Sex depends on culture. — Agustino

Your strenuous arguments against people having sex in anything but the pristine confines of a lasting monogamous relationship is clearly a form of sublimating your own sex drive. You are substituting argument for sex in this discussion and getting the results all over everybody.

If sex depended on culture, evolution would have ceased and desisted a very long time ago. We, and everything more complicated than bacteria, wouldn't be here. Sex is a biological drive, like hunger, thirst, and sleep. The restrictions of society are the price of human advancement. Culture channels sex, but it doesn't provide its power. That's biology. Culture attempts to specify what sorts of emotional satisfactions we are to obtain from "proper sex" but our emotions always supersede culture.

Our human natures are always in conflict with our created societies. That's why life is essentially neurotic. The closer we come to actually blocking drives (and not just channeling them) the closer we are to neuroses bordering on actual pathology. Your path of restricting sex to either a consecrated marriage or an unconsecrated, long-term monogamous relationship, and disparaging all others, amounts to recommending that the sex drive either obey your rules or be blocked. That is the path to craziness.

You are more mesmerized by sexual imagery than most people are, apparently. You are taking what you see on the screen for the content of western culture. It isn't so.

Your strenuous arguments against people having sex in anything but the pristine confines of a lasting monogamous relationship is clearly a form of sublimating your own sex drive — Bitter Crank

This is interesting, but I would doubt it because I don't really have a sex drive in the sense you speak about it. In my life in general, whatever sex drive you mention is absent. I never have this pressing desire to have sex that some others seem to have. I do have, let's say a long-term desire for sex in a monogamous relationship, but certainly not this desire for sex regardless of the circumstances/conditions in which it occurs.

You are substituting argument for sex in this discussion and getting the results all over everybody. — Bitter Crank

? This doesn't make much sense?

If sex depended on culture, evolution would have ceased and desisted a very long time ago. We, and everything more complicated than bacteria, wouldn't be here. Sex is a biological drive, like hunger, thirst, and sleep. The restrictions of society are the price of human advancement. Culture channels sex, but it doesn't provide its power. That's biology. Culture attempts to specify what sorts of emotional satisfactions we are to obtain from "proper sex" but our emotions always supersede culture. — Bitter Crank

I disagree. It's not sex that is of the essence, it's survival. Because it's survival there are many other considerations that go into what actions one will engage in. Reproduction (not sex, and this is important) is very relevant to survival, because on a biological level, part of us (part of our genes) will survive in our offspring. But it's not sufficient to conceive the offspring (have sex) in order to ensure the survival of those genes. Quite the contrary, conceiving the offspring at the wrong time (or with the wrong person) may lead to my demise, as well as the demise of my future offspring. So there is no natural unrestrained sexual desire, because if this was the case, it wouldn't maximise the chance of survival. That's why we've developed intelligence - to be able to judge what conditions would maximise our survival.

Now it's quite clear that a monogamous relationship is the best for myself, as well as for my offspring (the two are identical). And ideally, a strong, disciplined, cultured, and large family needs to be built around that initial relationship - such that not only my children survive - but they survive with a big advantage - ie they're left in great social positions, being leading men/women in their communities, etc. This maximises the chances of survival, from a purely biological point of view, and is best achieved if the whole family works as a single mind.

Now the problem with promiscuity is that it doesn't make sense from a purely biological point of view. What use reproducing if most of that seed is spilled and wasted, and your children are in no better position to reproduce than you yourself are? That's nonsense. Most who practice promiscuity aren't even interested in reproducing - many don't even want to have children. They just want to have the sex. That is not a natural drive at all. That's contrary to nature. Their survival doesn't benefit one iota because of it, on the contrary, it may actually be threatened. That I would define as a neurosis indeed.

Our human natures are always in conflict with our created societies. That's why life is essentially neurotic. The closer we come to actually blocking drives (and not just channeling them) the closer we are to neuroses bordering on actual pathology. Your path of restricting sex to either a consecrated marriage or an unconsecrated, long-term monogamous relationship, and disparaging all others, amounts to recommending that the sex drive either obey your rules or be blocked. That is the path to craziness. — Bitter Crank

Not at all, because again I don't share your view. Human nature is not in conflict with society, but on the contrary, is fulfilled by society. We have a social drive in us, that is more fundamental than whatever sexual drive you mention, because it plays a much bigger role in our own survival, as well as the survival of our offspring. So I'm not blocking any innate desire of the human organism, that's why much of what you say doesn't make sense to me. I simply don't feel this way. I don't see how restricting sex to so and so a circumstance is a restriction, and not precisely the fulfilment of sex.

You are more mesmerized by sexual imagery than most people are, apparently. You are taking what you see on the screen for the content of western culture. It isn't so. — Bitter Crank

Oh common BC - I could maybe take that as true if I hadn't spent some of my life living in Western society. But I have. I know what you're saying here simply isn't the truth...

Do you really want to see the sleeping dragon?? >:) >:O

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. — Question

Actually it's not pancake effect ... alas, let's do some engineering using the method for illustrating the simplicity of Truth that we have seen recently presented in the forums:

1. Sir, what is Euler's Buckling formula(ie)?
A. P = nπ²EI/L²
2. What then, is buckling(ie)?
A. Buckling(ie) is the phenomenon that happens in long and slender compressive members of a structure which fail at an axial load smaller than the ultimate compressive strength of the material. Graphically a column buckling is this:

3. What do the terms of the equation (ie) represent?
A. P is the buckling load (at any higher load the compressive member will fail, or collapse), n is a factor accounting for boundary conditions, E is Young's Modulus, I is the Second Moment of Area, and L is the effective length of the column.
4. What are boundary conditions (ie)?
A. Boundary conditions(ie) are the conditions at the ends of a member. For a column this would be the bottom and the top ends.
5. What is Young's Modulus(ie)?
A. Young's Modulus(ie) is a property characteristic of the material, and it's a measure of its stiffness.
6. What is The Second Moment of Area (ie)?
A. The Second Moment of Area(ie) is a geometric property of the member in question, which measures the stiffness granted to the member by its geometry.
7. What then is effective length(ie)?
Effective length(ie) is the length of an element between two supports.
8. So Sir, what happens to P (ie) if there is a fire and intermediary floors collapse?
Intermidiary floors act as supports, keeping the columns connected together, such that if one column tries to buckle where the middle floor is between a bottom and a top floor, it is restrained by the floor (imagine for example the column in the picture above restrained at the middle where it buckles). Therefore if a floor fails, the effective length of the column will double, because effectively a support has been removed. Fire affects only the Young's Modulus, and it will lead to a reduction in Young's Modulus. How big is difficult to tell. Therefore, at best (assuming no fire) if a single floor collapses the force P will become 1/4 P.
9. What happens if more than 1 successive floors collapse?
A. If 2 floors collapse, the force will become 1/8P, then 1/16P, and so forth, all assuming no fire.
10. What is the factor of safety (ie) that buildings are designed for Sir?
A.1.5 the critical force - this effectively means that the building is designed to take 1.5 times a higher force than it will actually experience in its live conditions. Factors like accidental loads - airplane hits - are taken into account with a probability factor - if the airplane would impose say 1MN (Mega Newton) of force, then this will be factor by a probability of, say, 0.1% before taken into account.
11. So when Sir would we expect the building to collapse?
A. Well - if a single floor collapses, at minimum the buckling load will reduce by a factor of 4. If two floors collapse, it will reduce by a factor of 8. Since the factor of safety is only 1.5 (compare with 4 and 8), it is likely to fail in either cases, but for certain in the second (so long as the plane doesn't hit the very top floor or something like that, evidently :P) - the worst position to hit is somewhere between 50-75% of the tower's height.
12. Could the floors in the tower collapse?
A. Yes, they had not been designed to withstand multi-level fires, nor airplane hits.
13. Why Sir, wasn't this taken into account?
A. Professionals - whether they're engineers, doctors, etc. most of them are a bunch of idiots who thrive from the intelligence of a few (a few like Euler for example). They don't think in practical ways, they rely on dogma, they don't use their imaginations. They don't ask themselves what could go wrong, and when they do, they rely on simple calculations (such as probability factors when taking into account accidental loads for ultimate limit state design). The system is setup to work even when idiots are in charge, therefore their mistakes most often go unchallenged. On top of this, we are trained daily to trust the experts. Never ever trust the experts. If you trust the experts, you will become like Baden, and think that Trump will certainly lose >:O (and we all know how that ended :P ) Always think for yourself. If you use your mind right, you're better than all the experts in the world.

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

On the contrary, it demonstrates an understanding of the eternal, as far as the human body and mind goes. Spinoza's point is the eternal is an expression of the world. To say: "The soul is only the name of something in the body" is apt. When we serve the eternal, we act for our body and the world around us. The eternal significance of the body (including the mind) is what makes our action important. And why we cannot separate bodies of states out into neat boxes which have nothing to do with our-well-being or other people.

The "material" is not contrary or separate to ethics, but rather what makes them so important. There's a "spiritual/psychological" component all the way down, expressed by every material state and action. Ethical divides are not made on the eternal vs finite, but rather in the context of the eternal-- actions are immoral because those states have an entering expression of immorality, not because they are material.

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 — Agustino

They were here at the beginning and they are still here. Most species have long, long, long since disappeared. They will be here long after everything else. They are the preeminent success story in terms of survival.

They were here at the beginning and they are still here. Most species have long, long, long since disappeared. They will be here long after everything else. They are the preeminent success story in terms of survival. — Bitter Crank

Which goes to show what I told you before. In nature, the fittest doesn't always win - if the fittest always won, we wouldn't be here :P

I don't really have a sex drive in the sense you speak about it — Agustino

In my life in general, whatever sex drive you mention is absent. — Agustino

I never have this pressing desire to have sex that some others seem to have. — Agustino

that's why much of what you say doesn't make sense to me. — Agustino

At last! The admission that explains your views. When it comes to the healthy sex drives of 3.5 billion men, you don't know what you are talking about. `

At last! The admission that explains your views. When it comes to the healthy sex drives of 3.5 billion men, you don't know what you are talking about. ` — Bitter Crank

:-! facile to say, but I didn't start here exactly. Back before I had my first girlfriend I experienced this kind of desire for, I guess you could say, orgasm, and probably I did want to have sex with some of the "hot girls". It mostly manifested through watching pornography and masturbation. But after I started dating my first girlfriend, I got cured of the pornography and masturbation (because she "forced" me to stop :P ) and after my second girlfriend was never that interested just in sex anymore. In my mind, from my perspective, I simply understood that there's not much to gain from sex outside a long-committed life-long relationship, and just the physical pleasure, without the psychological isn't much pleasure anyway. I don't understand why people go their whole life without making these realisations, bound in the chains of their sexual desire. I mean common... if I can do it, how can there be folks more than double my age who are still so into their sexual desire - I see old folks running after the young girls it's so hilarious! Like is that for real? >:O That's kind of embarrassing for them I think. Even at that advanced age, when they should be paragons of wisdom, they are still worshipping at the altar of pussy. Give me a break >:O

Sexual desire has its purposes - like survival and reproduction, but to chase it as end-in-itself - that is crazy, or immature to say the least.

By definition a virgin (applied to someone who intends to get married) is someone who has saved sex for marriage — Agustino

Well, there are consecrated and celibate virgins who remain in such a state their whole lives (as I more or less plan to do). Virginity in a historical religious context is usually perpetual and not a period during which one is "saving sex." You probably already knew this, but I thought I'd point it out.

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

This sounds like Lutheran Pietism and so is only one soteriological conception among many in Christian history.

That is when I decided to let go of Stoicism and Buddhism. — Emptyheady

What are you now? And you really saying that you ceased all inquiries into Buddhism on account of a Zizek video?

To clarify my own position, I pretty much go along with @Bitter Crank's analysis, which I see as compatible with my own view that the best sex is to be a had in a loving committed relationship because there is more integration of the social/emotional and biological levels than with casual non-committed sex. The latter, however, I see as preferable (as long as both partners are aware of the circumstances and consensual) to pretending to have full top-down intellectual control of the sexual drive and repressing it for whatever religious or ideological reason (preferable for a normal male at least - as mentioned earlier). I would consider that to be something like the intellectual level of the self being hijacked by the social level and making war on the biological level. As BC pointed out, not good.

EDIT: (And what would also not be good in this scheme of things would be to let the biological level (in the form of the sex drive) hijack the intellect and make war on the social level (as in the selfish sex-obsessed individual who manipulates others to get what he wants). A balance is necessary).

The latter, however, I see as preferable (as long as both partners are aware of the circumstances and consensual) to pretending to have full top-down intellectual control of the sexual drive and repressing it for whatever religious or ideological reason (preferable for a normal male at least - as mentioned earlier). — Baden

Why is it preferable than, for example, to abstain from it until the long-term relationship? It seems you and Bitter Crank are stuck with Freud! Common... there's so much more to psychology than Freud, that's old news today! What's with these three level schemes? Ego, Super-Ego and id become intellect, biology, and social - my days... If I was Voegelin I'd say you two (and your papa Freud) are Gnostics par-excellence!

there's so much more to psychology than Freud — Agustino

Yes, like how we treat those who are mentally ill...oh wait.

Yes, like how we treat those who are mentally ill...oh wait. — Heister Eggcart

I don't get the pun? :P My low intelligence isn't sufficient... and I just realised there is no crying emoticon. Tragic.

:’( ?

You blind, Agu?

You blind, Agu? — Heister Eggcart

:-O

Are those eyes as big as your patiently waiting balls?

your patiently waiting balls — Heister Eggcart

The Chinese have a saying... Nobody knows what the sleeping dragon can do >:O

"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. — Bitter Crank

Not true.

Society plays tricks with the individual in terms of showing the guys who have more sex/money/material wealth as the winners. Children are growing up oversexed and underfucked with all sorts of self-esteem issues due to the image society projects of a 'healthy' and 'successful' male.

Children are growing up oversexed and underfucked with all sorts of self-esteem issues due to the image society projects of a 'healthy' and 'successful' male. — Question

Bingo, I agree 100%. That's exactly why I hate this modern Western culture. And people like BC and Baden aren't helping it, that's for sure.

Yes, have you seen this?

The latter, however, I see as preferable (as long as both partners are aware of the circumstances and consensual) to pretending to have full top-down intellectual control of the sexual drive and repressing it for whatever religious or ideological reason (preferable for a normal male at least - as mentioned earlier). I would consider that to be something like the intellectual level of the self being hijacked by the social level and making war on the biological level. As BC pointed out, not good. — Baden

This is a presumptuous claim to make. Many people have the self-mastery and sense of self well developed enough to be able to say no to even such a desire as to have sex. The situation is much worse for growing and developing children growing up surrounded by media and advertisements promoting sex at such a young age.

What are you now? And you really saying that you ceased all inquiries into Buddhism on account of a Zizek video? — Thorongil

What made you change your mind on Stoicism/Buddhism after seeing that video? — Agustino

(It sucks that the old PF is dysfunctional, because I have criticised Eastern Philosophy before but I can’t find the post)

It is not the case that a contie like Zizek argued me out of Buddhism, but he is a flavourful person that can show you a different perspective, something you have never considered before -- though 95% of what he says may as well be white-noise to me. Zizek got the ball rolling so-to-say.

It is also not the case that I “…ceased all inquiries into Buddhism on account of a Zizek Video.” I can appreciate some ideas from Eastern Philosophy, Buddhism and Stoicism – like I can appreciate some ideas of Marxism – but I would never label myself with any of those positions because I fundamentally disagree with all of them.

That video of Zizek – which got the ball rolling, I start looking up other texts, videos and did some rethinking -- he made me realise that Buddhism (and parts of Stoicism) drove me towards a deep apathetic state of life, something that I can only describe as alienation – I tried too hard to reject human nature, I tried too hard not being a human being. Brené Brown calls it: not living whole-heartedly.

Buddhist’s views on suffering, desire, attachment, ego with its ultimate telos as Nirvana imply a certain amenable view of human nature, which I think is simply false and utopian. No matter how much you practice or how much teachings you follow, human nature won’t change and neither will you.

And their metaphysical views of impermanence, interdependence and emptiness seem to be either incoherent or too assumptive to me. I think that the fundamental notion of interdependency -- which is often seen in many Eastern Philosophical thoughts -- as incoherent, since dependency is essentially asymmetrical.

Buddhist’s views on suffering, desire, attachment, ego with its ultimate telos as Nirvana imply a certain amenable view of human nature, which I think is simply false and utopian. No matter how much you practice or how much teachings you follow, human nature won’t change and neither will you. — Emptyheady

You seem to imply that because something is fatalistic in its teaching that that should be avoided; but, then you arrive at the conclusion that the human condition is even more fatalistic. This is a sort of reductio, no?

You seem to imply that because something is fatalistic in its teaching that that should be avoided — Question

I can not see how I have possibly implied that. I say that Buddhists attempt something that is fundamentally impossible and cover it with a mix of sophistry and hypocrisy.

Sex and the collapse of the World Trade Center bldg.--why not?

The situation is much worse for growing and developing children growing up surrounded by media and advertisements promoting sex at such a young age. — Question

I grew up in a vacuum of information about sex, sexual imagery, sexual content, sexual innuendo, etc. Born in 1946, small town in rural Minnesota. No TV till the late 50s; the local movie theater ran standard fare--westerns, comedies, an occasional monster flick, that sort of thing. Small library, etc. PURE and WHOLESOME.

There was far too little in the way of information, too little content, too little sexual imagery. Like, none. Hey, great for first graders, but not so great for 16 year olds. On the other hand, children don't benefit from a glut of information, imagery, content, innuendo either. Unless the parents are AWOL, there is no reason why children would be over-loaded.

Children can get over-supplied with sexual content too early when they are given the means to peruse the internet and cable TV without supervision and oversight. Even without sexual content being available, it isn't healthy for children (or adults either) to be transfixed by the social media on digital devicee for hours on end--practically 24/7.

But there are Buddhists out there that practice celibacy, successfully. As far as I know, there is no requirement for people to have sex. It's just something that you can choose to indulge in or not. Just like one can have cake or not.

Personally, I think Buddhism and Stoicism hit the nail on the head as to living in virtue and true to oneself. Sex is fine in private; but, the reliance of advertisement on sex and other sources of media to sell products is worrying.

I grew up in a vacuum of information about sex, sexual imagery, sexual content, sexual innuendo, etc. Born in 1946, small town in rural Minnesota. No TV till the late 50s; the local movie theater ran standard fare--westerns, comedies, an occasional monster flick, that sort of thing. Small library, etc. PURE and WHOLESOME. — Bitter Crank

It sounds like a good life. Who needs all this fuss over sex? Keep it private and don't harass an individual with the constant bombardment with it.

There was far too little in the way of information, too little content, too little sexual imagery. Like, none. Hey, great for first graders, but not so great for 16 year olds. On the other hand, children don't benefit from a glut of information, imagery, content, innuendo either. Unless the parents are AWOL, there is no reason why children would be over-loaded. — Bitter Crank

Who needs it?

Children can get over-supplied with sexual content too early when they are given the means to peruse the internet and cable TV without supervision and oversight. Even without sexual content being available, it isn't healthy for children (or adults either) to be transfixed by the social media on digital devicee for hours on end--practically 24/7. — Bitter Crank

There's an unnecessary burden on parents to be always there, watching, directing, and supervising children. It's quite a failure of society to leave all the burden on the parents to raise a child, whereas society is just this thing out there not actively encouraging growth and identity formation.

NSFW (the link itself is fine but don't go anywhere else.)

PornHub recently released their 2016 Year in Review, detailing the different search trends and statistics for the users on their website. You can also find results for previous years here.

What are people's thoughts on this?