PaulS

Don't forget the 1 in 6000 chance of a nickel landing on its edge - it's not as simple as only heads or tails.

I think it was a subject as you were responding to Joseph's example with some points about heat yourself, which themselves seemed incongruous with the understanding of heat that Joseph was presenting, so I think it's only fair that Rom should ask you how you understand heat. As I just did in my last post also (maybe you thought all those question marks were rhetorical). Of course we could get into one of the others topics, but heat was the question you were being asked about. Following Rom asking you, I was asking you also, because you seem to double down on your position about heat when you say "...if we look at it as 'less heat' than hot, it is so 'different' than hot and so far from hot on a continuum that for all intents and purposes it is 'opposite' in its effect and the reaction to it". Yet you seem to now take exception at being asked to explain your understanding of heat when asked. Frankly, I don't care if you refuse to answer the question. I'm just noting that it was a reasonable question to be asked by Rom, that you were misreading him by pointing him to Joseph only, and that whilst you might prefer to discuss another topic such as God/Devil or right/wrong, that wasn't what you were being asked about. But fair enough if you don't want to answer - that's your prerogative.

But to use the term 'heat' to flesh out Joseph's point, then presumably you must have some understanding of it, no? And if you do have some understanding of it, what's the problem with Rom asking you how you understand the term 'heat'? For me, I am wondering myself now how you understand heat to determine where exactly 'cold' sits on the continuum scale so as to be 'opposite' to heat? Can you name a temperature where 'cold' is 'opposite' to heat? Where exactly does 'cold' sit on the heat continuum scale? Where abouts at 'one end' of the temperature continuum does cold sit exactly? How 'far' away from 'heat' does cold actually sit on the heat continuum scale? Can I ask as an aside, what does this expression ( :+} ) actually mean?

Thormas, I think perhaps you are misreading Rom. To me, it reads that Rom is asking you, what you think 'heat' is. You weren't the first to bring 'heat' up but you did say things about heat such as "...but as with heat, depending where they are on the continuum..." and "I get that we can say that heat exists and cold is merely the progressive absence of heat on a continuum", and so on, so it would be a reasonable assumption that you have some idea in your head of what heat is, which is perhaps different to Joseph (as you did initially consider cold to be the opposite of heat when in fact cold doesn't exist per se, as explained by Joseph). In that regard I don't think Rom's question was unreasonable as he is asking you, what you think 'heat' is. That's how I read it anyway. I'm sure he knows to ask Joseph if he wants to further understand what Joseph thinks heat is.

I like that analogy, Joseph! There is only heat - an opposite does not exist, indeed only a different degree of heat exists. There is no right or wrong...to heat...it just sits on its continuum wherever it finds itself at that time. Simple existence, irrespective of wherever another finds itself at a simultaneous time. Similarly, that's about the only way I can understand God to be, if there is such a 'thing' as God - like heat, without an opposite, in all things, and for me, all things would be in and of God, sitting on that continuum wherever they may find themselves at that time.

Thormas, Joseph's post has made me realise that this conversation is really about nothing. You have your views on the matter, I have mine. I think this discussion about 'using' another for sex has reached its climax. Do you have any final questions for me that you feel it is necessary for me to answer before I conclude my part in this thread concerning 'using another for sex'? Cheers Paul

Agreed in full, Joseph.

There is no change. The woman which was a friend was one instance, after I had mentioned sex without strings in other contexts, and you introduced sex with friends. The fact of friendship did not add or take away from the mutual use, acceptance, expectation, and outcome of the no strings attached sex. But maybe what I'm sensing is that you're starting to understand your initial condemnation of the act of having sex without strings attached is perhaps a lot more complicated than you at first thought when you condemned it as 'wrong'. One can only hope. I don't see that as 'pushing for' a limited encounter. I see it as more going with the flow and that flow went towards a sex-only, no strings attached experience. You introduced the angle of 'pushing for'. Saying I was 'pushing for' something implies you understand what was going on at that time - and clearly I gave no such detail. I never mentioned any long-term relationships except my wife. The friend example I explicitly said was a once off (read my post properly). No long-term relationships being introduced here by anyone but you. Do you think the actor is responsible for their actions? If an action is 'wrong' as you say, is the person 'wrong' in any way? You say you are only talking about the act, but what do you say about the actionee then who does the 'wrong' action? Should they be punished like a murderer or a rapist? I find it difficult to believe you can entirely separate an action that you are judging from the actionee. If we are using the term 'judgment' instead of the word assessment, I could agree somewhat with you. But we all know that is typically NOT what is meant when say one says "though shalt not judge". Judgement in that context is understood as making a decision about another's actions based on one's one understanding and usually has a negative connotation of blame. As you well know, Jesus is attributed as saying "Thou shalt not judge" - do you think that is meant to mean "thou shalt not consider an actions' rightness or wrongness"? There has been no evolution - just extra detail as we have conversed. I'd like to see you write a couple of sentences that precisely explain every aspect of what you mean by 'use' and see if you find no need to elaborate further as questions are raised and elements further discussed. Not sure how you came up with 'dating-lite'. I wasn't discussing sex in any other context than brief encounters for mutually-agreed, sexual enjoyment. I did mention marriage and concerning love-making, I demonstrated all sorts of relationships where love-making could be involved but different to your narrow view of what qualifies as love-making according to your opinion. Perhaps I could have used a better word than happy. Maybe exchange happy for meaningful and fulfilling. Just because something is meaningful and fulfilling doesn't necessarily mean that makes a person happy I guess, but I'm pretty sure they would be. I was happy when I felt I had had a meaningful and fulfilling experience with another in these circumstances. You are imposing your view of the world on me (putting your opinion on me by your judgement) ) when you say that what I am saying is love-making couldn't possibly be love-making because of how YOU define love-making. I can live with it to because I don't really know you and in the grand scheme of things, I don't really care. I'm just making the point that that is what you are doing. For crying out loud Thormas - "you seem unable to actually discuss it and provide greater insight" - How much insight do you need! Can I make it any clearer for you: mutually-agreeable, consent, attraction, sex, understanding, respect, enjoyment, happy to go own ways afterwards, etc". If you are unsure, hold off telling somebody something is wrong because you don't fully understand it. What is it precisely you want to be educated about - I am happy to oblige. First you have an issue with the conversation 'evolving' and now you are criticizing because I haven't explained enough to you. What is it that you are unclear about? After introducing Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs you said things like "...the one who has reads Maslow can recognize actions on, let's say, a scale of selfishness to selflessness (Love) with the latter being more likely to result in and or be the expression of the one who is 'actualized' (or what I have termed, more fully human) and the former a hinderance to actualization or a sign of 'missing that (actualization) mark.' Some selfish actions are obvious and recognized as immoral, wrong, destructive of life, while others are obvious and recognized as the opposite. The former are called sin in religious or theological terms." Okay, so now you're not really focused on self-actualization or sin when it comes to 'missing the mark'. Okay - thanks for letting me know we can forget about that now then as they are now unimportant terms to you (but 'wrong' isn't, is it? Is 'selfishness' still on the table?). So this 'wrong' action that we are discussing (sex for sex's sake with mutual agreement and no strings attached) is selfish or is not? If it is selfish, do you think that is considered sin, or a hindrance to self-actualization, or do we forget about those two phrases entirely now because they're no longer you're focus apparently. Good. Don't. Again with the negative connotation of 'use' when I have explained the relationship several times over. Continue to ignore that and frame it for your own argument ad nauseam. Usually when I do something right or good, it makes me happy. If I do something that to me feels wrong or bad, it typically doesn't make me happy. We all make judgments about what is right and wrong - clearly. We are but foolish humans who need to categorise and box things so that we can understand, communicate and get along. But we need to recognize that our judgment is limited - that's what I think Jesus may have been saying when it is attributed to him that he said one should not judge - clearly Jesus wasn't simply saying one should not assess right from wrong. So I think in any day to day context, how I use the term 'judgement' is well understood. How you are using the term, t might be appropriate if we were deciding the evidential merits of a court case. Clearly we make laws and regulations that if people in the community transgress these, we call it 'wrong'. But I also acknowledge that these laws and rules change (remember when it was encourage to stone your child to death if they disrespected their parents?). Such a situation would have been judged 'correctly' in it's day to have been wrong and the kid killed, but I can't imagine you 'judging' it the same way today. Can you? What if indeed - that's why I'm asking you to hold off on the judgment. You just don't know the situation, so don't be so quick to condemn the action just because on your limited experience, you think it can't be right. My personal experience tells me it can be right. If you genuinely do want to consider the what-ifs: What if the couple using one another give mutual consent, both desire the activity with complete free choice and no counter-factors affecting their choice, are happy and content to share a night of passion and then go their own ways with no strings attached? If they both genuinely want that experience, consent to it, benefit from it and then move on. You still think that is wrong? Because why? I don't - I think it's probably one of the nastiest trademarks of Christianity to date. The fact that you can't recognize how that harm is caused is not uncommon among Christians. And for some reason, sex always seem to excite Christians so much in their condemnation and judgement about what is right or wrong. Comparing it to murder and rape often gives it away how important it is to them to 'get it right'. As an aside, have you read Bart recently who thinks that Jesus was even against marital sex outside of the need for pro-creation? That won't sit well with any Christians that uses contraception!

You can make a judgment about people's actions - I just think it is ignorant to do so because you are not fully across the issue, particularly when you liken rape & murder to something that is fully consensual, mutually beneficial, and both parties are happy to go their own way afterwards without any reference to police. Incredible that they are the examples you would use to compare a consenting sexual relationship, albeit a brief one. It is convenient to use examples like murder and rape, but you are comparing apples with oranges. Clearly these acts do NOT involve consent or mutual benefit and clearly they have negative consequences for the community. I think your judgment is what's absurd here. It doesn't all fit neatly into a box that says 'good stuff' vs 'bad stuff', 'right' vs 'wrong'. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's why determining certain behaviors as 'sin' or 'self-actualization' is nonsense. Nobody who has been raped has said 'thank you' (I imagine) and nobody who has been murdered has wanted to be murdered (I assume). Unlike the scenarios about sex I have been explaining to you - where mutual agreement has resulted in mutual benefit with both parties happy they experienced it and both parties then happy to move on. If you think those actions can be judged like murder and rape, then I think that's what is absurd. You talk about the 'wrongness' of the act. Clearly in rape and murder - wrong is done to a non-consenting party. So from that you extrapolate that because you don't think people should have mutually-agreed one night stands, that those actions are also wrong. But here we go down the slippery slope of determining what is right and wrong, don't we. Enter calling certain behaviors sin and others not, depending on who's making the determination. You have made no case whatsoever for any universal truth or community harm that mutually-agreed sex for sex's sake is 'wrong', other than because you think so. In fact, you refuse to even believe one who has had the experiences and says that it has done no harm and is in fact beneficial! You have an opinion so its only natural that your opinion supports your judgement of people's actions. Again your judgments about what is 'real lovemaking' is just your personal judgments - which you are entitled to but which you are wrong about. Where do I find the bullet points for what is actual lovemaking and what is not? Is oral or anal sex love-making? Is a mutual threesome lovemaking? Is a married relationship between two men having sex lovemaking? Or what if they are only engaged? Or what if they are only together a week before having sex? Do both parties have to orgasm to officially be love-making or if just the man cums (in a male/female relationship) does it fall short of lovemaking? Or is it only actually lovemaking if I am married after having gotten to know the person over a certain period of time - what period of time is the minimum required to ensure I know the person well enough before proceeding to 'love-making' versus only sex? What if a husband simply has a 'quickie' with is wife, albeit with her consent, but only the man orgasms - has he just 'used' his wife for sex? Or to qualify as love-making do we need certain duration and certain things achieved for both parties? Don't worry about answering - it just rhetorical statements to make clear that your understanding of love-making is YOUR understanding of love-making. I don't think you should be telling others when they are making love or not. Especially when you haven't experienced what they say IS love-making and which they have found a wonderful experience (for both). My point being is that you judge my experience as not love-making, which I find incredible because I'm pretty sure you weren't there. Clearly though, that is how you need to understand it to fit your logic in this discussion. I can only say you are wrong, which you will of course ignore. Love comes in all shapes and sizes Thormas. Love ranges from love for a stranger, love for a friend, love for a spouse, love for a child and a zillion grades in between. Appreciating somebody for who they are, at that particular time in your life, respecting them for what they want too, understanding what they hope for out of a night of sex as well as what you hope for, and knowing that it is only a one-off that both will be happy about experiencing, is just a different kind of love that you have never experienced. That in itself leads to love-making, although I doubt you can understand that. Just leave love and love-making up to the individuals - don't tell them what it is and isn't. You can only speak from your personal perspective. And all of our perspectives are limited, including yours. You are not THE authority on what is love-making and what isn't. To define every degree of love and then assess whether a particularity action fits on that scale at a certain point is the problem with religion, sin and thinking that actions help or hinder us in 'self-actualization'. I would suggest being a little more open-minded about how others may experience love and love-making, but you will be what you will be.

I think I'm explaining it pretty well - maybe the issue is with you not being able to appreciate it because you've never experienced it (i.e. the positive experience of mutually-agreed sex with another, with no strings attached, and walking away from it afterwards appreciating it for what it was). Things have been added along the way by nature of conversation - like how you introduced 'friends' etc. I have no issue with a conversation evolving - perhaps next time if you require me to outline absolutely everything we are possibly going to discuss in advance, it might make it easier for you. Or perhaps next time you can iterate every single possibly detail around a word you use, so that we don't have to discuss it in trying to understand the other. Your surprise at my decisions is only based on your ignorance about what went into that decision. If you judge the situation you don't even really know about, as something more than what I would want, then that is your judgement, not mine. Who even said I pushed for such a limited encounter? You alone! Really Thormas, you do have a very judgmental mind on this issue and how you think I have or did behave and make my decisions. If you re-read you own words on this matter - you weren't exactly asking me a question - you had already decided that my only thought was do I want to sleep with her. I never said that. What if there were other thoughts but for that point in time both were simply happy to sleep together? I've met hundreds of women who I think are sexy, kind, have a lovely voice, demeanor and other stuff - it doesn't mean I want to court and marry every single one of them! And nor does it mean that I want to have sex with every single one of them. I get that you can't understand why somebody would be happy with just a sexual encounter rather than a full blown romance, when they find a nice woman. But that's you - not me and not many (i.e. a lot of) others.You are imposing on me how you think and feel. That's fine for you. Knock yourself out. The fact that's not what I wanted in my life at that point is not an issue for me, although it seems a big one for you. The added detail, fuller description makes no difference to me, only to you because you didn't even want to try and understand - you have made it clear from the get go that you don't approve of using another just for sex. This fuller detail takes nothing away from the desire and preparedness to simply use another for love-making and then move on. I have been trying to explain to you all along that having an experience where one uses another only for sex, in a mutually agreeable and beneficial situation, is a good thing. You have maintained it is a negative thing, or harms self-actualization, or is a sin maybe (I'm not sure where you stand on that because apparently we weren't comparing Maslow's self-actualizing theories with sin). Do you think that the situation I have described is a sin or is sin? Perhaps you didn't fully understand what you were saying when you said it was wrong for people to use another for sex. I have only been trying to explain to you that using another for sex can be a great thing and I think people like you who judge other's actions and say that what they are doing is wrong, is what's really harmful. "To opt not to know her fully, to not share her life, is to opt to purposely limit the encounter and be done with it." - yes, and there's nothing wrong with that! That's my point. Maybe you feel the need whenever you meet such a woman - I didn't. She didn't. We were both happy and enjoyed the moment. That's your judgment showing through of how you think people should act. Not mine - two consenting adults, enjoying their moment, no strings attached, at a certain point in there lives where they don't want to take things further - how anybody would feel the need to debase that and criticize is beyond me. But you do try hard. You may feel that you have to give your heart a soul to a cute girl you meet before you can entertain the idea of sex with her - I don't. And the women I shared these exquisite moments with, didn't either. They were all able to think for themselves (none were forced) and none of the women in the instances I am referring to felt that they deserved something different, none wanted 'the fullness' of a different kind of relationship, none thought they weren't being treated like a human being. All were women who equally wanted to use another just for sex, enjoy it, and move on with life. Not everyone judges relationships the same way as you. It's not a case of 'deserving' more, it's a case of both parties agreeing they don't want more at that time. Can't you respect the other person's decision also, the woman that is happy just to have a sexual encounter with me and then go her own way. She also makes a choice to use me in that situation for the fun and enjoyment that it was, without strings attached. Mutual consent, mutual preparedness just to enjoy the sex for sex's sake. Neither party wanting to get involved in a 'full encounter'. Why are you so against people making this choice? Thanks for the judgmental lecture about how you think I should act toward women, but like I said, I was there , I experienced it, and I know it was a lovely, beneficial experience in my life. The fact that you can't understand that and think one should only behave in certain other way, is just ignorant judgment. So I won't quit from here, because I really wouldn't like you to feel that I am quitting again, but I do think this has reached a point where there isn't much value in discussing further. You are firm in your opinion that anything other than treating a woman the way you believe she should be treated, is harmful to one's self-actualization. You don't care for my experience and seem dug in that what I did can only be 'less'. Clearly I don't feel that way, as I have demonstrated. This whole conversation sums up my problem with people calling behavior/thoughts/actions as sin or trying to use secular understandings of behavior such as 'self-actualization' - all it does is create this environment of judgment and criticism of others who are on the wrong side of whoever's opinion about how they think people should behave. We are already fully human and our experiences contribute to that state of being. Anything of particular relevance that you feel still needs addressing/answering? If not, I am happy to finish this discussion. Your call.

There are limitations in our judgement concerning murder and its impact on the one who carries it out, because neither of us have committed murder (I am making an assumption about you here). That doesn't mean we can't have a crack at making some judgments about it but irrespective, our judgement by nature of the fact that we haven't participated in such an act, is undoubtedly somewhat limited when it comes to understanding the perpetrators actions (their drivers, what they get out of it, how they feel after the event, etc). So you can 'judge from the side' but I would suggest you're not getting the full picture that experience could add for you. I would have thought it was plain to see that experience of the subject could only add to its understanding, not take away from it. You may not think you need experience in this matter to make a judgement, but that's your judgement. I think the absurdity is your preparedness to dismiss another's experience because it doesn't align with your judgement of a situation that you have not experienced. Clearly you have not had the positive experience of mutually-agreed sex with another with no strings attached and walked away from it thinking it beneficial - otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to argue against it. I have experienced that wonderful experience so can tell you for a fact that it did not detract from my 'self-actualization'. If you don't believe me, so be it. Experience in the matter does make a difference, as I point out above. That doesn't mean it makes a difference for you of course - you seem to have made up your mind. As for for what I am describing as having nothing to do with love-making, that's where your limited understanding and failure to read what I am writing betrays itself. I have talked about mutual attraction, mutual agreement, desire, passion, pleasure, respect and more. You continue to want to focus on sexual objectivity and 'transactions'. To say all those things I have raised has nothing to do with love-making demonstrates your misunderstanding (wilful or other) of what I am saying. You continue to want to use the word 'use' in a negative light - I think a consenting couple can use one another for an overall sublime experience and be happy with no strings attached. I've experienced it. What you're actually saying is that I don't know squat about love-making because I can't possibly know what I am talking about, even though I am telling you I have experienced it. Another judgement. I'm a fairly open book when discussing this sort of stuff with you, anybody else, even my kids, but am mindful of other people's right to privacy so would never compromise them in any way. So I can say that I have experienced and moved forward on a number of difficult issues that arise in the bed. Unfortunately for the instance I mentioned, there was no moving past it for me - the damage was done and I couldn't see her in the same light again. I'm sure you've experienced seeing one of your ex-girlfriends a different way when you have fallen out of love with one perhaps? Rhetorical for you. 'Using' another human being with their full knowledge, consent, appreciation and needs met also. It's a win-win for both. If you think that's objectifying another and treating them wrongly, there's really not much more to discuss then. No, you are mistaken. I am not saying you are judging the individual or individuals themselves at all. I am saying you are making judgments about their actions when I think you don't fully understand the motivation or situation involving their actions, expressed by your focus to keep saying they are 'users', in a negative light. You stick to your nasty understanding of the word 'use' - I am using it in a positive context. To share your body with another whilst enjoying theirs, for no other reason than the pure experience of sex and love-making, with their total consent and understanding, is not a 'bad' thing. It does not harm one's 'self-actualization'. In fact I'd even say it's beneficial to their development - if it suits them. It's not for everyone (e.g. it seems it wouldn't suit you). I haven't 'changed the equation' I am now talking about 'friends' because you introduced them. From personal experience, from one who has had a one night stand with a friend and moved on, there were no strings attached and we still see each other today, in company of our respective partners who know we once had a dalliance, and both of us are just fine with 'the strings' being cut after what we knew was just a one-off mutual enjoyment of one another. If your friendships aren't up to that then I wouldn't expect you to do that. Ours was, is and we were mature enough to recognize the night for what it was, the time and the circumstances in which it occurred. It was right, for then. Of course it is a different relationship with the one I have with my wife (as I have pointed out in previous posts). But it is just 'different' not 'lesser'. That was then, this is now. I have no need to consider a past relationship because I am in this one. I can distinguish between the two. One is not 'better' than the other for the time and place I was in my life. Back then I was happy with my relationships, and now I am also happy with my married one. The sex is really good too, particularly as over the years you get to experience and try a lot more than in any short term relationship. But that doesn't detract from my experience of the other relationships - one nighters included. They were great, for what they were, at that time in my life. I'd like to think they even made me a better lover for my wife when we finally met. If that's how you look at it Thormas - I genuinely feel sorry for you. Not that you should care of course, but I really think you are looking at this experience and the people involved in such in such a narrow-minded way. I have told you it's a two way street, with both parties seeking satisfaction and getting enjoyment from one another, both consenting and understanding the situation for what it is. But still you persist with seeing it as objectivity. Maybe it's you that has the issue and not them. And if you had had that experience like I had, perhaps you wouldn't be so negative about this sort of relationship. No, they were great, but not as great as my wife. I knew the difference when I met my future wife. But I couldn't turn around and say they were wrong, because they weren't.

Merry Christmas Burl.

Yes we can make a value judgement (judging is the easy bit) but what I am saying is that unless you have been there and done that, you don't know what it feels like, what the emotions involved are, whether the experience is life affirming or harmful to self-actualization. I don't know what it feels like to commit murder - do you? But I am sure a murderer does. Do you know what it feels like after a mutually-consenting, mutually beneficial love-making session with no strings attached? - I do. It seems you can't or won't say, so I don't know what to presume you understand from actual experience vs an intellectual/academic approach. Whilst we may not need actual experience to make a judgement, I would have thought there was extra value in the experience plus the intellectual/academic approach. I have both and you aren't prepared to say if you have the experience or not. So my premise is that you should hold off on judging others as being 'users' whose actions hamper their self-actualization potential when it seems you don't really know what they think, do, say or how they may approach this whole issue of simple sex without strings attached. I think that if you had benefited from the positive experiences of this type of sex, which I believe I have, you wouldn't be so quick to judge such behavior as harmful. Yeah, I did all that too, and it was wonderful. As were the occasions where I and another girl used each other for a night of passion - with mutual consent, mutual benefit, respect for one another, desire and attraction to one another, yet happy to go our own ways afterwards. Yeah, I'd like my kids to enjoy that too like I did and still do with my wife. But it's not one or the other in my opinion, and depending on where they're at in their life, they may choose and experience other models. Honestly Thormas, you take stuff so literally sometimes. Because I use the phrase 'business transaction' in a way to help you better understand the point I am making, you then seize on it and decide that phrase sums up everything I'm trying to convey. You are wrong. I am not describing this type of sex activity as a till at the hardware store or something. If I have to say it again - it is like a business transaction in some ways because two mature people make an agreement to proceed on the basis that they will both gain something from the activity and are happy with the circumstances. As I have explained above, there's a lot more to it than just a simple 'transaction' which you are now seizing on. I'm not talking about women as pieces of meat like at a butcher. I am talking about appreciating their sexiness, their kindness, their voice, their demeanor and many (i.e. a lot of) of other things - all of these things go into deciding if one wants to sleep with another or not. Like your friends, they probably didn't start out as friends and you probably cut strings with people before a friendship developed. But once you're in that friendship role I am sure there is a strong element of mutual respect and understanding. So if I had a friend that wanted sex with me and we respected one another's understanding of what we wanted out of it and what the other expected or not, then maybe we would proceed with sex. Who knows. But my point is that you seem fixated on some sort of uncaring, nasty, debased, abuse of another - that is not what I am advocating at all.

I have had mutual compassion, care and passion in my relationships that have been 'just for sex'. I can only tell you that from my experience. If you don't believe these things are possible in such a relationship, I think that is your loss. I think you use discardment as an emotion-laden term, probably deliberately, because you have a negative view of no strings attached. Typically 'discardment' means to 'get rid of' something. I don't think that's an appropriate way to define the human relationship I have been discussing. Yes it is over and both parties mutually agree to go their own ways - but neither really discards or gets rid of the other. The point has simply come, as agreed, where each goes their own way. Indeed you do. Is it the only way a Christian can view them - I'd say not. In your judgement you see a certain kind of relationship as 'ideal'. I am simply saying that many (i.e. a lot of) different kinds of relationships are 'ideal' for their circumstances and what they have to offer those involved. There can be harmful relationships too which may diminish another - I'm not advocating those. If you have the view of another as an object only - that's you're hangup not mine. There is still sharing, passion, compassion, even love in a mutually-agreeable, sex-only, relationship. That's where speaking from experience does have some benefits. You might want to revisit Maslow - there is a quite an argument for his 'hierarchy' not being valid. Needs can be met in a variety of orders outside of the hierarchy Maslow developed. Burl seemed to disregard Maslow completely, but unfortunately didn't elaborate and you don't seem interested in picking up on that, so I have let it be too. I have made love to women I am full captivated with, and I have made love with women who I am less than captivated with. Both had their place and both were wonderful. The smell thing might be hard for you to understand, but on one occasion a woman who I was very much attracted to and who in many ways seemed to meet my expectations, turned out to have disgusting personal hygiene vaginally and anally, which I only found out during our first session of lovemaking. Up until that point I had no way of knowing about this. She did have mild body odour initially but I just put that down to the weather and ignored it (not a major issue). Unfortunately for me, this new found undesirable trait of hers was a real turn off and I struggled to get past it. It seems you've been quick to make another assumption about what I say without seeking a better understanding. Personally, I think I dealt with it with a lot of class - trying to let her know about her issue without trying to offend or humiliate her, but it was still a turnoff and I didn't go forward with the relationship.

Why I say "business transaction" doesn't sum up the situation fully and only suggest the term to help you along a little, is because some of the 'more to it' can include things like getting to know the other (just because it's a mutual sex session doesn't necessarily mean the person is a stranger), the respect for another person that runs a little deeper than a simply hello/goodbye that is more common in a simple business transaction, boundaries may need to be set and understood before going ahead, and really a whole bunch of other human emotions and thoughts which one doesn't usually experience in a simple business transaction. In what I am explaining to you, yes, respect is required. You respect what the other person wants, you respect their consent by understanding what that consent entails. You respect their wishes if whilst you are making love they ask you to do or not do something, and you oblige. So yes, I think respect is an integral part. I think the prostitute question is really self explanatory - would he or she really want to sleep with you if you weren't paying for it? I don't think it's a genuine mutually beneficial arrangement when it comes to the act of sex (and not the money side of it). This is why I say thinking of it more like a business transaction doesn't sum it up entirely, but only partially lends itself to understanding the exchange of mutually agreed sex without any strings attached. That said, I think prostitution has its place and can be useful, but I think there's a lot more to it though. Whilst many (i.e. a lot of) prostitutes may genuinely work on their own terms and motivation, some also are forced to by poverty or drugs or abuse by others, etc. So I think there can be a nasty side to prostitution and a good side.

Thormas, we both haven't answered some of the others questions along the way. You have done the same many times and as you have done as recently as this very post, ignoring the questions I last asked you: - Do you really think you know me that well to call me dishonest? (No answer) - Do you perhaps have your own biased picture of me in mind that you are reading into my words? (No answer) - So you really believe that unwed couples having a night of consensual sex with no strings attached (strings being a symbol of discardment apparently, according to you), are committing dysfunctional behaviors? They are users? (No answer) - What about masturbation? (No answer) - Can we class that as a functional activity toward self-actualization or is it dysfunctional? (No answer) - If I start out thinking I really, really like a girl, but then by the end of the sex I don't like her (maybe she smells really, really bad or is just really bad at sex) have I harmed my self-actualization or benefited it? (No answer) My point is, questions don't always get answered due to the extensive nature of some of the posts. In your critical question case here, it was a couple of lines within 30+ lines of text. Sorry I didn't take it serious enough. It clearly is an important one to you which I will answer below. No I haven't "summed up" anything. I have 'suggested' you see it more like a business transaction - an exchange of services that are mutually agreeable to both and benefit both. Of course there is much more to it than simply that. That's why I disagree with you framing it so negatively with your focus on people being 'used' in a way that sounds like it's bad. I think using another for sex, with their consent, with their mutual desire, is a good and normal thing. And YES - I would be happy for my children, as young adults, to enjoy such experiences. I would encourage them to ignore people like you that want to condemn them for enjoying such. I would also recommend marriage IF that is what they wanted to do. If they didn't want to get married, I wouldn't be recommending it. Marriage is great for me, but like sex, I think it's an individual's personal business what they want to do in this regard. Highly recommended. There's nothing like a good shag with somebody equally interested in a good shag, with mutual consent and respect between the two parties, knowing full well that when it is over, it is over. No strings attached. I would also recommend that one hold off until one is mature enough to understand that. I would recommend mutually agreeable sex just for the sake of sex, if asked about it, the same as I would about marriage. I'm not out there promoting marriage or waving a flag saying "go get married", similarly I am not out there promoting or waving a flag for mutually agreeable sex just for the sake of sex. But yes, I would recommend it if my children asked me about it, when they are mature enough to understand it. Have you ever experienced mutually agreed sex with another (not your wife) just for the sake of sex? I'm only interested to better understand if you are coming at this from an actual experience point of view or are you limited to an intellectual/academic discussion?

Your memory might be failing you a little Burl - I have never posted anything about going to church with my wife (I know this because she's never been to church) and I have never posted that I was involved with the Methodist church (but maybe you are confused because the Church of Christ I was involved with has a similar history to Methodism - both having come from the same Protestant Christianity backgrounds). I have moved somewhat from believing in Jesus as a spiritual teacher - I still think he has something to offer but where I sit currently, I'm not convinced there is anything 'spiritual' at all, other than the sense of community many (i.e. a lot of) of us exist in. Christmas for me is a time to catch up with family and friends, exchange gifts, eat well, socialise, relax and have some fun. It's a time to suspend the normal way of life for a few days and reconnect with my closest 'community'. I think they used to call it Saturnalia until Christianity rose to dominance and claimed that date for its own celebration. Either way, the cultural drive to have a time out for reconnecting is still there for all - christian or not.

Not blaming anybody Thormas and certainly I am being honest. Not sure why you question my honesty - do you really think you know me that well to call me dishonest? Do you perhaps have your own biased picture of me in mind that you are reading into my words? Again with the opposites. So you really believe that unwed couples having a night of consensual sex with no strings attached (strings being a symbol of discardment apparently, according to you), are committing dysfunctional behaviors? They are users? I don't know how you have the wisdom to distill down every detail about a couples' sexual relationship and determine whether they are using each other one night or are in a loving one-night stand. I'll leave further diagnosis to those that give a damn. I don't. You seem to have a focus for 'using' others in sex. Not sure what you have in mind as you now seem to not mind loving, one-night stands, which you previously said were a lesser relationship than a committed married sexual one. Sounds like a lot of judgement and ol' time sinning to me. Maybe if you looked at it more as a business transaction - both people are sexually attracted to one another, have their sexual desires met, enjoy their sensational, sexual night together, and both are happy to go their separate ways in the morning never to see each other again. Maybe you've never experienced such a pleasant and fulfilling occasion. I have a few times in my pre-married days and I thought they were both thoroughly pleasurable and a beneficial experience. That didn't stop other Christians from frowning and condemning me of sin of course, and it seems it wouldn't stop you thinking that I was committing dysfunctional actions that were limiting my self-actualization as a human. But gee it was fun! What about masturbation? Can we class that as a functional activity toward self-actualization or is it dysfunctional? If I start out thinking I really, really like a girl, but then by the end of the sex I don't like her (maybe she smells really, really bad or is just really bad at sex) have I harmed my self-actualization or benefited it? Do you have a scholar or expert in mind that can conveniently list what actions are either functional or dysfunctional, because clearly people can't be trusted to rely on their own experience, as you say about mine. There may be a big book lying around here somewhere that people tell me shows the rules! Oh that's right - this isn't meant to be comparing with sin! Yes, you love your thoughtful experts Thormas. Personally, I don't know that Maslow can be considered an 'expert' on this matter. He certainly came up with a thesis back in (1943?) that many (i.e. a lot of) people give thought to, but is it right in face of all answers and angles - I doubt it. But it is food for thought. Burl might be one better to ask about the deficiencies of thoughtful experts like Maslow - he seemed to strongly think not much of Maslow for whatever reasons. I don't know how many times I have to explain to you how I am understanding the word 'use' and how many times you are going to conveniently look past that to make sarcastic comments. I've seen you in this modus operandi before and am not interested. Yes, the concept of sin is nonsense and senseless. Agreed. Time to file it away in the "religious nonsense" bin I say. The only time I quit is when I tire of you misunderstanding words and phrases that I go to great lengths to explain, but which explanation you continue to overlook and rather apply your own understanding to what I am saying. Just like you're doing here with my explanation of the concept of 'using' another in a consensual, sexual act. Sometimes I have time to debate the topic with you, other times I prefer to enjoy my life doing other stuff. So I am mindful how much I spend on this forum, trying to explain myself to those who perhaps don't care anyhow. You do have a tendency for long-winded posts (probably only seconded by me), so I can't always be bothered with trying to help you understand what I am saying (after the 10th or 11th attempt anyhow). For example, your dredging up here of a totally different thread where I correctly used the word 'many' to indicate 'a lot of people', was simply your misunderstanding of the word as a noun instead of as it was used, as an adjective. A subtlety I admit, but one that I tried explaining over and over and which dictionaries in the many (i.e. the majority) demonstrate. But I have explained all that previously, to no sensible avail. It seemed the important thing to you was that you 'won'. Each to their own. But if you want to discuss yours and my shortcomings, maybe you could start a new thread and leave this one to sin and homosexuality. I apologies if I overlooked whatever it was - to me it was buried in the noise. Which question are you unhappy that I haven't answered? Instead of several paragraphs, can you maybe please distill the question into one or two straight-forward sentences? I will try and answer it best I can.

And it doesn't means he is correct either (whatever you might be saying he is correct about). You are convinced he is. All power to you. I disagree. No, you decided the topic was about dysfunctional behavior. I wasn't referring to any behavior being dysfunctional or not making one 'fully human'. That's your game, not mine. I was saying the opposite - judging certain behaviors as wrong or right, functional or dysfunctional, is the whole problem with this man-made notion of 'sin'. To quote yourself - where do you get this stuff from? Why do you only go for extremes - wrong or right, function of dysfunction, black or white? There are a zillion extremes in between which any neat little pyramid or rule of scripture fails to identify and address. Because some people want a no-strings attached, consensual sex session with another, you are calling them users, that they are only treating another as an object. Talk about having a plank in your eye. No, I don't. You're making up a rule set based on your own (and maybe Maslow's - I don't know him) personal judgement. I'd say let it be rather than getting your knickers in a twist about unwed people enjoying a sexual relationship. You are infatuated with references and other clinical studies to guide your life it seems to me. My own personal life experiences tell me that all relationships are different and that one is not 'better' than another. They all offer something and depending what that something is that you want, is what you may find more value in. I understand sin - and it is nonsense. PaulS is my primary source in this instance (can you cite a credible scholar that directly refutes him?). I don't agree with your view and you think I am wrong. I can live with that.

No, sin is make-believe, which is what makes such so hard to recognize to those who believe they are instilled with common sense.

No, you are making that proclamation. I am saying that evil & righteousness are just levels of judgement developed by humans. Different judgments based on one's cultural view of the world. Call it sin or call it actualization - it's all just human judgement.

It's to be expected that Maslow, like all of us, may have his own personal biases. The behavior I 'applaud' is not dysfunctional. You and Maslow are simply mistaken. As soon as somebody starts citing morality amongst their studies - run for the hills! I don't apply judgement like you do about what makes somebody fully human. We do, or we do not, and all of it is fully human. One is not 'better' than another because they are in a married, committed relationship compared to one who has mutually agreed one night stands. That sort of judgement results in actions and behaviors being called 'sins' by others and I say it's a nonsense that is best relegated to the history bins for the waste of time and harm it has caused. No, I'm right and you're wrong. I know this because I am fully actualised. You will get there. Keep trying grasshopper.

You seem to be comparing the actions/inaction associated with Maslow's model with the notion of sin causing failure to self acutalize in a religious context. No? No, you seem to have redefined sin to a way that suits your view. I don't think this agrees with what many (i.e. a lot of) understand to be the definition of sin in a religious context. When you say 'use' let me clarify - 2 x consenting adults who say "let's have sex together but take our relationship no further" and then who enjoy a night of passion before parting ways, is how I am saying one may be using another, but it is not abuse of another and it is not even 'use' of another in a negative context. I am saying people who do this can be already be fully human and jut be enjoying one another for sex. All power to them I say. See above concerning how I am talking about 'use'. We are not talking about sexual abuse. I compare using one as an 'object' (that is to say, consensual sex but which both parties know is not going to develop into anything else) compared to sex with one who we are in a committed relationship. Same act, different outcomes. Neither are 'bad'. Neither is 'better' than another, they are just different scenarios. We are fully human from the day we are born - warts and all. Being 'self actualized' makes one no more human than another - just a different type of human, as we all are to one another.

Even the general idea is a major shortcoming in my opinion. Self-actualization is nothing like sin as promoted by religion. So to try and give 'sin' some sort of secular justification seems a nonsense to me. I don't disagree with the concept of actualizing human potential, just that it doesn't correlate with the religious idea of sin and 'missing the mark' of being fully human. Religious sin is about not meeting a standard of perfection as established by God. All that is is human judgement based on whatever culture of the day decides what is sin and what isn't. Indeed it does. But to understand sin from anything other than a religious perspective means we are no longer talking about sin, but simply what it is to be human. Fully human at all times. I don't think there is anything wrong with consensual sex and treating each other as an object to be used. If both parties are happy providing their bodies to the other whilst also gaining their own enjoyment of using the other's body, what's the issue? It's actually quite fun if you've never tried it. And there is respect for the other because you are both agreeing to participate in an entirely natural thing, for the pleasure, enjoyment and satisfaction of both parties. I don't disagree that there are users and abusers, but that is not the situation I am discussing. I don't think they have to 'love' at all to be self-actualizing, enjoyers of consensual sex. No harm, no foul. But sex isn't a good one to discuss because there does seem to be a particular hangup about sex when it comes to religion and sin. If self actualizing is an analogy that works for you, all power to you. But linking it to sin just seems unnecessary to me. In fact, linking it to sin is probably an unnecessary distraction and confusion that is best avoided altogether, in my view. Why confuse a religious judgement about what is wrong with humanity with a positive view such as when we feel our best as humans, warts and all. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I just don't think man "needs God understood as love" to become fully human. To clarify - I think it is fully human to start stipulating and categorizing what 'love' is and then to start judging whether one is becoming 'fully human' or not. We are already fully human as we are. Religion and sin does not say that.

How do you believe it is a sin?