Sexual attraction vs romantic attraction

[maquiscat]

Look at his signature.

Actually I am not bi, but the line is just too good, not to have it in there. I picked it up off a button at a 'con once many years ago.

 

[maquiscat]

most people associate sex and love with the most intimate of behaviors. Sounds like you are the Q in LGBTQIA?

They may be the most intimate of behaviors (a subjective value to be sure), that doesn't make them the only intimate behaviors. Hence noting that intimate and sexuality are not automatically linked.

 

[maquiscat]

They are fundamentally linked.

Both sexual desire and romantic desire share a common thread: desire. In sexual desire, we tend to emphasize physical presentation (and the positive offspring benefit offered by the genetic composition suggested by such a physical presentation). In romantic desire, we tend to emphasize emotional presentation (and the positive offspring benefit offered by the support suggested by such an emotional presentation).

The key factor in both cases relates to desire for the benefit of future offspring. One tends to emphasize short-term (physical) benefits of a genetic deposit, the other tends to emphasize the long-term (emotional) benefits of a partner. I consider them two sides of the same spectrum.

And this makes sense. If sex had no such relationship to romantic relationships, then romantic relationships would never be threatened by superficial sex outside of the relationship. The problem is that pleasurable sex is generally coincident with feelings of love, whether we realize it or not. Sexual exclusivity is often considered a requisite for romance. The threat to the relationship occurs when the feelings of love for another threaten to outweigh the feelings of love in the relationship.

I would agree they are related, but not necessarily linked, and especially in a fundamental way. The bold part is a fallacy, although the name is escaping me at the moment. Basically you are making the argument that the relationship between romantic and sexual attraction has to be one way or the other. We are dealing with humans here. For most, yes they occur together, and it is that association in a person's mind that leads them to worry that a sexual attraction of their partner outside the relationship will lead to a romantic attraction that will bring the partner to leave. It that doesn't mean such will automatically happen. I would also argue that sexual exclusivity is not a prerequisite of romance. It can be of a long term relationship, but the romantic feelings and attractions will occur prior to knowing if that exclusivity will exist, and there are cases of it occurring without that exclusivity, as my family and other Polly families and relationships show.

Also please note, I am not making any argument here about whether or not either sexual attraction nor romantic attraction will make for a successful or unsuccessful relationship. I am only making the argument that the two attractions, while normally occurring together, are not automatically linked, and thus each can occur independent of the other.

 

[maquiscat]

yes exactly that is the general case but people are here mostly because they are queer liberals who want to tear down the existing social order and replace 10,000 of evolution in an instant with their wild meglomanical guesses.

Just as a comparison, who know who else torn down an existing social order to replace it with their own? Christians. Actually they tore down multiple existing social orders as they forced converted across the globe. Whether a currently existing social order is good or not is going to be a subjective value. Social orders also change gradually over time.

 

[James972]

Just as a comparison, who know who else torn down an existing social order to replace it with their own? Christians.

yes they tore down Roman Empire savagery and slaughter and replaced it with love and family. Modern liberals like HItler Stalin and Mao offer no improvement in the social order and neither do queers.

 

[James972]

Whether a currently existing social order is good or not is going to be a subjective value.

Wrong, modern liberals Hitler Stalin and Mao were objectively bad.

 

[James972]

They may be the most intimate of behaviors (a subjective value to be sure), that doesn't make them the only intimate behaviors. Hence noting that intimate and sexuality are not automatically linked.

in main stream Judeo Christian Greco Roman culture sex, love and intimacy are linked and should not be challenged by self-described greedy queers with petty motives.

 

[James972]

I think people should be free to engage in sexual promiscuity.

they did that in Africa and 50 million died of AIDS. Liberals do that in our ghettos and a kid there is more likely to go to prison than to college!! Do you understand now?

 

[James972]

Actually I am not bi, but the line is just too good, not to have it in there. I picked it up off a button at a 'con once many years ago.

but still proud to be greedy rather than civilized and Christian???

 

[James972]

I am only making the argument that the two attractions, while normally occurring together, are not automatically linked, and thus each can occur independent of the other.

humans are not robots so of course they are not automatically linked any more than humans are automatically democratic or automatically Christian. The point is history shows we are better off when they are linked, and we don't need queers reinventing the wheel.

 

[maquiscat]

Wrong, modern liberals Hitler Stalin and Mao were objectively bad.

First off, you know you can quote different parts of a post within the same post, right? You can even go back and edit if you forgot initially.

Secondly the values of good and bad are always subjective. There is no way to objectively measure such. The best you can do is objectively measure the number of people who hold the same subjective value at the same time.

 

[maquiscat]

but still proud to be greedy rather than civilized and Christian???

I'm all that too.

 

[maquiscat]

humans are not robots so of course they are not automatically linked any more than humans are automatically democratic or automatically Christian. The point is history shows we are better off when they are linked, and we don't need queers reinventing the wheel.

Your point is a red herring to the thread topic. If you wish to discuss it further please feel free to make a thread for it. I'm not saying it's not a topic worth discussing, just not here.

 

[James972]

I'm all that too.

all that??? you mean you're greedy not civilized or christian?

 

[James972]

Your point is a red herring to the thread topic. If you wish to discuss it further please feel free to make a thread for it. I'm not saying it's not a topic worth discussing, just not here.

??? you said they were not linked always and I said obviously they are not automatically linked because humans are not robots, and then you said your own subject was a red herring???

 

[James972]

Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!.

its not an issue of greed, although greed is commonly considered very negative, its a question of being Q in LGBTQIA. Do you understand? So you see yourself as queer and greedy?

 

[James972]

First off, you know you can quote different parts of a post within the same post, right? You can even go back and edit if you forgot initially.

Secondly the values of good and bad are always subjective. There is no way to objectively measure such. The best you can do is objectively measure the number of people who hold the same subjective value at the same time.

got it so everything is relative and subjective and thus the established civilized order really means nothing to liberals. Hitler Stalin and Mao are fine since they are entitled to their own subjective uderstanding of the world?

 

[maquiscat]

all that??? you mean you're greedy not civilized or christian?

Greedy is used jokingly in the sig line, and I am civilized and Christian as well as poly and switch.

??? you said they were not linked always and I said obviously they are not automatically linked because humans are not robots, and then you said your own subject was a red herring???

I was referring back to your larger point that you keep brining up about why we have both and what is right or wrong in our reactions to these attractions.

its not an issue of greed, although greed is commonly considered very negative, its a question of being Q in LGBTQIA. Do you understand? So you see yourself as queer and greedy?

As noted, the greedy is used in a humorous manner in the quote, and as I noted to Claxx, I believe, I am not actually bi, but the quote runs better with it. I do see myself as queer, but in the more classical sense of the word, weird and odd. Greedy? Well we all have greed in us, and there are some areas where I am more greedy than others. Books for example.

got it so everything is relative and subjective and thus the established civilized order really means nothing to liberals. Hitler Stalin and Mao are fine since they are entitled to their own subjective uderstanding of the world?

There were people under all three who felt that what they were doing was right and good. Not everything is relative and subjective, but more things are that people wish there to be, liberals and conservatives alike.

 

[James972]

Greedy is used jokingly in the sig line, and I am civilized and Christian as well as poly and switch.

greedy is a joke??? if you were civilized and Christian you would obviously be less public about your uncivilized and anti christian queer behavior.

 

[James972]

I do see myself as queer, but in the more classical sense of the word, weird and odd.
.

why, classical when sexually queer is very modern and liberal???

 

[maquiscat]

greedy is a joke??? if you were civilized and Christian, as I view civilized and Christian, you would obviously be less public about your uncivilized and anti christian queer behavior.

Fixed that for you.

 

[James972]

Greedy? Well we all have greed in us,

very few have queer sexual greed and thus humankind has flourished

 

[maquiscat]

why classical when sexually queer is very modern and liberal???

Because I am not bisexual nor homosexual. I could never be homosexual because I love women too much. Not giving that up. There is the possibility I am bi, but I have yet to meet the man to sexually tempt me. I do view myself as such gay as well, because I am usually a happy guy.

 

[maquiscat]

very few have queer sexual greed and thus humankind has flourished

You have a fetish for splitting up posts don't you?

 

[James972]

There were people under all three[Hitler Stalin and Mao] who felt that what they were doing was right and good.

correct so the issue is always to determine if in fact it is right or wrong and that certainly applies to queer behavior. Trying to pretend it is all relative is merely a trick to evade a determination that will not be in your favor.