Why is there talk of rehashing after you expressed confusion over my position on the subject?
And maybe I'm misunderstanding the later, but I don't think the circumstances regarding sex in intimacy, love, and marriage need be any different as applied to homosexual couples (than heterosexual couples) other than particular plumbing techniques employed in the process.
Well, the point is that I'm still confused.
I can respect that you hold to the second position at this point, but given that we lack a common frame of reference for now when we're talking about all these different terms it seems a bit premature to begin talking about how they can apply for same-sex couples.
James wrote:Reasonably close. I'd just add that b) is frequently the case but must not always be so. Conversely, while for some couples it is not so, it is not realistic to expect as much of couples as an external observer. A) I agree with as written.
All true. But we are
looking at certain, shall we say, cultural outliers here to determine the limits of a.)
, so you'll notice I haven't made an issue out of b.)
. On which:
WeiWenDi wrote:(1) ...
Wouldn't call it love by any definition based on story provided.
Okay, there you're fully agreed with Dong Zhou and Shikanosuke. I think we can all agree that scenario (1)
is not 'love' even though it has all the physical and external markers of a stable relationship.
WeiWenDi wrote:(2) ...
How could one answer? There's no way to answer scientifically based on the story as provided. The later may well be simply be the exceptional human capacity to acclimate to what is accepted as realities of life. We'd have to use a cultural definition of 'love' here and looking at this from the outside I'm not inclined to describe it as love.
And what does compatible plumbing have to do with it? "[...]knows all her 'sweet spots' and she now knows how to keep him turned on and attentive until she's satisfied herself with an orgasm or two," is a pretty flexible sort of thing.
Like I said, that was highlighted merely to meet your condition b.)
about sex being a 'primary need' above, because I wanted to interrogate your condition a.)
. P and R are able and willing to satisfy each other physically. The only thing I highlighted to change were the circumstances around it.
But again, as with DZ and Shikanosuke above, you are on the one hand unwilling to either claim that (2) is
love, and on the other hand are unwilling to answer definitively the way you did for (1)
that it is not. That means something has changed within these conditions to admit the possibility.
I want to know what that is.
Like I said, though, I think this scenario applies, more often than we might think, wherever arranged marriages are still practised.
James wrote:Is it what chemically produces the scenario that may be described as love or lust depending on interpretation? You can't know in observation. From a more speculative standpoint, Mr. S is giving up pretty easily for what many might describe as love, but then again, Mr. S got threatened by Mr. T, and that can only lead to bad things. How can one know?
It's hard to answer these questions because the concept of love does not make for good checklists.
One needs to have a baseline standard, though, in order to discuss the concept intelligently. Obviously, this is something better done within the realist and humanist scope of literature than in a philosophy text, but we can at least try.
Does love demand, for example, commitment
or an investment of time
? Or does it require only romantic emotions
, commitment is there even though the romantic emotions are not. In (3)
the exact opposite holds true. These questions are important because without them I can't even start to discuss your condition a.)
, either to agree with it or to disagree with it! For example, when you say 'other things' do you mean money? Stability? Shared life-goals? Opening one's shared life to the possibility of offspring? Right there marked off a vast
range of things to add to 'love' as a condition of a healthy relationship, and I'm just trying to understand the scope!
James wrote:If the goal is to support that any of the above represents the role of sex in a relationship (for better or worse) I'm not sure the three fictional scenarios can really represent anything.
the point, actually.
We're all agreeing on your point b.)
about sex being a 'primary need', yes?
So it's not worth making an issue out of, for now
. These scenarios aren't meant to be realistic, they're philosophical fictions and thought-experiments meant to gauge where you think the boundaries of 'love' are.
James wrote:And there is a great deal to be said for the state at which intercourse concludes in a relationship as a result of a healthy decision made by both in a relationship, and a conclusion born of one/both seeing it as sinful or completely forbidden. A person who chooses to serve another out of kindness, for money, for shared interest—has a very different perspective from that of a person who is forced to serve another, even if the other factors are involved.
Ah, so the sex needs to be done for the right reasons
, yes, regardless of the resulting physical satisfaction of both parties? I agree. The question is, what are those reasons? I think it should be easy enough to guess where I fall on this question, but I am
interested in your and other people's perspectives on this.