What you say is generally true, but it isn't the whole story. Marriages fail, but people apparently want to be married and they remarry at very high rates. That's one thing.

Another is that one does see deterioration in the capacity of individuals to conduct a well-organized, effective relationship in which they can be relatively happy and raise children successfully. Some of this connects with what you said. More is owing to the circumstances of employment, income, and various forms of insecurity the a lot of people are exposed to: unemployment, under-employment, temporary employment, precarious finances, debt, food and shelter insecurity, inadequate education, drugs/alcohol, bad childhoods, and so on. All this used to be big city, urban problems. Now one finds very disrupted families, unstable living set-ups, and so on in the once rock-solid rural communities.

These circumstances alone can combine to wreck marriages and relationships--never mind immature, screwed up people who aren't ready to enter into adult relationships successfully.

The marriages of successful, middle to upper class people fail for different reasons than lower working class marriages, where life is just much tougher.

First - why does it have such an effect upon people? Where does its sting come from? Let's think about both the celibate here and the indulgent - taking the two extreme cases. Why do both of them suffer? — Agustino

I think they suffer due to the fact that as humans we tend towards the mean. Only unique individuals with extraordinary spiritual and intellectual strength can deviate from the norm and not have remorse over separating from the herd or feel depressed about not keeping up with the race to the top of the mountain.

Since the psyche of mankind is open before us, presumably we can take steps to alter it. — Agustino

Yes, this has been attempted in the past as seen by social planners and regimes characterized by oppression and brute force and uniformity. Have those social experiments worked? Not in my humble opinion.

Third - how is one to live in a sexually obsessed society without being themselves sexually obsessed? — Agustino

I think, strength, courage, and zeal are important factors here in establishing a healthy and independant psyche. Not everyone has the willpower to actually alter their behavior and disregard the collective hive mind.

It seems that we are sort of cursed precisely because we - unlike animals - can form fantasies, and so we must learn how to relate with them, without crushing the boundary that always necessarily exists between fantasy and reality. — Agustino

Yes, it's a rather sad fact that people resort to trivial distractions and such fantacies to defend an overinflated ego or overactive libido, while those at the top are quite satisfied with their sense of status and seek every opportunity to confirm it relative to others. Speaking of which, I never understood the biological need to be competative against your own kin. Was there some evolutionary advantage to this behavior?

But in the past, they never acted on it - they never confused fantasy with reality. — Agustino

I would disagree here. I hold the notion that we are born all equal with respect to each other; but, then through the need to individualize and form an identity, we differentiated some of our characteristics to stand out from the rest of the crowd. I mean, England might be a good example of an outdated political system, that people cling on-to out of sympathy with the past. The advent of the EU and supranational powers and interests seems to unite and enjoy the benefits of cooperation instead of brute competition. Many people still think the EU is a pipe dream, in my view it's one of the more astonishing feats of human achievement in recent history. It would be sad to see it go away.

I think this collapsing of the boundary between fantasy and reality is one of the biggest problems of modern society. People are no longer able to enjoy their fantasises without seeking to bring them into reality, and out of the realm of phantasma. In fact, they confuse reality with fantasy, and this confusion underlies all of the problem. — Agustino

Ahh, but to live in a fantasy indicates that you know what your fantacisizing about. I do agree however, that it's a hard task to know that you are dreaming, when you are dreaming.

Sex is often a requirement in modern relationships because most people, in my experience at least, are in fact mortified at the thought of having true intimacy with someone because it means that they must expose the worst in them, which forces them to expose themselves to themselves, as well, often for the first time. — Heister Eggcart

You're saying that many people want to avoid intimacy, therefore sex is a requirement in modern relationships? Do you mean sexual or romantic relationships? I'm pretty sure that sex has been essential to a very large portion of human relationships for a very long time. And you assume, without any justification, that sex is not a part of being intimate with someone, but is rather a way of avoiding intimacy. As I think this goes against the experience of most people--certainly my own--I think you have to properly explain what you mean.

I'm open to the idea that there might be a new and increasingly widespread way of relating to people sexually that excludes intimacy--a kind of relationship that we might call pornographical, both because it is primarily objectifying and also because pornography increasingly shapes our sexualities--but this is a long way from saying that sex per se is an avoidance of intimacy.

This is one reason why successful marriages in the West have rapidly deteriorated because spouses realize too late that they do not know who really is next to them when they go to bed each night.

This is simply not credible. Do you think that when divorce was taboo and women were subjected to the authority of the husband, "true intimacy" flourished? Do you think that when marriage was more openly and uncontroversially about property and status, couples really got to know each other? Do you not realize that it's only recently that romantic love has become the primary reason for getting married?

Modern relationships have gone about creating a culture that overemphasizes the gruff physicality of the body, and therefore of sex, as being the foundation for the growth of a relationship between two people. No one gives a hot damn about virtue, only whether you like fleshy dicks or plastic dicks, if you like it in the butt, in the mouth, or in the nose, whether you like black hair over blonde hair, tan skin instead of pale skin - honesty, though? Attentiveness, understanding, compassion? Meh.

This demonstrates prudishness and little else. You do realize that attentiveness, understanding, and compassion, along with gruff physicality, are often essential to good sex?

Excellent post, I largely agree.

No one gives a hot damn about virtue, only whether you like fleshy dicks or plastic dicks, if you like it in the butt, in the mouth, or in the nose, whether you like black hair over blonde hair, tan skin instead of pale skin — Heister Eggcart

I do! :D

>:O (N) Don Juan, Don Juan

I noticed in the navigation bar that there was a response to one of my posts, and when I opened the mentions drop-down I saw it was from you, saying "Excellent post, I largely agree." I was deeply shocked for a moment, but then deeply relieved when I clicked through to the discussion to see that you had actually said it to someone else. :D

Hahaha :P

the state or experience of being isolated from a group or an activity to which one should belong or in which one should be involved: unemployment may generate a sense of political alienation.

Yes, the state of being isolated from the family, because you cheated, sounds like alienation to me for sure.

a feeling of disconnection from the larger society

This applies too.

loss or lack of sympathy; estrangement — Bitter Crank

This as well - cheating causes a loss of sympathy between the two people. When you wife cheats on you, you certainly don't have the same sympathy for her that you had before, nor the same trust.

Do you think that when divorce was taboo and women were subjected to the authority of the husband, "true intimacy" flourished? — jamalrob

Is sex as idolized elsewhere as in the West? I don't know about is, but it certainly was. The sculptures below are in India, on a temple built around 930-950 CE. I think there are many others like them.

Ehmm this sounds kind of fishy - especially since you compare it to eating and breathing. What do you mean? If I don't eat and breathe I die. If I don't have sex, I also die? — Agustino

It's not all about you. You die whatever you think or do. The psyche is the generalised human mind, and if in general humanity is not concerned with sex, humanity dies. Sex is not necessary to the individual, but it is absolutely necessary to the species.

It's not all about you. You die whatever you think or do. The psyche is the generalised human mind, and if in general humanity is not concerned with sex, humanity dies. Sex is not necessary to the individual, but it is absolutely necessary to the species. — unenlightened

What is the generalised human mind apart from its specific instantiations?

... the media must give people what they want in order to earn from them. — Agustino

This is not at all correct. The media manufacture want. Typically, they do so by creating insecurities. They have to make people uncomfortable in some way and that creates the desire for easement that is then used to sell something.

Thought germs are everywhere, rotting your brain, and there is nothing you can do about it. Until now! Researchers at UNcorp have devised the first and only protective head gear for you and your loved ones that will kill 99% (recognise that figure?) of all intrusive thoughts. Also available in pill form.

What is the generalised human mind apart from its specific instantiations? — Agustino

The generalised human mind is what psychology studies. It is the average, the percentile. UNcorp doesn't care whether you buy its products or not, as long as 'people' do.

Advertising and propaganda is designed to make people unhappy fearful, feel insecure and inadequate. These feelings create the desire, the need for products. Now if you and I resist, or are unable to obtain the product, we will still be unhappy but who cares? Not UNcorp.

The generalised human mind is what psychology studies. It is the average, the percentile. UNcorp doesn't care whether you buy its products or not, as long as 'people' do. — unenlightened

But this generalised mind is precisely the average, which is what I am talking about. Most people are sexually obsessed, otherwise they wouldn't be listening to such adverts - like for example I don't listen or watch them, and find them annoying. What am I getting wrong there?

Thought germs are everywhere, rotting your brain, and there is nothing you can do about it. Until now! Researchers at UNcorp have devised the first and only protective head gear for you and your loved ones that will kill 99% (recognise that figure?) of all intrusive thoughts. Also available in pill form. — unenlightened

:-O >:O

I don't listen or watch them, and find them annoying. What am I getting wrong there? — Agustino

Everyone finds them annoying; they are designed to upset. This is the whole foundation of consumer society. We at UNcorp set out to upset you, annoy you, make you anxious and fearful.

Because then you will want the cure for the disease we have created in you. Buy UNcorp's UNique UNderstanding today, not because you're worth it, though we'll tell you you are because we want you to love us, but because you are annoyed and upset.

And here is UNcorp's first rule of advertising:

Incomplete sentences, because if it doesn't quite say anything, it's not quite a lie.

Everyone finds them annoying; they are designed to upset. This is the whole foundation of consumer society. We at UNcorp set out to upset you, annoy you, make you anxious and fearful.

Because then you will want the cure for the disease we have created in you. Buy UNcorp's UNique UNderstanding today, not because you're worth it, though we'll tell you you are because we want you to love us, but because you are annoyed and upset.

And here is UNcorp's first rule of advertising:

Incomplete sentences, because if it doesn't quite say anything, it's not quite a lie. — unenlightened

Then why do they watch them? If you find something annoying it's right to not watch it, and seek to avoid it when possible, isn't it? They certainly MUST like it on some level, don't they?

... the media must give people what they want in order to earn from them. — Agustino

This is not at all correct. The media manufacture want. — unenlightened

Case in point; giving a woman a diamond ring when proposing is a norm that developed in response to a marketing campaign by N. W. Ayer for De Beers.

From Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Diamond?:

N. W. Ayer suggested that through a well-orchestrated advertising and public-relations campaign it could have a significant impact on the "social attitudes of the public at large and thereby channel American spending toward larger and more expensive diamonds instead of "competitive luxuries." Specifically, the Ayer study stressed the need to strengthen the association in the public's mind of diamonds with romance. Since "young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings" it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.

...

By 1941, The advertising agency reported to its client that it had already achieved impressive results in its campaign. The sale of diamonds had increased by 55 percent in the United States since 1938, reversing the previous downward trend in retail sales.

...

In its 1947 strategy plan, the advertising agency strongly emphasized a psychological approach. "We are dealing with a problem in mass psychology. We seek to ... strengthen the tradition of the diamond engagement ring -- to make it a psychological necessity capable of competing successfully at the retail level with utility goods and services...."

Interesting. But surely a diamond is only valuable because it's hard to get. It's scarcity, and expensive price makes it an attractive gift for any romantic courtship. But anything is like that - if you want to impress a girl you have to get her whatever it is that is very difficult to get - the difficulty you go through to get it for her is what impresses her. I don't believe that Bill Gates' wife would be impressed if Bill Gates got for her a 10,000 dollar engagement ring. That's too cheap. Maybe my wife would be impressed with that, because it's much more difficult for me to buy it - it takes a lot more. But for Bill Gates, he'd have to make an equivalent sacrifice to the one that I make, and that's a lot more expensive and a lot more difficult to do.

In the end, the idea is that the woman would be looking for devotion from the husband to be - is he willing to stand through difficulty with her? Devotion and loyalty are important virtues, and these are merely ways to test for them, that's what courtship is meant to be for.

But surely a diamond is only valuable because it's hard to get. — Agustino

Low supply and high demand. Something in low supply but also low demand isn't going to be worth much. It was the media campaign that put diamonds into high(er) demand, which in turn increased their value.

But the point here is that the media manufactured the obsession with diamond engagement rings; it wasn't simply a response to some pre-existing obsession.

Low supply and high demand. Something in low supply but also low demand isn't going to be worth much. It was the media campaign that put diamonds into high(er) demand, which in turn increased their value. — Michael

Not necessarily. If I spend three months making a very exquisite and beautiful dress for my wife she will most likely appreciate the gift even though it's not in "high demand". It's the effort that I make to get it that matters. Not just high demand and low supply. As I illustrated with Bill Gates, if he makes the same low supply and high demand gift as I do to my wife, his wife wouldn't be as happy, because he makes less effort for it compared to me.

We are dealing with a problem in mass psychology. We seek to ... strengthen the tradition of the diamond engagement ring -- to make it a psychological necessity capable of competing successfully at the retail level with utility goods and services....

Very glad you pulled out the information on diamonds--excellent example of manufactured want. "Diamonds are forever." Well, no more than H2O is forever, or the lead pipes it is delivered through.

in 2015, 135,000,000 carets of diamonds were produced (mined and exported), or 59,526 pounds. The grade of all this carbon gravel varies, of course. (Google, the usual source).

As Ms. Monroe sang so memorably,

Men grow cold as girls grow old
And we all lose our charms in the end
But square cut or pear shape these rocks don't lose there shape
Diamonds are a girl's best friend

Not necessarily. If I spend three months making a very exquisite and beautiful dress for my wife she will most likely appreciate the gift even though it's not in "high demand". It's the effort that I make to get it that matters. Not just high demand and low supply. As I illustrated with Bill Gates, if he makes the same low supply and high demand gift as I do to my wife, his wife wouldn't be as happy, because he makes less effort for it compared to me. — Agustino

I meant monetary value.

Besides, this misses the point that unenlightened and I are making. The media can be responsible for our obsessions. The sale of diamonds was falling until the marketing campaign promoted them as being some necessary thing, which made us want them more. The same is, perhaps, true of sex. Marketing a promiscuous man as being desirable can persuade men into thinking that they're better if they sleep around and worse if they don't (or the reverse in the case of women).

And, of course, "marketing" here can refer to more than just marketing in the economic sense (e.g. also religious tenets and cultural mores).

But surely a diamond is only valuable because it's hard to get — Agustino

You would find it profitable (possibly) to dip into the career of Edward Bernays, November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995). He was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda. He combined the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud.

He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the "herd instinct" that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis's award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations.

It isn't just diamonds. Companies who manufacture rather ordinary commodities also think about the herd and their various instincts. They don't do this because they are wicked (well, they may be wicked, but we'll discuss that elsewhere) they do it because their corporate existences depend on selling more stuff than their competitors. If they are honest, they will only manipulate the public with artificial wants. If they are crooked, like the recent example of Volkswagon, they'll also lie and cheat to get their products sold, or poison the public (like the bastard who was cutting costs in Flint, Michigan).

Besides, this misses the point that unenlightened and I are making. The media can be responsible for our obsessions. — Michael

I confirm your point. The reason why I never discussed your point is that I agree with it.

I know, I've watched this conspiracy video awhile ago :P :

You're saying that many people want to avoid intimacy, therefore sex is a requirement in modern relationships? — jamalrob

Often it is, yes. Not always, though.

Do you mean sexual or romantic relationships? — jamalrob

All sexual relationships are romantic, but not all romantic relationships are sexual.

I'm pretty sure that sex has been essential to a very large portion of human relationships for a very long time. — jamalrob

For procreation, yes, but not so much for mere copulation's sake.

And you assume, without any justification, that sex is not a part of being intimate with someone, but is rather a way of avoiding intimacy. — jamalrob

I never made any such assumption.

I'm open to the idea that there might be a new and increasingly widespread way of relating to people sexually that excludes intimacy--a kind of relationship that we might call pornographical, both because it is primarily objectifying and also because pornography increasingly shapes our sexualities--but this is a long way from saying that sex per se is an avoidance of intimacy. — jamalrob

Again, where have I argued that sex in itself is an act of explicit avoidance of intimacy?

This is simply not credible. Do you think that when divorce was taboo and women were subjected to the authority of the husband, "true intimacy" flourished? Do you think that when marriage was more openly and uncontroversially about property and status, couples really got to know each other? Do you not realize that it's only recently that romantic love has become the primary reason for getting married? — jamalrob

Intimacy was not the rationale for establishing marriages, historically. Yet, now that intimacy is touted as the goal for love and marriage and relationships in general, my point has been that this is all a facade, because few I've run into really care about true intimacy. They merely want x, y, and z, none of which being what facilitates real intimacy between two people.

This demonstrates prudishness and little else. You do realize that attentiveness, understanding, and compassion, along with gruff physicality, are often essential to good sex? — jamalrob

You do realize that virtue has nothing to do with how your penis feels when in this or that crevasse, right?

You do realize that virtue has nothing to do with how your penis feels when in this or that crevasse, right? — Heister Eggcart

>:O so true, so true...

You do realize that virtue has nothing to do with how your penis feels when in this or that crevasse, right? — Heister Eggcart

And it also has nothing to do with how good you are at keeping your penis away from this or that crevasse (or vice versa).

No that doesn't really make sense. The asymmetry involved is that virtue certainly doesn't have anything to do with the feelings of your penis, and the physical sensations it has or doesn't have. BUT - virtue may very well have something to do with keeping your penis away from the crevasse (which is an action that is analysed regardless of the feelings of your penis).