Just curious Thorongil, on a side point, if you don't mind. When you say you are celibate, do you mean you avoid sexual pleasure completely, or you merely avoid sexual intercourse with others?

Both. I try to do the former and definitely do the latter.

Perhaps "non-natalism" would be a better term? Interesting discussion. I'm with you on the weak-version; birth is usually merely unnecessary (and overrated imho), although in certain situations I do have to wonder what the fuck the parents were thinking having a child.

The strong-antinatalist tends to be associated with such movements as the complete eradication of all life on earth, permanently and immediately. I'm not sure if you have ever wasted some of your time reading some of the philosophy behind the fringe group "efilism" (life spelled backwards) but it is basically that life is just absolutely horrible and needs to be exterminated.

Both. I try to do the former and definitely do the latter. — Thorongil

I hope I'm not being too personal here, but I would like to understand why this is. I share your views on birth, but I believe that sex is an important aspect of someone's health. Abstaining from all sexual encounters and/or actions is, in my view, unhealthy in that it builds up stress and perhaps even loneliness in some people.

Do you abstain out of asceticism? I see the attraction towards asceticism but have always been turned off in the end because the complete rejection of all pleasure seems very artificial, and only reminds me of why I'm trying to be an ascetic in the first place.

Perhaps "non-natalism" would be a better term? — darthbarracuda

Yeah, that works too.

The strong-antinatalist tends to be associated with such movements as the complete eradication of all life on earth, permanently and immediately. I'm not sure if you have ever wasted some of your time reading some of the philosophy behind the fringe group "efilism" (life spelled backwards) but it is basically that life is just absolutely horrible and needs to be exterminated. — darthbarracuda

Yes, I'm aware of those guys and find them very far from the position I would want to identify with. I started visiting the AN subreddit recently as well and found the community there not that great overall. In fact, pretty much the whole AN community, at least as it exists on the internet, I find to be irritating and disagreeable. And as for its manifestation in print, I'm not a fan of Benatar (since I'm not a utilitarian and have moral qualms about his advocacy of abortion) and find Ligotti, Crawford, and their ilk rather unsophisticated and pretentious.

This guy is perhaps the only one I find tolerable and even enjoyable.

I share your views on birth, but I believe that sex is an important aspect of someone's health. — darthbarracuda

I don't know about that. It seems to me that Catholic priests and monks, Buddhist monks, and Hindu ascetics are pretty fit, free of many illnesses common to the general public, and usually live extremely long lives. So it seems rather a boon than a detriment to one's health.

Abstaining from all sexual encounters and/or actions is, in my view, unhealthy in that it builds up stress and perhaps even loneliness in some people. — darthbarracuda

It need not do this if one replaces or redirects the sexual impulse towards other things.

Do you abstain out of asceticism? — darthbarracuda

This seems slightly oddly worded to me. I suppose I can say that I do try to live up to ascetic ideals, though.

I see the attraction towards asceticism but have always been turned off in the end because the complete rejection of all pleasure seems very artificial, and only reminds me of why I'm trying to be an ascetic in the first place. — darthbarracuda

Is it the rejection of all pleasure or only of a certain kind of pleasure? Asceticism need not lead to stoicism, in the common sense of that word. It certainly rejects the pleasures of the flesh, otherwise known as the "hedonic treadmill," so if you define pleasure only in this sense, then I suppose you are right to assert that asceticism involves the rejection of pleasure. But it still involves something positive, that of becoming closer to or reaching the goal for which one practices asceticism in the first place. The Greek roots of the word tell us that it is a form of exercise or self-discipline. If one has no self-discipline, one is effectively a slave.

Yes, I'm aware of those guys and find them very far from the position I would want to identify with. I started visiting the AN subreddit recently as well and found the community there not that great overall. In fact, pretty much the whole AN community, at least as it exists on the internet, I find to be irritating and disagreeable. And as for its manifestation in print, I'm not a fan of Benatar (since I'm not a utilitarian and have moral qualms about his advocacy of abortion) and find Ligotti, Crawford, and their ilk rather unsophisticated and pretentious. — Thorongil

Stay the hell away from some of those subreddits. They are toxic and filled with extraordinarily narrow-sighted people. I think I had maybe one or two "decent" discussions over on them; the rest were all a bunch of pretentious teenagers bitching about how much they hate their mothers or how they don't like having to wake up for school.

I have a weird position on Benatar. I don't know if his analysis works, for one (I expect considerable debate in the future). I think it is far, far easier to just say that it is wrong to inflict suffering on someone, even by proxy. Period. End of topic, moving on, no need of an asymmetry.

Also, is your problem with his promotion of abortion that of natural law?

Granted, though, I still find birth in most cases to be merely unnecessary instead of blatantly immoral.

Ligotti definitely has writing talent, I'll give him that. But he would get destroyed in any professional philosophical debate. Too much of his writing is unsophisticated nihilism born out of unrealistic expectations.

This guy is perhaps the only one I find tolerable and even enjoyable. — Thorongil

I'll have to check him out. From a quick overview, he seems likeable. I can't stand those petty debates over at YouTube (just a bunch of yelling and cursing, kind of pitiful imho); perhaps this will be a better alternative.

I don't know about that. It seems to me that Catholic priests and monks, Buddhist monks, and Hindu ascetics are pretty fit, free of many illnesses common to the general public, and usually live extremely long lives. So it seems rather a boon than a detriment to one's health. — Thorongil

Yeah, except the ones that rape the alter boys ;)

Is it the rejection of all pleasure or only of a certain kind of pleasure? Asceticism need not lead to stoicism, in the common sense of that word. It certainly rejects the pleasures of the flesh, otherwise known as the "hedonic treadmill," so if you define pleasure only in this sense, then I suppose you are right to assert that asceticism involves the rejection of pleasure. But it still involves something positive, that of becoming closer to or reaching the goal for which one practices asceticism in the first place. The Greek roots of the word tell us that it is a form of exercise or self-discipline. If one has no self-discipline, one is effectively a slave. — Thorongil

I respect your lifestyle and I guess I might even be classified as somewhat of an ascetic in some regards in that I do try to limit my sensual pleasures (too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing), and I think you are spot on when you say that sensual pleasures make you a "slave", but I would say only insofar that you allow them to enslave you.

Without being too personal and graphic, I do release sexual tension occasionally, and afterwards I feel very relieved and relaxed. From my perspective, having all those (natural) pent-up urges and hormones makes me very unfocused and stressed. Now you could definitely make the argument that this is exactly what enslavement is, but is it enslavement if we are comfortable with it? The Buddha taught the middle path between extreme hedonism and excessive asceticism, and I think this might be a good time to invoke his teachings.

How about "agnatalism"?

It could possibly imply that one is undecided or simply doesn't care about the debate of natalism v. anti-natalism.

Meow!

GREG

Stay the hell away from some of those subreddits. They are toxic and filled with extraordinarily narrow-sighted people. I think I had maybe one or two "decent" discussions over on them; the rest were all a bunch of pretentious teenagers bitching about how much they hate their mothers or how they don't like having to wake up for school. — darthbarracuda

Haha, this was more or less my impression as well, from what little I've visited of it.

Also, is your problem with his promotion of abortion that of natural law? — darthbarracuda

I think so, at least as far as I understand your question. A human fetus has the same natural right to live as its mother or any other sentient being. To abort it is to commit wrongdoing because to do so expressly denies the will of the fetus to live. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it is too late to bring up arguments about preventing suffering. The salient deed to which I would object has already been done.

Granted, though, I still find birth in most cases to be merely unnecessary instead of blatantly immoral. — darthbarracuda

Yes, this is precisely my thinking on this.

Without being too personal and graphic, I do release sexual tension occasionally, and afterwards I feel very relieved and relaxed. From my perspective, having all those (natural) pent-up urges and hormones makes me very unfocused and stressed. Now you could definitely make the argument that this is exactly what enslavement is, but is it enslavement if we are comfortable with it? The Buddha taught the middle path between extreme hedonism and excessive asceticism, and I think this might be a good time to invoke his teachings. — darthbarracuda

Well, like birth, satisfying the sexual impulse is not necessary. It may not me immoral either, but it certainly does inhibit the achievement of certain goals that one may wish to strive for. The serious practitioner of Buddhism, i.e. the monk or nun, and even the Buddha himself, are still far more ascetic than even I am. The eight precepts forbid among other things all sexual activity. So the Middle Way is not to do with settling on the medium sized drink at the drive thru but forging a path between the extreme asceticism of the Hindu sadhus and all forms of worldliness. I suppose you could try to apply it as a sort of Aristotelian golden mean in daily life, but that's not how it was originally proposed.

To be comfortable in one's slavery is still to be a slave and to accept and rejoice in the fact. If one is not at the very least bothered by how much one is swayed by the passions and various external stimuli, then one has capitulated to them both mentally and physically. I don't wish to do so. On the other hand, I don't mind language, such as one finds in Christianity, about becoming a slave to virtue, Christ, or what have you. The whole idea of asceticism is to become a "slave" not to the world but its denial. But this is clearly to speak metaphorically.

too much of a good thing — darthbarracuda

Too much of a good thing can be wonderful. Mae West

This guy — Thorongil

I probably won't be a regular there, but his rant on cell phones struck a chord.

I'm neither an anti-natalist nor a non-natalist nor a-natalist, and I would never have been successful as a celibate or an ascetic. You do a good job laying out a case for your position though, and if it works for you, that is what is important.

I'm neither an anti-natalist nor a non-natalist nor a-natalist, — Bitter Crank

I don't think that's possible.

You do a good job laying out a case for your position though, and if it works for you, that is what is important. — Bitter Crank

Well thank you. :)

Haha, this was more or less my impression as well, from what little I've visited of it. — Thorongil

YouTube isn't much better, haha.

I think so, at least as far as I understand your question. A human fetus has the same natural right to live as its mother or any other sentient being. To abort it is to commit wrongdoing because to do so expressly denies the will of the fetus to live. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it is too late to bring up arguments about preventing suffering. The salient deed to which I would object has already been done. — Thorongil

The way I look at it, you can't lose something if you don't have it. A fetus does not have a "will", a "telos", to live. I find this entire conception to be anthropomorphization gone wild. Aborting a fetus does nothing unethical because there is nothing to feel saddened or disappointed, and since there is no god, there is no retribution for such an act if natural law theory even was true.

You argued that the fetus has a will to live that should be respected, but what if this fetus grows up to be a suicidal person who hates living?

YouTube isn't much better, haha. — darthbarracuda

Yeah, I've seen a few Gary videos, for example. At times he seems to make some good points. At other times, he seems woefully ignorant of what he's talking about.

A fetus does not have a "will", a "telos", to live. — darthbarracuda

I'm not thinking of "will" in terms of an end, but in terms of a desire. The fetus, like anything living, desires to live, whether it is conscious of this fact or not. So to abort is to harm it in that one is forcibly denying its will to live. We might have different preconceptions of what constitutes wrongdoing, though.

You argued that the fetus has a will to live that should be respected, but what if this fetus grows up to be a suicidal person who hates living? — darthbarracuda

I don't think I understand the relevance of this. Regardless, the suicidal person still wishes to live. In fact, as I have remarked before, no one wishes to live more than the suicide. It's just that they perceive too many obstacles in the way of living.

I don't know about that. It seems to me that Catholic priests and monks, Buddhist monks, and Hindu ascetics are pretty fit, free of many illnesses common to the general public, and usually live extremely long lives. So it seems rather a boon than a detriment to one's health. — Thorongil

I don't know if it necessarily follows. First, many priests do, for example, release sexual tension via masturbation. Also I'm not sure if it's the abstinence from sexual intercourse that leads to better health, or RATHER the avoidance of the many conflicts and stress that often result from sexual relationships. My hypothesis is that a strong relationship, when both partners care deeply about each other, are loyal and faithful, are of similar intellectual capabilities, etc. is the best for one's health. But, such a relationship is exceedingly rare. So the next best alternative would be celibacy. But naturally - it follows from all this that one should cultivate the ability to be celibate.

Yeah, I've seen a few Gary videos, for example. At times he seems to make some good points. At other times, he seems woefully ignorant of what he's talking about. — Thorongil

Gary pisses me off. He makes good points, though, and that's why he pisses me off even more because he makes far more idiotic points than decent ones, and he's the name that gets circulated around the community. Not to mention his personality and attitude is atrocious.

The fetus, like anything living, desires to live, whether it is conscious of this fact or not. — Thorongil

How can an unconscious entity have any desires?

First, many priests do, for example, release sexual tension via masturbation. — Agustino

Perhaps. I wouldn't make "possible health benefits" the only or even the primary reason to be celibate, though. It's more like an added bonus, if true.

My hypothesis is that a strong relationship, when both partners care deeply about each other, are loyal and faithful, are of similar intellectual capabilities, etc. is the best for one's health. — Agustino

Maybe so. But I still wouldn't see the need for any consummation. In fact, I wouldn't be opposed to such a relationship myself. It's just that I would have no interest in consummating it. I'm not sure what one would call that either. A celibate marriage is a bit of an oxymoron, but that would be sort of the idea.

How can an unconscious entity have any desires? — darthbarracuda

I'm tempted to say this ought to be self-evident. All living things have desires they seek to fulfill. This is simply the nature of life itself. Humans are unique solely in that they are aware of said desires. And even then, we are often not aware of many desires we have that lurk in our subconscious.

Why would you be opposed to consumating it?

I see absolutely no positive value or reason to engage in sexual activity. All the possible arguments in favor of it boil down to it feeling good. I for one am thoroughly uninterested in "feeling good" merely for its own sake just as I am with "being happy." To hell with pleasure and happiness. There's nothing special about the rush of dopamine in the brain. It just nudges one towards a futile cycle of addiction, clinical or not.

This is basically the idea of the Aristotelian telos, which I don't really find convincing. It asks us to think of causation as "pulling" versus "pushing".

Could you elaborate?

Causation already is a contentious subject in metaphysics, even though it is taken for granted in much of science.

Aristotle thought that objects (not artifacts though) have a telos, or an end goal, that they strive for. It's actually rather similar to Schopenhauer's conception of a Will, except the Will is universalized while the telos is apparent in only the kind of object. So, for example, a penis' telos is to enter a vagina. An acorn's telos is to grow into a tree.

Obviously, Aristotle did not know about DNA, or he would have understood that this is why every acorn grows into a tree, and not a camel.

Aristotle's thought got taken up by Aquinas, who thought that since the universe seems to operate under this notion of a telos, or a pulling-causation, that to frustrate such notions is immoral. Thus, it is immoral to have gay sexual relations because the act goes against the "natural law" of the universe, or the telos of the penis. Thus, it is immoral to have an abortion, because the act of aborting goes against the telos of the fetus to develop.

Personally, I find all this talk of telos and natural law to be a bit unscientific and definitely problematic in terms of the is-ought gap. The Catholic Church tries to defend natural law by saying that natural, male-female sex during marriage is the only way to achieve human flourishing - a doctrine that I find blatantly absurd.

It could also be someone whose lifestyle negates the possibility of having children, such as celibacy, meaning that they practically assent to anti-natalism, if not theoretically. — Thorongil

Priests don't assent to anti-natalism, but very specifically believe in being fruitful and multiplying, so much so that they object to any form of sexual behavior that interferes with it leading to pregnancy. That is to say that there are celibates who are clearly not anti-natalists. I don't think there is a consistent correlation between celibacy and an objection to having children, as the typical celibate (I would assume) is not celibate simply as a way to practice effective birth control. There are far simpler ways to avoid pregnancy than life long abstinence.

Those who believe that there should be no more children on the planet can have as much sex as they please without being logically inconsistent as long as they practice safe sex.

Why you've chosen not to have sex is your business, but I don't see how it bears at all on the anti-natalist position.

My hypothesis is that a strong relationship, when both partners care deeply about each other, are loyal and faithful, are of similar intellectual capabilities, etc. is the best for one's health. — Agustino

Marriage leads to longer lives for men. http://healthresearchfunding.org/married-men-live-longer-single-men/

But, such a relationship is exceedingly rare. So the next best alternative would be celibacy. But naturally - it follows from all this that one should cultivate the ability to be celibate. — Agustino

This strikes me as utter nonsense, to suggest that because most marriages are imperfect, we should all live in chastity.

The truth is that all relationships (sexual or not) are imperfect. If I'm already not having sex with all my friends, what do I do to improve those relationships if the panacea is to stop having sex with them? I'm already taking a healthy dose of the don't-fuck-my-friends medicine, so why do I still have occasional tiffs with them?

I wonder as I read these posts if there is some rationalization going on here. Do you guys really think that celibacy is the cure to your various physical and emotional challenges or is that just a comforting thing to tell yourself because you aren't getting laid?

This strikes me as utter nonsense, to suggest that because most marriages are imperfect, we should all live in chastity. — Hanover

It's not suggesting that, it's suggesting that people should work on improving themselves so that most marriages stop being disastrous (50% divorce rate in US, don't forget ;) ).

The truth is that all relationships (sexual or not) are imperfect. If I'm already not having sex with all my friends, what do I do to improve those relationships if the panacea is to stop having sex with them? I'm already taking a healthy dose of the don't-fuck-my-friends medicine, so why do I still have occasional tiffs with them? — Hanover

A relationship cannot be improved by not having sex. If the relationship isn't good, then it's not good, full stop. And it's not good because of character defects (in one or both partners), not because of the presence or lack of sex.

I wonder as I read these posts if there is some rationalization going on here. Do you guys really think that celibacy is the cure to your various physical and emotional challenges or is that just a comforting thing to tell yourself because you aren't getting laid? — Hanover

Celibacy is developing the inner strength to: 1. refuse to take that which isn't worth your time (refuse to engage in sexual relationships with people who will hurt themselves and hurt you), and 2. learn to live alone (because sometimes in life you may actually have to), and 3. learn to be patient and wait so that you may catch gold. Simple. And it's not my philosophy, it's the philosophy that has existed for reasonable men and women since Aristotle. A diamond cannot be found without patience, perseverance, learning to say no, and temperance and prudence. All of the former are virtues.
So my point is aim to get married. Keep looking for virtuous people. Stay in their company, and ultimately marry one. But do not marry just because you need to have sex. Do not marry just because other people are. Do not marry the wrong person because you cannot find better. Be of good courage and persevere in your search. And this is all greatly facilitated by celibacy until then.

And yes, "getting laid" in the right circumstances is good - but "getting laid" in the wrong circumstances will do you more harm than good. You should be aware that most people on the planet know that. Also, most people on the planet are not willing to do anything to get laid. The only ones who are willing to do anything to get laid are desperate people who cannot control or manage their own urges (a character defect by the way - a defect which will certainly not be solved by "getting laid").

As for your study, this is supporting EXACTLY what I am saying. "Stressful relationship could increase the risk of heart attacks by 34%". The other causes of married men living better lives happen when they are successful marriages, which is exactly what I'm saying. A successful marriage is better than celibacy, which in turn is better than a failed marriage. People ought to use their heads more often. It's better to be celibate, take good care of yourself, eat well, exercise, and avoid those factors which actually cause worse health for unmarried men, than to get married just for the sake of it to the wrong person.

It's not suggesting that, it's suggesting that people should work on improving themselves so that most marriages stop being disastrous (50% divorce rate in US, don't forget ;) ). — Agustino

The divorce rate is not actually 50%.

The 50% rate is a projected rate, using past divorce trends, and applying those trends to current marriages. It's not a "fact" it's a trend line. It doesn't apply to actual people.

*the 'age adjusted crude divorce rate' is 13 per 1000. This isn't a very useful figure since it includes single people who can't get divorced (since they are not married).
*the 'percent ever divorced' is about 22% for women, 21% for men.
*the 'refined divorce rate' is the rate of divorce per 1000 divided by 10; the refined divorce rate is 1.9, meaning 1.9% of marriages ended this year.

What seems to improve one's success in marriage?

* not living together before marriage
* marrying after the age of 18
* similar age, both college educated
* having a an annual household income of more than $50,000
* Having children (in the marriage) when both parents want children
* having similar convictions about marriage being a life-long commitment
* smokers (both couples) get divorced more often than non-smokers (both couples).

So, some people get married and divorced several times, some never marry, and many who marry don't get divorced. A small fraction will get divorced each year. There are identifiable factors that lead to higher rates of divorce, it isn't just "people who don't know how to have a relationship". Being too young, uneducated, poor, a pregnancy which only one partner is happy about, discordant views about marriage, and not being serious enough about marriage to wait for a license before bedding each other for an extended period of time.

The statistics indicate that there are problems in the way marriages are formed and conducted. ON the other hand, I can think of good reasons why some marriages should definitely be ended -- namely, a given marriage is neither in the best interests of that particular couple, nor in the best interests of society either. I am not in favor, either, of people having children without partners.

As a gay man, I am 100% in favor of straight marriage. Straight marriages produce gay men, so keep up the good work!

Thanks BC, these facts are very interesting. Was not previously aware of many of these before! Also, I stand corrected regarding the 50%.

It's not suggesting that, it's suggesting that people should work on improving themselves so that most marriages stop being disastrous (50% divorce rate in US, don't forget ;) ). — Agustino

The other 50% end in the death of one spouse, which sounds more disastrous without proper context.*

*edit @Bitter Crank's response undermines my sass.

I wonder as I read these posts if there is some rationalization going on here. Do you guys really think that celibacy is the cure to your various physical and emotional challenges or is that just a comforting thing to tell yourself because you aren't getting laid? — Hanover

We would need a highly reliable and valid poll to answer this question.

Certainly, if one can't get laid, one could make a virtue out of current circumstances and declare one's self to be celibate--at least until one has the opportunity to get laid.

I think the Roman Catholic priesthood is a an excellent demonstration of how toxic celibacy can be, even for men who wish to be priests, even for men who have thought through the meaning of celibacy, and even within an institution that supports and upholds celibacy. I don't think that sex with children has anything to do with celibacy, but certainly the number of priests who have sexual relationships with other (and consenting) adults is related to celibacy, and so is the number of priests who are at least fairly unhappy in their priestly lives, and who have few good, close interpersonal relationships. When there were many more priests, there was more of a chance for priests to have supportive friendships and supervisory relationships with other priests to whom they could unburden themselves (none of this involving sex, of course). Those days are long gone and won't be back any time in the near future, if ever. Priests, in many ways, are in one of the worst of all possible worlds: Close relationships with parishioners are inappropriate (even if non-sexual), which leaves them the company of other unhappy, over-worked, and quite possibly fairly neurotic co-worker priests.

It's very difficult for priests to be the kinds of shepherds that their flocks need -- they are just too close to being undone by the circumstances of celibacy.

There are few avenues of validation more satisfying than the sexual. Good sex, whether in a long term relationship or with a stranger whose first name one knows not, and whom one will probably never see again, is affirming to one's sense of personal self-worth. It's not just "getting off". It's deeper than that, and yes, it is possible without being married.

Marriage usually provides the surest route to regular validation and affirmation, and it also provides the opportunity for one to give that gift to one's partner.

I think most lone wolves who decide to be celibate are deceiving themselves. I would think celibacy would work best in the corporate setting of a monastery, a priesthood, an order, or a calling in which other share. Celibacy is something one gives to a higher cause -- god, the church, the order, the shelter -- whatever it is to which one is so singularly devoted.

But just going about an ordinaryl life, but deciding to practice celibacy, just doesn't make sense to me. What would an accountant working for General motors and living in suburban Detroit, who doesn't belong to any organizations except GM, get out of deciding to never have sex again? A promotion? I don't see why that would happen. New friends? I guess the celibacy support group might be a friend-finding opportunity.

It's like someone who has one beer once a year without any untoward consequences swearing off alcohol forever. You could do that, buy why would you?

It just doesn't balance out, in accountant lingo.