All Comments (46)

"Hitler could have been prevented from comitting genocide if the nations of the world, particularly America, would have confronted him earlier"

America is not the world's default policeman - sorry.

Genocide occurred in Germany because the GERMAN PEOPLE created a culture saturated with hatred toward their religious minorities. Hitler came from that culture.

"In all fairness to the Western culture it must said that the sex instinct is the same in all human beings"

If it were that easy, I suspect we would have a health plan. :)

Dear Mr Gandhi

In all fairness to the Western culture it must said that the sex instinct is the same in all human beings - a Nambudiri Brahmin woman from Kerala, a tribal woman from an Indian village, a burkha covered Muslim woman in a Muslim country, an African woman, a white woman in the West...are all capable of the same virtue and vice as far as sexual behaviour is concerned. The difference lies only in the way the families and societies policed the instinct, with strict codes of social norms and severe punishments for breaking them, thus forcing the human being to toilet train their sex instinct to create human societies with stable families and communities. Whether atheists like to admit it or not, religions played an important role in creating such stable social structures.

The sexual morals in the West a century ago was quite different from what it became after the sexual revolution of the late 1960s. Economic freedom for women because of the opportunity to support themselves through work (especially after WW II), the pill and other contraceptive methods which provide men and women with sexual pleasure without the negative consequences of having unwanted children, all have contributed to changed attitude towards casual sex. There is no guarantee that such attitudes as is prevalent in the West today is not becoming more and more prevalent in India, at least among the affluent middle class that has emerged and continues to grow starting with the IT boom.

People the world over engage in sex because it gives pleasure. Telling human beings that sex is only to have children doesn't work; it is like telling children not to eat chocolate because it is bad for health. Even married couples must engage in sex for pleasure to cement their lifelong relationship and fill it with joy. The point of course is what to do about sex outside marriage which is not without emotional, medical and social consequences. That is what people should be thinking about. Parents need to educate their children wisely and teach their children to deal with their sexual urges.

In India talking about sex is still taboo hence people are ill prepared to deal with their sex instinct. When there is no policing, virtue turns out to be lack of opportunity and people (men and women alike) engage in safe/unsafe sex at first opportunity (Read: cheating by partners when they are exposed to temptation either in India or in the West, HIV transmission due to heterosexual activity with sex workers etc).

We all (in the East and West) need to ask ourselves what the social consequences of sexual promiscuity are and work out ways to deal with them in a practical way. It might not be a good idea to wait until the social chaos is complete. There are already too many people suffering from STDs, too many children growing up in broken homes, too many children being aborted without being given a chance to live, too many people condemned to a life alone without any sex and companionship at all and without a lifelong partner because too many are out having recreational sex to want any commitment and companionship...Finding and keeping a lifepartner seems to have become a lifelong competition where only the fittest survive; the older ones, especially the women, doomed to lose the game at every turn. The sexual liberation the women sought is beginning to backfire quite badly. It is now time for men and women to work out rules that are based not just on equality but also takes the difference in biology and the long term needs of the women into consideration.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

"But Gandhi's non-violence and non-cooperation would never have worked against the Nazis or against the ruthless Japanese. The Nazis would have shoved Gandhi and his followers into a gas chamber within 24 hours as they have done innocent men, women, and children."

Unless of course it made the masses of German people not wait till *after* the war to throw up their hands and say, "I'm not a Nazi!"

Mr. Gandhi:

I personally have great regard for Mahatma Gandhi and for his policy of "ahimsa" or non-violence.

However, I have some serious doubts about that policy's practical ability to fight evil. Non-violence and non-cooperation can fight an enemy with a conscience. It is a powerful message that appeals to an enemy that has some ethical or moral foundation. But Gandhi's non-violence and non-cooperation would never have worked against the Nazis or against the ruthless Japanese. The Nazis would have shoved Gandhi and his followers into a gas chamber within 24 hours as they have done innocent men, women, and children. The Japanese army threw babies into the air and caught them at the end of their swords. So these forces were pure evil without any conscience or morality.

For any message to get across, we may have the most powerful transmitter but if there is no receiver (or a receiver that is tuned to the wrong frequency), that message will not get across. Therefore, sometimes there is no alternative to take up arms against evil. That is a testament to our humanity. Hitler could have been prevented from comitting genocide if the nations of the world, particularly America, would have confronted him earlier. No amount of moral posturing would have stopped Hitler and Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin's effort to reason with Hitler is ample proof of that observation.

Gandhi suceeded because the British people and by extension the rulers in India had some conscience, had a functioning democracy, and had a strong legal system. That government and the people supporting it cannot be compared to the Nazis and their supporters.

So we should not blindly accept any theory or dogma but look at its practical impact and efficacy. This is what the Buddha taught.

Scroot:

"What I'm sayinig is that, on the level of governments and nations, we should encourage a "seperate but equal" mentality where there are authoritarian theocracies for those who wish to live an excessively religious lifestyle."

Well, that's the thing about America. If you wish to, you can go do just that, if that's what you want to consent to.

Where the problems come about is when these people start feeling they have the right to dictate to *others* about such things, even if that's *not* their religious belief.

questionauthority:
"So, according to this Ghandi guy, my husband and I should never have had sex. We've been married 14 years and due to being older and him having raised 3 kids, we decided not to have our own kids. So for 14 years our sex life has not been based on procreation, and according to the Ghandi guy, that is wrong. What a sick guy...."

Actually, the name is Gandhi and not Ghandi, but apart from that, why "sick guy"? Different people have different views, and that does not make them sick. I think it is good that you and your husband have a good life, but I am not sure if you would like it if your husband had a "good sex life" with another woman. Maybe you could think about that?

Sexual morality is important because sex is part of what bonds human beings to each other, and we cannot be lackadaisical about people hurting their wives and husbands because they cannot control their sexual appetite. Society depends on trust, and trust implies fidelity.

We should not be TOO judgmental about occasional straying, but I do think that marital infidelity needs to be taken more seriously than double parking. America needs standards.

Chris Everett:

I was not suggesting that Religion is an agent of "poisioning," but that the Religious will, as a function of the systems in which they believe, always tend towards authoritarianism. So what I'm suggesting is that instead of pitting this struggle between authoritarianism and libertarianism within a liberal democracy, where authoritarianism clearly has no place, the Religious should, in fact, live in authoritarian governments if they wish to have a thriving dogmatic life. The excessively Religious should live in Theocratic nations. That way, the rest of us, or those who would keep their religion as a private practice, can get on with our lives and the functioning of our Republic.

I'm not saying that Religion is god or bad, and I'm not going to make that judgement here. What I'm sayinig is that, on the level of governments and nations, we should encourage a "seperate but equal" mentality where there are authoritarian theocracies for those who wish to live an excessively religious lifestyle.

Sir,

Are you ignoring your grandfather's obession with sex?

So, according to this Ghandi guy, my husband and I should never have had sex. We've been married 14 years and due to being older and him having raised 3 kids, we decided not to have our own kids. So for 14 years our sex life has not been based on procreation, and according to the Ghandi guy, that is wrong.
What a sick guy....

Arun Gandhi is saying something which needs to be said, but I am not sure he will be heard. The divorce rate in the US is about 50%. And that fact is not coming from TV projections of America, it is part of how America is. Some 69% of African American children and a very large proportion of White children are growing up in single parent families. That too is not coming from TV, it is reality. Many of the posters responding to Gandhi are merely in denial because they feel "dissed". But he is not interested in dissing Ameria, but in pointing to the truth. Ultimately, there is an American obsession with privacy, resulting in more than a million abortions a year, and there is the idea that pursuit of happiness is the same as pursuit of fun. To be sure, a lot of Americans, perhaps a majority, are still moral. But if a majority, moral Americans are only a bare majority. And unfortunately, too many Americans who believe in morality also seem to believe in war. Arun Gandhi's grandfather Mohandas Gandhi was against war, against violence, against the use of sex as fun. How would we now see these values?
How many Americans believe BOTH in peace and in sexual morality? Very few. The right believes in sexual morality, but is against peace. The Left believes in peace, but opposes sexual morality and the sanctity of the marriage. It is a tragedy.

Oh please, please, please! Tell me how to live mny life Mr. Gandhi!!!!

I care so much about what you and others around the world think of us!! Please tell us how we can behave properly, oh grand one!!! We all know America is terrible and we need lots of help from people who can tell us how to be!!!

SCROOT:

I agree with you and I think most here do too. Sex is yet another realm of human existence that has been poisoned by religion. We'll be much better off when we have a purely humanist attitude towards it.

I may catch a lot of heat for bringing this up, but I think what we are seeing, and what we have seen in the past, is increasing evidence that the broad, dogmatic organized religions of the world are inherently incompatible with 18th century Libertarian values on which the Republic was founded.

Think about it for a second. Here we are, touting concensus, choice, and democracy; personal liberty and privacy. But those who subscribe to these dogmatic religions are pupils of authoritarianism (which I'm not suggesting is good or bad), and, as we have seen time and again, will push their views into the public realm through the institutions of the Republic. Neoconservatism is indicative of this.

Libertarian democracies, I think, are much more vulnerable to religions than anyone previously imagined. There are only two clauses concerning religion in the Constitution, and they are vague enough to warrant interpretation. Of course, if there is anything that the religious are exceptionally good at, it's re-interpreting vague statements (again, I don't mean this negatively. I'm simply suggesting that this is an intricate skill of the religious).

It may even be more simple.
Religion = authoritarian
Democracy = libertarian (in this case)
The two are simply not compatible. So when they come together so vehemently, as in the United States, there is a cognitive dissonance that can result in any number of strange and arbitrary things, such as the Iraq War (just an example).

If we are going to trust someone with the niclear codes, maybe we should ensure that the someone is not likely to lie, about sex, as well as other things?

I always wondered what America would have done, had Clinton said: Yes, I banged her, so what? The economy is flourishing, crime is down, we are not at war, that is what I was elected for.

Mr. Gandhi has no qualifications to post his sermons on this board other than claiming to be Mahatma Gandhi's grandson.

I have lived in the USA after immigrating from India about 40 years ago. I find Americans to be more moral, more civic minded, more generous, more friendly, more tolerant than any group of people from the part of the world where I hail from. Americans are more honest about about sexual relations and marriages than Indians. It should not therefore surprise anybody that there is a higher divorce rates. people make mistakes in relationships and their choice of partners. It is better to divorce than to stay in an unhappy marriage. And sex is poweful drive. If it is supressed the consequences are disastrous for the entire society. The total rate of rape in India is much igher than in the USA.

Mr. Gandhi should poll Indians on how many live in unhappy marriages. Mr. Gandhi should protest about the double standards in India about the hundreds of thousands of young Indian women who are sold into prostitution and forced to live in cages in the middle of Mumbai, the area known as Foras Road.

Mr. gandhi is typical of South Asians who are lucky enough to live in this free and rich land and then lose little time in denigrating the hands that feed them.

The USA is not perfect. But it it is the best country in the world for Indians and in the heart of hearts most Indian immigrants, legal or illegal, will agree. So rather than whining about the ills of the USA all Indians should ask themselves these questions:

1) Is life for me better in the USA than in India?

2) If their answer to question number 1 is "yes", then Indians should ask themselves" what can I do to make the US of A better for myself and for future generations?".

Instead of knocking the US I suggest to Mr. Gandhi that he start an organization to serve the US of A and ask all Indian Americans to join the organization and do the following.

1) If the members feel their life here is better than in India, then they can show their gratitude by plunking in an extra $ amount payable to the US Treasury every April 15th. The American government makes mistakes but it has done more than any other governmnet to take care of the citizens and to protect them.

2) Involve themselves both physically and financially in activities that promote the welfare of children to the age of 18: free healthcare, free and good education, free professional counselling to troubled children, ensuring they have good nutrition and decent housing and are not abused by others including their parents and more.

I remember coming here as a young person and I made many mistakes. Today I am financially secure and living the prosperous life, a life I could not have had in India. And I am free, free to say whatever I wish to say. Despite all my mistakes the American hand was always outstretched, I have almost always been treated with respect despite my dark skin tones, have been cared for by great white doctors and always told " you can do it if you want it bad enuf." I remember members of my own family making fun of my dark skin.

So Mr. Gandhi, stop whining. Do something for America.

Learn to love it despite all its warts. Or go back to India.

Is there anything better to be obsessed about?

It had always bewildered me over the reactions of the American people about the behaviour of their leaders in respect of moral values, particularly of their involvements in scandalous sexual and financial matters. They never accept or elect a corrupt leader, vis-a-vis the president. It is some thing unnatural. Being the sons of the immigrants from all the corners of the world, naturally they were not supposed to be restricted to the codes of ethics of their parental societies. In such circumstances, contradictions have to be prevailed. The American society is still under transformation. It is still divided into privileged and unprivileged classes. American democracy rests with the affluent class who actually rule and that class do not tolerate anyone with dent in his character to rule over them. Whereas, the others are allowed to enjoy the way they like in the "Free Society" that has evolved naturally, out of the historical phenomena. What Arun Gandhi pointed out was the reflection of the values of the Indian society based on the century's old established culture of the Hindu-Muslim aristocracy that flourished in India. That culture still dominates, besides the facts that hypocrisy draws the veil over all the evils that emerge from the sexual and financial corruptions. However, being the disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, I appreciate Arun for his good work.
sami-qureshi@hotmail.com

Mr. Gandhi,
America is doing fine. Remember millions of your country men have left their families behind to move here (and not the other way around).
Talking about sex: visit Khajuraho, Sun Temple in India and read Kamasutra: India had a proud and open sexual culture until probably they were Islamicized.

Look at your own Mahatma and his experiments with sex: including withholding sex from his wife, sleeping with young women to test his controls over sexual desires etc.....

If I were you, I would worry about selective female abortion prevalent in India, dowry and Sati systems...

How ironic, the responses reflect the ambiguity of sex in America! The truth is that sex has been stolen by the corporate powers to sell the "rubes" stuff, Presidents,fake watches, hair, Congressman, judges, wars,etc. And anyone who things that sex in and out of marriage has not changed in the last 50 years was a sexual predator rapist pervert transvestite; for such a one things are still the same!

I mean, I think what we're talking about here, even if not saying it, if *love.*

Simple fact that probably pisses off Americans more than anyone else, but, though others have tried, *you cannot command Love, and Gods help us if we could.*

I tend to think that's a lesson we're trying to learn, awkward as it gets.

I think it's worth trying.

If it works out, maybe we can make some of this up to ya. If not... Might need some help.

But it's not done, yet.

"Sanal:

"Social architecture of a nation contoured by cultural implications define the role of sex in the society. Our understanding on sexual matters largely stems from our moral upbringing, societal beliefs and dogmas."

...Or you could have some sex, be in a few relationships, and figure it out.

Wild idea, there.

I think a lot of the rampant dysfunction actually *comes* of treating humans like bricks in a 'social architecture,' (especially if that 'architecture' is based on dogma, not function, tries to smash all bricks into a standard size, then blames the bricks when the walls don't hold.)

...maybe spending a lot more time and effort trying to force people to fit someone's 'plan,' than really looking at what we have and building *with* that.

"Voracious sexual needs?"

How would you know how voracious someone's sexual needs are?

How would you know your *own* are all that 'voracious' if you never actually experienced anything but 'nowhere near adjusted?'

Trust *is* important. Trust also means not resorting to hyperbole with words like 'Demented' and 'Pandemonium' when the issue at hand is really 'Do we throw sense and perspective to the wind when our 'leaders' act like... umm... everyone else.

Frankly, I think here in America, there's a lot of crazy stuff in *politics* about sex *precisely because* of these ideas of *grand moral models* in which people seem to think the world's in 'sexual chaos,' ...but really have no idea how to *touch each other* in their personal lives, never mind have any idea how this affects government.

Or what's fair, or just, or even *legal.*

Politicians, celebrities, and even 'professional sinners' who don't do anything *but* act out these mores and transgressions and public punishments (say, Paris Hilton) ....become surrogates for *that* dysfunction.

These ideas of 'social rules' become a *crutch* for people who are so turned around about what even *marriage* means that they think a) Someone else being treated fairly in marriage degrades their own, and b) How a leader *claims* 'morality,' particularly as regards sex, is more important than *what they actually do.*

And I think people get invested in that scheme cause they are told that if they obey certain religious and capitalistic rules, certain things are supposed to happen, and when they don't happen, they can either blame themselves, or find someone else to blame, but *someone must be blamed.*

So, like good Americans, we 'hire' someone to appear to be debauched and having more fun than us and thus justifying our unnecessary-but-virtuous suffering.

Pathetic, really, but, again, don't buy the television portrayal.

Also, don't think it's about *too much sex.* Or 'too much freedom and fairness.'

Far from it.

The 'problem' is that some things can't be bought or voted for or knelt to. Like a healthy marriage or sex life.

You gotta *show up and pay attention.* :)

I realize Mr. Gandhi's comments may appear to be a criticism of the all-American right to f**k, but let's step back for a second. He is merely pointing out that sex is not what it used to be. In his writing, I don't think he advocates that you or I need to follow his example. He is merely pointing out that those who live by the sword die by the sword. And yes, American does appear schizophrenic to those abroad when on the one hand the right to freely fornicate is blandished about, and on the other hand, when a president decides to avail himself of that right, Americans also rise up in righteous indignation. You can't have it both ways...

Social architecture of a nation contoured by cultural implications define the role of sex in the society. Our understanding on sexual matters largely stems from our moral upbringing, societal beliefs and dogmas. Hence, there is no hard and fast rule on how a man or a women should deal with his/her sexual proclivities.However, there needs to be a fine balance in meeting one's voracious sexual needs with out being an unfaithful beau. Trust is the most important component in the society. With out this, social fabric of a civil society is largely demented leading to a state of pandemonium.Not all of us possess that mental restraint, hence there are so called principals that govern our lives. It is upon us to embrace a code of conduct in life in general, not sexual matters alone, that best ensures tranquility in our lives.

As for sex, men in political power, and things getting displaced, well... duh?

Personally, I think if we're going to trust someone with the nuclear codes, we better be able to trust em with all the sex they *need,* it's safer that way. :)

"but most prefer the Kama sutras and tantric yoga. We can't get beyond the lower chakras."

If that's so, that's just not doing either sutras or tantra right. :)

Though I think we actually *are* a little 'root-chakra-challenged' in this society... tending to scorn and be conflicted about these very things, and wondering why you can't fly by trying to flog your own keister off. :)

It's not, for instance, that there's 'Too much sex' in the West, that's causing a lot of problems... the problem is that no sex is 'enough' as packaged cause it's not the real deal. It's displaced.

I rather think America's "obsession" with sex is due to good nutrition, lack of physical labor, leisure, corporate cultivation via advertising, and its forbidden nature in a culture of puritanism

I don't care if he's the 85th grandson of Ashoka.

Yes, American politicians have been busted for having relations outside marriages and, in some cases, have even engaged in illegal behaviour. But wait, didn't Nehru have an affair and what of the overall double standards in India - not just in sexual matters but on a whole range of social issues.

At the very least, its a human affliction common to all cultures - not just the United States.

I guess this proves that great genes sometimes don't propagate so well. I read the full rules on personal attacks but isn't what Gandhi writes above a personal attack on all Americans?

Mr. Gandhi,

I know this is a bit out of line, but isn't the purpose of sex to be set on fire when your husband dies?

Double standard my ass!

I don't care if he's the 85th grandson of Ashoka.

Yes, American politicians have been busted for having relations outside marriages and, in some cases, have even engaged in illegal behaviour. But wait, didn't Nehru have an affair and what of the overall double standards in India - not just in sexual matters but on a whole range of social issues.

At the very least, its a human affliction common to all cultures - not just the United States.

I guess this proves that great genes sometimes don't propagate so well. I read the full rules on personal attacks but isn't what Gandhi writes above a personal attack on all Americans?

I don't care if he's the 85th grandson of Ashoka.

Yes, American politicians have been busted for having relations outside marriages and, in some cases, have even engaged in illegal behaviour. But wait, didn't Nehru have an affair and what of the overall double standards in India - not just in sexual matters but on a whole range of social issues.

At the very least, its a human affliction common to all cultures - not just the United States.

I guess this proves that great genes sometimes don't propagate so well. I read the full rules on personal attacks but isn't what Gandhi writes above a personal attack on all Americans?

I don't care if he's the 85th grandson of Ashoka.

Yes, American politicians have been busted for having relations outside marriages and, in some cases, have even engaged in illegal behaviour. But wait, didn't Nehru have an affair and what of the overall double standards in India - not just in sexual matters but on a whole range of social issues.

At the very least, its a human affliction common to all cultures - not just the United States.

I guess this proves that great genes sometimes don't propagate so well. I read the full rules on personal attacks but isn't what Gandhi writes above a personal attack on all Americans?

I don't care if he's the 85th grandson of Ashoka.

Yes, American politicians have been busted for having relations outside marriages and, in some cases, have even engaged in illegal behaviour. But wait, didn't Nehru have an affair and what of the overall double standards in India - not just in sexual matters but on a whole range of social issues.

At the very least, its a human affliction common to all cultures - not just the United States.

I guess this proves that great genes sometimes don't propagate so well. I read the full rules on personal attacks but isn't what Gandhi writes above a personal attack on all Americans?

I don't care if he's the 85th grandson of Ashoka.

Yes, American politicians have been busted for having relations outside marriages and, in some cases, have even engaged in illegal behaviour. But wait, didn't Nehru have an affair and what of the overall double standards in India - not just in sexual matters but on a whole range of social issues.

At the very least, its a human affliction common to all cultures - not just the United States.

I guess this proves that great genes sometimes don't propagate so well. I read the full rules on personal attacks but isn't what Gandhi writes above a personal attack on all Americans?

BGONE:

Sex has no "purpose" whatsoever. It is part of an evolutionary strategy that so far has worked for humans. From a subjective point of view, everyone finds their own meaning in sex. Mr. Gandhi is entitled to his utilitarian sexual views, but his moralizing, especially given how depressing his vision is and how little he seems to know about other views, is truly incoherent.

"Paganplace:

I think any fears of humanity (or particular races thereof) going extinct if everyone doesn't obey rules that say 'Sex is only for procreation' ...are greatly exaggerated, to say the least. "

Beyond that: we're absolutely too many on this planet. We're currently ruining this planet. And don't tell me that is just because of the West, the Western life style. The rest of the world, as soon as it can, will and does crave it, too.

Too many people living. To many people dying.

Mr Gandhi, like many of the above posters said: get real, get into this century. What you are proposing has been used, abused through the past all over. Leave the commandments alone, they don't help us any longer. We're beyond that point. They are made for an archaic society, like the whole bible was. Ambiguous and violent. Order and blind obedience.

It is an honor to talk with the grandson of Gandhi. Gurus have come to america, some good, some much less than. We have the Bhagavad-Gita, but most prefer the Kama sutras and tantric yoga. We can't get beyond the lower chakras. From Bill Clinton puffing on a tendorized cigar, the benefactor of oral sex, while near a million were slaughtered in Africa. He was consumed.

From ABC primetime to NPR the sex topic is always in the news, sometimes the tone of voice from the reporter changes a pitch when asking that awkward question.

I am a student of Kundalini. And was warned from my Master, 'Someone will come and set you on fire, and no-one will come along and put the flames at rest...'

Paganplace:

I'm not saying that we humans are on the verge of extinction but can't help but notice 'man made' things that threaten the entire planet.

Disease is the most likely thing to 'thin' people out a bit. Up to 50% of Europe's population perished in a two year period during the black plague.

Avian flu is one of several 'wipe out' bugs that can get loose and be impossible to stop. The survivors are those who are naturally immune. The question is whether or not there are any naturally immune folks like there were during the black plague.

The sex-is-sin mentality of westerners is perhaps symptomatic of something deeper and more dangerous. I think is pays to look back to before the mind was set and see how people dealt with the same problems. Our ancient ancestors were survivors and they did not see sex anywhere near how it is viewed today. Are we survivors like our ancient ancestors? They didn't do "it" like us in many things sex being just one.

Sex is a personal affair and each individual, based on his/her upbringing(societal) decides on the limits to one's sexual appetite.
Each "society" sets limits and standards for sexual mores just so that there is less "chaos".
It's better not preached as one person's morality is another's immorality.
For example sex between close family members is considered taboo, but biologically it's a very unproductive way(pun unintended!) to propagate the gene pool and eventually would eliminate that "family".
It's a pleasurable act just like enjoyment of other senses and reproduction is a byproduct.
So go ahead and enjoy as there is no sin in sex between consenting partners, just avoid preaching, period.

I think any fears of humanity (or particular races thereof) going extinct if everyone doesn't obey rules that say 'Sex is only for procreation' ...are greatly exaggerated, to say the least.

Totally irrational when used to justify various repressions. There'll never be a shortage of people willing to reproduce.

If you try to project back certain more modern (and generally sexist) abstractions onto our ancient ancestors to try and explain what 'reason' people used to 'justify' not running off into the woods to hunt till a lonely death or something, well, I think the truth is far simpler.

People don't inherently *need* a controlling idea to 'continue the species,' ...in fact, many of these ideas get in the way. As a species, we raise our young *cooperatively,* and that means that trying to force everyone into a universal-but-individual model of 'reproduction' completely devalues and, really, handicaps the way we simply are: those of us who *aren't* likely going to personally reproduce are supposed to support those who do.

It comes pretty naturally. No one commanded it or thought of it, it's just how we are, and any misapprehension to the contrary is really just about *control.*

I doubt if anyone understands that the primary purpose of sex is social glue. It holds people together in groups called societies. Pregnancy, is a by product and not the main purpose of sex.

Without sex drive early man would have abandoned early woman and early woman would never have reproduced. We wouldn't be here. It was sex drive that drove early men back to camp with the kill to share with the women and children. I expect that was a thoughtless process, a matter of natural consequence.

Maybe today too much though is given to sex? There are a few too many flaky theories about how people should live their sex lives? Can't all be right can they?

All theories about how one should lead one's sex life are valid for that individual only. That's the bottom line. However, if I can get a lot of people to agree with my theory then we as a group can use force to make everyone live according to our rules. Of course that never works yet that's exactly where we are right now.

An interesting question. Why is human sperm competitive? Is there an expectation of the sperm of more than one male to be present in the reproductive track of the female when she becomes pregnant? Conforms to the theory of evolution - survival of the fittest - fighting for reproductive rights done by the sperm so men don't need to fight each other. The sperm doing the fighting frees men to cooperate with each other in feeding the baby that could have been fathered by any one but only one, the one with the fittest sperm.

All species go extinct sooner or later. Is sexual morality the agent that leads to the extinction of man? Reproduction is really important, somewhat important, or unimportant? Is it more or less important than morality?

Deve, Dr Rp and Pagan

Right on, brothers and sisters.

Moralizing about things you don't know much about - ie the ACTUAL values and behavior of ACTUAL american people and not TV images,

is silly.

Another moralizing posture from somebody who does not know much about American culture. Before we go pointing fingers, it is important to remember than things in India regarding sex and marriage are not that kosher either. Don't tell me. I am an Indian who has stayed in very close touch with India. I know what it is like there. A lot of hanky-panky things are happening behind closed doors and drawn curtains in India. So it's just as bad or good (depending on how you see it) as in America.

In fact, given the right conditions (social acceptance, freedom from religious and cultural taboos, economic independance, etc.), people the world over would behave quite like Americans rather than the other way around.

It sounds like your view of American culture is based solely on what you see on TV. What you see on TV is whatever it takes to get you to watch until the next commercial; writers/producers have gotten very good at that. But to assume that the caricature of life portrayed on TV is anything like reality is silly.

I can tell you that real life is VERY different than what is portrayed on the idiot box. Americans are not morally bankrupt as you seem to imply, and I don't see any indication that marriage is taken any less seriously than it was 50 years ago. It may be a different insitution than it was back then, but I attribute that more to Women standing up for their rights as human beings.

Also, to say that people get married only to have sex is downright naive. Pre marital sex is as common here as in any other country (and regardless of what you might think about the old days, it has always occured; it's just out in the open now and in THIS country it does not mean a death sentence for the Women if it comes out that she participated).

You might want to adjust your views into the 21st century, and stop watching so much TV.

More mischaracterizing of what sex is about from someone who wants commandments obeyed...

That's not really what it's about: frankly, I think a lot of companies are selling sex *as* empty 'sin,' which idea they can then use to coerce and manipulate and divide people because they *don't* have a healthy relationship with sex and others.

But that's turning something beautiful and sacred into something banal and ahame-filled and alienating.

It's selling a *picture* where sex is cheap and empty, selfish pleasure that is like some 'disease' to scorn and feel shamed or guilty about....for which churches and political parties will, of course, kindly provide the 'treatment' and ritual expiation, as well places to channel the resulting aggression.

If sex was only for procreation, then we would go into heat, mate, and think no more of it than animals do. But nature has provided means by which it's both an essential bonding activity, and a way to celebrate the joy of life.

I wouldn't put too much stock in how American media advertise us. We're not actually that shallow, I observe, not all of us, anyway.

I know people are hung up on the actual sex-act aspect of these controversies, but a lot of us are more concerned with the lying and hypocrisy of it all. The politician from Louisiana who was recently revealed to be a frequenter of prostitutes was staunchly against birth control, abortion rights, honest sexual education, etc. So, what he was saying was, you can't have sex but I can. This is much the same for most other politicians and religious leaders who put themselves in this situation. They preach against sex, create and vote for laws that restrict sexual freedoms, yet believe they are above these same laws, God's or the government's.