Such as the casual partner being in a relationship with someone else which you destroy, — Agustino

The problem there in my opinion is the culture of monogamy. In a culture where monogamy isn't the norm by polyamory is, then there's no issue there.

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

Please, I'm still struggling to overcome my Calvinist heritage and could do without any setbacks right now.

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. — Agustino

Memento mori. Salvation is through the belief Jesus died for your sins not through works or grace in this life.

Also, for someone who insists on seeing humans free from their "cultural" distortions, your cultural and religious convictions are carried much stronger than anyone else in this discussion. You're not free from this type of subjectivity either. Merely because you're a bit old-fashioned doesn't make your view more accurate.

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. — Agustino

They can live together. It requires the virtue of forbearance instead of the sin of violence.

Any sex is better than none,
If you can't have love, least have some fun!
Lest you end up -fate worse than death-
Spending your nights on TPF!

Any sex is better than none,
If you can't have love, least have some fun!
Lest you end up -fate worse than death-
Spending your nights on TPF! — Baden

I can multi-task.

So can I. What do you think I was doing while writing the poem? :P

Getting back to the OP. No, I don't think sex is "idolized" in the west. Sex, like violence, is repressed in every human society, some more so than others. I also think that unless you are biologically abnormal (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) denying yourself sex (as a man at least) is bound to lead to neurosis.

No I don't dismiss evidence, I dismiss your interpretation of it. The World Trade center fell after a plane hit it. 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

Actually, fires have never brought down steel buildings, ever, in the past. And, no plane had to hit WTC7; but, supposedly office fires brought it down also. It's an insult to the intelligence and effort of the engineers who build the World Trade Centers, who by the way actually overengineered the buildings to withstand a plane hit. What you're describing was first called the "pancake effect", which NIST even walked back on due to its absurdity.

Getting back to the OP. No, I don't think sex is "idolized" in the west. Sex like violence is repressed in every human society, some more so than others. I also think that unless you are biologically abnormal (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) denying yourself sex (as a man) is bound to lead to neurosis. — Baden

It seems to me that there is a neurosis with the subject of sex. For people to talk about it as something healthy and something that ought to be done instead of never is an indication of a pathology inside society.

A neurosis would consist in an intellect thinking it can reverse engineer the biology of the human animal in which it resides into something that meets its metaphysical standards. Or one which fails to recognize the influence of the social/emotional level sandwiched between its intellectual and animal selves.

The subject is an unhappy mixture of conflicting levels of reality. And most unhappy in my view is the subject that identifies wholly with one level of reality and denies the needs and desires of the others. Some kind of integration/compromise is key.

Why is sex so idolized in the West? — Question

Is it? I usually accuse the progressive leftist of being so god damn prude...

It seems nowadays that almost every film produced for adults has to have at least one sex scene. — Question

Sex is a normal part of life but I get what you mean, it feels intrusive -- especially watching it with relatives. Pooping is also a part of life, but as long as it is not part of the plot, I do not want to watch an actor to simulate emptying his intestines.

Having that said, Sowell may be right:

"it may be a sign of our times that everyone seems to be talking openly about sex but we seem to be embarrassed to talk about love"

For a brief period of my life, I had been interested in Buddhism and Eastern Philosophy in general. It made so much sense and I saw so much overlap with Stoicism, which also deeply intrigued me -- until I stumbled upon this video. Then I remembered this TED talk as well. That is when I decided to let go of Stoicism and Buddhism.

My pessimistic side would state that (social) conservatism has lost, especially in Europe. This is seen in the decline of Christian church attendances, lower fertility rates, decline of marriages, increase in divorces, increase in single parenthood, increase in depression, women are less happier, increase in female suicides, etcetera.

However, natural selection is a beautiful thing:

What you're saying is basically something along the lines of saying "I'm not thinking about sex!".

But, why do I need commercials and online advertisements peddling me the same old in regards to sex if one does not want it?

Good to see darwinism is dead as we'll be sure to kill ourselves off in the long run with all the religious and militant conservatists right, left and center.

What you're saying is basically something along the lines of saying "I'm not thinking about sex!".

But, why do I need commercials and online advertisements peddling me the same old in regards to sex if one does not want it? — Question

I'm not saying that. If you want a simple summary of my last post it's this: "At some level the desire for sex is always there. You can't think it into oblivion". Society to an extent reflects the need for sex but also sublimates physical desire through pumping us full of media that have nothing to do with sex or any other physical needs because society has its own goals and desires. It is its own form of life and primarily serves itself (complicating matters, it's both within and without us). Similarly, our intellects have their own goals, desires and needs and our biological selves have their own goals, desires and needs. Yet we're all stuck together in the human subject. We can either recognize that and accommodate the different levels of ourselves or deny it and tear ourselves apart.

Getting back to the OP. No, I don't think sex is "idolized" in the west. Sex, like violence, is repressed in every human society, some more so than others. I also think that unless you are biologically abnormal (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) denying yourself sex (as a man at least) is bound to lead to neurosis. — Baden

Then how do you explain all the monks, and the rest of us celibates who don't have sex? This is nothing but cultural prejudice, and a way to attempt to enforce your own obsession with sex over everyone else.

And you are obsessed with people being obsessed with sex. At least you must be to draw that conclusion from what I wrote. Also, nothing in what I wrote suggests I have to "explain" monks or celibates as if their existence contradicts anything I've said.

However, natural selection is a beautiful thing: — Emptyheady

That's what I mean man - we're winning this, the progressives have little to no chance, even if things look bleak for conservatives for the next, say 20-50 years.

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. — jamalrob

But this is what sex can never be. Even if you practice casual sex, it never is like this, there's always a spiritual and psychological component to it.

The problem there in my opinion is the culture of monogamy. In a culture where monogamy isn't the norm by polyamory is, then there's no issue there. — Terrapin Station

*facepalm* Such desires Terrapin are natural to the human organism. Polyamory isn't, and by that I simply mean that it's not the norm for most of us.

They can live together. It requires the virtue of forbearance instead of the sin of violence. — Benkei

Not really - it's always in each other's interest to ensure the other doesn't gain control of society. They always benefit when the other loses.

So can I. What do you think I was doing while writing the poem? :P — Baden

Oh man, and this is the guy who says that sex isn't idolized in Western culture... give me a break mate, give me a break.

A neurosis would consist in an intellect thinking it can reverse engineer the biology of the human animal in which it resides into something that meets its metaphysical standards. Or one which fails to recognize the influence of the social/emotional level sandwiched between its intellectual and animal selves. — Baden

But it is part of my biology to desire to have sex such that I have offspring which have the longest chance of survival, which requires that me and my woman are loyal to each other and never compromise. If I want to build a dynasty of a family and have my children dominate their social environment (thus maximising survival), then there needs to be unity, discipline and focus in the family. Otherwise, sooner or later we will all be gone. Spilling your seed randomly in the hopes that some of your offspring will survive is the way to waste it. If I care for my offspring, then I can't just pick some slut that enjoys having as much sex as possible with just about anyone - that would be a disaster! I need someone who is a master of her sexuality, who doesn't give in to her lusts.

Your assumption that I simply desire to have sex is wrong. I don't. I desire to have sex in such and such a situation and no other. Furthermore, the human organism has needs that aren't biological - just as other animals do. Why does the dog whose owner dies, why does he refuse to eat, becomes depressed, and also dies? There's things in life far more important than sex or food or survival for that matter.

And you are obsessed with people being obsessed with sex. At least you must be to draw that conclusion from what I wrote. — Baden

Yes, I find it incredibly petty, in certain regards laughable, and in others sad. It's a spiritual disease of the modern age.

Also, nothing in what I wrote suggests I have to "explain" monks or celibates as if their existence contradicts anything I've said. — Baden

So they, according to your theory, are fucked up neurotics?

the difference between bacteria and sexually reproducing plants and animals begins with the difference between Eukaryotic Cells vs. Prokaryotic Cells. Prokaryotic cells are single-celled bacteria. Eukaryotic cells form multi-celled organisms like yourself. Prokaryotic cells reproduce through simple cell division. They don't come together to combine and produce daughter cells through either mitosis or meiosis. That's what Eukaryotic cells do.

They don't have sex. There are exchanges of genetic information, but it is helter-skelter. Bacteria in a puddle can pick up bits of genetic material from other bacteria that have fallen apart. By these and other hit and miss methods, bacteria can change -- like become resistant to antibiotics. They can also mutate and pass on the mutation when they divide themselves into two new bacteria.

It works for them. It works for bacteria so well, that they have been around longer than any other form of life.

This is gobbledygook. You're arguing against your image of some rampant sex-crazed progressive. Read my posts again and try to respond to the substance with a minimum of charity.

Read my posts again and try to respond to the substance with a minimum of charity. — Baden

I did respond to the substance. Your theory about neurosis is wrong. it's simply not describing the actual situation, it is describing precisely your image of it.

Bare assertion. Either read and try to understand my posts sans prejudice, and respond with an actual argument or stop wasting both of our time.

Bare assertion. Either read and try to understand my posts sans prejudice, and respond with an actual argument or stop wasting both of our time. — Baden

:-d Good luck with your neurosis then...

I also think that unless you are biologically abnormal (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) denying yourself sex (as a man at least) is bound to lead to neurosis. — Baden

How important sex must be in your life, can't live without it. Why so weak and dependent? ;) Oh it's your biology, yes I understand.... :P Never gonna be a master of your own house, and you have a reason for it as well!

For a brief period of my life, I had been interested in Buddhism and Eastern Philosophy in general. It made so much sense and I saw so much overlap with Stoicism, which also deeply intrigued me -- until I stumbled upon this video. Then I remembered this TED talk as well. That is when I decided to let go of Stoicism and Buddhism. — Emptyheady

Interesting links, especially the Zizek one. But idk - I don't feel they have much to do with Stoicisim and Buddhism. Musonius Rufus for example, was a Stoic, and he encouraged conservative sexual morality, including marriage. What made you change your mind on Stoicism/Buddhism after seeing that video?

It seems to me that there is a neurosis with the subject of sex. For people to talk about it as something healthy and something that ought to be done instead of never is an indication of a pathology inside society. — Question

"Neurosis" and "society" are a combo package. In order to construct society we have to limit our individual drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites. Limiting natural drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites produces neuroses. "Limit" isn't the same as "blocking", however. It's a fair tradeoff. Society makes all kinds of things possible, and we have more or less learned to live with the resulting neuroses.

"Living with neuroses" is about as close to perfect psychological health as we are going to get.

It works for them. It works for bacteria so well, that they have been around longer than any other form of life. — Bitter Crank

Well it would be strange if other life forms would have been around for longer than bacteria, considering the fact that the first life to appear would be bacteria, since they are relatively the simplest in complexity. Evolution would be in quite some trouble if bacteria weren't around for the longest time :P

Good luck with your neurosis then... — Agustino

Rather mine than yours, methinks.

"Neurosis" and "society" are a combo package. In order to construct society we have to limit our individual drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites. Limiting natural drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites produces neuroses. "Limit" isn't the same as "blocking", however. It's a fair tradeoff. Society makes all kinds of things possible, and we have more or less learned to live with the resulting neuroses.

"Living with neuroses" is about as close to perfect psychological health as we are going to gt. — Bitter Crank

That's a fair way to put it.

"Neurosis" and "society" are a combo package. In order to construct society we have to limit our individual drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites. Limiting natural drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites produces neuroses. "Limit" isn't the same as "blocking", however. It's a fair tradeoff. Society makes all kinds of things possible, and we have more or less learned to live with the resulting neuroses. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but this presupposes that society itself isn't one of our innate drives. I think it is. I think in many regards we're social animals before we're sexual animals. I have no problem living without sex, but without feeling the need for community it would be hard to imagine myself.

Rather mine than yours, methinks. — Baden

At least I got so far as mastering my sexuality, unlike you :P you have to be its docile servant all the time. How is that working for you? Happy being in chains? Sex says go left, left you go, it says go right, right you go. Ain't that cute? >:O

More gobbledygook. You're making a real fool out of yourself here. But go on...

More gobbledygook. You're making a real fool out of yourself here. But go on... — Baden

:-! Why, you yourself have said this! You've said that someone with a normal biology can't not have sex, lest they fall in neurosis. That means they're bound to be servants to their biology (if they disobey, they'll get neurosis). All that I assumed is that you have, what you yourself would call, a normal biology (which certainly also seems to be the case from your reply to Michael)

Keep going. Get it all out of your system...