What Is Love and Its Meaning in Human History?

[XMLT]

We have discussed about many things in this forum without mentioning about the definition of "love". So, what do you think love is all about?

 

[dekoi]

Love is agape (according to Lewis).

Love is never putting the other at risk.
Love is unconditional.
Love is always putting the other ahead of yourself.

Love is not what you see in romantic hollywood films.

Love is not violin music and candle-lit dinners in the monlight.

 

[brandon.irwin]

No no dekoi! Love is what you see on television. You meet someone, can't take your eye's off of them or stop thinking about them (this has nothing to do with lust). Then, you kiss, and make love. You then see you have too many differences, don't actually have anything in common, or flat out don't know each other, and move on to the next person. I KNOW that's how it is, because that's how it is on TV and to the nearest teenager.

 

[XMLT]

-brandon
but the love you mentioned is not true love. In the end, you don't have true happiness. True love brings you true happiness. And yes I agree with dekoi. Love is understanding, trusting and respecting each other. Even though, it's hard to find that kind of love nowadays and the definition of love has been misunderstood by a lot of people, we cannot deny the truth.
If you did something for a good purpose, what you did could still be right or wrong. However, if you did something for a bad purpose, there must be no right in what you did.
Same with your perspective towards love, if you seek a true love with all your heart, you may or may not find it but you still can hope for one. However, if you seek for the love that does not last, how you can find a true love.
What you think always has an impact on what you react in life.

XMLT

 

[dekoi]

Brandon, i really hope you're joking. Your tone has a satirical edge to it, so i really can not judge right now.

Perhaps you should read about the subject before making statements. You are talking strictly about eros and storge.

 

[Prometheus]

Love is agape (according to Lewis).

Love is never putting the other at risk.
Love is unconditional.
Love is always putting the other ahead of yourself.

Love is not what you see in romantic hollywood films.

Love is not violin music and candle-lit dinners in the monlight.

A true idealist, and a definition that might be expected from a true idealist.

 

[Prometheus]

You are talking strictly about eros and storge.

Agape is not the only type of love. Eros is too. So is philos.

 

[dekoi]

Prometheus:
Perhaps you should consider the difference between someone who recognizes the truth, and someone who is impractical (idealist).

Agape is ultimate love. Eros, philos, and storge are at a much lower degree.

 

[Prometheus]

Prometheus:
Perhaps you should consider the difference between someone who recognizes the truth, and someone who is impractical (idealist).

I am not sure if you are trying to claim that you are one of these and not the other. I never said, and I do not consider, that idealists are impractical or that beling one is a bad thing. It is one type of person that has opinions that are different from other types.

Agape is ultimate love.

I am sorry, but your word "ultimate" has absolutely no meaning for me. Should it?

Eros, philos, and storge are at a much lower degree.

I am not familir with storge. I am also not familiar with degrees of love, such that they are hierarchically organized in an objectively agreed upon order. Please cite a reference that supports your objective contention that there is a hierarchical order for degrees of love, such that one is more important than another.

 

[brandon.irwin]

Yes, I was joking...well somewhat. If you ask a teenager what love is, most likely their definition or understanding will be much closer to the TV love rather than true love.

 

[dekoi]

Prometheus: By lower degree i mean to say it achieves a lower degree of happiness. This hierachy roots from the Levels of Happiness.

C.S. Lewis's The Four Loves is a good overview of these breeds of love.

 

[Philocrat]

We have discussed about many things in this forum without mentioning about the definition of "love". So, what do you think love is all about?

LOVE is a 'Life Force' (LF). And LF is ANY THING or ACTION that permits or contributes to CO-EXISTENCE and the overall HUMAN PROGRESS and SURVIVAL.

-----------------

ANY THING OR ACTION THAT ALLOWS HUMAN BEINGS TO CO-EXIST, PROGRESS AND SUBSEQUENTLY SURVIVE IS LOVE!

-----------------

 

[hypnagogue]

ANY THING OR ACTION THAT ALLOWS HUMAN BEINGS TO CO-EXIST, PROGRESS AND SUBSEQUENTLY SURVIVE IS LOVE!

So the construction of the highway system in the United States was an act of love? Odd way to use the word.

At bottom, love is a kind of subjectively experienced emotion. Certain kinds of behavior may ensue from this kind of emotion, but these acts are not what defines love. It is the qualitative character of the emotion itself that defines love.

 

[dekoi]

So the construction of the highway system in the United States was an act of love? Odd way to use the word.

At bottom, love is a kind of subjectively experienced emotion. Certain kinds of behavior may ensue from this kind of emotion, but these acts are not what defines love. It is the qualitative character of the emotion itself that defines love.

You are not clear on the root of love? Are you stating that it is strictly emotion?

I find the discussion of such topics very difficult without referring to theology.

 

[hypnagogue]

You are not clear on the root of love? Are you stating that it is strictly emotion?

Yes, I'm saying that the notion of 'love' is defined by a range of particular emotional states a person may be in. If I do charity work but feel the same emotionally as when I do taxes, then love has nothing to do with it. I don't know exactly what you mean by the 'root' of love, but whatever that is, I imagine it is the same as the 'root' of anger or bemusement or any other kind of emotion. Certainly love is a more sublime kind of emotion to experience than anger or bemusement, and one could make an argument that it is the most valuable kind of emotion that humans can experience. But at bottom it's an emotion, insofar as I can say with confidence that if one is experiencing the right kind of emotion, one is experiencing love, and if one is not experiencing the right kind of emotion then one is not experiencing love.

 

[pace]

hypnagogue. That's '(I'm) in Love' you're describing I believe.

I find Love hard to describe.

I think maybe it is best described through an action.

 

[Preator Fenix]

I find it difficult if not impossible to define "love" if even the concept of my own identify and existence remain a mystery.

Before we can venture a definition of love we must first thoroughly understand the reality of subjective experience, and knowledge we at this moment are horribly behind in.

The answer to what is love. I don’t know. But I know it sure feels good.

 

[dekoi]

So Preator, as well as other members who have replied: you would not agree with my statement regarding love? I am wondering whether you believe it is false and you are in disagreement with it, or you have not read it.

"Love is never putting the other at risk.
Love is unconditional.
Love is always putting the other ahead of yourself."

 

[Preator Fenix]

Love is never putting the other at risk.
-----what if this person never risks to leave her room, or ride a bike or drive a care? If I loved her would I let her waste her life, and miss out on much happiness because she never wanted to take a risk? Would I for the sake of not letting her take a risk, RISK the possibly of her being forever unhappy for not experiencing life? And more importantly WHERE WOULD I DRAW THE LINE?

Love is unconditional?
-----Even if he is a genocidal terrorist creating nukes to destroy the worlds? Even if he WANTS TO KILL ME? Again where would I draw the line?

Love is always putting the other ahead of you?
------What do you do when there is a scarcity of resources? When there is only ONE drop of water in pot in the dessert? What if by doing so, you make yourself UNATTRACTIVE (by not looking out for yourself), and now she doesn’t want to be with you anymore? Again where would you draw the line?

Your definitions of love fail only because they try to impose a binary logic (1, 0;;; black/white) on a dynamic complex non linear system with an inherent degree of chaotic behavior.

Of course you could find perfect counterarguments to my arguments, and to I would counter you counter ad infinetum, each of us specifying in smaller and smaller detail and every time less and less general and more specific definitions of "Love". At the end we will have a convoluted and irrational patchwork of definitions of love. This process is called reductionism, and the patchwork of definitions is but a matrix of "APPROXIMATION" of love, and therefore by definition NEVER able to EVER give us a 100% solution. In the field of "poetic" love non-100% truths are not very welcomed.

It is a similar problem as trying to define hydrodynamic motion by analyzing the motions its individual atoms (in our case "the ever more specific" definitions) interactions in a matrix which APPROXIMATES the collective motion.

In "real world" applications this process just simply DOES NOT PASS MUSTARD.

Only recently with the development of a new and better "language" (that of evaluative chaos theory) that better solutions to said non linear (and non binary) problems of hydrodynamics can be solved to a FAR greater degree of accuracy.

In a similar vain, as regards definitions of love, what we lack is an adequate language that can better handle the non linear complexities of subjective experience. Until we have that all our pretentious definitions of love are but guesses in the wind.

*ps: The name's Fenix.

 

[Prometheus]

I am wondering whether you believe it is false and you are in disagreement with it, or you have not read it.

"Love is never putting the other at risk.
Love is unconditional.
Love is always putting the other ahead of yourself."

I disagree with all of these. I think that these are not love, but attributes of love, and that furthermore they are the attributes defined by a person who is extremely different from me.

You are far too abstract for me, and I personally do not feel a great deal of attraction to your personal selection of attributes.

 

[saviourmachine]

1) Love is never putting the other at risk.
2) Love is unconditional.
3) Love is always putting the other ahead of yourself.

If this is true, I never loved someone, and think I'll never be able to love anyone in the future neither.

2) My love is directed towards an object, often someone I know for some time by the way. So it's conditional. 1) If I start a relationship I definitely regard the possibility that I will hurt this woman somewhere in the future. Of course, I hope this won't be the case, but how can I be 100% sure of myself? To be in love, involves risks, both have to give up their independence! 3) This kind of love, is that okay? Just loving someone as yourself seems enough to me. And even that I regard as overdone.

I wholeheartedly agree with Fenix and Prometheus.

 

[saviourmachine]

[about television love]In the end, you don't have true happiness. True love brings you true happiness. And yes I agree with dekoi. Love is understanding, trusting and respecting each other.

I think terms as 'understanding', 'trust' and 'respect' are indeed linked with what I regard as love. But, I don't think I would reject what others- teenagers e.g. - feel as not being true. That words as 'understanding' and so on, can not merely replace the word 'love' says enough IMHO. Love has certainly to do with (our 'bestial') feelings too. Nothing wrong with temporary love, as long as nobody is hurt, deceived or something like that. And the opportunities to do that are certainly manifold until you get to know somebody better.

 

[hypnagogue]

So Preator, as well as other members who have replied: you would not agree with my statement regarding love? I am wondering whether you believe it is false and you are in disagreement with it, or you have not read it.

"Love is never putting the other at risk.
Love is unconditional.
Love is always putting the other ahead of yourself."

No, I would not agree with these as definitions of love, although they may be attributes of love as Prometheus suggests. I would call these the behavioral tendencies of a person who experiences a particular kind of love rather than calling them the very criteria for deciding the presence of love itself.

My reason is quite simple. Let's say for one day that I never put others at risk, always put others ahead of myself, and do so unconditionally. These are all behavioral descriptions which neglect to mention my internal mental state. Therefore, it is possible for me to do all these things while simultaneously feeling emotions such as boredom, anger, or even hatred. Not likely, and perhaps even very difficult, but at least possible.

If we are looking for a definition of love, it should at least be such that nothing that satisfies the definition can strongly conflict with our intuitions about what love is. I don't know about you, but smiling and helping others while simultaneously loathing the acts on the inside does not square at all with what I think of as 'love.'

On the other hand, suppose we have two brothers who love each other. Brother A is about to die, and brother B can save A's life if he sacrifices his own life. If B does not sacrifice his life, does that imply that he didn't love A? I don't think so, not in the least. He may have loved A dearly, but just not have had the proper courage or initiative or whatever to perform the ultimate act of unselflessness.

In the end, I suppose it all comes down to our basic intuitions, associations, and so on. For me, love is more about what you feel than what you do. (This does not limit my notion of love strictly to romantic love or being 'in' love, by the way; I explicitly said that I consider there to be a range of emotions that one might rightly call 'love' of one sort or another.)

 

[Philocrat]

So the construction of the highway system in the United States was an act of love? Odd way to use the word.

At bottom, love is a kind of subjectively experienced emotion. Certain kinds of behavior may ensue from this kind of emotion, but these acts are not what defines love. It is the qualitative character of the emotion itself that defines love.

I class this (what you are referring to) under a class of things called 'Unnecessary Necessities'. Even if a highway will in the end not form the absolute and final part of a perfect life form (if this is possible in the first place), a highway, though may to an onlooker appear unneessarily necessary, still has what I habitually call 'Ephemeral Sustaining Value' (ESV) to the overall human existence. In the 'Book of Nature' this should serve as a Life Force with a significant contributory value to the human existence. Just think of the number of people that use that highway every day in the process of daily living, even in the face of chaos and unforseen problems, then you would probably appreciate what I am talking about. With all the problems they may encounter on their ways, the majority of them still ply that highway with the unshakeable will to further the human existence. That is some love, if not love itself!

 

[Mazuz]

Love is seeing yourself in another.

 

[Preator Fenix]

Short anwser:
What Mazuz said.

 

[Erus]

Love is of course give and take. It is said that you should give more than what you take, but it is also said that in the end it is always equal. Love is also that the fruit gives to you, only after it has been cut from its tree. hypnagogue - About highways, do you think nature loves them? Polution isn't love, but I see the give and take in it... Somewhere. Love in my opinion is within everything we observe and do. In every act and thought. Even hate breeds love. And you know how that subjective stuff goes.

 

[Philocrat]

Love is seeing yourself in another.

Absolutely! But go tell that to the 'Jones', they will think that you are trying to invent another theory...perhaps for fear of climbing out of a clusterphobic, self-crushing paradigm that Thomas Kuhn (1962) accused the scientific world of. And then, with their eyes spitting fire, the next thing they will do is to ask you to prove it. You are right, seeing oneself in another does substantially count as love, it serves the purpose of self-identification both in your own eyes and in the eyes of he or she through which you see. And most importantly, the compensatory value induced is substantially real and empowering, especially when it comes to the notion of moving things forward existentially.

Think Nature! And may the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is good!

 

[pace]

Love don't cost a thing.

 

[cragwolf]

Love don't cost a thing.

I disagree. Love is usually very expensive. Let me explain why, from the perspective of a male, starting from the simple things. First, there's the price of condoms to consider (always practice safe sex boys and girls!). Second, there's the price of fasionable clothes (you are not going to attract a girl with $10 sweatpants). Third, there's the price of dinners and drinks and cinema tickets and presents. Fourth, you'll need a car; that almost goes without saying. Fifth, to afford all those things, you'll need a job, and a fairly decent paying one, which usually means an education, and educations are expensive. Sixth, as the relationship gets more serious, and/or you get older, things like starting a family start to be considered, and this is where it really gets expensive! Now, you can no longer rely on your good looks (they may be gone by now, anyway, assuming you had any to begin with) or your personality. You must become part of a serious team which will have to provide for the kids and the middle-class dream. Instead of a job, you'll need a career. Your happy-go-lucky attitude to work disappears, and you'll become a little bit nastier and meaner; if what it takes to save your career is some backstabbing, then that's what you'll do. The price is sacrificing some of your humanity, and that's very expensive.

The vast majority of us think this expense is worth it, so there must be something to this love thing.

 

[pace]

haha

 

[Kerrie]

Real love is a willingness to perceive your mate as positive as possible (within reason, not to say tolerating abuse is ok). It is also the willingness to work at understanding and respecting that person while maintaing that positive perception.

I think this view comes far easier for your parents or children because they are physically a part of you. Seeing them in a negative light and reducing the love for them could have the tendency to deflect that negativity upon ourselves because of the biological relationship. The love we share for a mate/spouse has to be more consciously developed, but the effort in that is worth it for many.

 

[13L_R31]

Preator Fenix...You make interesting points. I was wondering your views on soulmates. Do you believe there is one special person out there for everyone? Do you believe that you can only truly love one person and never another? Do you believe people always end up with their soulmates? Also, do you think there is an age limit on who can actually know what love is? I hear lots of people say children and teens don't truly know what love is, even if they believe they are. Love is very beautiful.

 

[cragwolf]

Actually, this idea that there is one special person out there for you is complete bollocks. I'd say that, for most of us, about 1 in 10 members of our preferred sex and age group would make an excellent soulmate, maybe even 1 in 5. On every bus and train you catch there's probably a few potential soulmates on board. This gives great hope to people who lose a soulmate for whatever reason; there's always another one around the corner.

Now, as for the belief that people always end up with their soulmate ... la-la land is that-a-way. I'd say that most of us do find a soulmate (perhaps several) at some point in our lives, but don't always end up marrying them. Or we marry them, and then you both change so much until you're no longer soulmates. A sizable minority of us never find a soulmate at all. And some of us miss out on any mate altogether, for the term of our natural lives. I might write a story about that latter group; I'd call it my autobiogaphy.

Move along, nothing to see here. Good luck in the game of love.

 

[XMLT]

I just wonder if you are really in love with someone, can anyone else stop you from loving them? If they can, then do you really love that person or just having some kind of a feeling?

XMLT

 

[CeeAnne]

L'amour est fantastique.

 

[NeutronStar]

I haven't read the whole mushy thread, but I tend to agree with what some others have said,..

True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.
True love is respecting the values of the people you love.
True love is accepting the people you love for who they are.

If we can't do these things, then we don't love people for who they are, but rather for what we are trying to mold them into becoming.

 

[cragwolf]

True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.
True love is respecting the values of the people you love.
True love is accepting the people you love for who they are.

If we can't do these things, then we don't love people for who they are, but rather for what we are trying to mold them into becoming.

I have to say, I think that's a rather limited and/or unrealistic notion of love. To treat each statement seperately:

True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.

A lot of people depend on each other. Mutual support and dependency is part and parcel of a lot of loving relationships. It was part of my parents' relationship. And they're still together after almost 40 years, the love is still strong between them. You grow together.

True love is respecting the values of the people you love.

All of the values? For example, I have no respect for alternative medicine. I think it's nonsense. But if my significant other decided to try it out, then I could live with that. And I think our relationship could live with that. The same goes with many things I think are nonsense. And if she had no respect for my obsession with cosmology, it wouldn't bother me much. My values can change. I prefer doubt over faith. I am open to criticism of my values. I am comfortable with differences of opinion over values.

True love is accepting the people you love for who they are.

Again, I don't think this is absolutely necessary. I think you're always going to see flaws and faults in your partner. Meekly accepting them is not productive, in my opinion. I would love feedback from her on how I could improve as a human being, and I would hope that she would love my feedback on how she could improve as a human being. The problem starts when at least one of you is unable to handle criticism.

But coming from a southern European cultural heritage, where we talk and argue a lot, spend a lot of time together in large groups, blow steam without keeping things bottled in, where the family is just as important as the individual, well, I might have a different perspective on these things than you.

 

[NeutronStar]

I have to say, I think that's a rather limited and/or unrealistic notion of love. To treat each statement seperately:,...

Well, I must say that I hadn't really thought of my comments from the vantage point that you seem to have taken them. I suppose that love can't really be put into words because words are too easily misunderstood.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

You know you love someone when you are willing to suffer instead of them!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Anyone want to hop on over to the Is it wrong for people to have more than one partner? Or branch off into that here as part of a definition or limitation on love?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I just wonder if you are really in love with someone, can anyone else stop you from loving them? If they can, then do you really love that person or just having some kind of a feeling?

XMLT

Since I don't think anyone has offered an agape-like version of love, I'll give that a shot.

The last 1/4 of my life I have often felt love without an object to love. It is like being in the experience of love without my friends or mate or cute kitty around bringing it out of me. This is just my own interpretation, but sometimes I sense that my consciousness is part of something bigger than myself, and when I feel that most strongly it seems to create a feeling of being in love.

I remember this song by Joni Mitchell ("A Case of You') where she sung, ". . . love is touching souls." That's not exactly the love I've been describing, but it helps to complete the explanation. Maybe love (leaving hormones out of the picture) is the feeling of unity one feels with some greater conscousness. That would explain why some feel the object-less kind of love; but because other beings are present there too, one can actually "touch souls," feeling-wise, and experience love also with other beings.

I realize there are also a lot of behaviors that one can practice which help preserve or express the feeling. When it's love between two people, being tolerant or affectionate, for example. But the more I've separated relying on having someone to love for love, and learned to just sort of be "in" the experience of love by myself, the more I seem able to enjoy love. :!)

 

[AiA]

Simple, easy to understand

Love first off is NOT an emotion nor is it a feeling, you can't love an animal cause it can't love you back, you can't love an object because it can't love you back.

Now as to what love is: First and for most it is the act of will, you need to be willing to love, you don't "fall" in love, its not accidental, it requires will
Second, Self sacrifice, that's pretty self explanatory, I'm sure all of you heard at one point of your lives "relations need work", well that involves self sacrifice.
Thirdly, not putting the other in danger, of course accidents happen so you can't hold that into acount, but when one desires to put the one they hurt (when in full control of their mind at the time, passionful events would most likely result in hurting the one you love.) See, pretty simple right, right.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Leaving aside the sexual component for a moment, I would say that love begins with friendship, caring, and appreciation. I don't think it can really exist on a basis that excludes any of these three.

juju

 

[AiA]

love and sex

Juju's statement is quite correct, love must come from some foundation.
But what one must realize is in terms of love, ideas of sex are confused, sex is meant for a marriage for a good reason, one gets married when they are truly in love, that is when sex is apropriate, cause then they can procreate that love. Now when people have premarital sex they are using the other for their body which goes against what love is, premarital sex is for the sake of an orgasm, for self joy, for using the other for sexual pleasure, using a human soly for their body is degrading and is wrong.

 

[cragwolf]

But what one must realize is in terms of love, ideas of sex are confused, sex is meant for a marriage for a good reason, one gets married when they are truly in love, that is when sex is apropriate, cause then they can procreate that love. Now when people have premarital sex they are using the other for their body which goes against what love is, premarital sex is for the sake of an orgasm, for self joy, for using the other for sexual pleasure, using a human soly for their body is degrading and is wrong.

Utter nonsense. Sex is a pleasurable activity. Pleasure is not immoral or degrading. There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex.

 

[dekoi]

Utter nonsense. Sex is a pleasurable activity. Pleasure is not immoral or degrading. There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex.

Sex is a pleasurable acitivity. No one ever questioned that. It is not immoral or degrading, as long as you are not degrading anyone else or your own mind.

Premarital sex is extremely degrading and immoral. It is an act in which we are turning the body and soul of other humans into pure physicality.

But, let me guess, you don't believe in a soul.

 

[loseyourname]

Premarital sex is extremely degrading and immoral. It is an act in which we are turning the body and soul of other humans into pure physicality.

I'm having some difficulty following the reasoning here. By analogy to your argument, we can conclude that jaccuzis is degrading and immoral, receiving a massage is degrading and immoral, eating a piece of cake, if it serves no nutritional purpose, is immoral. All of these acts treat a human body as purely physical and all serve no purpose other than self-pleasure.

In fact, I cannot even see a moral difference between premarital sex (provided it is consentual) and married sex performed for a purpose other than procreation. There is no law that says two married people are any more in love or less objectifying toward one another than a non-married couple simply because they are married.

You've yet to give a good reason why a consentual act of mutual pleasure should be considered immoral. What could be more moral than two people getting together and agreeing to perform an act upon each other that increases the happiness of each, even if only for a half hour at at time? I might see extenuating circumstances you can cite as being immoral, such as one party being pressured by another, one party forming an attachment while the other does not, both parties being careless and getting pregnant or contracting a disease, but these are all circumstances separate from the act of sex that are themselves immoral. None points out any intrinsic immorality in the act of premarital sex itself.

 

[AiA]

STD's and pregnancy are a result of sex, hence why premarital sex shouldn't occur cause it causes these problems, and people who are in love should get married, if you are just as truly in love with some one that your not married to in relation to a married couple, then why not just get married then have sex, and also again, you must realize sex is not for pleasure.

And you say eating pie is immoral, your not disregarding its soul or mind are you, if you are I apologize for ever eating pie, or using a hot tub cause I disregarded the hot tub's soul, you want me to go apologize to the hot tub.

Now when looking at the example of a message, (a good example), that is used for ones personal pleasure and is done by a human who you pay for the act to be done on you. the difference between a message and sex is first off, your not putting the other at risk in any shape way or form, secondly, your not indulged in any passion while receiving a message unlike when your having sex, see, while having sex it becomes for the sake of getting an orgasm for yourself, using the person for an orgasm, and if your really nice you'll help the other use you to get an orgasm, how great. But when given a message your not in any way indulged, you can very easily talk to the person giving you a message.

 

[loseyourname]

STD's and pregnancy are a result of sex, hence why premarital sex shouldn't occur cause it causes these problems, and people who are in love should get married, if you are just as truly in love with some one that your not married to in relation to a married couple, then why not just get married then have sex, and also again, you must realize sex is not for pleasure.

I'm still having difficulty following the distinctions you're making. If a married couple has sex purely for pleasure, is that immoral? As it stands, you've only covered careless sex anyway. If neither party is infected and birth control is used, then there is no danger of either STD infection or pregnancy. Under your contraints, given these circumstances, sex should not be immoral. I would agree if all you were saying is that infecting someone with an STD or getting a women pregnant against her will was immoral.

I also cannot see why two consentually and knowingly putting themselves at risk is immoral. That would seemingly make it immoral to engage in any dangerous act. Is it immoral a cab driver to speed up beyond the posted legal limit when asked to by his charge because of the chance of accident? (Consider the case separate from the morality of breaking the law.)

And you say eating pie is immoral, your not disregarding its soul or mind are you, if you are I apologize for ever eating pie, or using a hot tub cause I disregarded the hot tub's soul, you want me to go apologize to the hot tub.

But how are you disregarding the soul/mind of your partner if that partner wants you to have sex with her? Is premarital kissing immoral? What about some other non-procreative act that a woman derives physical pleasure from? For instance, my girlfriend really likes simply for me to lightly scratch my fingernails across her lower back. Given that I am paying no attention whatsoever to her soul/mind and simply pleasuring her body, is this immoral?

Now when looking at the example of a message, (a good example), that is used for ones personal pleasure and is done by a human who you pay for the act to be done on you. the difference between a message and sex is first off, your not putting the other at risk in any shape way or form, secondly, your not indulged in any passion while receiving a message unlike when your having sex, see, while having sex it becomes for the sake of getting an orgasm for yourself, using the person for an orgasm, and if your really nice you'll help the other use you to get an orgasm, how great. But when given a message your not in any way indulged, you can very easily talk to the person giving you a message.

All right, you're really losing me here. First, you can talk to a person you're having sex with. Second, consentual sex in which both parties are pleased is not "using" either party. Third, when done with the proper precautions, sex is not dangerous to either party. Second, unless it's a therapeutic necessity, what purpose does a massage serve other than indulgence?