesn't mean a possessive attachment. For example I started a relationship with a stranger "just for sex". After the first time, I was strongly compelled to share my thoughts and laugh and joke with him about life. So my attachment was for him as a friend.

Perhaps it is, so then, if I am emotionally attached to my friend, I want to share sex with her because it helps develop that bond, I LIKE being attached and intimate with people, and sex is a good way to do that. Why is it a problem for other people who don't have to be involved in anyway with it, how one chooses to develop one's relationship with one's friends.

Great thinking. It's a fast way to stir up a loving sentiment.

SLR > P & S

 

[P A]

Spoiler: Thanks, Cohesion

 

[DeathDomokun]

Although there are some studies to suggest sexual stimulation and ejaculation/orgasm release/create oxytocin, what value does this serve? It's not like oxytocin just inherently creates bonds. It's not that simple.
For example one can achieve sexual gratification (which releases oxytocin if we're going with such a theory) without a partner, and there isn't some inherent attachment to the sex toy/porn/whatever it is that brought them such stimulation.
Likewise, you can stick your penis in a vagina (or variations of such) and have absolutely no attachment to the person you fucked once you're done.

 

[rangrz]

Although there are some studies to suggest sexual stimulation and ejaculation/orgasm release/create oxytocin, what value does this serve?

I agree. Further, as far as being a "mind fuck" drugs are also quite the chemical mind fuck, but I have feeling most of us do drugs with our friends without worrying about it, no? Even good normal society does! (Alcohol) What's the difference? I don't see much of one. They're both activities which muck about with your brain's chemistry and change your thinking processes.

 

[P A]

Now you're just twisting things. Yes, you can share the same affection. You can share less affection for the vagina you're masturbating with than your co-worker.

But, in your experience, is this generally the case, i.e., is it true >50% of the time?

At what point did you decide that my logic was twisted? You keep typing things like "does exist" or "can" which refer implicitly to special cases, not to general rules of thumb, conflating the two ad nauseum. This rhetorical strategy is a hallmark of sloppy thinking and intentional misdirection.

Conversely, you took the "shouldn't have to spell this out" phrase out of context. Try rereading my 4-sentence post whilst shooting for full comprehension this time, paying special attention to the word 'Darwinian.'

 

[slimvictor]

Lets look at this as 'I have a black car' is now somehow different from 'my car is black'

But these are very different.
The first one asserts the possession, and mentions the car's color as extra information.
The second one assumes the possession, and asserts the car's color as the point of the sentence.
If someone tells you that they "mean the same thing", it is only because they believe the human language must represent formal logic (or, better, that formal logic is all that is represented in human language).
However, pragmatics play a major role in structuring language meaning.
What we focus on, what we assume, etc. all help guide us in structuring our sentences.
Therefore, "My car is black" is used in completely different situations than "I have a black car".

I enjoy your questioning of set phrases, Rangrz, but there is one thing you are forgetting: when people often talk about a specific concept, having a set phrase is useful (saves energy).
Girlfriend does this job well, as it expresses a common concept in a way that is not supposed to overlap with "a friend who is a girl". It is a linguistic form devoted to the expression of romantic relationships, parallel to boyfriend. Neither term says anything about being friends with girls/boys. "We're just friends" is a very useful way to say that " we enjoy each other's company, but do not participate in sex together", since this is a commonly-expressed concept.
"Friends with benefits" arose quite recently, when people began talking more often and openly about having sex without emotional attachment.
These terms are all useful in describing categories of relationships.

That said, I do appreciate and agree with your opinions - I also need to be friends before romance, and my wife is my best friend in the world. etc.

 

[Nymphette]

This discussion is very much dependent on the culture you are from, metaphysics and Empiricism mean little in Eastern cultures.

 

[P A]

metaphysics and Empiricism mean little in Eastern cultures.

Says who? That's like saying, "Analytic geometry means little to Chileans. They have a very different culture, you see." What a crock.