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. — creativesoul

Thank you, CS. Actually, we have pretty much determined that one of us WILL die. (In fact, we are certain that we will BOTH die at some point.)

Neither of us has an inordinate amount of material wealth and we both have wills. We each also have living wills and written end of life instructions.

It'll work out.

It'll work out. — Frank Apisa

What would be the alternative, I wonder... "My death did not work out the way I planned." (-:

What would be the alternative, I wonder... "My death did not work out the way I planned." (-: — god must be atheist

I like that. Gonna borrow it, if you give permission...or steal it if you don't! (Smiles)

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. — christian2017

Aside from Michael's response, your being factually incorrect, there is no measure of the "well-being" of a society. You took suicide rates to be the measure. But it does not measure how happy the happy are, and how happy the baseline "normals". There may be times when many commit suicide, but many also are happier than whatever.

So it is a difficult proposition to say this society is shit, it's not shit now, now it's shit again... shit, shit, shit, not shit, etc etc because there is no such thing as a measure of the well-being of a society.

I like that. Gonna borrow it, if you give permission...or steal it if you don't! (Smiles) — Frank Apisa

Hehe. (-:

This is flattery enough to make me go through the day with a smile.

Canada: +0.00000001 on the happiness scale for the day.

Aside from Michael's response, your being factually incorrect, there is no measure of the "well-being" of a society. You took suicide rates to be the measure. But it does not measure how happy the happy are, and how happy the baseline "normals". There may be times when many commit suicide, but many also are happier than whatever. — god must be atheist

Actually...

The world happiness report is COMPARATIVE. You can compare how happy Hungarians are at one point, compared to how happy Norwegians are at one point.

But you can't compare USA against USA at one point.

You're right in the fact, that given two different points, the same country could be measured against itself... how happy all individuals are against how happy they were at a different point.

But then again, there is the measuring problem... it is a subjective judgment, and it is decided by each participant themselves, because their feeling can only be measured by themselves. There are indicators, sure, but the indicators (visible to outside observers) may be misleading.

Such as "How many times this week you woke up with a smile, and how many times did you go to bed with a smile". This is objective, if given true answers, but the feeling is not measured.

But you can't compare USA against USA at one point. — god must be atheist

They actually do that on page 39. The change from 2005-2008 to 2016-2018 was -0.446. 112th out of 132 for happiness increase. Definitely not good.

We British did have an increase of 0.137. Only 63rd though.

But then again, there is the measuring problem... it is a subjective judgment, and it is decided by each participant themselves, because their feeling can only be measured by themselves. — god must be atheist

How else would you measure happiness?

Such as "How many times this week you woke up with a smile, and how many times did you go to bed with a smile". This is objective, if given true answers, but the feeling is not measured.

As someone who's definitely not a morning person I hope this isn't the measure of happiness. :wink:

So... I'm the gov stats person.
Mr. Michael: How happy did you feel on March 22, 2019, the whole day, and on April 14, the same year, and on September 44 of the same yearrrrr?

But if they only ask about today, or on the current day several times during the measurement period, they still need to ask the same people on every occasion, even ten years apart. The benchmark is going to be too sliding-sort up-and-down if you ask different people.

That can be countered by statistical spreading, but then you need a large sample.

And then in each of the 132 countries 2749 subjects (to make the sample return statisitically significant values) x number of interviews becomes so expensive, that the only people who have a smile will be the statiticians themselves... ("I can't believe how easy it is to make money by statistical methods... especially when you think everyone reads it as gospel, without knowing how valid the conclusions can be given the methods of data collection", thinks the data analyst.)

Statistics actually don't lie... people lie. It's like guns don't kill... people kill with guns.

Both should be banned for use by the laymen, and only let be used by professionals.

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

I don’t doubt that your ignorant and primitive concept of ‘male biology’ seems to be working for you personally in your isolated little corner of the world. No doubt you’ve gotten yourself into a position where you can lash out with some well-placed aggression to bring everyone back in line, or exclude (ie. run away from) any part of the world that doesn’t pander to your every whim.

I think many older males with a similar concept of ‘male biology’ would have carved out a little niche for themselves in the world by now - a castle/fortress in which they can live out their days in relative ignorance of a reality that everyone else is gradually coming to terms with, despite how they like to think the world works.

Anyway, if anyone here is genuinely interested in discussing sexual ethics, let me know.

I believe the report is based on the Gallup World Poll that uses this methodology.

I don’t doubt that your ignorant and primitive concept of ‘male biology’ seems to be working for you personally in your isolated little corner of the world. — Possibility

It is still civilized here; much more than what it will most likely soon be in your corner of the world. Look at what kind of guys are going to lead the wolf pack:

The Puerto Rican Mob/The Puerto Rican mafia, consists of 6 crime families, in the northeastern coast of Puerto Rico around the cities of San Juan, Puerto Rico, Carolina, Puerto Rico, Canóvanas and Loiza Pueblo. The family was founded by Quitoni Martinez, José "Coquito" López Rosario whom later split from the Family to form his own which became a family within the Puerto Rican mafia, Henry Vega, Iván Vega, and Luis Albertos Rodríguez. They had strong connections with The Cali Cartel and small connections with Los Pepes, Paulino Organization, Gulf Cartel and the Puerto Rican street gang Ñetas.[1] — The Puerto Rican Mob/The Puerto Rican mafia

Maybe explain to those guys about "ignorant and primitive concepts of male biology". They are known to thoroughly molest loosely available "prey" on a catch-and-release base, which they usually don't kill but just leave behind for dead. Also, better don't count on the feminized pushovers to lift a finger, if in the meanwhile they still have one. That is the generalized nearby future of the West.

The biological FACT here is what exactly? — Possibility

Sex drive. That is entirely biological.
And do not mix that with ethics. Ethics comes into play when society is involved.

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. — Michael

You can recon all you want, but human biology is what it is. Testosterone makes for an entirely different psychological base then estrogen.
And underneath all the PC posturing I am pretty sure you instinctively know that, as does everyone.

On a societal level, the huge merit of monogamy is that it civilizes males.

You can recon all you want, but human biology is what it is. Testosterone makes for an entirely different psychological base then estrogen. — Nobeernolife

OK, but how does that entail that men are made aggressive by celibacy?

OK, but how does that entail that men are made aggressive by celibacy? — Michael

Aggression is an innate part of the young males of our species, of course. Ever read Lord of the Flies?
Come one, I am not saying something revolutionary here.

Aggression is an innate part of the young males of our species, of course. Ever read Lord of the Flies?
Come one, I am not saying something revolutionary here. — Nobeernolife

So being aggressive has nothing to do with celibacy, it just has something to do with being male?

Ever read Lord of the Flies? — Nobeernolife

A work of fiction, not a documentary.

Michael: the Gallup poll uses a statistical technology that employs an "expected" answer.

This, I believe, renders the statistics very approximate, not accurate.

The reason is that to make the test useful, the test giver has to inform the tested person what the baseline is to which the testee must compare himself when giving an answer.

Tester:
Do you feel your are A extremely happy, B very happy C somewhat happey, D not happy or E extremely unhappy.

How does the testee know at what level the gradients lie? The tester's question presupposes that the testee realizes what the tester means by these categories -- and impossible task for the testee.

-----------
My sample question was extremely simplistic. But it is likely applicable to all questions asked on happiness.

So being aggressive has nothing to do with celibacy, it just has something to do with being male? — Michael

It absoluty is connected to celibacy, unless the celibacy is by choice. We are not talking about monestaries here. Incel means INVOLUNTARY celibate.

A work of fiction, not a documentary. — Michael

A work of fiction that is very insightful. Want a a documentary? Visit a male prison.

A work of fiction that is very insightful. — Nobeernolife

It's only insightful if it's accurate, but what evidence do you have that it's accurate?

Want a a documentary? Visit a male prison.

Aggressive people have a greater tendency to break the law and so go to prison, so obviously you're going to find lots of aggression in a prison.

It absoluty is connected to celibacy, unless the celibacy is by choice. We are not talking about monestaries here. Incel means INVOLUNTARY celibate. — Nobeernolife

You're not explaining the connection between involuntary celibacy and aggression. You're just asserting that there is one, and asserting that men are by nature aggressive (in which case whether or not they're celibate is irrelevant; men are aggressive even if sexually active).

A work of fiction that is very insightful. Want a a documentary? Visit a male prison. — Nobeernolife

There are lots of other issues in prison than testosterone. If you were correct, then conditions of prisoner relations in female prisons would not be so similar to those in male prisons.

Your response is not thought through.

Incel means INVOLUNTARY celibate. — Nobeernolife

I think it's worth noting that the term "incel" means a bit more than just being involuntarily celibate. The term "incel" tends to refer to the people who form an online community to talk about their celibacy, and quite often are toxic and complain about women and life and whatnot, but there are a lot more people in the world who are involuntarily celibate but have nothing to do with this community. They just live their lives and aren't these aggressive caricatures.

You're good then... just checkin'. Ya never know what people know...


:wink:

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.
— christian2017

Aside from Michael's response, your being factually incorrect, there is no measure of the "well-being" of a society. You took suicide rates to be the measure. But it does not measure how happy the happy are, and how happy the baseline "normals". There may be times when many commit suicide, but many also are happier than whatever.

So it is a difficult proposition to say this society is shit, it's not shit now, now it's shit again... shit, shit, shit, not shit, etc etc because there is no such thing as a measure of the well-being of a society. — god must be atheist

if you say so. I would argue being complacent about suicide shows a lack of concern for others.

Aside from Michael's response, your being factually incorrect, there is no measure of the "well-being" of a society. You took suicide rates to be the measure. But it does not measure how happy the happy are, and how happy the baseline "normals". There may be times when many commit suicide, but many also are happier than whatever.

So it is a difficult proposition to say this society is shit, it's not shit now, now it's shit again... shit, shit, shit, not shit, etc etc because there is no such thing as a measure of the well-being of a society. — god must be atheist

If suicide does increase, any person who understands the way Mother's react to such things would understand where i am coming from. Most Mothers would prefer their child to die from some stranger than to die from suicide. Based on the above response below, you appear to be quite the snob.

I understand where a heterosexual orientation leads to the kind of considerations you are raising here. For men and women, sex and then marriage, or marriage and then sex, is a costly deal. Supporting a spouse and children is a long-term expensive proposition. Most of us are the beneficiaries of those sorts of long term outlays. Good parents generate as much wealth as they can to give their children a fair chance at having a decent life. The poor, of course, have less cash. But they can still do a good job of raising their children. $ doesn't work as a measure of good parenting, though $ is correlated with certain desirable outcomes.

My experience has been entirely in the gay male community where sex is still pretty much free, with very few if any entailments. Well, an occasional dinner as a seduction strategy, maybe a round or two of drinks, maybe living near by the place of assignation--all low cost gambits. But, you know, if you go to a public park and have sex, or pick up someone at a bar or with Grindr, or however, you have the sex and then part company. (Sometimes one hits it off with a trick and the two might end up living together--maybe for a long time.). This approach works for many (not all) gay men. (There's nothing preventing a return engagement with x, y, or z if they so wish.)

Male/male sex does not lead to pregnancy, of course, so sex can be casual and free. (This leaves aside questions of communicable diseases like HIV, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, HPV, parasites, and other fine products of the bacterial/viral world.). Fucking once or twice and then getting HIV early in the game is going to seem like a very bad deal, no matter how one slices it. That has happened to people. Gonorrhea isn't the readily treatable infection it was 40 years ago. Syphilis remains as susceptible to penicillin as it ever was, but if neglected is still a quite serious infection. Herpetic infections can be really unpleasant, as can HPV infections. HPV strain #16 and #18 are associated with cancer.

If one smoked, drank, had lots of sex, engaged in vigorous activities like running or long-distance biking, ate too well, was too lazy to get one's derrière off the couch, or any number of lifestyle choices, one can expect to have some negative consequences sooner or later. Millions are walking wounded because they partook of life's risky pleasures. Most would probably do it all over again if they had the choice.

Heterosexuals hoped that the sexual revolution would open the way to more satisfactory sex lives for both men and women. It didn't, in a number of ways, because women still have more to lose from casual sex than men do.

At various times, anyone may be celibate, and even involuntarily celibate. I've been celibate for the last 10 years, because at the age of 63 and the loss of my life partner, I decided I'd rather not begin another life-relationship. I'm pretty happy living alone -- now, at my age, 73. 30 years ago, even 20 years ago, celibacy was out of the question. I was up for as much sex as I could get. The sex drive gradually cools off, which is a great mercy in many ways.

What makes celibacy a bad thing is not having a choice in the matter -- in the manner of prison inmates. If one is at large and finding that one can't find a partner for so much as a fast fuck, then one should probably undertake a major audit of one's methods, motivations, style, and... mental health in general.

My impression is that heterosexuals can usually find sex if they want to -- just like gays can, Get too fussy, too resentful, too hung up, and so on -- then the market dries up.

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

2000 was a better year. Are you aware of the very high rate of pedaphilia that we live? Rape is also as high if not higher than any other period. I guess you don't think abortion is a big deal? Think of all those aborted female babies that can't grow up and have abortions themselves. And oh yes most Mothers would prefer for some complete stranger to murder their child than for him/her to commit suicide themselves. Some of yall paint yourselves as caring but that very often is not the case.