Personally, I could totes be a world famous rock star on a life-long sex marathon, but I'm just above all that. I'd much rather just play video games than have sex with hot girls.

I'm definitely socially inept. Even going to places, like yoga that I frequently near daily whenever I lived close to a place I'd say nothing unnecessary, and eventually people begin to think you're stuck up, or something, because they start getting kind of nasty, and I didn't even do anything!

It's beyond miraculous that I managed to get laid... I really made her work for it too, and didn't really put anything on the line myself, and risked nothing. Even with that, my warped by fiction, ridiculously unrealistic ideas about romance, and love proved to be too insane, and I messed that up too. Like the stars aligned to fulfill that desire without compromise, but still wasn't good enough for this romantic idealist. That's what you get for spending years reading about romance rather than doing it.

A couple weeks ago I got messaged by a girl online too, she was attractive, and an artistic to boot, but I hadn't updated my profile info, and she lived in the town I was staying in, an hour and a half from here.

I mean, she contacted me, which pretty much guarantees success, as long as I showed up, and didn't say or do anything obnoxious, but I still didn't do it. Although I definitely like the idea of having all of the hot girls, in reality my social anxiety makes that impossible. I simply couldn't be intimate with a stranger, it would be too difficult and uncomfortable for me.

Maybe if they were unconscious... hmm.

Like the stars aligned to fulfill that desire without compromise, but still wasn't good enough for this romantic idealist. That's what you get for spending years reading about romance rather than doing it. — Wosret

I don't think it's your ideals that are at fault, but rather your expectations.

Even with that, my warped by fiction, ridiculously unrealistic ideas about romance, and love proved to be too insane, and I messed that up too. — Wosret

Again it's not the ideas which were unrealistic, but the fact that your partner didn't share them. And it would be kinda silly to think you're the only crazy one out there - it's just that, probably like you yourself, the crazy girls are hard to find. But to this day they must be waiting for Wosret...

You've determined that such and such a relationship would satisfy you. There's no problem in that, it's who you are. The problem is that you live in a world which, largely, doesn't share your ideals, and therefore you'll be hard-pressed to find people who do share them. But they're not impossible to find. Also material conditions are important to satisfy desires - you obviously must have enough money to be able to enjoy your time with a beloved.

There is something odd about it for sure. Try this analogy.

You know how when your pet has been to the vet for an operation, the put this cone on their neck to prevent them from licking the wound. There is a natural itch (desire) to lick wounds, that normally helps clean them and promotes healing, but in this case it is counterproductive as the wound is deep, but also already super clean. So there is good reason in the animal's interest to frustrate its desire. But that reason is not that desire leads to suffering as a general rule, nor that the frustration of desire leads to the extinction of desire. It is particular and limited, and after a few days, the cone can be taken off.

So if it is good to put a cone round one's privates, as it were, because it will frustrate the desire for sex, then the avoidance of suffering the slings and arrows of relationship or children or STDs or some such, or else the promotion of, (shall we say?) spiritual ecstasy on the positive side need to be posited. We might then discuss whether any of these are good reasons in particular circumstances. The latter, for example, might work for monks, but not so much for priests, and even less for the laity.

That it happens to be currently so is certainly true, though savagery is by no means confined to undeveloped societies. But I would like to see some argument as to why it is so 'by essence'. You might take the following into account, taken from here. — unenlightened

First, when I refer to patrilineal societies it's not of the essence with regards to them that the male plays a more important social role than the female. For all I care, it could be the female inheriting the property. What is of importance is that certain virtues exist - monogamy, virginity, loyalty, faithfulness, chastity, control of the sexual impulse. These virtues permit the creation of relatively stable families, where the members work together for the achievement of higher, common goals, with the elimination of potential sources of inner conflict like jealousy, hatred, anger, etc. Families are necessary for building up a strong and healthy society which focuses on its survival and flourishing instead of merely on pleasure.

To say that developed societies could be matrilineal is no worse an absurdity than to suppose that an army could exist without discipline.

First, I introduced the term 'patrilineal', and I used it in the conventional meaning rather than make up some nonsense. If you want to distort the language to suit your own prejudices then there is no possibility of communication.

And what is of importance is that you have zero basis for your declarations thereafter; as if other cultures have not been at least as stable and survived at least as long and flourished as well, with just as stable families.

And I would point out that it is just this stable family focused sexually righteous society that has degenerated into the abomination that is modern liberalism. Now how did that happen?

First, I introduced the term 'patrilineal', and I used it in the conventional meaning rather than make up some nonsense. If you want to distort the language to suit your own prejudices then there is no possibility of communication. — unenlightened

Yes you did, but I have no beef with it. It's not about using language to talk about my own prejudicies, it's using it to talk about what's important (and let me remind you that you've associated those virtues with patrilineal societies as well, so I merely identified the important point and went on from there). If you care about the fact that man or woman has a more leading role in society than the other, or whatever other incoherency, that's your problem, and you can go on caring about it day in and day out. I don't. If you disagree that the virtues are necessary for a stable family environment/society, I would like to hear arguments, not quibbles about what words mean.

And what is of importance is that you have zero basis for your declarations thereafter; as if other cultures have not been at least as stable and survived at least as long and flourished as well, with just as stable families. — unenlightened

No they haven't actually. You name me just one such society. Societies have thrived from social conservative values - the Middle East and India from arranged marriages for example, Europe from the virtue of chastity, and so forth. The only ones who thrived from other values are the savages.

And I would point out that it is just this stable family focused sexually righteous society that has degenerated into the abomination that is modern liberalism. Now how did that happen? — unenlightened

How is that any different from the Rome of Musonius Rufus and Epictetus (who advocated chastity until marriage for example) degenerating and collapsing in its morals over time? How is it any different than the very religious Islamic caliphate started by Muhammad degenerating into the liberal Baghdad at the height of its powers? A time always comes when people no longer see the value of discipline and virtue, and think they can do without it. Their parents couldn't enjoy life because they were burdened by the virtues - at least they should enjoy life now! It's like an army - if the army is always winning, and they even forget that losing is possible, they lose sight of the value of discipline. They forget that they won in the first place because of discipline. So likewise these young people forget that virtue is actually what made enjoyment possible in the first place, and not happy with the amount of enjoyment possible, they want to extend it, and conclude that removing virtue is the way to do this, without understanding that virtue is what made it possible in the first place.

Societies go through cycles. Growth and decay. That's all that's happening to modern Western society. People who see this and are different are few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else. It's always been this way. There's nothing new under the sun.

Societies go through cycles. Growth and decay. — Agustino

Then they are not stable. People who see that progress and stability are incompatible are different and few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else.

Then they are not stable. People who see that progress and stability are incompatible are different and few, and they are thought to be mad-men by everyone else. — unenlightened

There is no progress in terms of societies. It's the same cycle having played itself out through all of history, and which will play itself out through all of history. The reason for this is the fallen nature of man.

Progress is restricted to technology. And all stability is temporary (though not logically temporary, it just happens in the world to be temporary because men are never, in masses, good). But it doesn't follow that because it is temporary it's not worth striving for, or that it is logically impossible to achieve it. Indeed the intelligent amongst us seek to progress towards stability, ever-aware of how effervescent the nature of stability can be, and how even their progress will one day most likely be undone. The journey up towards the peak is worth it, even if you will inevitably fall back down and have to climb up once again. As Camus would say, we must imagine such a person as happy.

I dunno, I just thought it a good distinction to make. Sex is a little too narrow a topic. Sexuality, though, includes sex, sexes, genders, sociology bullshit, etc. I'd definitely say that the West is obsessed with sexuality more than just sex.

I'd definitely say that the West is obsessed with sexuality more than just sex. — Heister Eggcart

*nods* (Y)

Which head did you nod with, Agu? O:)

The one down there X-)

Is that bad? :-O

Yes. Judgement has been made, now sit down.

Sit down where? :-O

Not on my dick. Find your lady.

Sit down in my lady's lap? Isn't that supposed to be kind of the other way around mate?

I said find, not find her and sit on her.

I said find, not find her and sit on her. — Heister Eggcart

So where do I sit once I find her? :-O

On the floor at her feet.

It's going to be cold on the floor... :(

Make her sit with you.

That's far worse, then she will be cold too! That's a disaster!

No, you hug her as the dust bunnies snuggle with you.

Ah, that's how the shit that sometimes appears in my place is called >:O

We might then discuss whether any of these are good reasons in particular circumstances. The latter, for example, might work for monks, but not so much for priests, and even less for the laity. — unenlightened

Sure, not everyone can be Marcus Aurelius or a St. Augustine or a Buddha; but, from a peculiar point of view, when someone values the teachings of Jesus or Zeno or Buddha, which aren't that many people, then one feels compelled to imitate them and try and follow their footsteps. While, you may say that "truth is a pathless land" according to one of your favorite philosophers, I would have to say the is some truth in what they say. Time would attest to that fact.

If society is obsessed with matters such as sex and sexuality, then I say fuck society. Erich Fromm would agree?

While, you may say that "truth is a pathless land" according to one of your favorite philosophers, I would have to say the is some truth in what they say. Time would attest to that fact.

If society is obsessed with matters such as sex and sexuality, then I say fuck society. Erich Fromm would agree? — Question

Of course. Society is obsessed with wealth and power and status as well, at least it is if you attend to the media. It is easy enough to dismiss all that. At least, it is easy in theory. In practice, one must be very wary of one's motives. Is there some kudos in celibacy? Does it give rise to a feeling of spiritual superiority? Spiritual practices always have such dangers.

The land is pathless because one is not going anywhere, but staying with the truth. To be going somewhere is to be moving away from the truth of what one is, towards the image of what one might become.

Let me put it very simply; if one sees clearly that sex is not necessary to one's life, then there is no difficulty. I am like this with cars. I know most people around me have a car, and I see the use, but also the problems, and it is no effort for me to decide to avoid having one. Sometimes I have difficulties because I don't have one, but those difficulties are small compared to the trouble and expense of owning one. If sex is like that, then there is no problem leaving it behind. But If I found that I was constantly thinking about having a car, and disparaging those that have them, and lauding myself for doing without, then the truth would be that I was more obsessed with cars than those that had them. And that would be silly.

So to be free from the obsession with sex that some people (but probably fewer than appears) have is certainly to be looked for. But celibacy maintained through gritted teeth, as it were, is not any kind of freedom, and maintains the obsession far more strongly than having a sexual relationship.

Let me put it very simply; if one sees clearly that sex is not necessary to one's life, then there is no difficulty. I am like this with cars. I know most people around me have a car, and I see the use, but also the problems, and it is no effort for me to decide to avoid having one. Sometimes I have difficulties because I don't have one, but those difficulties are small compared to the trouble and expense of owning one. If sex is like that, then there is no problem leaving it behind. But If I found that I was constantly thinking about having a car, and disparaging those that have them, and lauding myself for doing without, then the truth would be that I was more obsessed with cars than those that had them. And that would be silly.

So to be free from the obsession with sex that some people (but probably fewer than appears) have is certainly to be looked for. But celibacy maintained through gritted teeth, as it were, is not any kind of freedom, and maintains the obsession far more strongly than having a sexual relationship. — unenlightened

Yes; but, don't you feel joy from not having a car and smile to yourself at times when you see that someone gets a ticket or is stopped so the Bobby can reach his quota?

I feel different. Different in a good way. I feel happy that I am not like the rest of people, whom I find more strange than relatable. Maybe it's my genetics or maybe it's my psychology, maybe it's me just being me? I find it funny that people tell me that I will be unhappy or miserable or not fulfilling a bodily need. It's really hilarious the belief people have about sex, and mind you I keep a mental record of how often I think about it, and it ain't that much (hopefully less and less as the years go by)!

Cheers.

don't you feel joy from not having a car and smile to yourself at times when you see that someone gets a ticket or is stopped so the Bobby can reach his quota? — Question

No, not at all. People on my street have constant problems parking because there are more cars than spaces. I don't have their problem and am glad of that, but it would bring me joy if their problems could be solved, if only because happier neighbours are more pleasant to live with.

It is not for me to tell you whether you are miserable or not, or obsessed or not, or indulging in a sense of superiority or not. Or even being ruled by a fear of relationship - that is a possibility too. But comments elsewhere eventually drew me to read this thread, which I found rather sad and unenlightening, so I thought to make some contribution to the rather overheated conversation. Good luck to you in your abstinence, and there's no need to justify it to me or anyone here.