I entirely disagree. Why do you say this? — Agustino

Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body.

It's the tapas thing again (is this a vulgar analogy? perhaps). A snack need not be a sordid indulgence, but rather a brief sensual pleasure taken seriously.

No I don't dismiss evidence, I dismiss your interpretation of it. The World Trade center fell. That's our evidence. You say it fell because the impact of the airplane had in damaging its structural integrity. Or you say bombs were planted inside of it. Or whatever. I, who am more knowledgeable than you in engineering, will say that it fell because fire spread across multiple floors in a steel frame structure, thereby weakening its stiffness, combined with the floors tying the columns together collapsing and thereby the effective lengths of the columns doubling and therefore the maximum buckling load they could carry becoming less than a quarter of the initial value (taking into account reduction in stiffness due to the fire as well). Now because I understand how buildings work, I can have a holistic view, and I know what the right explanation for the facts is, regardless of what folks peddle, and think the facts are saying or whatever nonsense. Now I don't even need to test this (but I have in fact tested it on a computer model, and it is correct), to know that it is the case. It's the one with the largest explanatory framework for what happened. — Agustino

And psychologists are more knowledgeable than you about psychology (assuming that you're not a psychologist yourself, but an engineer, say), and they have taken the evidence and concluded that casual sex isn't always a bad thing.

So you seem to be the person saying that the towers fell because they were bombed.

Then you have to analyse your own experience and ask yourself what you're really after when you want to have sex. Is it just the physical pleasure? If so, why don't you masturbate, for example?

Because I might find sex more pleasurable than masturbation.

If you really want intimacy at some level, then you should pursue that idea to its very conclusion rather than half-heartidly.

Because I might not want the level of intimacy found in a life-long monogamous relationship, or anything else that comes with such commitment. I might prefer the intimacy of friends and casual sex.

I like chocolate, but I wouldn't eat an entire chocolate cake.

Your reasoning here seems akin to a slippery slope argument.

I wouldn't entirely go along with what I imagine others here might say, viz., whatever floats your boat. — jamalrob

I would agree with whatever floats your boat from a pragmatic point of view (in the sense that you can't convince everyone), however, the two cannot live together in the same society, thus it will end up a political war, that we must all fight.

Sure, and you claim that regardless, there was empirical evidence of negative psychological consequences in that study? — Terrapin Station

NO! obviously not in that study... but there was in others. Really man...

poetic

Thanks, but if you mean the first line, that's Nietzsche. :D

both lines were poetic in equal measure

Music to my ears, chorizo to my loins.

lol

And psychologists are more knowledgeable than you about psychology (assuming that you're not a psychologist yourself, but an engineer, say), and they have taken the evidence and concluded that casual sex isn't always a bad thing. — Michael

Some of them have, not all of them. And no, it doesn't necessarily mean they're more knowledeable than me - just because they have a diploma in that, and I don't.

Because I might find sex more pleasurable than masturbation. — Michael

Is that pleasure physical then, or psychological? And how much more pleasureable is it, if it's just physical, to warrant the associated potential risks?

Because I might not want the level of intimacy found in a life-long monogamous relationship, or anything else that comes with such commitment. I might prefer the intimacy of friends and casual sex. — Michael

Your dilemma is that you want it and you do not want it, hence you suffer.

Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body. — jamalrob

Spinoza said:

Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility. The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to receive a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should prefer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning

It seems you have given up what is noble because the mind is not eternal. That seems absurd.

It's the tapas thing again (is this a vulgar analogy? perhaps). A snack need not be a sordid indulgence, but rather a brief sensual pleasure taken seriously. — jamalrob

The analogy fails because sex is in no way like eating. There is no psychological effect from eating - at least in the general sense, as there is from sex.

You appeared to be saying that regardless of what people claimed re psychological benefits versus detriments, in reality, there were detriments only. Were you not claiming that?

You appeared to be saying that regardless of what people claimed re psychological benefits versus detriments, in reality, there were detriments only. Were you not claiming that? — Terrapin Station

Yes, that is MY UNDERSTANDING of it, not what the study claims... It's getting quite tiring that you fail to see this. Just because it's my understanding (which I have reasons to think is the true and correct understanding) doesn't mean that this is in accordance with the interpretation offered in the studies.

Right, so you have no empirical evidence supporting your conclusion there, though?

The analogy fails because sex is in no way like eating. There is no psychological effect from eating - at least in the general sense, as there is from se — Agustino

Would you explain this to women when it comes to chocolate.

Right, so you have no empirical evidence supporting your conclusion there, though? — Terrapin Station

I have empirical evidence supporting my interpretation, not from that study, but from the others. There's also life experiences, knowledge and understanding of what I've seen/heard, etc. that is involved in holding my interpretation, it's not like I've formed it just based on studies of empirical evidence. I have my own evidence as well.

Would you explain this to women when it comes to chocolate — m-theory

Whatever that effect is, it's nothing like the effects that exist from sex. It's like comparing the line that monkeys may draw, with the art that the human being is capable of. It's such a large gap that it's a difference in kind, not in degree. Even cavemen painted.

I have empirical evidence supporting my interpretation, not from that study, but from the others. — Agustino

So the one study is right and the others wrong because you agree with the one and not the others. (Well, and plus the conclusions you've already reached in the course of your life experience.)

Whatever that effect is, it's nothing like the effects that exist from sex. — Agustino

Again I believe you, but if you could just explain this to women.

So the one study is right and the others wrong because you agree with the one and not the others. (Well, and plus the conclusions you've already reached in the course of your life experience.) — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure what's up with that study, I haven't investigated it to be honest. In either case, science isn't done like this. If I find a study claiming grass cures cancer, I won't bother to read it, because I haven't much reason to believe it is true (not that it couldn't be true). I've worked for a short-while in research in engineering, and most of those studies, you can draw whatever conclusions the fuck you want. You just arrange your methodology to get the answers you're looking for. So many are doing this.

It seems you have given up what is noble because the mind is not eternal. That seems absurd. — Agustino

That seems to be an ignorant and prejudiced judgment, and nothing more. I can't see why you think that I have given up on what is noble, unless you're simply regurgitating (though you're in good company) the old prejudice of philosophy and religion, namely that the material world is inferior to--and thus opposed to--the spiritual. I've never gone along with that, but that doesn't mean I have to ditch nobility. It just means I want to redefine it without reference to the dichotomy.

Your dilemma is that you want it and you do not want it, hence you suffer. — Agustino

False dilemma. There are degrees of intimacy. Again, I might want chocolate but not an entire chocolate cake. Do I suffer because I only have a small piece? No.

Is that pleasure physical then, or psychological? And how much more pleasureable is it, if it's just physical, to warrant the associated potential risks?

Perhaps both. And clearly it's enough to warrant whatever risks there may be (I assume you mean pregnancy and STIs (which incidentally are also risks when in a life-long monogamous relationship)?), especially given appropriate protection.

Some of them have, not all of them.

Which is why I said that the results aren't conclusive. And which have said that casual sex is always a bad thing?

That seems to be an ignorant and prejudiced judgment, and nothing more. I can't see how you think that I have given up on what is noble, unless you're simply regurgitating (though you're in good company) the old prejudice of philosophy and religion, namely that the material world is inferior--and thus opposed to--the spiritual. I've never gone along with that, but that doesn't mean I have to ditch nobility. It just means I want to redefine it without reference to the dichotomy. — jamalrob

But I don't claim the material world is inferior. Only that if, for example, I were to find out that the spiritual doesn't exist, I wouldn't cease practicing the virtues, which includes abstinence from casual sex. Indeed, that would be like suddenly being mindless because I find that mind is not eternal as Spinoza puts it.

Perhaps both. And clearly it's enough to warrant whatever risks there may be (I assume you mean pregnancy and STIs?), especially given appropriate protection. — Michael

There can be many other risks. Such as the casual partner being in a relationship with someone else which you destroy, such as potential emotional troubles from either you or her, and so forth. Are all those risks worth bothering with if all you want is physical pleasure? Probably not - you get let's say a +5 increase in pleasure, and a -10 potential increase in pain. Not gonna do it. The increase in pleasure needs to be much much greater than casual sex can account for to make the risk worth taking. Epicurus went as far as thinking one should never, preferrably, take the risk - in other words, the potential pleasure never outweighs the potential risks.

And which have said that casual sex is always a bad thing? — Michael

I don't know, but if I look for them, one thing is for certain, I will find some who say it (just as if you look for the opposite, you will also find it). But that's besides the point, because again, science simply isn't done like this.

The analogy fails because sex is in no way like eating. There is no psychological effect from eating - at least in the general sense, as there is from sex. — Agustino

I don't think it follows that the analogy fails, but only that sex is far more complicated than food.

I don't think it follows that the analogy fails, but only that sex is far more complicated than food. — jamalrob

Which is why the analogy doesn't hold. It fails to capture this "far more complicated" part that is essential to sex.

if, for example, I were to find out that the spiritual doesn't exist, I wouldn't cease practicing the virtues, which includes abstinence from casual sex. — Agustino

I dare say if you were to find out that the material doesn't exist, the same thing would happen. Which is to say that a virtuous person is virtuous not in spite of but because of his materiality.

I dare say if you were to find out that the material doesn't exist, the same thing would happen. Which is to say that a virtuous person is virtuous not in spite of but because of his materiality. — jamalrob

How does that follow that I'm virtuous because of my materiality? If I found out that the material doesn't exist, I'd go on being virtuous because my virtue is independent of my metaphysics.

Ethics is the answer to the predicament of material human beings. It makes no sense otherwise.

Not if you're protestant. Damn you and your materialist body, save your soul and pray to God and thank Jesus for dying for your carnal sins. (Also, him dying didn't help because you're still a sinful slacker).

Ethics is the answer to the predicament of material human beings. It makes no sense otherwise. — jamalrob

I don't see how it has anything to do with whether we're spiritual or material.

Not if you're protestant. Damn you and your materialist body, save your soul and pray to God and thank Jesus for dying for your carnal sins. (Also, him dying didn't help because you're still a sinful slacker). — Benkei

But of what use is saving my soul if it has no effect in this world? Clearly, even the Protestants believe that living by grace in this life is superior to living in bondage to lust.

Which is why the analogy doesn't hold. It fails to capture this "far more complicated" part that is essential to sex. — Agustino

True, it does fail to capture that. It's not perfect. What it does suggest is that sex, stripped of its prudish sacralization, can be a sensual pleasure like any other, and that sex-snacking isn't such a bad thing. This doesn't mean that it's not more difficult or more morally precarious. It certainly is.