Is Sex Without Love Wrong?

[endure]

"It sure would seem to be with so many people wanting to impose their own sense of morals on others. I know dozens of marriages and long term relationships where love does not seem to be a factor in the relationship. I see lots of casual sex between couples where there is no love. But these same people then say it is wrong for others to pay for a service in cash. And yet, it is somehow okay when more money is spent on going to the theatre or going to diner in fine restaurants, before any sex will occur. Why is it that people want to impose their OWN beliefs on others when it is nobody's business but the people in question? "

Who actually cares what others think? If you're content that what you're doing is ok why do you need to seek public approval from a bunch of strangers?

[Ulysses G.]

I think that it is human nature to want to change other's opinions about things that society has gotten wrong, but most people have been indoctrinated into believing. Otherwise, the Gay movement would have never taken off as it has.

I still remember that when I was a child pretty much everyone was convinced that homosexuality was not only a terrible crime and a sin, but a form of mental illness. It has taken 30 years, but most people now realize that it is something that nature intended.

Despite religious nuts, fanatics and prude’s sick obsessions, anything that consenting adults do sexually that does not hurt anyone else is no one's business but their own.

[endure]

I think that it is human nature to want to change other's opinions about things that society has gotten wrong, but most people have been indoctrinated into believing. Otherwise, the Gay movement would have never taken off as it has.

I still remember that when I was a child pretty much everyone was convinced that homosexuality was not only a terrible crime and a sin, but a form of mental illness. It has taken 30 years, but most people now realize that it is something that nature intended.

Despite religious nuts, fanatics and prude’s sick obsessions, anything that consenting adults do sexually that does not hurt anyone else is no one's business but their own.

On the contrary I've never tried to change other people's opinions about homosexuality. I'm a homosexual and have never really cared about what other people think about me. The OP seems to be attempting to justify his views on sex by blaming others who don't agree with him. As I said if he's happy with his own actions why does he need to seek the approval of anonymous readers of an internet forum?

[JimShortz]

Good on you Ian! Each to their own...

To me it depends how you look at sex. I've always thought it should be reclassified as a recreational activity, like golf...

So long as both people are open and honest about what they want from a relationship/encounter then where is the problem? For those that disagree or couldn't deal with that kind of relationship then don't; do it your way - but leave others to live life their way...

[Ulysses G.]

On the contrary I've never tried to change other people's opinions about homosexuality. I'm a homosexual and have never really cared about what other people think about me.

Do you think that that might be because most people these days realize that homosexuality is natural and not some sort of perversion or a disease?

Edited March 6, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[endure]

On the contrary I've never tried to change other people's opinions about homosexuality. I'm a homosexual and have never really cared about what other people think about me.

Do you think that that might be because most people these days realize that homosexuality is natural?

I wasn't born 'these days'. When I was 18 the maximum sentence for being caught in the act was 14 years in gaol. My view on life isn't conditioned by what most people these days think. It's conditioned by the way I was treated when I was growing up. As I said I don't really give a shit about what other people think about my sexual habits. The point I was making is that the OP seems to need to justify his actions to a bunch of anonymous strangers on an internet forum.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't agree. I think that he is trying to change the way people look at sex workers and people who patronize them

Yes, there are all kinds of abuses, but often because it has not been legalized. IMHO most of the industry does not hurt society - in fact it can be helpful to the old, the rejected and the ugly. It brings lucrative employment to some and comfort to many others.

[venturalaw]

... describe "love". Lets get that out of way first.

In your concept, does it include thunderbolts and lightening? ...

Love is an action. Cathexis is an emotional feeling that people regularly confuse with 'love'.

If you pave her back verandah, mow her lawns, take her sick children to the doctors, give her all the money she needs and stuff like that, then you're in love. Feelings of lust and attraction are nothing more than cathexis in your own mind.

In other words love is giving. Correct. However it need not be action. It can be any manner of providing what the loved one requires or desires, even merely a look of understanding or appreciation - enhancing the loved one's life.

Regarding sex, that is just one of many ways that one can enhance the life of another. It can also have nothing at all to do with love.

[fullwhenempty]

I don't think sex without love is wrong. There's just a quantum difference between 'emptying one's sac' and 'making love'. In the former you are responding to baser animal instincts, which can be fun if you don't overdo it. Or it can dull the senses if you do. You only have to look at some of the men spending their nights on Nana, who look like 'empty vessels'. Dead. Their respect for women and themselves long since departed. 2000 bar girls will do that to you.

And how is bedding every wench you meet going to affect your relations with 'the one' when you do eventually meet her? Every coupling leaves some imprint on your psyche. After you've shagged 100 women, maybe your love for your partner is coloured by those previous encounters. You cannot love her 100%. Only 98%. Because 2% of you now thinks all women are whores. And when you've shagged 200, it's only 96% and so on. And don't you think a decent girl will sense where you've been and not touch you? Maybe all that's left for you is bar girls.

I think there is the higher mind and the lower instincts. Today we are encouraged to pander to the lower instincts. 'Just do it' and so on. The advent of contraception certainly means more casual sex takes place. In the UK youngsters have a shag to fill in the boredom. No honouring themselves or their partners. This degree of freedom may be good if you want to get your rocks off and the women doesn't become inseminated but is it actually good for society? Should sex be a holy act, our bodies viewed as temples, Song of Solomon and so on? Or is spending an hour on bestiality dot com any kind of substitute? There is a huge gulf between the two experiences. Now I know there are some folk who don't have a spiritual bone in their bodies, so they won't be able to connect.

The problem with easy sex or the gratification of the senses, is it can lead you down a slippery slope. You become bored with the sameness and go looking for the next thrill, the next stimulus. Normal sex doesn't cut it any more. Ok. Young guys can perform more frequently but is the quality of the experience any better? While he's thinking he's a stud. Maybe she just wants a hug? As has been said. Sex can be complex.

Too much freedom is not such a good thing. And religions aren't as bad as they are painted. You take that which is useful and ditch the rest. Religion means you are told how to worship. Spirituality means you are free to seek for yourself. If you have neither, who is setting your moral compass? Disney and Wall St.?

The 'ego' and corporations tell us we can do what we want. The conscience or inner voice says better watch out for those consequences. And yes, there are always consequences.

Edited March 6, 2010 by fullwhenempty

[venturalaw]

eek is 100% spot on.

Taking a date & paying for dinner & theater is NOT paying for sex, at the end of the night one or both can refuse. That is the chance taken.

Paying a women or man to have sex with you is a totally different kettle of fish. You are procuring the service they offer, they "could" refuse you I suppose depending on their financial situation at the time or the rules of the bar but to imply that this is a case of 2 consenting adults enjoying each other then you are wrong, there are far too many variables & you are buying their body for that time.

I can be single go out ask a single guy if he wants a shag & do it, that is 2 consenting adults enjoying sex without love. Going up to a sex worker & asking for sex involves agree to an amount, getting a shag & paying them for it. Not really a question of the act not happening in that scenario.

You really can't see the difference?

So is coughing up a monthly "subscription fee" to your lady or paying exorbitant sin sod the same as sex for money? Would you call these women "sex workers"? A fine line, if you ask me.

How is it possibIy a fine Iine? PresumabIy the partner was met under "usuaI/normaI" circumstances..meaning, they chose to be together. How can sharing finances, or giving housekeeping money be anything even slightIy akin to paying a purostitute for sext????

It's not. However, absent the sin sod, that scenario could describe a mia noi situation, no? Mistress? Then it is actually paying for more than just sex, right?

[toptuan]

I don't know. Let me ask my dog.

What a "pregnant" comment!

[sbk]

eek is 100% spot on.

Taking a date & paying for dinner & theater is NOT paying for sex, at the end of the night one or both can refuse. That is the chance taken.

Paying a women or man to have sex with you is a totally different kettle of fish. You are procuring the service they offer, they "could" refuse you I suppose depending on their financial situation at the time or the rules of the bar but to imply that this is a case of 2 consenting adults enjoying each other then you are wrong, there are far too many variables & you are buying their body for that time.

I can be single go out ask a single guy if he wants a shag & do it, that is 2 consenting adults enjoying sex without love. Going up to a sex worker & asking for sex involves agree to an amount, getting a shag & paying them for it. Not really a question of the act not happening in that scenario.

You really can't see the difference?

So is coughing up a monthly "subscription fee" to your lady or paying exorbitant sin sod the same as sex for money? Would you call these women "sex workers"? A fine line, if you ask me.

How is it possibIy a fine Iine? PresumabIy the partner was met under "usuaI/normaI" circumstances..meaning, they chose to be together. How can sharing finances, or giving housekeeping money be anything even slightIy akin to paying a purostitute for sext????

It's not. However, absent the sin sod, that scenario could describe a mia noi situation, no? Mistress? Then it is actually paying for more than just sex, right?

My electrician just loves to fix the wiring at my house. hel_l, he'd do it for free, but well some people will do anything for money. So, even tho I pay him to fix the wiring, its no different than me getting my husband to fix the wiring.

[eurasianthai]

My electrician just loves to fix the wiring at my house. hel_l, he'd do it for free

Send him to my house

[IanForbes]

and there in lies ( ) my point. Removing the free choice by paying someone to have sex with you therefore means that person isn't a free & willing participant.

Who has ever said to a bg, ok I pay you but you don't have to have sex with me if YOU don't want & really meant it. I would be interested in their choice.?

Actually, on most occasions I've given women that choice... but usually with women I know and have a good relationship with. If they ain't enjoying it then neither am I. If I just need physical relief I can do that myself and don't have to pay anyone. Most often the gal enjoys our time together. If not, then that's the last I see of her. And, I have NO trouble telling the phony ones from the real ones.

I think most often, men and women view sex from two different positions. For many man, it is strictly a physical act where there's very litte emotion involved. For most women there is emotion first and then sex. But, these are just generalities and there's always exceptions. Even some of the gals on this forum have expressed interest in some handsome dude in the media... even though the guy might be a jerk in reality.

I still don't see much difference between some guy wining and dining a woman for the express purpose of trying to get her into bed, and some guy who just says I'll pay you X amount to sleep with me. Women know within the first 5 minutes of meeting a man if she will have sex with him providing he jumps through all the right hoops. If he DOESN'T jump through those hoops he isn't getting any no matter what he does. I see bar girls all the time turn away from men they are not interested in. I also listen to some of their replies between each other when they think the farang doesn't understand what they've said.

[IanForbes]

I think that it is human nature to want to change other's opinions about things that society has gotten wrong, but most people have been indoctrinated into believing. Otherwise, the Gay movement would have never taken off as it has.

I still remember that when I was a child pretty much everyone was convinced that homosexuality was not only a terrible crime and a sin, but a form of mental illness. It has taken 30 years, but most people now realize that it is something that nature intended.

Despite religious nuts, fanatics and prude's sick obsessions, anything that consenting adults do sexually that does not hurt anyone else is no one's business but their own.

On the contrary I've never tried to change other people's opinions about homosexuality. I'm a homosexual and have never really cared about what other people think about me. The OP seems to be attempting to justify his views on sex by blaming others who don't agree with him. As I said if he's happy with his own actions why does he need to seek the approval of anonymous readers of an internet forum?

You are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of... "quote" attempting to justify views on sex by blaming others who don't agree with him."

I don't blame anyone about anything, other than trying to say someone is bad for what they believe in.

Working from your viewpoint, Hitler and his group of Nazis were justified in frying Jews and gays. And, Hitler used the Christian Bible as the basis for his horrific acts. It wasn't until people started questioning things in the bible that we began to realize that gays were no different than anyone else, except for their sexuality. I've seen a 180 degree change in opinions about gays over the past 30 or 40 years. Without discussions like this one we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

All I've ever tried to do is to teach others to show respect for everyone, no matter what their profession, or personal sexual habits. I'm leaving out rape and pedophilia in those choices. I don't know anyone who would say that is right.

And, I can say with some certainty that a lot of women who work in the bar trade in Thailand are a whole lot better individuals than a bunch of hypocrites I know personally.

[manarak]

It generally takes some human motivation to have sex. One doesn't just walk down the street and accidentally have sex. Hey everybody I just fell on a dude's pecker by accident. What did you do on your lunch break?

Possible motivations for sex?

procreation?

love?

power?

greed?

fear or insecurity?

excitement?

compensation?

curiosity?

boredom?

personality disorder such as addiction?

and probably quite a few others. It's totally perspective driven question whether its okay or not and depends on the situation and who your asking.

I'm wondering and confused as to how you could leave out "pleasure" at the top of your list?

[venturalaw]

I think that it is human nature to want to change other's opinions about things that society has gotten wrong, but most people have been indoctrinated into believing. Otherwise, the Gay movement would have never taken off as it has.

I still remember that when I was a child pretty much everyone was convinced that homosexuality was not only a terrible crime and a sin, but a form of mental illness. It has taken 30 years, but most people now realize that it is something that nature intended.

Despite religious nuts, fanatics and prude's sick obsessions, anything that consenting adults do sexually that does not hurt anyone else is no one's business but their own.

On the contrary I've never tried to change other people's opinions about homosexuality. I'm a homosexual and have never really cared about what other people think about me. The OP seems to be attempting to justify his views on sex by blaming others who don't agree with him. As I said if he's happy with his own actions why does he need to seek the approval of anonymous readers of an internet forum?

You are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of... "quote" attempting to justify views on sex by blaming others who don't agree with him."

I don't blame anyone about anything, other than trying to say someone is bad for what they believe in.

Working from your viewpoint, Hitler and his group of Nazis were justified in frying Jews and gays. And, Hitler used the Christian Bible as the basis for his horrific acts. It wasn't until people started questioning things in the bible that we began to realize that gays were no different than anyone else, except for their sexuality. I've seen a 180 degree change in opinions about gays over the past 30 or 40 years. Without discussions like this one we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

All I've ever tried to do is to teach others to show respect for everyone, no matter what their profession, or personal sexual habits. I'm leaving out rape and pedophilia in those choices. I don't know anyone who would say that is right.

And, I can say with some certainty that a lot of women who work in the bar trade in Thailand are a whole lot better individuals than a bunch of hypocrites I know personally.

Unfortunately you are wrong about no one believing pedophilia is wrong. Ever hear of NAMBLA? And of course the ACLU has defended NAMBLA - really sick as far as I'm concerned. And regarding rape - there are always the abusers who will defend rape as he/she was driven to do it.

[manarak]

...When it comes to paying for sex, then you have to think about the reasons the person is seIIing their body. If they had any real choice or say, wouId they have sex with the person who is paying them..weII quite probabIy not. Circumstances cause them to have no real choice...

That would be in a western welfare state where people even get money for doing nothing.

I know enough university-educated prostitutes in Thailand who worked in hotel management before, bank clerk, etc.

They are either double timing as a prostitute or became full time prostitutes, because "it is so easy to get much money that way".

Their words not mine.

I think there are dozens of reasons to become a prostitute, with hundreds of shades between every distinct reason.

Some of the reasons shouldn't raise an eyebrow (like the girls who become prostitutes by choice or because they are too lazy for hard work).

Some other reasons don't feel right, especially when coercion by third parties is in play.

Coercion by LIFE, i.e. family situation, no money, whatever, is just that, LIFE.

The question here is if the rest of the population should subsidise those girls who need money just so that they can avoid working as prostitutes?

My answer is no, but YMMV.

[endure]

I think that it is human nature to want to change other's opinions about things that society has gotten wrong, but most people have been indoctrinated into believing. Otherwise, the Gay movement would have never taken off as it has.

I still remember that when I was a child pretty much everyone was convinced that homosexuality was not only a terrible crime and a sin, but a form of mental illness. It has taken 30 years, but most people now realize that it is something that nature intended.

Despite religious nuts, fanatics and prude's sick obsessions, anything that consenting adults do sexually that does not hurt anyone else is no one's business but their own.

On the contrary I've never tried to change other people's opinions about homosexuality. I'm a homosexual and have never really cared about what other people think about me. The OP seems to be attempting to justify his views on sex by blaming others who don't agree with him. As I said if he's happy with his own actions why does he need to seek the approval of anonymous readers of an internet forum?

You are doing the exact thing you are accusing me of... "quote" attempting to justify views on sex by blaming others who don't agree with him."

I don't blame anyone about anything, other than trying to say someone is bad for what they believe in.

Working from your viewpoint, Hitler and his group of Nazis were justified in frying Jews and gays. And, Hitler used the Christian Bible as the basis for his horrific acts. It wasn't until people started questioning things in the bible that we began to realize that gays were no different than anyone else, except for their sexuality. I've seen a 180 degree change in opinions about gays over the past 30 or 40 years. Without discussions like this one we would still be stuck in the dark ages.

All I've ever tried to do is to teach others to show respect for everyone, no matter what their profession, or personal sexual habits. I'm leaving out rape and pedophilia in those choices. I don't know anyone who would say that is right.

And, I can say with some certainty that a lot of women who work in the bar trade in Thailand are a whole lot better individuals than a bunch of hypocrites I know personally.

I'm doing nothing of the kind. I have no interest whatever in other's sexual habits or proclivities. If they want to pay for sex, fine by me. If not, fine by me. It's not my job in life to teach other people to show respect. That's a personal issue for them.

[manarak]

and there in lies ( ) my point. Removing the free choice by paying someone to have sex with you therefore means that person isn't a free & willing participant.

Who has ever said to a bg, ok I pay you but you don't have to have sex with me if YOU don't want & really meant it. I would be interested in their choice.?

I don't agree with your point of view - the paid partner has choices all along the process:

1- choice to work as a prostitute or not (this is arguable, but see my post above)

2- choice to go with that particular partner or not (I have seen BGs refuse to go with certain persons)

Paying is certainly an incentive, yet it doesn't remove the choice.

Then about asking if they like, want, etc.

It already happened to me that I was too drunk / tired to even want to do anything (I gave them the baht before falling asleep and told them they could go if the wanted). Some left, but the big majority were real sweethearts and tried everything.

Of course the moral busibodies here will argue that my room was probably way better then theirs and they wanted to sleep with AC...

[manarak]

On the contrary I've never tried to change other people's opinions about homosexuality. I'm a homosexual and have never really cared about what other people think about me.

Do you think that that might be because most people these days realize that homosexuality is natural and not some sort of perversion or a disease?

Statements that something is "natural" or a "perversion" are contradictions in themselves.

"Natural" as referenced by what ??

Reality is natural. All of it. Opposite preferences are natural. Nature is statistical, not normative.

Humans are part of nature, universe. Therefore, everything done by humans is natural.

The concept of "perversion" has been invented by certain humans to assert the superiority of their way of life over others and subsquently to exert control over other humans.

Perversion is natural and so is the rejection of perversion.

Just take universe as it is.

What can be discussed are ways to increase global happiness.

Religion, Morals have been a milestone.

Now everyone talks about ethics, but 95% miss the point that their ethics are built on the basis of western religious morals.

[britmaveric]

I think Ian brought up a valid point - if you are not into shagging a person and/or they aren't into it - usually you can tell and ends up being a waste of time.

[up-country_sinclair]

I think most often, men and women view sex from two different positions.

undoubtedly.

[Birdman]

Just another justification and longing for recognition of the personal lifestyle tailor maid in forum's clothes.

[Ulysses G.]

Statements that something is "natural" or a "perversion" are contradictions in themselves.

"Natural" as referenced by what ??

Homosexuality is genetic and therefore natural.

Hurting other people for sexual pleasure is perverted.

[patong]

sex without love is not wrong, after all we are just planting the seed so we live on.

Edited March 6, 2010 by patong

[eurasianthai]

Homosexuality is genetic and therefore natural.

Indeed, and I'm sure it will be more prevalent in the future.

Nature just can't afford for the human population to grow further without any control.

[sendbaht]

"In other words love is giving. Correct. However it need not be action. It can be any manner of providing what the loved one requires or desires, even merely a look of understanding or appreciation - enhancing the loved one's life.

Regarding sex, that is just one of many ways that one can enhance the life of another. It can also have nothing at all to do with love.

Right-on brother Ventura!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IanForbes]

I think most often, men and women view sex from two different positions.

undoubtedly.

Great reply! So succinct and true. I completely missed that point.

[Shoegazer]

...When it comes to paying for sex, then you have to think about the reasons the person is seIIing their body. If they had any real choice or say, wouId they have sex with the person who is paying them..weII quite probabIy not. Circumstances cause them to have no real choice...

That would be in a western welfare state where people even get money for doing nothing.

I know enough university-educated prostitutes in Thailand who worked in hotel management before, bank clerk, etc.

They are either double timing as a prostitute or became full time prostitutes, because "it is so easy to get much money that way".

Their words not mine.

I think there are dozens of reasons to become a prostitute, with hundreds of shades between every distinct reason.

Some of the reasons shouldn't raise an eyebrow (like the girls who become prostitutes by choice or because they are too lazy for hard work).

Some other reasons don't feel right, especially when coercion by third parties is in play.

Coercion by LIFE, i.e. family situation, no money, whatever, is just that, LIFE.

The question here is if the rest of the population should subsidise those girls who need money just so that they can avoid working as prostitutes?

My answer is no, but YMMV.

So just because some are coerced by life, does that gives us the justification to support the trade?

Yes i agree some girls are lazy, its easy money. But as you go on to mention, not every girl willingly chooses prostitution. And i cannot imagine taking the risk, no matter how small, of sleeping with a prostitute that was coerced into the job (for whatever reason).

*Edited cos i'm a grammar freak.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Shoegazer