I didn't read his reply as being about sex. His issue, which I must profess to have some sympathy with, has to do with the cogency and possibility of Buddhism's soteriology.

I didn't read his reply as being about sex. His issue, which I must profess to have some sympathy with, has to do with the cogency and possibility of Buddhism's soteriology. — Thorongil

Well, the topic of the thread is about sex... And, since the source of suffering, according to Buddhism, are desires, then sex must come up in or around the first place as a source of suffering. I only felt it appropriate to mention what Buddhism thinks about sex, along with pretty much every other religion.

Well, the topic of the thread is about sex — Question

But his reply wasn't.... Unless he comes around to correct us.

You might flag that as nsfw.

Okay did it. Thought 'PornHub' was a clue... unless someone doesn't know about PornHub (merry christmas).

But his reply wasn't.... Unless he comes around to correct us. — Thorongil

My reply had nothing to do with sex, I actually forgot the topic of debate until he mentioned it again.

Well, the topic of the thread is about sex... — Question

Fine...

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. — Question

It is an obvious fact that we are sexual mammals, since that is how we reproduce -- it is in our nature. It is like telling a bird not to fly or a fish not to swim. I do not think that one should be ashamed of it, and I think that it is foolish to deny it. Life long celibacy is strongly selected against. There are exceptions, asexuality is a thing after all. Homosexuality is fascinating, and I read a research paper on it by an economist (I forgot his name, but might look it up later). The evolutionary explanation for homosexuality is complicated and is still largely unknown. Any research on those areas in the light of biology is either not funded or repelled by (mostly) leftists -- this is quite ironic since homosexuality is the only trait that must be natural according to the leftist narrative, all the rest is a social construction.

So given the importance of sexual behaviour in evolution, it is no surprise that it is surrounded with strong moralistic and complicated (evolved) emotions/feelings. If we all suddenly stop to reproduce, civilisation would be gone, but I am not an anti-natalist and keeping civilisation going gives me personally great meaning in life.

I concede that social conservatives turn out to be correct, namely that the optimal time for active sexual behaviour is after marriage -- especially if you hate to see 93% abortion rate out of sheer (in)convenience. It is a concession, because I am naturally not conservative at all. But being prude is not unique to conservatives, leftists are nowadays probably worse. Just Google "rape culture" or "gamers gate" (women being objectified in gaming). Often voiced by the movement of feminism, the same movement that strongly advocated for sexual liberation, oh the sheer irony of progressives...

None of this means that one ought to indulge in sexual behaviour, e.g. sexual harassment is illegal. Like Pinker says: "Well into my procreating years I am, so far, voluntarily childless, having squandered my biological resources reading and writing, doing research, helping out friends and students, and jogging in circles, ignoring the solemn imperative to spread my genes," he writes. "By Darwinian standards I am a horrible mistake, a pathetic loser, not one iota less than if I were a card-carrying member of Queer Nation. But I am happy to be that way, and if my genes don't like it, they can go jump in the lake."

Sexual integrity, dignity and autonomy is one's right, so I would be against any coercion. Your life, your choice indeed.

This is a presumptuous claim to make. — Question

What's presumptuous is what Agustino is doing, which is posting through his usual prejudicial filter. What I have claimed is either true or false i.e. it's either true or false that long-term abstinence/celibacy is -on the whole for males*- physically and psychologically unhealthy.

There's not a lot of research on the physical and psychological effects of celibacy out there, but here's an article that references several studies about the benefits of sex:

An extract:

"In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards. Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:

- Improved sense of smell: After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain’s olfactory bulb, its smell center.

- Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half
...
- Reduced depression: Such was the implication of a 2002 study of 293 women. American psychologist Gordon Gallup Gordon Gallup reported that sexually active participants whose male partners did not use condoms were less subject to depression than those whose partners did. One theory of causality: Prostoglandin, a hormone found only in semen, may be absorbed in the female genital tract, thus modulating female hormones.
...
- Pain-relief: Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.

- Less-frequent colds and flu: Wilkes University in Pennsylvania says individuals who have sex once or twice a week show 30% higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A, which is known to boost the immune system...."

And coming at it from the other side here's the view of an ex-monk on celibacy:

An extract:

"We sanitize eating and defecating, but you can’t do that with sex. We dance around it with courtship rituals and legal agreements, but the act itself reduces us to our animal nature. For those who need to maintain the illusion of being a rational, chosen species, that’s problematic.

Civilization’s most crucial virtue may be non-violence, but celibacy is its toughest. The enemy is within, never really vanquished — and it doesn’t end there. The sex drive is built in to our animal body, but there’s also the mammalian drive for intimacy. We need to connect, to trust and to love. It often scares us.

Which moves some people to thwart those drives. It’s certainly a sacrifice — but is it healthy, and where on earth does purity come into it? If celibacy is pure, then sex must be dirty. Catholicism supposedly sanctifies it within marriage, but that’s just a way of buying off the laity; the priesthood remains de facto superior. The other Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Islam, mostly consider celibacy unnatural.

Asian religions place it in even higher regard. For Buddhists and Hindus celibacy not just a source of moral purity but also of meditative prowess. In the tantric traditions, to lose semen is to squander spiritual energy. Women, of course, are hardly in a position to retain their semen, but that’s of no matter in misogynistic cultures.

For the first time, celibacy is under general attack because it’s become public knowledge that many ‘celibates’ aren’t avoiding sex at all. Some are evil and duplicitous about it, but many are basically decent people unable to master their own drives and tortured by guilt. Add to that the burden of having to be paragons of virtue, and you can only imagine the toxicity they exude. The communities in which they operate have built-in safeguards against discovery that are only somewhat less effective in these days of total exposure. They continue to encourage denial and spread deceit.
...
Whether the target is one person or a whole complicit community, you never hear anyone within these traditions suggesting that celibacy is a sick idea, that spiritual teachers and leaders need to experience intimate relationships. Sometimes intimacy goes wrong and sometimes it’s a celebration of life, but what do celibates know of this? Those who promote abstinence for ulterior motives, as I did, who spin it as a source of purity or of power, shove a part of themselves into the shadows and then claim to pursue the light. They think they’re sublimely qualified to lead sexually whole people on their quest for the purpose of life"

Why is it preferable than, for example, to abstain from it until the long-term relationship? — Agustino

Nothing I've said would preclude that. Whether its preferable or not depends on the context. When I was referring to "full top-down intellectual control" to repress the sex drive I was referring primarily to the type of repression that occurs in those who have chosen celibacy as a way of life.


(*This part is important. As I said before celibacy may be healthy for some males, but they would be the exceptions.)

It is an obvious fact that we are sexual mammals, since that is how we reproduce -- it is in our nature. It is like telling a bird not to fly or a fish not to swim. — Emptyheady

People keep on repeating this as if it were a mantra. This is part of what I despise society at large for doing. "Hey, everyone else is doing it, then I should too!" Not?

It's getting to the point that we feel compelled to have sex just for the sake of it.

Let me ask you this then, apart from the 'health' reasons for having sex...

Why is it those people who do not have sex are viewed with prestige in the form of self-mastery? Isn't it kind of a testament to one's will and commitment that they can overcome this natural urge? Forgive me for romanticizing the matter; but, I find people who can overcome their desires as morally superior to those who can not or chose not to.

It's getting to the point that we feel compelled to have sex just for the sake of it. — Question

How awful.

Let's not fall behind the sex race!

It's getting to the point that we feel compelled to have sex just for the sake of it.
— Question

How awful. — jamalrob

As Jerry Seinfeld observed: "When sex is good, it's terrific; and when it is bad it's still OK."

Why is it those people who do not have sex are viewed with prestige in the form of self-mastery? Isn't it kind of a testament to one's will and commitment that they can overcome this natural urge? — Question

And forgive the following bit of analysis, but this seems to me to be the nub of it. Ultimately what you want is prestige (i.e. social power) - your goal is to elevate your social self, which is natural enough, but you are frustrated by a society that considers sex as both normal and desirable. You then berate this society for not conforming to a version where your "self-mastery" would put you at the top. But why do you want to be at the top? Why do you want to be morally superior? This is where the neuroticism comes in in my view; prestige and social power are normally desired not simply as ends in themselves but, whether we are conscious of it or not, as furthering the biological end of sex. All other things being equal, those with prestige are more attractive to the opposite sex than those without it, and that's generally the underlying reason for seeking it. That's the way it works with our fellow apes and whether we like it or not that's the way it works at a basic level in human societies. Celibacy taken on as a badge of honour, so to speak, represents a short circuit of this process.

Forgive me for romanticizing the matter; but, I find people who can overcome their desires as morally superior to those who can not or chose not to. — Question

Context, context. The highway to morality is not so clearly sign-posted. The person who overcomes their desire for violence is sometimes a hero and sometimes a coward. And the person who overcomes their desire for sex is sometimes prudent and sometimes a prude.

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. — Question

I'd say, rather, that it's quite a failure of society to not require parents "to be always there, watching, directing, and supervising children".

I don't expect or want people to be 'helicopter parents'. I expect them to be paying attention to what their children are up to. If people don't feel up to being parents, then they should get their various tubes tied or cut.

It's really fairly simple: Don't give the children a private room, a private computer, and a private internet connection; or a cellphone, or a tablet that accomplishes the same thing. Let them use this equipment in common areas of the house. Parents and children should be interacting and sharing, not all staring at private screens.

Who needs it? — Question

Children need age-appropriate information about human sexuality -- particularly their own sexuality. This does not mean, obviously, that 10 year olds should be instructed on the the fine points of sex on PornHub. As children grow, the age-appropriate and sexual-orientation appropriate information they need changes. Post-pubertal gay children need specific guidance, just as post-pubertal heterosexual children do. A lack of information isn't going to prevent adolescents from wanting to, and/or having sex. Without good information, they are sitting ducks for bad experiences.

Young adults can't make good decisions about education, careers, or health (lots of things) if they are totally unprepared to think about the topics. Same with sex.

Is it sex or is it power? I'm confused:(

The argument against casual sex is one of taste in the end. You could live like a dumb smelly animal, but why would you want to rather than uniting sensual pleasure with duty and love? I know, I know, nothing has to do with anything else, etc. etc.

Even pre-marital hand-holding (which is very sexy!) should be taken very seriously, only done between committed couples. I wish I had someone to hold hands with...boo hoo! :'(

The power that allegedly accrues to the sexually dominant or proficient is grossly overestimated.

Tell that to Genghis Khan :)

I did tell Genghis. He said there was a lot more to it than just sex.

If Genghis Khan was this busy having sex how did he have time to do anything else?

:D Don't ask me...I said I was confused

I wish I had someone to hold hands with...boo hoo! :'( — The Great Whatever

Not to worry, TGW, there's someone for everybody. (L)

And forgive the following bit of analysis, but this seems to me to be the nub of it. Ultimately what you want is prestige (i.e. social power) - your goal is to elevate your social self, which is natural enough, but you are frustrated by a society that considers sex as both normal and desirable. You then berate this society for not conforming to a version where your "self-mastery" would put you at the top. But why do you want to be at the top? Why do you want to be morally superior? This is where the neuroticism comes in in my view; prestige and social power are normally desired not simply as ends in themselves but, whether we are conscious of it or not, as furthering the biological end of sex. All other things being equal, those with prestige are more attractive to the opposite sex than those without it, and that's generally the underlying reason for seeking it. That's the way it works with our fellow apes and whether we like it or not that's the way it works at a basic level in human societies. Celibacy taken on as a badge of honour, so to speak, represents a short circuit of this process. — Baden

Again, "I'm not thinking about sex!"... I think the problem is that people feel compelled to not lag behind and there's quite a lot of peer pressure to join the club, so to speak. I'd argue from a different point in that sex should be treated as not something that ought be done; but, rather as it should be treated, as a private act that should take place in private and the security of a relationship.

People who practice celibacy have taken a shortcut to morality by not engaging in the quite pointless (vain) pursuit of prestige (social power) or show of superiority.

Children need age-appropriate information about human sexuality -- particularly their own sexuality. This does not mean, obviously, that 10 year olds should be instructed on the the fine points of sex on PornHub. As children grow, the age-appropriate and sexual-orientation appropriate information they need changes. Post-pubertal gay children need specific guidance, just as post-pubertal heterosexual children do. A lack of information isn't going to prevent adolescents from wanting to, and/or having sex. Without good information, they are sitting ducks for bad experiences.

Young adults can't make good decisions about education, careers, or health (lots of things) if they are totally unprepared to think about the topics. Same with sex. — Bitter Crank

That doesn't answer the question, though. The point is that sex shouldn't be treated as a competitive sport among men. It degrades the act and turns us into beasts acting on impulses and desires only.

I never understood the fascination with sex in the West despite being from the West myself. — Question

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. — Question

I think that "sex in the west" varies. Not overly surprising unto itself, but it should be noted because our views of sex -- especially when it comes to how we might see people behaving differently from us -- are not likely to match up even on the most basic of terms or desires.

My initial instinct to your OP was to say, yes, I agree that there is an oddity with sex in the west -- but I think this is more the result of the love/hate relationship which we (at least in the U.S. -- I don't like the term "west" too much) are ingratiated to. It's something which we should shun, but the very act of shunning increases our desire for it -- and so we want to have sex, but we also want to not have sex in order that our desire for sex is intensified, and the satisfaction of said desire is more intense (not necessarily pleasurable) than if we just followed and acted on a desire for sexual satisfaction.

This is something that I think is basic in the U.S. regardless of religious affiliation. Religious affiliation can even work against this sort of "teaching", though also integrate with it of course. But I think the obsession with sex in the U.S., at least, has much to do with this simultaneous push and pull intermixed with moral and religious sentiments.


In addition, your second comment I've quoted speaks to something specific to U.S. masculinity (not that it doesn't apply elsewhere, but I prefer to limit myself to what I am at least familiar with). There are healthier forms of masculinity, of course, but the one projected upon us is one which is impossible to live up to, causes people to make poor choices and commitments, and in general is sex-centric in a way which is (so i believe, at least) unhealthy.

I should note here that I have no problem with casual sex, at least in a moral sense. I don't think it's something to be avoided, though I don't think it's something to be pursued -- at least for everyone -- either. Just as some people enjoy playing cards, and others enjoy watching baseball, there are also people who enjoy having casual sex. Why not, right? If all precautions are taken, and everyone is in agreement, what is the difference in a pleasurable evening over drinks and canasta vs. a pleasurable evening over drinks and fucking, morally speaking? There are religious prohibitions, and there are superstitions about what this does to our ability to form bonds with others or our current bonds with present partners, but I don't think these are necessary by any means. I can see them as possible for some people, but not for everyone -- they are not imperatives.

But that being said, the kind of masculinity we are all taught -- and our parents and religions have no power over this -- is an unhealthy sex-centric objectifying masculinity that, in some very weird way, equates sexual relationships with sports, and thereby counts sexual partners as a measure of "winning".

And that sort of sex is something I have no desire to participate in, though sex proper is really quite wonderful by my estimation.

Right, what Baden knows how to do - remember what he did with Trump? Cite the polls >:O I see he still didn't get rid of that habit, despite evidence to the contrary popping up right in his face. Now, as I've explained before and no one else has addressed, science cannot be done like this. Studies showing the opposite:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2868060/ <- this is study of the potential benefits of abstinence
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2595009/pdf/jnma00304-0164a.pdf <- this is point of view published in a medical journal
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1113245/ <- This is a criticism of another study, which by the way, you should read because you'd see how science ACTUALLY gets done
http://chastityproject.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Teen-Sex-Academic-.pdf <- this is a study of abstinence in teenagers/young adults

And I could go on... However, I only do this to show how futile this is as a way of achieving apodeictic knowledge with regards to what the case really is psychologically. Celibacy has far more health benefits than sexual intercourse if the participant is ready and prepared for it, and evidence abounds, especially historical evidence. The greatest of warriors in history for example - Miyamoto Musashi for example - practiced celibacy. It's a pity that we have these big brains today who question what is backed up by all of our present and past knowledge based on some variation of the now defunct Freud schemes, and in accordance with the dominant worldview of their culture.

Nothing I've said would preclude that. Whether its preferable or not depends on the context. When I was referring to "full top-down intellectual control" to repress the sex drive I was referring primarily to the type of repression that occurs in those who have chosen celibacy as a way of life. — Baden

I'm not sure this is the case - I've visited and lived with monks before on Mount Athos, and there is no neuroticism there, I can assure you of that. You give me a call when you even speak with a monk, much less live for awhile with them. You sound like one my friends who thinks that the celibates (monks) have orgies when no on is looking... >:O

And forgive the following bit of analysis, but this seems to me to be the nub of it. Ultimately what you want is prestige (i.e. social power) - your goal is to elevate your social self, which is natural enough, but you are frustrated by a society that considers sex as both normal and desirable. — Baden

Prestige in this context isn't equivalent to social power - it's equivalent to personal strength. It has to do with, as Kant would say, respecting your own self, and to respect your own self you have to act in accordance to the dictates of practical reason. If you give in to your lusts, then you don't respect your own self, you are shameful.

prestige and social power are normally desired not simply as ends in themselves but, whether we are conscious of it or not, as furthering the biological end of sex. — Baden

Why do you presume that sex is the biological end? That's false as I've shown in the post to BC and to you which both of you haven't addressed. Reproduction and survival - NOT sex - are the biological ends. Having sex at the wrong time or with the wrong person is CONTRARY to the biological ends. There's nothing wrong with sexual desire per se, it must be ordered to its proper aims - which aren't sexual pleasure, but love and reproduction/survival. If you're having sex in any circumstance where there is neither love nor reproduction/survival benefits then you're a fool. Please refer to my previous post on these matters a couple of pages ago for more detailed explanations

Let me ask you this then, apart from the 'health' reasons for having sex... — Question

Why are you ceding the point? Pounce on it man! He says, for example, that those who have sex have lower rates of depression... isn't that because those who don't want to have sex are pressured day in and day out by the media and the surrounding culture to have it? Isn't it because modern Western culture creates an image, and enforces a standard of self-esteem on all? Don't let Baden get away with nonsense.

He says, for example, that those who have sex have lower rates of depression... isn't that because those who don't want to have sex are pressured day in and day out by the media and the surrounding culture to have it? Isn't it because modern Western culture creates an image, and enforces a standard of self-esteem on all? — Agustino

Nope.

The point is that sex shouldn't be treated as a competitive sport among men. It degrades the act and turns us into beasts acting on impulses and desires only. — Question

It's not a case of either celibacy/monogamy or sex being a competitive sport among men, so this is fallacious.

Forgive me for romanticizing the matter; but, I find people who can overcome their desires as morally superior to those who can not or chose not to. — Question

Your sense of moral superiority is misplaced, or at the very least unjustified.