What are the living conditions in Africa (I'm assuming sub-Saharan parts of Africa where polygamy and child marriage are practices); why would you want to emulate that? This isn't just about "race" is it? — IvoryBlackBishop

Why are you continuiing to obfuscate, change the topic, and put words in my mouth? I never said anything about emulating anything or race. I am simply pointing out that sex is biological, that making children is necessary for a population to continue, and that demographics matter.

Is it not possible to communicate without all this mind-reading, projection, misquoting, and strawmen??

Why are you continuiing to obfuscate, change the topic, and put words in my mouth? I never said anything about emulating anything or race. I am simply pointing out that sex is biological, that making children is necessary for a population to continue, and that demographics matter.
[/quote]

True, but how much "population" is needed and in the context of what goals, and how does "aggregate" population take into account other social or economic factors, such as populations of families relative to their means, and so on and so forth? Can you name any cuture in which "population controls", often in the context of means and sustainability, didn't exist in some form or another, and not even potentially stricter or more draconian than today (such as "death penalties" for adulteries in ancient cultures serving a pragmatic, population control purpose).

Unless something akin to the "voluntary human extinction movement" or a nihilistic worldview in which "no one" should have children was relevant, then the "entire" population would not disappear.

So, honestly, I don't see what the point in aggregate population comparisons between America, Europe, or Africa are, unless this is just some type of "population measuring contest"; can you provide any more depth to this issue?

Unless something akin to the "voluntary human extinction movement" or a nihilistic worldview in which "no one" should have children was relevant, then the "entire" population would not disappear. — IvoryBlackBishop

Actually, it will. Simple demographic fact.

So, honestly, I don't see what the point in aggregate population comparisons between America, Europe, or Africa are, unless this is just some type of "population measuring contest"; can you provide any more depth to this issue?

No, simply pointing to reality. In the short term (which you seem preoccupied with) demographics means nothing. In tne long term, it means everything. Populations which do not reproduce disappear, populations which do, take over. How do you think Kosovo went from being a Serbian province to an Albanian territory? (Just a random example)

Actually, it will. Simple demographic fact.

I think you misunderstand what I said.

That would only happen in a theoretical situation in which the entire population decided to stop having children, and in practice, as opposed to pure abstraction, that has never happened.

So no, I don't see Issac Newton or Adam Smith's decisions not to marry or to have children as somehow leading to the entire population doing this. Show me anytime in history in which an entire population "stopped having sex" or having children, and ceased to exist within 1 generation.

(And for that matter, most people would argue that contemporary cultures benefit more from Newton's personal sacrifices in regards to his higher mental achievement than they would have if he had simply decided to spend that time "having more children").

How do you think Kosovo went from being a Serbian province to an Albanian territory? (Just a random example)

So you're talking about territorialism, not "culture".

I still have no idea what that has to do with "birth rates", a nation could become "annexed" by another nation, such as through war or colonization, even then I fail to see what "population" or birth rates have to do with this.

For example, India used to be a British territory, despite having a vastly larger population than Britain did, much as how in WWII Japan invaded China, which was vastly larger but allegedly inferior in military strength.

So even then, I don't see what "birth" rates" have to do with in practice, since in reality, a nation with the strongest military or economic might or technology isn't necessarily the nation with the highest population or birth rates.

@IvoryBlackBishop: "Sexual ethics"

Is nothing safe from ethicists?

waltz to the grave hand-in-hand — god must be atheist

Lovely. I like that.

As of right now, I would honestly prefer playing a video game than trying to 'pick up' a woman at a strip club. — IvoryBlackBishop

One would hope that there are more choices than a strip club or a video game.

I'm 73. I enjoyed both a promiscuous gay sex life for 20 years and a settled gay relationship for 30 years. Both were satisfactory, but in different, and non-interchangeable ways. The pleasure of the hunt, the delight in anonymous sex (anonymous, but not meaningless, not exploitative; call it collaborative), the pleasure in home life with Bob, the mutuality of the close relationship -- it was all good.

Pairing up early in one's life, not having the experience of sharing in a variety of sexual styles, preferences, wishes, wants, etc., seems like an impoverished life.

What doesn't work well is freely having sex with different partners while trying to have a stable, one-on-one relationship. Some people can manage open and settled relationships (they have to be ambidextrous multitaskers) but 94.3% of the population can not manage it. It just doesn't end well, usually.

Fair enough...

Has anyone ever heard of contraception, introspection, full suspension, and resurrection?

I have enjoyed both a promiscuous and a monogamous lifestyle, and I have to tell you: the monogamous is boring but safe and life is easier; the promiscuous is frought with adversity, instability, and money troubles, but it's infintely more exciting and enjoyable.

Yeah, you can find a partner whom you can trust and get to know, and while I don't condone hooking up for myself (I won't interfere with the choice by others for themselves), a serial monogamy is WAAAY preferable to a single long-term relationship. In serial, you can date as long as you find your partner exciting and vice versa. In marriage, in most of them, there is no sex to speak of after the fifth year. It is not exciting, you get so fucking incredibly bored with her or him, that you cringe even when they touch you or you touch them. And of course you fantasize about thy neighbour's ass.

For those who still can afford a choice, I suggest you go out and sow your wild oats, (without producing a baby, fer crying out loud), then when old age sets in and the cart of life gets too heavy to be pulled just by one person, then hook up with a contemporary of your age group, and waltz to the grave hand-in-hand. — god must be atheist

Actually that last paragraph actually makes somewhat sense. Considering our entire society has turned to shit, your words of wizdom actually make sense for our present time. To some degree even successfully married people could be put on that spectrum. How many people do you see out in public fit the category "i dealt with 1 ,2 ,3 ,50 bad people and now i'm going to die with the person who is sitting next to me who actually will put up with me". David had 8 wives and some people claim the only two people who loved him alot were Jonathan and Bathsheba. As far as i know Bathsheba was his last wife and Jonathan died a while before that.

:up:

but 94.3% of the population can not manage it. — Bitter Crank

Just making sure you were just having fun by making up a very specific number here? Or were you referencing a particular study or something? I agreed with most of what you said, but was shocked (and interested) to think scientists could say that specifically the percent of people who can manage open and settled relationships??

The statistic is pure invention for rhetorical purposes.

IvoryBlackBishop:

That would only happen in a theoretical situation in which the entire population decided to stop having children, and in practice, as opposed to pure abstraction, that has never happened.

No. You do not need "the entire population to stop having children" for a demographic trend leading to extinction. It is simple math. An average birth rate of 1.3 leads to an increasingly aged population and ultimately to extinction. It is not like I am making up a new topic here. This is very much debated topic for example in Western Europe (where the EU wants to change it with "replacement migration" and Japan.

So you're talking about territorialism, not "culture".
I still have no idea what that has to do with "birth rates", a nation could become "annexed" by another nation, such as through war or colonization, even then I fail to see what "population" or birth rates have to do with this.

I said nothing about terrorism, PLEASE stop making false claims. I mentioned Kosovo, because it is an example of a very rapid population shift because of birth rates. Kosovo had a purely Serbian population, in fact it was the Serbian heartland. Then, immigration plus the massive difference in birth rates between Serbian and Albanian families changed that to an Albanian population with a shrinking Serbian minority.

True, but how much "population" is needed and in the context of what goals, and how does "aggregate" population take into account other social or economic factors, such as populations of families relative to their means, and so on and so forth?

Those are all static details that depend on the society. I simply pointed to simply facts: 1) A below-replacement birth rate leads a shrinking population, and shrinking populations eventually reach zero. 2) a surplus of males in a human society is not good for the stability of said society.
I said none of the other things that you made up.

Pairing up early in one's life, not having the experience of sharing in a variety of sexual styles, preferences, wishes, wants, etc., seems like an impoverished life. — Bitter Crank

Seen in a more financial context, it may actually be the other way around.

Men may easily hand over 70% of their income for dependents. So, if he makes $100,000 per year, for example, then (without interest), that could represents $70,000 x 40 = $2.8 million of household funding at stake.

Sex is heavily intertwined with raw money.

If the counterparty in the deal has routinely been giving away sexual favours for free to other men, then why would this man agree to erode away $2.8 million on that person? Why shouldn't he be getting the sex for free too? If the other guys were more deserving of freebies for reasons of preference, then this counterparty in the deal should probably just go back to these other guys.

When money is at stake, the negotiations tend to become ruthless and merciless, while "feelings" do not matter in the least, because that is what capitalism is all about.

Money and "feelings" don't mix particularly well.

In other words, if someone has been giving sex away for free, this person may very well have to keep giving it away for free for the rest of their life. They can no longer become dependent on externally provided household funds, not even if they may at some point in their lives really need it.

How's that for an "impoverished" life? ;-)

An interesting discussion, between males mostly in their second half of life, if I’m not mistaken.

I’m going to offer a slightly different perspective, if I may.

The human population at large is not in danger of extinction. To those who say sex is ‘necessary’ for a stable society in terms of procreation, I say that diversity and collaboration are more the hallmarks of stability (and sex) than population control in either direction. Don’t procreate as an obligation, or simply to prove that you can - we honestly don’t need more people. If you’re not serious about realising the future potential of humanity, then don’t just add to the numbers for the sake of it. Procreation is a responsibility, but it is NOT a right.

Monogamy, too, isn’t as necessary as one might think. Yes, it promotes a more stable society than polygamy, but only because a monogamous sexual relationship is less likely to promote an uneven perception of potential. If the laws of marriage or morality promote political imbalance (on the basis of gender, monetary exchange or birthright, for instance), then a sexual relationship negotiated on the freely agreed terms of all participating parties is always preferable to legality, however temporary.

Having said that, a healthy (ethical) sexual relationship within a marriage or without starts with integrity, patience and awareness - with yourself, first and foremost. If you’re only after a romp then don’t pretend otherwise, or vice versa, just for the sake of success. This goes for women and incels as much as players and frustrated husbands. Sex within a marriage - especially after twenty-odd years - is sometimes a matter of just helping each other unwind from the day. That’s okay. There can be comfort, intimacy and pleasure in the humble honesty of sharing a moment of vulnerability and need without fear or judgement. It’s what good sex is all about, really.

Finally, I have to say that I think anyone who believes sex is heavily intertwined with money mustn’t be doing it right...:razz:

Procreation is a responsibility, but it is NOT a right. — Possibility

For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions.

a sexual relationship negotiated on the freely agreed terms of all participating parties is always preferable to legality, however temporary. — Possibility

That depends on a social-political framework that may or may not exist, and that can easily stop existing from the one day to the other. When the Roman legions inevitably abandoned the fortifications on the Rhine in 406 AD, it was game over for the existing societal framework. There were no debates any longer. There were only sword fights.

The default situation in biology is the mating season. As I see it, it has the greatest legitimacy of all the various approaches because it is the default way in which biological life reaffirms itself. It just works.

I understand that it appears to work in your favour in the short term to ‘default’ back to ‘biology’. But surely you’re more than just a bunch of animals ‘forced’ to comply with the socio-political framework of the day?

Frankly, if we consider ourselves to be human beings, then our ‘default’ should NOT be biology. I think this is an issue for sexual ethics, because we continue to use this ‘default’ as an excuse for unconscionable behaviour, as if it can’t be helped. But I call bullshit. It CAN be helped, and the belief that human males are unable to control their violent and/or sexual behaviour without a strict socio-political framework is false. Some CHOOSE not to, and others have been able to leave that door open as a way (and a threat) to restore this illusion of control to which they believe themselves to be entitled.

‘Biology’ as you describe it only appears to work from the point of view of those with this illusion of control. As long as you can align yourself with the victors, and are grateful for whatever benefits such an association offers you, then you can kid yourself that you, too, have ‘control’ to some extent, for as long as the illusion holds out. If you’re on the outer, however, then you feel entitled, even encouraged, to engage in violent and/or sexual behaviour that somehow aligns or associates you with the victors.

But ‘survival of the fittest’ is not an accurate rendition of reality: it’s just a fairytale. Those moments where we feel attacked, betrayed, blindsided or taken for a ride are just reality catching up with us. If we’re prepared to let go of the fairytale and see reality for what it is, then we can be more prepared for it...

But surely you’re more than just a bunch of animals ‘forced’ to comply with the socio-political framework of the day? — Possibility

]
Are we? Biology is what it is. The socio-political framework is very different, depending on the time and place.

Frankly, if we consider ourselves to be human beings, then our ‘default’ should NOT be biology. — Possibility

Well yes, but whatever societal norms you have are BASED on biology.

Are we? Biology is what it is. The socio-political framework is very different, depending on the time and place. — Nobeernolife

Well, no - what has been referred to here as ‘biology’ is an interpretation, a reduction of information such that it endorses certain behaviour as ‘normal’.

I recognise and sympathise with this preference for an observable, measurable universality as a default. The uncertainty and relativity of what it is to be human requires that we pay more effort, energy and attention to determining and initiating action, and that we relate to the universe beyond our own immediate needs. The extent to which we advocate reverting to a biological or animalistic ‘default’ is a question of ethics.

Well yes, but whatever societal norms you have are BASED on biology. — Nobeernolife

I dispute that societal norms must be BASED on this interpretation of ‘biology’. That’s my point.

I dispute that societal norms must be BASED on this interpretation of ‘biology’. That’s my point. — Possibility

Maybe "based" is a misleading term. What I meant to say is that the biological facts are always there. Whatever societal norms are put on top of it can be very different, but the biological base is always there.

But surely you’re more than just a bunch of animals ‘forced’ to comply with the socio-political framework of the day? — Possibility

I don't know.

Maybe "based" is a misleading term. What I meant to say is that the biological facts are always there. Whatever societal norms are put on top of it can be very different, but the biological base is always there. — Nobeernolife

I’m not denying that biology exists. It’s the structure of societal norms put on top of a ‘base’ interpretation of biological ‘facts’ such as stated below that I’m arguing against:

For male biology, procreation is a privilege acquired through either violent combat ("mating season") or possibly through civilizing hacks such as marriage, if and when such civilizing hack still possibly functions. — alcontali

The biological FACT here is what exactly?

This is an interpretation of what we observe in nature in relation to understanding human pre-conscious response to stimuli. It isn’t a base: it’s only a handful of clues. Conscious action is not put on top of a base of stimulus-response - it restructures and influences not only how we respond, but also how we interpret stimuli beyond our immediate needs, which then gives us options on how we can respond. Self-consciousness enables us to not only question and critically evaluate these interpretations and subsequent responses (in theory as well as practice), but also to adjust our concepts, giving us options on how we can interpret stimuli more objectively in order to determine and initiate more ethical actions.

So an effective look at sexual ethics requires a restructuring of this ‘base interpretation’ to integrate our capacity for both conscious and self-conscious action. And I’m not necessarily talking only about stopping to think in the heat of the moment. The way we conceptualise ‘male biology’ in the first place might be a good place to start...

I've been with Nancy for 38 years. We met on a blind date set up by a friend. Haven't been apart since...and I would not change any of the memories I have of this monogamous relationship.

ASIDE: We've been together, as I mentioned, for 38 years...and have never married. We've both just felt that no governmental agency or church need be involved in our relationship. — Frank Apisa

Without marriage, if either of you dies... they may be more involved than you'd like, and possibly in ways that you'd not imagined they could.

then again every serious take on marriage or monogamy as an ideal, even including Biblical ones (in which marital problems and conflicts are a recurring theme) is that it would require a lot of work and sacrifice, with many marriages or relationships not being part of the ideal, — IvoryBlackBishop

Most of my life I used to think that there is no way that two individuals could be compatible for marriage. Humans are extemely diverse, and problems and conflicts are unavoidable.

Then when I started to date my present lover, and we've been together for four years, I realized not only has my previous stance not true, but its opposite is even more true: ANY one can be compatible with anyone else, depending on HOW MUCH A PERSON IS WILLING TO COMPROMISE. It is a question of incompatibility vs patience. If as your patience (ability to accept the foibles and idiosyncrasies of the partner) increases, the compatibility can decrease, and vice versa.

My present partner is not suitable for me, in very many levels and facets of life, but SHE LOVES ME, and to me that's a greater treasure than anything else, and therefore I am not willing to stop getting her love.

The way we conceptualise ‘male biology’ in the first place might be a good place to start... — Possibility

There is nothing to conceptualize. It just is what it is.

Once the now disfunctional societal framework will have collapsed (the sooner the better) it will be impossible to resurrect it, because the men who will have fought in combat will simply not want it back.

We will probably have to contend with lots of marauding gangs but that is also not such a bad thing because these gangs will prefer to pick the easy targets and thus systematically eliminate the feminized pushovers. It would be a bad idea to put a stop to the cleansing chaos of the mating season too early.

Considering our entire society has turned to shit — christian2017

When wasn't it shit?

I haven't found anything akin to an "one-size fits all" view — IvoryBlackBishop

Because there isn't one. Some people prefer monogamy, some polyamory, some celibacy. There's no such thing as "right" or "wrong", just "right for me" and "wrong for you" – and even that changes as people grow and change.

When wasn't it shit? — Michael

i have to head out soon so i'll respond back later. The suicide rate is much higher in the US than any other time and i wouldn't assume abortion doesn't count towards a high death rate.

And as I pointed out, male incels are source of aggression and instability i a society. — Nobeernolife

I reckon that only a minority of people who are involuntarily celibate are aggressive. And of those that are, I doubt having sex is going to calm them down.

The suicide rate is much higher in the US than any other time — christian2017

Not higher than any other time. Just the highest since 1942.



When was US society at its best? 2000 when the suicide rate was at its lowest?

When was US society at its best? 2000 when the suicide rate was at its lowest? — Michael

In terms of economic growth and general happiness, yeah placing it in the year 2000 would be fair as a starting point to a discussion would be fair.....

I haven't found anything akin to an "one-size fits all" view
— IvoryBlackBishop

Because there isn't one. Some people prefer monogamy, some polyamory, some celibacy. There's no such thing as "right" or "wrong", just "right for me" and "wrong for you" – and even that changes as people grow and change. — Michael

Right on, Michael. We can't mix ethics with sexual preferences and lifestyles. There has been a lot of that, and it leads to strife, but not to "rehabilitation". Point in case: homosexuality. We now accept it as a viable lifestyle in sexual matters, but it took a long and ardorous battle in all spheres of human interest of the gay people to gain acceptance.

In my country, Canada,the prime minister in the nineteen-sixties declared, "the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" and abolished the part of criminal code dealing with I believe anal intercourse. (Butt-fucking, for those who don't speak Latin.)

The religious leaders have not got to the point yet, to declare, "God has no business in the bedrooms of the nation", and that is going to be a tough change, because gospel and other religious writings don't change with the times... only their interpretation, which can go wildly tangential.