'Physical Needs' - Can it be justified always? - Page 9

All I can say is if sex is of such prime priority above everything else than no marriage can last. Then it is better to live like animals & go on giving in to ones urges. Why even claim to b a superior human species with conscience & all. Actually come to think of it even the animal kingdom exhibits more restraint & discipline than some human beings. ps- I C U ve edited ur post , howevr I repld in response to that

Originally posted by: crazy_sunny

All I can say is if sex is of such prime priority above everything else than no marriage can last. Then it is better to live like animals & go on giving in to ones urges. Why even claim to b a superior human species with conscience & all. Actually come to think of it even the animal kingdom exhibits more restraint & discipline than some human beings. ps- I C U ve edited ur post , howevr I repld in response to that

in a situation where people r not happy with their spouse, they should try to solve the problem or simply compromise. infedility in a marriage can never be justified and sex is important in marriage but marriage is not just sex. moral policing is very much required over here or we will have people getting into a new marriage every week simply bcoz they r bored of their spouse.

Originally posted by: chal_phek_mat

Are there any defined morals regards what are and what are not acceptable norms inside the bedroom?

yes there r. a simple rule is who is in the bedroom with u.
if a human being's life was simply restricted to a bedroom then sure moral policing was not required but as it is not the case then it is sure needed.

Originally posted by: crazy_sunny

All I can say is if sex is of such prime priority above everything else than no marriage can last. Then it is better to live like animals & go on giving in to ones urges. Why even claim to b a superior human species with conscience& all. Actually come to think of it even the animal kingdom exhibits more restraint & discipline than some human beings.
ps- I C U ve edited ur post , howevr I repld in response to that

exactly. next we will have justification for rape bcoz even that is done to satisfy physical needs. one gets attracted to a girl and to satisfy their urges commit a rape. if we r human being and r superior then we should also have self restrain. if a person cannot control themselves then how will they control others?

Originally posted by: angelic_devil

yes there r.

a simple rule is who is in the bedroom with u.
if a human being's life was simply restricted to a bedroom then sure moral policing was not required but as it is not the case then it is sure needed.

Originally posted by: crazy_sunny

All I can say is if sex is of such prime priority above everything else than no marriage can last.

Originally posted by: crazy_sunny

ps- I C U ve edited ur post , howevr I repld in response to that

i feel sorry i missed that post but i can get a rough idea about what would have been there.

I think the Indian mindset of seeing sex as a taboo does more harm than good.

To address a few concerns raised by people

- Sex and love are two separate things. Sex is a physical act, that is used for procreation or physical gratification. Love is an emotion, a sentiment, a feeling that people feel towards each other.

Love can take many forms, not all result in sex. There is maternal/paternal love, there is sibling love, friendly love, there is love and affections felt towards mentors, disciples - many types of love where most people completely exclude sex. People can even develop deep emotional attachments and intimacy and deeply love each other but still choose not to have sex. Sometimes married people or people in a long term relationship will still feel emotionally attached to each other but completely lose sexual interest.

For some people deep romantic love, marriage and commitment results in sex. To them sex is impossible without these requirements. But that is a personal choice.

Sex is a physical act and others may choose it just for that. Many people may not be ready or do not care for emotional attachments or commitments of any sort - so they choose to have sex with no strings attached. Of course being human there may be feelings and attachments to one night stands - but it always does not mean being in love or long term commitment. Many people will not have sex with someone even for a one night stand if they did not like them or feel some sort of connection. Sometimes one night stands and casual sex or friends with benefits can turn into something more with people even marrying.

Bottom line is there is a distinction between love and sex. People can and will have them separately as well as together. Even with together the ratio of sex and love always varies from person to person.

- Sexual morals. It would be hard to come up with universal morals applicable to the whole world. Of course religiously or socially people may have morals set upon them - like no sex before marriage which is the most common one. Some people are morally/religiously against homosexuality, sodomy, forms of BDSM, with more than two people involved, even po*n or masturbation or non traditional positions.

That is perfectly fine, if a person feels something related to sex is morally wrong they follow it, and expect to find partners who believe and adhere to such morals.

Now do not get me wrong here, I still affirm that harm principle is still a universal moral. One's personal freedom ends when it infringes on someone else's freedom. So rape (statutory and regular) and abuse are still wrong. Even if two people consent to sex and one partner forces the other to engage in acts they do not want to - it is a a wrong. These acts are not just immoral but criminal anyways.