Underselling love.

Bhaas left me this comment last night:

I’m sad that I live in a world where sex is thought of as cheap entertainment with the value of a handshake. I think eventually, a generation is going to see through the muck, religious or not, and want something deeper and more sacred than what you describe as “sex.”

What’s wrong with entertainment?  I’m a fan of entertainment, and sex is not only free but damn good entertainment!  Do I value love more than sex?  Sure, but they’re not the same thing.  If you think that sex and love are inseparably intertwined, far from being sacred, I think you’re really underselling love.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Ibis3

    All I can say is I think we’re far better off treating sex as cheap consensual entertainment than as a man’s prerogative to obtain from his property or the property of his enemies. Deep and sacred? The only time sex has actually been culturally treated that way is when people thought having sex would make the land fertile, and that was reserved for special occasions.

    • http://considertheteacosy.wordpress.com Aoife


      Also, is is just me or does the treatment of sex as ‘deep and sacred’ normally coincide with women being expected to keep themselves ‘pure’ and being seen as damaged goods if they sully themselves with it? The idea that sex is sacred is nothing more than a tool to control and shame people. Especially people who are women.

      • Andrew Kohler

        It is not just you, Aoife.

  • Glodson

    I think eventually, a generation is going to see through the muck, religious or not, and want something deeper and more sacred than what you describe as “sex.”

    Pure stupidity.

    Look at this.

    The results of the analysis indicate that premarital sex is highly normative behavior. Almost all individuals of both sexes have intercourse before marrying, and the proportion has been roughly similar for the past 40 years. The slight decrease between the 1984–93 and 1994–2003 cohorts was not statistically significant. The increase seen beginning with the 1964–73 cohort may be partly due to increased availability of effective contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that sex would lead to pregnancy;21 but even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in ten had had premarital sex by age 44. Among those who did not have sex at all during their teen years, eight in ten eventually had premarital sex.

    Yea, these recent generations are so horrible that they are following the same trend seen for the past several generations with no statistically significant difference.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd JT Eberhard

      Good point, Glodson.

      • Glodson

        It is almost like sex is a normal function of humans, in terms of biology and sociology. It is almost like there’s not good reason to attach a moral value to the act of sex itself, but rather on the relationships themselves. It is almost like it doesn’t make sense to hold sex to be something dirty, or profane, or special.

        • baal

          Excellent understatement and article Glodson. The NIH isn’t like some organization with family in it’s name; rather they pay for and promote top notch science (evidence based conclusions).

          • Glodson

            And when an evidence based conclusion violates what a person holds to be true, they dismiss the evidence.

            Kind of sad. But thanks.

  • John Evans

    I love lots of people. I want to have sex with lots of people. These two groups only partially overlap. Is sex with people I love extra-special? Can be. Is the love I have for people I don’t have sex with diminished? No. I don’t see the problem.

    • Silent Service

      Well said, John.

  • CottonBlimp

    When you’re in a real, loving relationship, you know that just watching a movie with your partner is more special and intimate than watching one with your friends. The analogy here is obvious.

    It’s just a fact that most of us want something deeper and more sacred than what Bhaas describes as sex.

    • http://considertheteacosy.wordpress.com Aoife

      Exactly. Putting sex on a pedestal is not a substitute for creating and nurturing genuine intimacy and love.

      • Azkyroth

        Pedestals are uncomfortable anyway.

        • Glodson

          And you and your partner(s) might fall off. No one wants an injury like that.

          • http://considertheteacosy.wordpress.com Aoife

            Especially if there’s going to be sex involved. Doesn’t matter how deep ‘n’ sacred it is when someone’s just broken their tailbone.

        • Sarah

          Don’t tarnish my kink with your judgesments!

  • Thumper1990

    I’m with JT on this one. Personally I’m pissed off at the prudish society that expects people to feel dirty for enjoying sex. Passionate, consensual sex is one of the most beautiful things two people can do together, and I flat out refuse to feel guilty or ashamed for indulging in it. And I’m a man, I hate to think how a woman is made to feel if she espouses this attitude. Fuck our slut-shaming society. Sex is beautiful and fun; as long as you’re responsible, have as much of it as you can.