If you look at the many species, evolution is very slow--most of the time; major evolutionary innovations come along rarely. A million years will probably find us in about the same state we are now as far as intelligence, immune functioning, height, strength, vision, etc. IF, of course, we are here at all--which we may not be.

Homo Sapiens experienced some sort of evolutionary innovation sometime after a million years ago. I'm not sure precisely what it was -- density of neurons, number of neurons, organization of neurons, something to do with neurons, anyway. Whatever it was, it hasn't repeated itself. It may not be able to, since the body is a package deal, and an even larger brain requires changes elsewhere in the body; in the female pelvis, for example, and a larger brain requires changes in metabolism, too. The brain soaks up a lot of the energy we take in.

Our technology can evolve to an unbelievable level ONLY IF we can maintain cultural continuity for a million years. So far we have been able to do that for maybe 1000 years. After the Roman Empire collapsed, it took a long time for the western empire to begin recovery. Cultural continuity pretty much requires no breaks. Three generations of cultural discontinuity is enough to set us back for hundreds of years. The higher the level of technology, the more discontinuity damages the state of techno-practice.

I wanted to confirm that I read and am thinking about your post. Parsing out love and virtue as you do...

So I believe that the attitude which is required for virtue is an apprehension of the good, not "love", which is one (a very important one) of the virtues. And "love" itself, if it is to be understood as necessarily good, must follow from an apprehension of good. To put this in perspective of Jesus' message, I would say that true love can only follow from, after, apprehending God, as the apprehension of good. It is not through loving that we apprehend God, but through our apprehension of God that we behave lovingly — Metaphysician Undercover

will require some reflection. In what order should these be?

---->apprehension of God ---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->love

or

---->virtue ---->apprehension of the good ---->apprehension of God ---->love

or something else?

I see him as a man, a person who made sense to me and someone I respect for being capable enough to move my conscience. — TimeLine

Jesus was capable enough (just enough?) to move your conscience. That's rich. How about God. Is God capable enough?

The point I want to emphasise is that despite different manifestations, Love is one. Agape is the source, eros, philia, storge are multiple streams. — Agustino

Yes. Good point.

I disagree on this. I think quite the contrary, for most people it is eros and storge that motivate intense suffering. — Agustino

Storge isn't thought about, talked, written about enough. And Eros is over-emphasized. For eros, i'd say it's the cause of a lot of suffering, and storge the motivator of sacrificial suffering (when needed).

One does not watch porn (if they are non-objectifying and ethical) just to, as you crudely put it, to "get off." They do so to engage in a mutual interaction which benefits both their well-being (which includes, in most instances, getting off) and the well-being of any actors involved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The problem I have with the argument about objectifying the men or women performing in a pornography product is that I am not interacting with the actors. I am separated from the actors by time and space. I am viewing a video recording of the actors. I can not interact with the actors. The actors are not interacting with me. Pornography is not a live conference call. The actors on screen might have been dead for 40 years (there's lots of vintage porn for sale). The actors can not reach forward in time and across space to me, nor I to them.

At the time the production is made, the producers, cameramen, actors, fluffers (they help the guys get an erection if that turns out to be a problem), catering, and so forth have a relationship. That relationship can not/does not extend to viewers.

All media productions -- dramatic film, advertisements, radio shows, television soap operas, Eurovision broadcasts, educational television programs, etc. all have the same limitation: What is on the roll of film or the spool of video tape, or in digital memory, is static. What I see on television, even if it's a live broadcast, is a flat image that I can not literally affect and that can not respond to me. No relationship carries forward from the warm bodies and bright lights of the studio.

The most we can do is respond imaginatively to the static image. That's all.

Positing that the viewer ought to be concerned about the wellbeing of the real characters on the screen seems like a truly monumental misapprehension of what media is, and how it works. WOD, when you go to a movie, or watch Transparent, or Orange is the New Black, or BBC Masterpiece Theater, Formula One racing, Soccer, Cricket, Rugby, or Croquet on TV--whatever you watch--do you really think about the actual wellbeing of all the people who played the characters you might see? How does that work for you?

It simply does not matter what the viewer thinks about the performer: the performer is not present in the image.

I agree with you here, joy is a pleasure. Likewise, pleasure and pain are often intertwined.

we know that virtue is dependent on the intellect, it requires clear reasoning, and rational decisions. Virtue does not require love, love requires virtue, which requires intellect. Intellect brings about rational decisions, which brings about virtue, and virtue brings into existence love. — Metaphysician Undercover

I largely agree with this up to the last statement that "virtue brings into existence love" because "love" seems to be a primary phenomena, not coming from something else. Also, how would virtue bring love into existence?

What is "other-directedness"? — Metaphysician Undercover

"other directed" people rely heavily on other people for cues about their own worth, their proper role, what's important, what's not. Nobody is entirely other-directed of course. The opposite is inner directed people who rely more on the own judgements about their self worth, their proper role, what's important, what's not. Inner-directed people are usually somewhat less gregarious. It isn't that they are at all unsocial, they just don't require as much social interaction with and validation from others as other directed people do.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being either inner or other directed. Different traits are better in different circumstances.

In the suicide context, an other-directed young person who relies on the group's approval for self-esteem may lose that approval--for some odd reason. This would be more devastating for an other directed person than an inner directed one. Being inner directed is no protection against suicide.

I didn't make up the group, "middle aged, white, unemployed, working class men". They figure large in the declining economies of rust-belt areas in the midwest (Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Appalachia). It is among this group that the highest rates of unemployment for the longest periods have recently occurred; this is the group figuring largely into the opiate drug epidemic, and has a significantly higher rate of suicide than they did 25 years ago, and a significantly higher rate of suicide than among their employees peers.

Long-term unemployment with little likelihood of re-employment is a relatively new experience for these people. This group self-identified very strongly as "the American work force", and now that has come unraveled for millions of this demographic.

Some members of this group are resilient, resourceful, flexible, and take the initiative in finding some other type of work. If they are not resilient, resourceful, flexible, and take a passive approach, then things can not get better for them (they might not get better even for the agile, nimble, flexible worker either).

When entire industries vacate a region, the consequences are often so devastating that individuals just get chewed up and spat out. This happened in Flint, MI (GM); Gary, Indiana (steel); Akron, OH (rubber); Janesville, WI (GM); and many other places where once mainstay industries either went bankrupt or the industry decamped to Asia.

Who knows, perhaps if the conditions were right, you or I could join that group, but wouldn't this classify us as mentally ill? — Metaphysician Undercover

You and I could certainly end up in this group, and I didn't suggest that merely being in this group made one mentally ill. I've had bad episodes of work and unemployment and it did not make me feel at all suicidal. One doesn't need to be mentally ill to commit suicide. But being depressed and feeling hopeless and abandoned makes it a bit more likely that somebody that has a gun handy will load it, point it at their head, and pull the trigger.

some phantom existent called "society" — Metaphysician Undercover

You aren't going to quote me Margaret Thatcher, "there's no such thing as society" are you?

Society exists, and it exists in various functions, forms, and demographics. It's not a phantom. It is also a useful "placeholder" for several subsystems of society: the economy, foreign trade, the education system, the mental health system, the welfare system, religious organizations, labor, corporations, the government--all sorts of things.

Love is totally unrelated to pleasure, in fact, love often motivates one to willingly undertake enormous suffering. Love is more related to meaning than pleasure. Love is closely related to joy, but not to pleasure. Pleasure cannot co-exist with pain, but joy (and love) can co-exist with suffering. — Agustino

As Wayfarer pointed out, there are several kinds of 'love'. Clearly here we are talking about agápē. Eros, philia, and storge might motivate one to suffer, but perhaps not enormous suffering--which is not to denigrate those kinds of love. Pleasure is clearly and obviously associated with eros. However, I believe that pleasure in a special sense should be associated with agápē. Just because eros is so concerned with erotic pleasure doesn't mean that "pleasure" means the same thing when applied to agápē. The pleasure of unconditional love is not physically felt, it's a pleasure of the spirit--the only way I can put it.

It's the same kind of pleasure--pleasure of the spirit--that people experience when they do good things. It's a quiet, inward pleasure. It doesn't calculate, it self-reflective. There's no "what a good boy am I" to it. The widow that gave her last penny likely experienced the pleasure of agápē. The good Samaritan who cared for the injured man left by the road likely experienced the inward pleasure of agápē. There aren't a lot of words to detail this feeling... tender, gentle, willing good for the other... The love of God, for that matter, agápē, should be that kind of pleasure.

I think there is an obvious answer to your interesting question, and the answer is probably "No". We won't be able to understand the people of 1 million years hence.

Of course, you are assuming that we will continue to evolve along the direction we followed in the previous million years. It isn't necessarily the case that we will be all that different. Evolution doesn't always work like a smoothly operating conveyor belt. Sometimes the belt slows down, or sometimes it jerks forward.

It's possible, were we able to travel in time, that "we" will be recognizably "us" in 1,000,000 years. Language will have changed, certainly. We won't be able to ask them a question with out learning their language first.

IF, and it's a big IF, they have been able to preserve technology from age to age, they might have very advanced tech. However, in a million years the technology of their past may have been lost several times, requiring them to start over again and again. The day we visit our successors, 1 million years hence, we may find them moving stuff around in carts pulled by animal power--horses, slaves, dogs--whatever they've got.

You know, if we aren't careful, we could run out of oil and experience some wars which would leave us without our presently functioning technology and knowhow. The time it takes to lose technology is a hell of a lot shorter than the time it takes to acquire it. Without electricity, for instance, a vast amount of what we know about the world would disappear. A regression to an earlier stage would ensue. In 2 generations without literacy and technology savvy, we would be in a very poor position to catch up to where we were before.

Doesn't the act of suicide imply "major mental illness"? — Metaphysician Undercover

It could mean major mental illness or it could mean excessive other-directedness which has suddenly let them down.

However, when we see high rates of suicide among a particular demographic, like middle aged, white, unemployed, working class men, then it points towards social dysfunction -- on the part of society and maybe on the part of some of the men. The number of working class men that have been shuffled out of the economy is quite high, and not very much has been done on their behalf. That's a social dysfunction. Some working class men simply can't find an identity outside of work, and that's a social dysfunction on the part of the men.

I'm not blaming them for despair, please understand.

oh, THERE YOU ARE! So glad you reappeared. Have you been unwell, in prison, recovering from a car crash, or just too busy to be a piston of debate here?

Alternately we purr and sputter, sputter and purr, like an unpredictable engine; some pistons like to escape from their chambers to clash with one another.

I once spent six weeks with a schizophrenic in the full flowering of a manic episode, and without drugs. It is a distressing, baffling, frightening condition for all parties. In no sense am I a mental illness denier. However, to say that it must have a biological origin is to deny strong evidence that there is a significant social environment factor. — unenlightened

I once spent 30 years with a mate who was afflicted with a severe bi-polar disorder.

I'll readily grant that there are several factors in play: social factors, personal factors (lifestyle, good or bad life-choices, etc.), and biological factors. I'll readily grant that most people with major mental illness diagnoses are capable of functioning productively, most of the time, at least.

But what convinces me that the major mental illnesses (which, after all, do not afflict most people -- 97% of the population) have a significant causative biological component is that otherwise bright, happy, productive people who are doing well in society can quickly unravel into disabling psychotic or depressive conditions.

For most of us who have or will display garden variety mental dysfunction, it's almost all socially related, or related to bad decisions (like getting into and staying in a bad job, a bad marriage, a bad relationship, bad habits, etc).

lol. So in other words, if 'perfectly healthy' miserable people continue to kill themselves and others because their psychological needs are ignored by psychiatry who should only concentrate on a minority of major depression disorder cases, then society's response should be a post-hoc sermon of "oughts". — sime

No, no. It is neither possible nor appropriate for 'psychiatry' to deal with the unhappiness of 20% of the population -- that's 60 million people in the US alone. The unhappiness of 60 million people is something that society as a whole can, should, and must deal with. We have arranged society to function in some unhealthy ways, and this can be changed. Not easy, certainly, but there is no other entity other than "society" capable of doing it.

Check out "The Sane Society" by Erich Fromm.

But that doesn't mean we can't mentally grasp 1.000.000 years. — Eugen

Yes, of course we can. I can understand a million bacteria on my tongue without any difficulty; I can deal with 250,000 miles to the moon just fine. I sort of grasp our multi-trillion dollar economy.

"Feel" might not be the best word; maybe "experience" is better -- we don't have lived experience with time beyond our own age, whatever that happens to be -- never much more than 100 years, and mostly less. 50 years have elapsed since I graduated from college; I can understand 50 years because I lived those 50 years as an adult. 500 years, which takes us back to the time of Luther and Gutenberg, is more difficult to project one's self into -- I can learn about the major episodes of European societies in the last 500 or 1000 years, but I can't "process" that much time through my own lived life. My life is too short, history is too long.

A million years ago, "we" didn't exist yet. It's hard to think about all of the generations that led up to "us" coming into existence.

The task of the science fiction writer is to invent a universe that is immediately convincing. We don't need to understand it, it just needs to be 'believable'.

But one of the things that we can not understand (I can't, I don't think 'we' can) is what an elapse of 1,000,000 years would be like. We can't "feel" what so long is like. We toss around terms like "The Jurassic Period" easily, but the time scale -- 201 million years ago to 143 million years ago is an unfathomable period of time for us to understand--we who live maybe 100 years (and most of us will be dead well before we get to 100). I can "feel" and "understand" today, this year, the last 7 years, a decade... But the coming century (2117) is too long to think clearly about. 500 years might as well be 5,000.

We can sort of grasp our collective demise--maybe our own death, the death of our beloved. Even that can be very difficult to grasp and resolve. It is difficult--maybe impossible--for us to feel our species demise. That in 2517 there would be no human life on earth -- or anywhere else -- is just not very imaginable (from our POV). And if in 2517 there is much human life here, and elsewhere, that is just as difficult to feel, grasp, "grok".

What can you personally make of the 4 billion years of life on earth, "emotionally", which is the way in which we must grasp time. 4 billion, 8, billion, 1 billion, 1 million years -- it's all outside of human experience. 1000 might be outside our experience. (Like, think: how big a pile is 1,000,000 1 dollar bills? (New unwrinkled ones)

The Democrats were predicting from November 9 onward that Trump would be impeached for something. Firing the FBI director was probably petty and maybe ill-advised, don't know, but it doesn't sound like an impeachable action to me. The Director wasn't conducting the investigation into the Russian/Trump connection. That was/is being conducted by investigators a ways down in the power structure.

The foundation of Nixon's demise was the break-in at the DNC. He might have gotten impeached for that, don't know. But what really cooked his goose was the prolonged and elaborate cover-up which sucked the sinner ever deeper into sin and involved more and more people.

Trump is appallingly unpresidential, but we knew he was going to be that way on November 9. The man is a slob, but being a slob isn't illegal. He might get smarter, or he might get worse. Time will tell.

I'm more concerned that porn and prostitution may have a link — Noble Dust

Do you mean an operational, or business link--like pimps produce porn? Or, a link in that whatever leads one to try porn might lead them to try prostitution?

I think there is, quite possibly, a link. For instance, in Minneapolis, prior to 1993, the principle owner of porn shops was also involved in several whorehouses, to use an old fashioned term (they were, officially, "health clubs"). Some of his porn shops featured strip shows that involved contact through a window -- whether this led to prostitution later, don't know. Some gay and straight porn stars reported turning tricks before or after getting into the porn business.

Human trafficking for purposes of prostitution has been well established both as a criminal practice and as a law enforcement problem for quite some time. Whether adding porn production to a trafficked woman's to do list happens, or not, I don't know.

Certainly, if porn were produced under the same terms as human trafficking or forced prostitution, then that product would be far too morally contaminated to be acceptable as a product for commercial sale.

What have you read on this? I'd be interested to read it as well. — Noble Dust

The pornography business is a sleazy topic which mainline media rarely cover, and about which few serious books are written, besides books and articles which attack the product, the customers, and the and the producers.

So, if you want to know more about the adult business, I'd start with two adult entertainment business sites xbiz.com and avn.com [adult video news] for starters. These are not "porn sites" but since they are about the porn business, you might not want to peruse these sites with the family (depending on what your family is like).

You'll have to sleuth your way into this information.

btw, On May 11, xbiz.com had an article on "ethical porn".

So we resort to psychobabble; talking therapies. There is (because it is the only possibility left) a way of looking at the world and oneself, that leads to depression - a meme. And another name for 'a way of looking at the world and oneself' is 'a psychological theory'. — unenlightened

While there are few physical markers that exist for schizophrenia, bi-polar, psychosis, or catatonic depression--the several types of mental illness where patients need hospitalization for weeks at a time and are clearly "out of their minds" (hearing voices, having visual hallucinations, are afflicted with severe anxiety, agitation, etc.) it is the case that we are not talking psychobabble. When even high doses of major tranquilizers can't settle people down, one can conclude that one is dealing with a real problem.

There are the major mental illnesses that afflict 1% to 2% of the population, and then there are the vague unhappinesses that afflict between 10% and 20% (at least) of the population. The major mental illnesses must have some kind of biological origin, and the many not-major mental illnesses (or not mental illnesses at all) are the result of the condition that Freud (and many others) have identified: "Happiness just isn't in the cards a good share of the time".

Where talk therapy is helpful to people with these major mental illnesses is assisting them to cope with their serious problem that isn't going to go away, and to provide them with the comfort of an attentive listener. (And lots of ordinary people are perfectly capable of providing this kind of help.)

For the 10% to 20%--or more--psychobabble is usually the proffered cure, along with some sort of medication.

I am pretty sure that at least 20% of the population are quite unhappy; some of the population are profoundly unhappy. In most cases, there is nothing wrong with their "psychology". Their brains are in working order. They can concentrate, learn, remember, cope, produce, get up every day and go to work, get their laundry washed, and so on. If they are unhappy, they need to change -- their job, their family, their society, themselves, or all of the above. If they can't change, then they are going to stay unhappy, or they'll make some kind of accommodation. They don't need therapy--they need courage.

This is a bit too cynical I think. Number pushing can be attributed to practically any field. To be honest, you're getting more at the fact that medical practitioners aren't themselves without problems (even though modern society holds them up now as gods.) — Heister Eggcart

I wasn't trying to be cynical, nor was I trying (here) to suggest that medical practitioners are either gods or unusually screwed up.

If you go back a ways, say 1817, the definition of mental illness was (I am guessing here -- don't have a source) relatively simple. Over time, mental illness was differentiated into more specific diagnoses. This is useful. At some point, it started going overboard, and finding 'new' and 'different' disorders that were already listed under a different name. However, I'm not an expert on this.

One of the problems (I think it is a problem, anyway) with psychiatric diagnosis is that way too many definitions of abnormalities have been sub-divided too often to create a very large list of disorders. Doctors and other practitioners need recognized diagnoses in order to get paid, and the DSM supplies those diagnostic numbers. The more numbers there are, the more often one can get paid for dealing with what may be extremely nebulous 'problems'.

The way in which we diagnose depression seems to be way less reliable than the way that for example you would find a tumor on someones body, or a life weakening viral infection. — rickyk95

Depression does have a specific definition (it's a collection of moods and behavior changes), but the term is also used very generally. There is a difference between "major depression" and "my life is a pile of shit and I am very unhappy about it".

"Depression or unhappiness" generates a lot of traffic in doctor's offices, but some of the patients that report depression really do have a mood disorder called "depression".

Consider something more specific: bi-polar or manic-depressive disorder. The visible signs of mania or severe depression do not require a patients report. Sleeplessness, severe agitation, screaming incoherently, extreme anxiety, and response to hallucinations for mania; for depression one sees flat affect, retarded movement, very slow response in speech, lack of physical care, excessive periods of sleeping, very poor task performance, and so on.

Major and severe psychiatric conditions like paranoid schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, etc. all have obvious behavioral components.

The diagnosis of physical maladies often begins with self-reports. If patients don't report double vision and headaches, a doctor will not order MRI or CAT scans for brain tumors. Severe headaches are invisible to MRIs or CAT scans, so a diagnosis of Migraine pretty much has to depend on patient reports. Blood tests can reveal some disorders, but not all of them, and even tumors can be mistaken for something else.

A pimp approaches you, courts you, makes you feel beautiful, makes you feel a way that other men haven't made you feel before. What's your next move? — Noble Dust

From what I've read, the pornography business doesn't operate the same way that prostitution operates. Pornography producers are media businesses with a publicly available address. Most of these businesses operate in the San Fernando Valley area of L.A. They are legal businesses. Prostitution operates everywhere; it is not a legal business (except in Nevada, at least in the U.S.)

Men and women are hired by studios to work in productions. They have sex with the other people in the production. When the production is finished, the job is over. Prostitutes either work alone or are managed by a pimp or madam. They have sex with any and all customers. The job is over when they can no longer 'turn tricks' or they leave.

The thing that pornography and prostitution have in common is that the workers don't receive a fair share of the cash rewards.

Nobody in their right mind plans on being a porn star (it's not the same as being a movie star). Both men and women get into pornography either by chance (a friend who does porn suggests they try it or a producer recruits them) or they seek it out. I don't believe that men or women who perform San Fernando Valley pornography videos are hapless victims, though it is likely that they initially may have unrealistic expectations of stardom.

Or, alternatively, the simple (more accurate) portrayal of sex workers as women who have "no better prospects". — Noble Dust

Women in Europe, the US, Australia, etc. have many prospects besides sex work. There are a lot of low status legitimate jobs that an unskilled woman can apply to and have a good chance of getting hired for. They are not pleasant jobs, but they do pay regular wages. That there are a lot of unpleasant, low skill, low pay, jobs is not great, but there are alternatives.

Very good points.

One of the things that happened in the US, from which other countries were spared, was prohibition. But prohibition has some highly unintended consequences, one of which was bringing together a mixture of people who didn't normally mix in the speakeasies. Class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual deviants, etc. all were in the room together to drink. This mixing resulted in a further loosening up of mores.

There was a busy Atlantic traffic jam of people going to and coming back from Europe, and bringing with them new ideas from various European (like French) social and artistic movements.

Radio was introduced; people's horizons were widening; the economy was booming (except for the farm economy). Cars were giving people mobile privacy boxes. Houses were a lot smaller in the 20s than they are now, and social mores, evening if they were loosening, were still tighter than they are now. Cars gave people a way of getting away from the nosy observations of parents and neighbors.

Prohibition was repealed in 1933 about. Liquor laws were re-established, and there was a strong reaction to all of the damnable social mixing that went on in the speakeasies. So bars were under legal pressure to monitor and restrict behavior. Now, only mixed couples (male/female) were allowed to dance. Black/white mixing, men dancing together, etc. were verboten. Then too, if the lively days of the 20s were spurred by a booming economy, a depression put a definite chill on the social scene of the 1930s.

Freud had an influence among some groups, certainly, but in the 20s I think it would have been restricted to a social elite. Psychoanalysis, infantile sexuality, and all that would have embarrassed to death the average rural, small town American (which was a big chunk of the population).

Here's a song from 1926 which substantiates your observations.

Something that I think should be mentioned is the Sexual Revolution which unfolded during the last 100 years, culminating in the 1960's. — Wayfarer

Could you expand on this a bit more. Are you dating the sexual revolution from 1870 to 1970? Norms of sexual behavior wasn't static during this period, turning both less and more restrictive at different times, but I am surprised that you term the whole 100 years as part of the "sexual revolution".

At least in the United States (the region I am most familiar with), what we call the sexual revolution was probably begun in the late 1940s, early 1950s. Beatniks, bohemians, and homosexuals were one part; young heterosexual adults were another part. The 1950s are only represented as the "Leave it to Beaver" high point of the nuclear family.

The largest changes in sexual behavior ("the" sexual revolution) resulted from the introduction of the reliable daily birth control pill. The Pill freed women from the fear and risk of pregnancy. The short-lived counterculture of the 1960s was a combo effect of the sunny economy, the baby boom, low tuition costs for college, and easy geographical mobility. The sexual revolution continued into the 1970s with the legalization of abortion and gay liberation movements.

Pornography was redefined by the courts in the 1960s as a legal product that could be sold through normal business channels.

By 1980, "the revolution" was over. Sex won.

I think it's ridiculous to say that actions in games in any way translate to real life, or that games in any way "encourage" anything outside of playing the game. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I think this is at least generally true, and here is the theory behind it:

At various times we occupy different compartments of life activities. These compartments are separated by "membranes" or doorways through which we can step, but which can be quite opaque to ourselves and others, depending on how we manage them.

Playing a game is a compartment which has rules and regulations. A classroom is another compartment which has rules and regulations. Our bedroom is a third compartment. A cubicle at work is a fourth compartment... and so on. We occupy many compartments, each with its own rules and regulations.

It is easy to move from compartment to compartment. Sometimes we take nothing with us from one compartment to another, and sometimes we take quite a bit. People leave the "work compartment" where they have had a bad day and enter their home compartment with a large load of the days aggravations in a bag, which are generously shared with anyone available.

Watching pornography on the internet in the home office is one compartment; a bed in which a spouse is lying is another compartment. One could bring the minimal rules and regulations of pornography-watching to bed, but chances are against this happening. Home, bed, and spouse have well established and practiced rules and roles.

Romantic acts reinterpreted:

When it is fulfilling, you have the energy and the mindset to complete other things in your life, travel, write, philosophise because you are happier as a person. When you live a life where you hate your job, surrounded by moronic people, no matter how much you tell yourself one thing, you will never have the peace of mind to do those activities and ultimately be happy. — TimeLine

Exactly.

Firstly, porn is fiction, not reality. — Wosret

Yes. This is a critical fact: Porn is fiction, not reality. As fiction goes, porn is not the most problematic genre.

I do think though, that women were generally barred from all means of real sovereignty, and means of self-support. Sex work was a means of doing that. Most marriages are of necessity for livelihood for women. — Wosret

You are exaggerating. Granted, the average woman does not have exactly the same opportunities as the average man does, but women in the industrialized nations are generally able to achieve self support, and even sovereignty. Where marriage is a necessity is in providing adequate incomes on which to raise children. It takes two incomes from two adults, if the primary breadwinner is not earning a very substantial salary.

I think that further degrading people that have very little options for themselves (as if they all grew up dreaming of being sex workers), for marketing their literal, most valuable assets because, one, the market exists, and two, they have no obvious better options. — Wosret

Sex work is not a dream job. No kidding. Neither are a good share of the jobs people drag themselves to every day.

The labor of all men and all women has been commodified. Female sex workers are no more exploited than truck drivers, custodians, roofers, secretaries, sales clerks, and factory workers are exploited.

The fact is that many individuals--men, women, young people, old people, smart people, stupid people--all kinds, have difficulty taking care of themselves in times of economic recession or depression. People who live in areas of endemic poverty, under-employment, and few opportunities will suffer more than people who live in booming economic areas.

Labels. Ideological prison? Or the only thing keeping people in Florida from drinking Windex? Discuss.

Oh sure, but I think I would be able to handle it better than outside of them. — Thorongil

Why don't you visit a monastery? They often have a visitation program where you can get a sample of what monastic life is like?

I have known a handful of people who were very intelligent, had not gone to college--or had stalled out on their PhD program, were very well read, were very insightful about life in general, and did not have good jobs, or not even bad jobs. They scrounged. They were not unhappy; at least they were no unhappier than anybody else.

None of these folk were much interested in Buddhism, but they all practiced a secular detachment and indifference to the expectations that they would normally have expected to live up to. They gave their time to politics (leftists, mostly), small religious groups, gay community projects, and the like. They were devoted to what they thought was important. Sort of like Catholic Workers live.

This isn't an easy way to live; one still has to find a little income, somewhere. (Jeff always said that he'd live in a box under a bridge before he'd consider driving a city bus.) Disability, welfare, temp work, odd jobs, low payed jobs at copy centers, stuff like that. One has to adjust one's lifestyle accordingly (down, down, way down), and life's needs (housing, clothing, food, medicine...) might always be precarious. Or, one might actually have a good job that allows one a fair amount of free time. I had a few of those. Real jobs, but I wasn't tied down to a desk.

I wish everyone success, but if you don't find it--don't despair.

Among pentecostals, evangelicals, and fundamentalists, "a personal relationship with Jesus" means "accepting Jesus as your personal savior". "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" is a loaded formula, because it isn't precisely defined, and therefore you can't be sure whether your church peers are confident that you have REALLY committed yourself to "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" or not.

Pentecostalism is a fairly modern religious trend; it was always possible for someone to speak in tongues (like they did on the first Pentecost) but people hadn't been doing it a lot. Now, if you're at a pentecostal service, you can expect several people to speak in tongues and several others to interpret what they said.

Fundamentalism is a modern reactionary movement in response to modernity and the "new criticism" of the Bible, where scholars started finding various narrative strands in books like Genesis. The scholars came up with new, complicated dating systems which suggested that the Bible had a fairly complicated history. They reacted to Darwin's theories for the same reason -- Darwin's evolutionary theories pushed the time line back far, far beyond the 5,000 year old date for earth. Modernity in the 19th century, especially after the American Civil War, dramatically changed life has it had been known. Cars, electricity, radio, airplanes, telephones--all 19th century or early 20th century.

Evangelicalism has older roots, going back to Luther. But closer to our time, it was the Second Great Awakening in the late 1700s, early 1800s, where evangelicalism as a specialty emerged. Methodists are one of the largest heirs of the evangelical movement. It isn't so much about theology as it is style. "Revivals" were definitely a tool during the Second Great Awakening, and on into the early 20th century. Revivals were both religious and social events that people enjoyed attending.

Southern Baptists and allied groups are most focussed on getting people to "accept Jesus as their personal savior". Among Mainline protestants and Catholics (in as much as I understand all these groups) the act of baptism -- infant or adult -- is the event that binds one to Jesus. Yes, one should confess one's sins, one should strive to do better, but "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" isn't a formula so much as a general understanding.

This is how I understand the history of 3 modern religious movements, not a personal testimony.

The new job would certainly have sucked--if not in the first 15 minutes, then fairly soon.

There is a very obvious reason why people are paid to work.

Work as a meaningful and fruitful experience for the individual worker just doesn't make sense within the industrialized, capitalist culture we inhabit. The worker is a tool applies to a task and if the tool doesn't work well, you get one that does work, possibly a cheaper and more disposable version. "Working well" means accepting exploitation as life itself, and not bitching and carping about the wretched suctiveness of it all, and god forbid, resisting the employer.

Whenever I get especially irritated about what the hell I should do, I often half-seriously entertain notions of simply becoming a monk and retiring from this ridiculous world that seems to have no interest in or need of my abilities. — Thorongil

Unfortunately, the ridiculous world exists within cloistered walls. Teaching monks, especially, are pretty much in the world. Now if you became a cloistered monk you might get away from more of the world. But then you'd have to be really committed to everything that goes along with being a monk.

Maybe you could join the Catholic Workers? They are in the world and resist the world. Kind of lefty, so maybe not a good fit for you.

I would agree that most humanities degrees are practically useless in terms of employment. When it comes to facing an interviewer and they look at your résumé with narrowed eyes, wrinkled nose, pursed lips... whether you majored in Art, Gender, Race, and Queer Theory, medieval French, or English Literature--most employers (99.9%) are going to feel your studies are more of an impediment in their organization than a contribution--an imposition upon them.

I majored in English Literature, took some sociology and poly sci along with it, and a decade later added classics courses. No one ever hired me for the content of my degrees. That I had a bachelor and master degree is what mattered. Personally, the English major was entirely worth it, as were the social science and classics courses. The master degree was what I later learned is called a "credential"; these are mainly to help people advance in pay grades in public employment. It wasn't a bad experience, it just wasn't as content laden as it should have been. Back then tuition in Minnesota was really cheap, so it was a good deal.

Had I to do it over again, I would still major in English. I would still take classics courses, and I would take more history -- but taught like in the 60s, before the post-modernism fungus rotted its way through academia.

In the last several years I've been filling in holes in my education--trying to get through authors I thought were going to be dull and boring and are not -- like Henry James and Anthony Trollope (he's sort of dull), contemporary poetry (as long as it makes sense and is accessible -- like Billy Collins). I've been reading a lot of 20th century history -- something I was woefully uninformed about. Yes, I had heard about WWI and WWII, but there was an awful lot I didn't know, or had forgotten about it.

So... don't regret your studies in the humanities. Plan on being an old man who has been reading all his life, not one of those professionals who boasts, "I haven't read a book since college!" There's a 90 year old guy at church who still reads a lot.

that nightmare — Thorongil

I have very little good to say about teacher education and teacher certification. I did go that route and it was mostly a waste of time. But then my decision to become a high school teacher was doomed before it was made -- I just wasn't cut out to be a high school teacher and didn't realize it until years later. (I like teaching, but not in the typical high school setting.)

People do go abroad to teach English. A guy I used to know has been in Burma teaching English for years.

Lots of people have gone the National Guard route, though it isn't quite a reliable as it used to be -- without a draft, it's the National Guard that gets sent.

It's a shame that having pursued an MA in which humanities field? that truck driving has to be a live option. Though, I had a masters degree and it was clerical work that came through in emergencies. It helps to have versatile skills. During the '70s recession there were physics majors doing janitor work at St. Thomas where I worked at the time.

Monastery that would work with your student loans? Seriously? What kind of monastery are you thinking of -- Benedictine - college combo like St. John's Abbey and College?

Good luck in this critical transition. It sucks, and Lord Buddha maybe can help you with detachment and indifference to the student loan vultures circling overhead.

What did you get your degree in, and which degree? What kind of position are you looking for?

I have found some contentment doing volunteer janitor work at church. There are several good things about it. It's a pleasure as long as it's voluntary. There's no glory in it, so nobody is trying to add it to their personal empire.

The amount of dirt swept up is definite and without ambiguity. The grass and plants are always grateful to get watered. Cleaning 15 toilet bowls, 15 sinks, and 4 urinals is actually better than dealing with any number of passive aggressive or borderline personality co-workers and rigid, anal retentive supervisors.

Cleaning up after a funeral lunch for 150 with a team of people is joyous labor compared to terminally boring meetings. The dirty china comes out of the dishwasher unequivocally hot and clean. It's much better than getting slimed by some devious bastard in academia.

it really sucks — Wayfarer

When my last job came to an end, I simply could not at the moment stand another round of job applications, interviews, and the whole angst of not hearing back, and finally receiving the "somebody else was a better fit" kiss off letter. Unemployment went on for about a year, and then I decided, "You know, life really is better without the daily sensation of being sucked down into the manure pile that so many workplaces produce." So, I decided that the last job really was the last job. It was an expensive decision; I had intended to work till I was 65, and I needed the intervening years income.

On balance, being poorer and not seeking out another shit pile was a health-promoting decision. I began to feel better and my ability to think clearly, function well, and so forth improved steadily.

At 70, I feel like I have talents that are going to waste. Perhaps I could find some place to give them away, but that can also be difficult to find. I have an assortment of skill sets, but excellent social skills isn't one of them.

All that aside, good luck to you in your search and endeavors.