A theory on sexuality

"Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial" (Corinthians 10:23)

Well, yes I love my friend John very much, but I don't think that this love will put me in bed with him. It's not something that ever crossed my mind. It could, but It's not my preference. It's a cultural issue. This is how I grew up.

To be honest, under different conditions I could start thinking a little bit differently. And ''thinking differently'' is a good start. Anything can follow. Especially if you are not a puritan. Is well known fact that ''actions follow mindset and mindset follows actions''.

But let's be honest, having sex with my friend John, it's not a matter of love, it's (primarily) a matter of ''fun'' (satisfaction and pleasure). Having sex with John would be the same like have sex, with my ''friend'' Lisa. I mean for the same reasons. For fun and pleasure.

Let's see why.

When man began his journey on earth, we cannot say much about the ways he used (preferred to use) to satisfy his reproductive instinct. It is most likely she had to choose through a multitude of ways and means.

Remark1: Don't take it for granted that from the beginning of the creation, immediately and instinctively (like all other animals), man chose the homogenous species of heterogeneous sex to start their sexual activity. Remark2: These lines are not written to support the fans of the normality of heterosexuality. They are written mostly to support those who question the "straight'' nature of heterosexuality!

Anyway. To continue, I believe that it would be better not to use the term ''reproductive instinct'' (=libido), because, as I will explain below, the existence, as well as the satisfaction of this instinct, is not directly related to reproduction. We will also avoid a nonconformist belief that, this term underlies any further analysis of the subject, since the reproduction instinct, as an "instinct" and as a "reproductive" one, by definition makes any other "relative" activity not aiming to reproduction, de facto unnatural.

We will also avoid the term "instinct", since there is freedom to choose the time, the way, the frequency of satisfaction, or even the downgrading of it (it's not religions only, but psychology also knows that virginity can be a condition for individuals).

Due to it's addictiveness, it's better to call it "passion" as we sometimes suffer it (when we cannot control it, even though we've chosen it).

We say "fall in love", while love is not something we "fall" into. Passion is something we can "fall" into. Like Drugs, alcohol, gluttony, avarice, vanity). Love is something joyful, complete, perfect that apprises you. Is THE destination, not a "fall".

This passion is not related to 'love' or 'friendship' or to some kind of psychological connection between people.

Sex is not related to love or friendship. Otherwise we would have sex with our children for example.

Do not argue now by saying, ''This is another thing'', because this way we go back to the dogma of the existence of instincts and separation of them to

- ''by nature'' and

- ''against nature'',

which is something that we should leave out of our discussion, since it supports the heterosexuality as reproductive ''by nature'' activity.

Since, It's difficult for one to support the idea that parental love without sexual activity is 'by nature'' and parental love with sexual activity is ''against nature''.

So, summing up, we conclude to that, in the beginning of mans history,

-  we have a passion, looking for satisfaction,

-  it is not related to another human directly and by definition, since it can be satisfied in a variety of ways (self-satisfaction as well as with partners from the animal kingdom)

- and of course in this historical period, man is at the lowest cultural level. In the cultural bottom.

Over the centuries, he discovers by experience that one of the ways of satisfaction, of this passion, also has a collateral benefit!

The reproduction of mankind!

The man ''over time'' prefers women and women prefer men. Namely ''combines pleasure with business'', or else ''to kill two birds with one stone'' etc.

Institutionalizes, makes rules and characterizes the satisfaction with other species of animals, as well as the homosexual satisfaction as ''against nature''. Namely decided to keep only one way of satisfaction.

Later on, when he reaches the peak of his culture, he establishes the heterogeneous unique relationship, as the only ''by nature'' way of entertainment of his passion.

We observe that the more culturally superior a society is, the more the linear "progress" of free limitation of passion from the collective personality (society) is applied.

In the history of mankind, we observe that there have been periods of cultural decline, even to the most developed societies such as the Greeks (the end of the Hellenistic years, the early millennium AD, the period before the fall of Constantinople, etc.).

All these cultural backslides were characterized (inter alia) by the "violation" of this cultural parameter. I cannot detect the exact reason, (it is not the purpose of this text), but I can observe it. I can also observe the cultural differences between societies at my own historical time in relation to this passion.

So, summing up. For those who argue that the choice of heterosexuality and monogamy is not the only natural possibility of man, I would say that they are ABSOLUTE RIGHT! Man can establish a society by whatever means of contentment of his physical sexual desire (homosexuality, zoophilia, self-satisfaction) he wants.

However, heterosexuality and monogamy are the only ones which ''come with an benefit'' and do not downgrading him, according to "Everything is permissible but not everything is beneficial" (apostle Paul).

This is not a matter of ethics, but mostly a cultural approach!

I guess today we are experiencing one of these very frequent cultural backflops. We choose once again the pleasure without the benefit. The benefit in our case is not childbirth, but the civilization that will go a little bit back in time.

NAL