Again, why is sex so unique?

I have a tiny range of acceptable food choices, cannot eat almost anything if the original taste of that anything has been altered (not out of a willed desire for purity, but because I cannot - I have tried and found them all disgusting beyond belief): no flavored coffee, no non-pure chocolate that is not at least 85% cacao, no fruit yogurt but just plain, only those frozen vegetables that are packaged alone, without any sauces or extra ingredients, etc. I also cannot eat 99% of prepared foods because they are all too salty for me and when something is too salty, I cannot taste it - I only taste the salt. And, no spicy food. Etc.

But within this unusually narrow range of choices, I do like some variety.

People also like different art, enjoy talking with different people, etc.

I also have three cats and enjoy having three cats and my ex husband has one cat and prefers having one cat. He thinks that he gets more attention from the cat because the cat is not engaged in relationships with other cats, and I like watching the interactions between the cats.

So there must be something unique to sex that it does not follow the rest of our interactions, be they with other people, food, drink, art, pets, or what not.

So other than procreation, where does this uniqueness stem from?

Can we rephrase it in that you can love one person, A, for her uniqueness and another person, B, for her (different) uniqueness and it is impossible to alter the relationship with person A to such an extent that you stop loving person B because person A is not person B, and not because there is something intrinsically wrong in your relationship with person A?

What leads you to conclude that "there's something wrong with your current relationship, that you can or not fix"?

Also, due to the cost-benefit thing discussed above, there is something WRONG with every relationship.

So, should people altogether stop having relationships until they find one in which there is nothing WRONG? That would endanger the species' future for sure.

The point that no relationship is completely RIGHT and the point that you can several relationships that all feel RIGHT are independent.

Another very interesting idea is that people should not be used as sex objects. I am not clear what it means - being a sex object - but apparently it has to do with using a person as a tool or a means to an end. And it is not OK.

Now, everywhere else it is OK. To some extent, it is OK.

When my children were little, I would carry them on my left hip. That left my leading right hand free - very nice. The children liked seeing the world around them from a higher vantage point. Children want to be held for different reasons, including comfort and what not, but also because when parents hold them, they can see more - children are short and they cannot see much from the floor. So the children were using me as a tool.

So should I have instituted a checklist/interview process when I had toddlers? Say: "Tell me if you want to be held to bond with me, your mother, and appreciate my human personality, and then I will hold you, or tell me that you want to see more things, using me as a tool, and I won't hold you?"

Well, with that kind of vocabulary I do not think that I would have gotten very far with non-verbal toddlers. I think there would have been lots of crying and frustration.

People routinely use their LinkedIn connections to network. It is considered normal and OK and a sign of being up-to-date on modern technologies, in general, and social networks, in particular.

We sometimes get rides from other people.

So it is a mix - sometimes we have a conversation with somebody because we just love hearing his voice, and sometimes we have a need and using the person as a tool, and that is OK.

The ONLY place where I have seen repeated sentiment/statements that you must have interactions with your partner only when you view your partner as a whole person (whatever it means - I have never been able to understand what it means, but since so many people say it, it must have meaning in their minds) has been in relation to sex.

What I see is that sex is unlike:

-- conversations
-- all human relationships in any shape and form
-- friendships
-- food
-- alcohol
-- art
-- hobbies
-- professions and careers (I have never heard that you must stay committed to one career in this rapidly-changing world)
-- sports
-- anything else.

So, completely UNIQUE. A stand-alone phenomenon.

And again, the only basis seems to be procreation. True, you cannot procreate from having conversations, non-sexual friendships, working, eating, etc. So procreation must be so important that it explains the very drastic position that sex occupies vis-a-vis EVERYTHING ELSE.

And we have 2-3 kids per lifetime on average per couple and some couples are childless for a variety of reasons and some gay couples cannot afford assisted reproduction, etc.

So it seems strange that having 2-3 kids per lifetime affects such a big area of human life in such a sweeping way, making this area completely distinct from everything else we know.

ideas?