What is Sex to you?

[Sesquipedalian]

We've been discussing this pretty much all day long so I figure why not make a poll about it? I tried to cover all the bases.

(On another note, this forum seems to have a serious preoccupation with sex O..o)

[Lycurgus]

I tend to mix options 1 and 2. But, for simplicities sake, I voted 1.


I believe sex is a physical act only and should be done whenever one wants, as often as one wants, with whomever one wants (consentual, not rape)
I believe sex is a physical act only but should be done in moderation with a choice few (consentual, not rape)

(for clarity's sake, which two I'm talking about)

[Autoptic]

'Beyond physical though later devaluing might occur which disturbs me.

[Vagrant]

Sex is the exchange of genetic information to preserve variation and increase the viability of the species.

Yes, I am a biologist -- sex is a physical act, but not one to be used lightly either. The chemicals associated with sex can be very addictive to the brain.

[playthestatic]

I chose 2, because 1 seemed a touch too indiscriminate. So probably a mix between 1 and 2 - I believe in using my discretion to determine whether I want to have sex with a person, not pure instinct, but not necessarily limiting sex to a 'choice few'. I simply believe in somewhat more careful consideration when coming across any likely partner for sex.

[Shikaze]

I voted for option 2.

I'm a Christian liberal when it comes to sex. Sex for me is the union of two living bodies that willingly surrendered one's self to each other. As long as there is passion and possibly love shared by both beings, I see no wrong even if it is outside the context of marriage.

[Urania]

Far, far beyond physical...

[dragonsscout]

Well, strictly speaking, sex is, in fact, purely physical and I don't see how there can be an opinion about that. This leads me to believe that you meant something else, besides simply sex. That's where, I suppose, the disagreement in the poll lies. Are you talking about sex and only sex, or a more personal experience that involves a deeper emotional attachment to one's partner?

[invicta]

It makes me sad to see abstinence equated with morality. I think this makes something beautiful into something obscene, and I think this has created a lot of unnecessary grief for a lot of people for a long time.

[firebee]

I'm soooo confused... I think the question may be poorly posed, which is not surprising under the circumstances.

My opinion is approximately this: Sex is more than a physical act, but so is rock climbing. It is not on a different plane from other parts of human experience which are also "more than a physical act", but in which the physical is an important part. It may be done whenever one wants, as often as one wants, and with whomever one wants, with the usual constraints of available resources and informed risk management that apply to anything one might choose to do. For most people, this is likely to constitute "in moderation with a chosen few", although their definition of "moderation" and "chosen few" may be very different from those of another person. "Moderation is defined as any place that I am drinking in."

Generally, I am wary of notions that put sexual activity up on a pedestal of mystery and profoundness, and divorce it from its place as a part of life (which is generally mysterious and profound). I am particularly wary of this as applied to the "first time", as putting substantial spiritual expectations on something that you lack the ability to fulfill is a recipe for disappointment. After getting l41d, you chop the wood and carry the water.

[Cthulhu]

I chose the second option. My attitude toward sex is about the same as my attitude toward golf.

1. I have a small number of people with whom I enjoy golfing. We have fun, but I don't think any of us would describe it as a communion of souls.
2. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of golfing with strangers.
3. I probably spend more time thinking about golfing than actually playing golf.
4. I will occasionally get inspired to golf by myself, especially after watching golf on television.

[Mina]

I voted for #3: "Sex goes beyond the physical for me, but shouldn't necessarily be saved for marriage" but also agree with this part of #1: "should be done whenever one wants, as often as one wants, with whomever one wants (consentual, not rape)".

I am 100% NOT attracted to anyone who is incapable of stimulating me mentally, no matter how attractive he is, or how good his "technique" might be. For this reason, I can't ever see myself having sex with someone who I wasn't in a relationship with, or at least someone who I know and respect (friend with benefits?). Although I have never/would never have sex with strangers, I don't think there is anything particularly morally reprehensible about it, as long as both parties consent. Morals are subjective, after all.

EDIT: To be clear, I chose #3 because that is how sex is for ME, not because I think that's how it "should be," or how it is for everyone. I don't particularly associate a "deep spiritual meaning" with sex; rather, sexual attraction for me NEVER occurs without mental attraction/compatibility as a prerequisite, and I would never have sex with someone I'm not attracted to.

[LaoTzu]

For me, it's just an act that can be enjoyed whenever with whoever. I don't go out of my way to get it, and I don't always choose to have it when the opportunity arises.... but that's more whim than a 'moral' choice.

I will say, meaningless sex is not as ... 'satisfying' without emotional involvement. It can leave you a little empty. (but just a little :P)

[jerr]

Double significance for me:
1. Can be done emotionlessly.
2. Can be done very emotionnaly!

[llBradll]

I'm somewhere between one, two, and three.

[Anreader]

I chose this.
Sex goes beyond the physical for me, but shouldn't necessarily be saved for marriage

Because I think that sex should only be had after marriage, at least for me, but that marriage is more important than just sex. Long-term monogamy places unnecessary pressure on the marriage, for some people. I would be willing to negotiate the point, providing I was certain of my partner's honesty.

[BostonIan]

I picked the "physical, in the context of marriage". I might have picked "far beyond a physical act, in the context of marriage" on a better day, but I'm in a jaded state from reading all these sex threads.

1. Fertilization
2. Pair-bonding
.
.
N. Pleasure-seeking

[missy]

I chose option 2. I think that sex serves several functions, and an emotional attachment isn't really necessary to get the job done. Off the top of my head I'm thinking it serves your physical needs, improves self-esteem, and makes you happy. However, you do need to be careful about who you choose, and not go overboard, for obvious reasons, which is why I chose option 2 instead of 1.

[Hatsumomo1]

It is physical, but it often impacts so much more. I can't really say it's purely just physical since I won't sleep with just anyone I think is remotely attractive. I don't like being touched in general, so sex has to be with someone I REALLY trust in order for me to enjoy it. Plus I have to know that me and my partner would be able to handle the consequences in worst case scenarios.

[dalidaisy]

I'm somewhere between 1, 2 & 3. First of all, I do what I want, when I want, with who I want as a way of life. However, my sexual desires tend towards a select few who I value highly enough as to give the use of my body to. Also, sex is far more than physical. It is physically, mentally & emotionally (I'm not talking about sappy "love" emotions here) satisfying act. You are giving yourself to that person so that they may find delight in you, as you find delight in them. I find this delight is far more than physical. So, after weighing it, I picked option 3. But, sex before marriage would be mandatory for me, not optional.

These sex poles are hard to answer, as the OP is usually biased one way or the other & structures their choices based on their own ideals. There are just too many factors to sex to be so cut & dry...

[SeaCzar]

These sex poles are hard...

Freudian slip (Sorry. I could not let that pass.)?

[Rudy]

Number 3. But I thought that before it was popular ;) When I say "beyond the physical," though, I mean that it has a lot to do with emotional connections as well. I certainly don't attribute anything spiritual to it.

[True Rune]

For me myself: I am asexual, and it is unappealing to me.

For others: I take the Christian view, but don't expect non-Christians to abide by it, but I won't deny that I think it's for marriage. (lol "love")

[sebsmith]

I think to some extent I have to agree with Mina here. It is a little unclear how broadly you define physical, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done whenever one wants, as often as one wants, with whomever one wants (consentual, not rape). Of course this will vary broadly from person to person, but I think we already knew that. (By the way, I really did intend that double negative.)

[AliTree]

last one. woo-hoo.

[Deliberator]

Sex personally offers me more than just physical gratification. Meaning is subjective of course; if others see no meaning in it that's no big deal to me.

[nacht]

I believe sex is whatever you make it out to be for yourself.

[doctoroetker]

In fact Islam, Christianity and Buddhism have a common standing point against extramarital sex. Marriage shows how serious you are when you say "I will always love you". You make a statement and then prove it. Simple and fair enough IMHO.