Nope. — Michael

Your opinion isn't sufficient reason to reject a possible explanation for the data as false.

And those who practice chastity are obviously morally superior to those who do not as chastity is a virtue.

Studies showing the opposite: — Agustino

Are you blatantly lying here or have you not even read through your own links? These are not "studies showing the opposite". Your first paper is about women. I specifically said I was talking about men

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. — Baden

(And all it finds anyway is that "Periodic, voluntary sexual abstinence was associated with positive health behaviours"). The second reference is a letter from a 21 year old woman (again) to the editor preceded by the disclaimer "The opinions expressed here are not necessarily the opinions of the National Medical Association". The third is a minor criticism of the methodology of a study that showed some benefits of sex (so what?) And the final one is about teen abstinence, which in general I think is a good idea, but which finds laughably "Current scientific evidence shows that teens who abstain from sexual activity are less likely to have children out-of-wedlock." :-|

In other words, despite obvious efforts you've turned up precisely nothing on the benefits of long term celibacy in adult men, which is the focus of my discussion with Question.

You give me a call when you even speak with a monk, much less live for awhile with them. — Agustino

There you go again. Having lived in a Buddhist country for almost 10 years, I've had plenty of contact with monks. Anyway, it's getting boring correcting your ignorant comments about me. Stick to the argument.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2868060/ <- this is study of the potential benefits of abstinence — Agustino

You should read the conclusion:

"Future studies should address whether abstinence has a causal role in promoting healthy behaviours or whether women with a healthy lifestyle are more likely to choose abstinence."

And the discussion:

"Due to the nature of the study, it was not possible to determine if abstinence had a causal role in these favourable behaviours or if the type of woman who exhibited these behaviours was simply more likely to choose abstinence."

And those who practice chastity are obviously morally superior to those who do not as chastity is a virtue.

No they're not, and no it isn't.

Your entire position seems to be based on what I'd say is a fallacious moral system (Christianity, I'd wager). This goes back to what I said before about using spirituality and God as justification for a claim directed at someone who believes in neither of these things. Your arguments fall flat given that I reject your premises.

Your first paper is about women. I specifically said I was talking about men — Baden

What makes men different to women regarding abstinence? :s

"The opinions expressed here are not necessarily the opinions of the National Medical Association" — Baden

Yes, as I said it's an opinion piece they agreed to publish. I have given you different kinds of sources if you actually bothered to pay attention. I could have given you multiple of one kind if I wanted to. But I meant to show you the directions criticisms could come from.

The third is a minor criticism of the methodology of a study that showed some benefits of sex (so what?) — Baden

:-}

"Current scientific evidence shows that teens who abstain from sexual activity are less likely to have children out-of-wedlock." :-| — Baden

What's funny about this? You do realise that contrary to the twisted thinking you're inferring here, they're not suggesting that not having sex while they are teens will cause them not to have children out of wedlock when they are teens - that would be fucking self-evident. They're suggesting that if they don't have sex while teens, they're less likely (later on) to have children out of wedlock (when they're no longer teens).

In other words, despite obvious efforts you've turned up precisely nothing on the benefits of long term celibacy in adult men, which is the focus of my discussion with Question. — Baden

I didn't know you meant celibacy in adult men, because I don't share your views. For me there's not much to distinguish men from women with regards to celibacy, or adults from teenagers for that matter.

So fine - let's talk about celibacy in adult men from now on. I'll come back to smite you with more studies soon! :D

It seems to be you who is obsessed with sex. I dont notice it in the streets, because its normal to me. To have sex is just a playful act to me, but it seems to be you who gives great importance to sex because you notice it everywhere and even make a topic about it on a internet forum.

It seems to be you who is obsessed with sex. I dont notice it in the streets, because its normal to me. To have sex is just a playful act to me, but it seems to be you who gives great importance to sex because you notice it everywhere and even make a topic about it on a internet forum. — Nop

Yeah, just a playful act, you probably have it with your mother also right? >:O

Having lived in a Buddhist country for almost 10 years, I've had plenty of contact with monks. — Baden

And? How did you find them?

"Future studies should address whether abstinence has a causal role in promoting healthy behaviours or whether women with a healthy lifestyle are more likely to choose abstinence." — Michael

Yeah at least I gave articles sanctified by respected medical journals not articles for stupid people from forbes. Of course, any scientist who respects himself will not jump to conclusions (unlike stupid Forbes journalists, and the quasi-scientists they quote). I hadn't actually read that Forbes article, but now that I had a look I'm utterly disgusted how, for Heaven's name, that can pass for science >:O

"But is there such a thing as too much sex?

The answer, in purely physiological terms, is this: If you’re female, probably not. If you’re male? You betcha.

Dr. Claire Bailey Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol says there is little or no risk of a woman’s overdosing on sex. In fact, she says, regular sessions can not only firm a woman’s tummy and buttocks but also improve her posture."

>:O Look! I actually can't believe my eyes. All the feminist propaganda. Just look at it. Men can have too much sex (but women can't have too much sex - which is contrary to the MEDICAL study I shared). And sex improves their posture! My days >:O

"Women who abstain from sex run some risks. In postmenopausal women, these include vaginal atrophy. Dr. Winch has a middle-aged patient of whom he says: “She hasn’t had intercourse in three years. Just isn’t interested. The opening of her vagina is narrowing from disuse. It’s a condition that can lead to dysparenia, or pain associated with intercourse. I told her, ‘Look, you’d better buy a vibrator or you’re going to lose function there.’”

(not only do they not run risks in fact, they may actually have benefits as my medical article suggests) So the doctor measured the opening of her vagina >:O and compared it with previous measurements! And then, he recommended her to buy a vibrator - what a pervert! >:O

Please this is enough. I can't read this shit >:O I actually thought Baden had provided some serious evidence before I actually opened it now. I hadn't even bothered to check until now, I took him on his word.

Your entire position seems to be based on what I'd say is a fallacious moral system (Christianity, I'd wager). — Michael

:-}

Baden's article is a reflection of a culture obsessed with sex, and a culture which idolizes sex, exactly as the OP states. A culture which seeks to BREED AND PRESSURE people into having sex (and seeing them as SICK if they don't - health becomes the dangling carrot to get the fools on the train). There can be no better proof for it than such an article. I can't understand how any normal and sane person can even stand to read something like that, much less give it credence. This sexual obsession is really a cultural disease of the most perverse kind - that people salivate feeding on "reasons to have sex" so they can hide their immorality behind rationalizations. I can't believe that folks actually take this seriously.

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. — Emptyheady

As I've explained, having no sex before marriage allows one to have a potentially stronger bond with their partner ceteris paribus, and therefore allows the creation of a strong family which can dominate the social milieu and thus ensure the greatest likelihood of not only your genes surviving, but actually thriving. Because it's of little use to spread your genes, if most of those are likely to fail to survive - that's an idiotic strategy. Monogamy and no sex before marriage originate in our biology - unless you take the dim-witted view of biology as all about sex. It's not all about sex, it's all about survival and reproduction (where sex is merely a part of that). But if you notice - nobody bothers to discuss this, and other criticism I've illustrated here:
http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/44803#Post_44803

To me the silliest thing is that those people who love to be promiscuous hate having children, many of them don't even want to get married! In what way are they even fulfilling their biology? >:O They prefer to point fingers and say how I hold religious motivations, and that's why I believe so and so, but they forget that I became a social conservative before I became religious, and even if I was an atheist, I would be a social conservative. Then they prefer to repeat "Oh you haven't proved anything!" as if they expected some logical proof, the kind of proof one would give for the Theorem of Pythagoras. The only truth in this matter is the broadness of your explanatory framework and its simplicity - in other words, the more your explanatory framework can explain, the more likely it is to be true. That's how we judge psychological theories. It's about their explanatory power. And the sex-centered model just fails to account for large parts of human behaviour, human biology, and actual reality - not as we find it culturally conditioned.

It strikes me that a culture that drapes their women in heavy clothes to hide their sexuality and that enforces gender specific roles suffers from far greater sexual obsession than mine.

The rest of what you say is unpersuasive pseudo-wisdom, reciting the terms under which you've found meaning in your life, like anyone finds it important. Tiring evangelism of sorts really. Has your prosthelsyzing brought you any converts?

It strikes me that a culture that drapes their women in heavy clothes to hide their sexuality and that enforces gender specific roles suffers from far greater sexual obsession than mine. — Hanover

No they suffer of a different kind of problem than your society, that much is obvious.

And if you imply that I think women should dress in heavy clothes to hide their "sexuality" - you're very deluded. First of all, clothes have nothing to do with sexuality. A woman can dress fully covered and still behave sexually in her flirting, etc. Really, this is so tiring to deal with, it's hardly even worth refuting. When you bother to form some coherent argument, give me a call.

Second of all - I don't think women should dress in heavy clothes and cover everything. There's a difference between decency and covering everything you know... Decency - perhaps you should remember that conservative virtue.

Has your prosthelsyzing brought you any converts? — Hanover

:-d Why would I need or want converts? I am just investigating the prejudices that others have, and outlining the mechanisms by which they are enforced in the current social milieu. I think you should be worried if you call yourself a conservative and you don't see a problem with current Western society with regards to sexuality. The fact is, it's a pity - you're not even standing up for real Western values - it's folks like me who are doing that. You're standing up for an ideological virus that has infected modern culture and has run our civilization amok towards destruction (you should ponder the meaning of that 50% divorce rate, the rising out-of-wedlock birth rate, and so forth). You should read up on what the Ancients who lived in the West thought about, that virtue called chastity for example. You may then find something interesting about the real Western culture which is currently buried in this rubble of hedonism and progressivism.

Anyway, goodluck in your conservatism - conserving the virtue of sex before marriage and promiscuity! Russell Kirk would certainly be proud of you sunny! ;)

I've visited and lived with monks before on Mount Athos — Agustino

How long did you live with them? Details, please.

How long did you live with them? Details, please. — Bitter Crank

Around 2 weeks. It was a very nice experience, I'd go there again sometime.

Either you got kicked out for being annoying or you couldn't give up your future pink ploughing fantasies, O:)

Had the chance to stay at Mount Athos and you left, lmao.

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. — Moliere

This is very sad. Does anyone else see this as a great fall in the importance of wholesome and pure relationships? So many people are growing up with false expectations from their partner, and it only seems to feed of itself.

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

Not really. People who can abstain from sex and not be guided by desires are indeed in some sense "better" individuals than those who only act on instincts and desires. Ask any woman...

In other words, despite obvious efforts you've turned up precisely nothing on the benefits of long term celibacy in adult men, which is the focus of my discussion with Question. — Baden

Yes, but there are other benefits to celibacy and abstinence than those detailed in scientific papers. I will actually agree with you that on the whole of it, sex, has a bodily function that leads to better health. However, this is not the point I am attempting to make. Morally a person who can abstain from sex is a much more mature person than one who "needs" it.

People who can discriminate on "needs" and "wants" are, in my humble opinion, more mature and rational individuals.

Had the chance to stay at Mount Athos and you left, lmao. — Heister Eggcart

Why? >:O For someone like me, going there is good for spiritual regeneration, but not to stay there completely.

And... as for pink ploughing, why not join me? :D

Advertising and commercial television are not urging you to have sex promiscuously, monogamously, or at all. To think that all the advertising one encounters, or all the sexually suggestive content of programming is "urging you to have (more) sex" is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Advertising is all about selling products--one of which is not sex. The sexual allure promised for the many products advertised is limited to the product. It doesn't, it shouldn't, extend to actual sex. That would defeat the whole bait & switch purpose of advertising and selling.

The amusing ads for Old Spice deodorant are a good example:



Old Spice, or anything else, won't make you the man of your dreams, and it won't get you the woman of your dreams, either. It isn't intended to. The product is a means to profitability, not to personal fulfillment, which is the bait.

Commercial programming is also bait -- to keep you in front of the TV so that you can view the commercials. Titillating suggestions of sex will keep you on the couch longer than public policy discussions.

How do people get sex? They go out and look for it. They hunt--maybe at work, maybe at a bar, maybe at church, maybe on the school bus--wherever. They go out with potential partners, they plead, whine, coax, pet, kiss, pounce, and so on and so forth. The thing is, they don't get sex from advertising, and in reality, advertising doesn't tell them how to succeed.

Changes in sexual behavior have occurred over at least 60-70 years, 2 or 3 generations, and have been brought about by things like oral contraceptives, population mobility, women's and gay liberation, changes in the workplace (a large percentage of women in the workforce), mobilization and demobilization before and after wars, a decline in church attendance and interest in religion, secularization, changes in welfare spending, and so on and so forth.

Advertising is all about selling products--one of which is not sex. The sexual allure promised for the many products advertised is limited to the product. It doesn't, it shouldn't, extend to actual sex. That would defeat the whole bait & switch purpose of advertising and selling. — Bitter Crank

People having sex is a market - for condoms, for sex toys, for medication for STDs, for abortions, for contraceptives, for pornography, for dating agencies/websites, for alcohol, etc. So what you're saying isn't the complete truth, again. People having more sex = more business of all sorts - including psychotherapy, and whatever else people need because they fuck themselves up through improper actions. The more hyped up the desire for sex is - as you are hyping it up for example - the more markets exist, and the more stupidly people behave, and so the more others can earn. Having folks in the chains of lust is a good way to sell to them. If we didn't hype up people's sex-drive, we couldn't even use sex in advertising. We use it precisely because we have gotten to the point where we've destroyed morality, and have gotten most people to give in to their lusts. And so, if they give in to their lusts, they will keep buying our products. Quite simple math. If I was a rich capitalist, I wouldn't want the common people to be free of lust... that would be fucking terrible, how I would I get them to buy all sorts of shit then?

Advertising sex as good for health is, for example, a way to get people interested in sex. Then when I advertise my deodorant, people are more interested in it, because they associate sex with something far more important than it actually is. Why? Because I have trained them to do so. And it's always easier to train people to give in to lust, than to train them in virtue. That's actually an interesting subject - why is that?

I haven't seen that exact one, but I've seen similar. Now the reason why I don't buy the controlled demolition argument I will illustrate below. Here's the things we know for certain:

1. Plane hits WTC, there is fire on the floors around where the plane hit and a big hole in the building.
2. The building ultimately falls, straight down, collapsing upon itself.

Now notice that in the facts, there is no independent evidence for explosives being placed in the building. Explosives are at best a deduction from (2). Now my argument is that if we find a way to account for the collapse based solely on the facts, without appealing to additional elements (such as explosives through the building) - then that hypothesis is preferable for its simplicity, until and unless we have independent evidence for explosives (this fits in with the idea of Occam's Razor in philosophy). I have produced a mechanism which can explain the collapse given just the two elements of evidence we have. I'm unaware of any independent evidence for explosives. Thus I will prefer that hypothesis, because there is no independent evidence to give sufficient reason for hypothesising explosives, nor are explosives necessary to account for the facts.

Consider also that placing explosives through the building would have been a complicated procedure, especially considering the number of people that were and worked in there. Overall, while it is a possibility - I doubt it. I wouldn't be willing to bet on it.

Not really. People who can abstain from sex and not be guided by desires are indeed in some sense "better" individuals than those who only act on instincts and desires. — Question

Better in what sense? Morally? Again, no. And it's not a case of either you're celibate or you act only on instinct and desire, so that's a strawman.

Better in what sense? Morally? Again, no. — Michael

But they are morally better than folks who give in to their lusts. Proper relationships are a different game, we're not discussing that here. We're discussing casual sex vs celibacy. Certainly celibacy is infinitely superior from a moral point of view. Why would you hold they're not morally better? I'm actually curious, why would you say that?

Yes; but, no plane hit WTC7, and yet it fell symmetrically and on its own footprint. Steel framed concrete buildings don't just fall from office fires. It's just impossible unless the people who designed the buildings were high on LSD.

But they are morally better than folks who give in to their lusts. — Agustino

No they're not.

We're discussing casual sex vs celibacy. Certainly celibacy is infinitely superior from a moral point of view. — Agustino

No it isn't.

Why would you hold they're not morally better? I'm actually curious, why would you say that? — Agustino

You might as well ask why I don't think that not eating apples is morally superior to eating them every now and again. To claim that it is is completely unjustified, as is the claim that celibacy is morally superior to casual sex.

Hmm I actually didn't know about that one (that it wasn't hit by a plane). I'm referring to the two main towers. I will need to think about that.

You might as well ask why I don't think that eating apples is morally superior to eating oranges. To claim that it is is completely unjustified, as is the claim that celibacy is morally superior to casual sex. — Michael

So are you, or are you not able to give a reason why you hold your position? In the former case, I'd like to hear it. In the latter case, then I'll ask you to agree that as you have no reason for holding it, to do so is irrational.

It seems that all you can do to refute my statements is to say no. That ain't good enough mate.

So are you, or are you not able to give a reason why you hold your position? In the former case, I'd like to hear it. In the latter case, then I'll ask you to agree that as you have no reason for holding it, to do so is irrational.

It seems that all you can do to refute my statements is to say no. That ain't good enough mate. — Agustino

I've given you the reason. I have no reasons to believe that celibacy is morally superior to casual sex. All you have is a bare assertion that it is. That ain't good enough mate.

I've given you the reason. I have no reasons to believe that celibacy is morally superior to casual sex. — Michael

Okay so the reason is simply that you don't know, so you're afraid to say it is so for fear of making a mistake, when you don't in fact know what the case is. If this is so, why are you saying my statement is false, instead of asking me what reasons I have for holding it as true?

If this is so, why are you saying my statement is false — Agustino

Because it is false.

Instead of asking me what reasons I have for holding it as true?

I'm guessing it has something to do with your Christian faith. Either that or, based on some of the things you've said before, a naturalistic fallacy.

Because it is false. — Michael

Ah so you do have knowledge about it. Why do you think it is false? Not having reasons to believe it isn't sufficient to hold that it is positively false. So what are your reasons for holding it is false?

I'm guessing it has something to do with your Christian faith. Either that or, based on some of the things you've said before, a naturalistic fallacy. — Michael

How is this possible granted that I became a social conservative before I became a Christian?