🇳🇱
Am I the only one who feels its weird that we as humans have this unwritten rule that two people need to stick their genitals in each other in order to be candidates for raising a child. Many would assume that a marriage without romantic love would not result in as good a child as one that does...
But the more I think about it the more I think it shouldnt be so hard to be close with someone in a non-romantic sense and have enough emotional respect and enjoy each other company enough that it would be a wonderful environment.
But even without a kid in the picture this setup is unheard of. You just dont have two people who want to bond and live together and share a life if sex isnt in it, and good sex. Hell I've had that opinion myself at many times. But it just makes no logical sense, its not like humans cant go around having amazing sex with whoever they want, but again we just dont let that fly in this species I guess... humans are weird.
@freemo It’s an interesting thought. Try thinking about what it really means to enjoy company, especially over a long term.
@fluffy I have a few people whom I'd be very happy to spend a lifetime with and have no sexual interest. Though to be fair the more I enjoy being around a person the more attractive they will look, so it might make sex less of a barrier. but it is hardly the central and defining quality of spending time with someone.
@freemo The way I see it, sex (in a relationship. Not talking about one-night stands and the like) is just friendship taken to the extreme. So it makes sense for it to appear the closer you get to someone.
I guess the idea is that these relationships, by their very nature, are more stable than others, and that should be useful when raising a child.
There's also the fact that sex places a responsibility on the people involved (at least it does on me. Maybe I shouldn't generalise) to care for the other person even after the relationship ends.
But is sex just friendship taken to the extreme? You exclude one-night stands from that assertion. So clearly sex is sometimes less than friendship, and sometimes more than friendship. So is that really saying anything at all, its basically just saying "some of the people I have sex with are very close friends to me, some are not"
@freemo Yes.
Let me explain further: Let's assume there are two kinds of sex: One based purely on physical attraction, and another that sort of grows organically on you through the development of an intimate relationship with another person.
Neither is better than the other. And the first kind does not exclude a genuine bond with the other person. It's just that it didn't come from it, but it might develop into it.
My point is that a relationship based exclusively on physical attraction or sexual compatibility is not as stable as the one based on bonding, and thus it may not be as appropriate for raising children.
Now you might argue: “Well, what makes a regular friendship less stable than the kind of extreme friendship you talk about?” That's where the part about sex placing a responsibility on one comes in. One can't break such a relationship just like that. Not me, at least. There has to be a VERY compelling reason, because the relationship has reached a point where its loss would be a huge blow to the way one lives one's life up to that moment. Expectactions of how it was supposed to go suddenly fly out the window. Divorce is, again, an extreme form of this phenomenon.
So, my answer to your comment is: Yes. Having sex is just an action and it is independent of why we do it. But the reasons why we do it make the act itself have different consequences.
Sure, obviously thats what I figured you meant.. but im still not sure its saying anything useful when you really think about it.
I mean, sure, sex can have varying degrees of meaningfulness and that can often be a reflection of how closely connected you are with the person. I'm just not sure if thats really saying anything that wouldnt apply to any other activity.. consider if i reward it for something else.
"lets assume there are two kinds of conversation: One based purely on an interest in the subject, and another that grows organically on you through the development of an intimate relationship with another person"
The thing is, "sex" isnt the unique element here, the truth is, when you have a special and intimate bond with someone, even if there is no sexual or romantic element to it, then many activities can become quite special and go well beyond an ordinary friendship.
I do agree that sex adds an element of trust and relying on the other person for some element of safety, it puts you at risk of STDs for example. So there is at least some need for a level of intimacy that comes with trust if nothing else. but then again so does riding on the back seat of a motorcycle with someone.
Even the "One can't break such a relationship just like that".. i mean sure thats true, but again I dont think it has much to do with sex.. When you have a close meaningful relationship with someone sex has little to do with how easily you can break such a relationship. It should be unthinkable regardless of sex, if the relationship is truly meaningful anyway.
@freemo Have you talked with any elderly folk about what it’s like to live with someone for 30 or more years? Although for sure someone pleasing on the eyes is more pleasant, it seems that mutual cooperation seems to be what really causes lifelong partnerships. My understanding is that many of these, despite having children, were effectively platonic and constructs more of economic necessity and societal demand than romance. In truth, I suspect marriage and lifelong partnership as a romantic pairing is relatively novel, historically speaking.