I think the Roman Catholic priesthood is a an excellent demonstration of how toxic celibacy can be — Bitter Crank

Yes indeed. Celibacy is good only if a good and virtuous partner fit for one is unavailable. The Greek Orthodox priests, on the other hand, are free to marry.

There are few avenues of validation more satisfying than the sexual. — Bitter Crank

This sounds quite neurotic. Life is much richer than mere sexual experience, and a man who has experienced sex and nothing else has missed a lot of life. Furthermore, sex should not be a means for validation and self-worth. At least it's not in a person who is well balanced. Why would any rational person seek validation in something that is, in the end, at the mercy of other people? One would have to be a fool - a perpetual slave to other people, in order to get what (s)he needs.

regular validation and affirmation — Bitter Crank

Sex is not a validation or an affirmation. Again, this is a neurotic point of view. We start from the assumption that someone needs validation to begin with, and second of all that such validation should be obtained from sex. This is questionable on multiple grounds. First, someone should not need external validation. Secondly, validation obtained from goods which cannot be obtained without the approval and assent of others is a form of slavery to the giver of goods. Not something desirable.

It's not just "getting off". — Bitter Crank

That's not what most sex addicts describe. They describe feeling quite empty after the act.

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 — Bitter Crank

If one needs sex to affirm one's sense of self-worth then that person is to be pitied, for they shall suffer much. This sounds more like a nymphomaniac than a normal, well-balanced person. You should perhaps be aware that nymphomania is classed as a psychological illness, which is to be treated - not something to be desired. Nymphomaniacs are addicted to sex as they get their sense of self-worth from it.

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. — Bitter Crank

Indeed I agree. But at the same time I think the accountant would be better off being celibate until he can find a stable partner, who fits him in intellectual capabilities, virtue and values than engage in casual sex with strangers. Better as this gives him the opportunity to develop self control, build a self-worth that is not dependent on other people (sex means other people), learn how to live alone, and explore, understand and develop himself much more. In fact, in most places around the world, people try to live like this, and those that can't, at least aspire to live so.

There are few avenues of validation more satisfying than the sexual. — Bitter Crank

This sounds quite neurotic. — Agustino

Really? It doesn't strike me as neurotic at all. (We seem not to look at the world in the same way.)

Life is much richer than mere sexual experience, and a man who has experienced sex and nothing else has missed a lot of life. — Agustino

Nothing is mere. But, that said, of course life is much richer than sexual experience, and I can't imagine how one would even exist and experience only sex and nothing else.

It isn't at all the case that sex is everything; but sex is definitely a part. How big a part depends on the particular model you have of the human mind. I think Freud was right to identify the sex drive, or life force, as a critical component in human thought and motivation.

Furthermore, sex should not be a means for validation and self-worth. At least it's not in a person who is well balanced. — Agustino

Sex should certainly not be the one and only means for validation and self worth, of course. There are a range of human experiences where from other people we receive encouragements, emotional strengthening, love, sex, praise, rewards, validation--all sorts of things, especially for well balanced people.

Why would any rational person seek validation in something that is, in the end, at the mercy of other people? — Agustino

Virus are "obligate intra-cellular parasites". It is in their nature to live within cells. They have no choice about it.

Humans are obligate interpersonal actors. We have no choice but to interact with others to survive, to be nurtured, to be taught, to learn, to explore, to give, receive, to love, to have sex that is more than masturbation. We are not complete isolates unto ourselves. We are porous, and into and out of us flows all the interactions that make up a life.

We are, like it or not, to some degree "at the mercy of other people". We are also, like it or not, the beneficiaries of other people, and they of us.

Rational people do not curl up into a snail shell.

One would have to be a fool - a perpetual slave to other people, in order to get what (s)he needs. — Agustino

One would be a fool to fail to recognize how much we depend on each other.

Really? It doesn't strike me as neurotic at all. (We seem not to look at the world in the same way.) — Bitter Crank

Why not? Compulsive behavior, and dependence are not the traits of a healthy mind.

Humans are obligate interpersonal actors. We have no choice but to interact with others to survive, to be nurtured, to be taught, to learn, to explore, to give, receive, to love, to have sex that is more than masturbation. We are not complete isolates unto ourselves. We are porous, and into and out of us flows all the interactions that make up a life. — Bitter Crank

I didn't argue we are complete islands. On the contrary, we should relate to each other as much as possible given that we do this rightly - virtuously. But this relating should not be at the loss of our dignity. Depending on someone for sexual needs is a loss of dignity, unless one has a medical condition preventing this from being otherwise. This doesn't mean that one shouldn't have sex - it means that one should be able to live without it if they must. Likewise, if someone depends on others for their food, this is a loss of dignity, unless they have a medical problem (for example a handicap), they are children and cannot work, they are too old to work, or otherwise there is some other external force preventing them from working. It is shameful, contrary to the nature of each person which is to fulfill their potential for freedom.

A man whose life depends on sex (meaning they cannot live without sex [will go insane, will become violent, will rape etc. etc.]) is a man who has not reached his full potential for freedom and independence. Only when one has reached their potential for freedom and independence can they truly enjoy sex - not as slaves running after something without which they cannot live - but as dignified human beings, sharing their freedom with one another out of a free choice to do so. People who are compelled to do so by their lust are not free. And such compulsion leads to a loss of self-esteem, as most sex addicts recognize, and not to well-being. What leads to well-being is freedom, independence, a coming together shaped by choice, and not by compulsion. That is the real freedom. Running to the closest woman because I cannot control my sexual impulse is shameful - a parade of my un-freedom, masking itself as a free decision, when it is no free decision, but a forced decision. What difference is there between someone putting a gun to my head and saying "have sex, now, with anyone!" and my desire forcing me to go out to look for anyone around to have sex with? It is one thing if I freely decide I will have sex - not forced into it by any sort of weakness in myself, but rather a decision born of my freedom and love for someone else.

It's not just "getting off".
— Bitter Crank
That's not what most sex addicts describe. They describe feeling quite empty after the act. — Agustino

Maybe they should find fellow addicts who are better at giving good vibrations along with the blow jobs.

This sounds more like a nymphomaniac than a normal, well-balanced person. You should perhaps be aware that nymphomania is classed as a psychological illness, which is to be treated - not something to be desired. Nymphomaniacs are addicted to sex as they get their sense of self-worth from it. — Agustino

Well of course, to someone who has ceased eating, a half sandwich and a small salad is going to seem like gluttony.

If nymphomaniacs are obsessive compulsive, then they are not getting their self worth from sex. They are getting symptom relief. Repetition is the name of of the game for OCD people.

Whether there is such a thing as "nymphomania" (a decidedly 19th century term), sex addiction, hypersexuality, or merely a cultural bias against exceptional sexual behavior isn't clear. I always enjoy coming across bona fide examples of DSM categories, like obsessive compulsives, Tourettzers,, paranoid schizophrenics, people with truly loony but not pathological ideation, parkinsonianism, and so forth. It's surprising that there aren't more of these people to meet on one's daily rounds. I have met some, though, and they were usually quite interesting, often pleasant people.

I've come across people with some quite odd preferences, people whose impulse control was somewhat deficient, criminal predators, petty crooks, hustlers, prostitutes, guys that spent too much time thinking about sex, people who spent way too much time in bars drinking, and so on -- but maybe only three hypersexuals since 1968. There just aren't that many people out there who have THAT MUCH sex. They wish, but no.

They are getting symptom relief — Bitter Crank

Symptom relief, a temporary forgetfulness, of their low self-esteem.

I've come across people with some quite odd preferences, people whose impulse control was somewhat deficient, criminal predators, petty crooks, hustlers, prostitutes, guys that spent too much time thinking about sex, people who spent way too much time in bars drinking, and so on -- but maybe only three hypersexuals since 1968. There just aren't that many people out there who have THAT MUCH sex. They wish, but no. — Bitter Crank

Yes I agree that there's not that many, that's why I stated that most people aren't like this. Of course then there's the danger of falling to the other side - some people, despite having someone nearby who is a good match for them, refuse to engage in any sexual behaviour. That is a different fear, a fear of commitment, intimacy, dependence; a fear of being open and truly relating to the other person, a fear of loss of autonomy. This is a symptom of too much self-concern, and too much self-love; narcissism; or again, a fear of inadequacy, and a fear of vulnerability. There's also the people who only want sex with strangers - presumably also this latter fear of vulnerability, combined with a fear of responsibility. But a strong man is neither of those two extremes, but a balanced middle. He will not be afraid to pounce, but only if the circumstances are right.

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. — Agustino

You just sort of announce things, as if they're self-evident. Relationships rise and fall for all sorts of reasons: stresses, incompatibility, boredom, or whatever, none of which are character defects. It's not like every person of upstanding character is compatible with every other person of upstanding character.

Your other comment here is striking for how incorrect it is. Sex can dramatically change a relationship, either improving it by bringing the people closer together or by destroying a friendship. If you don't believe me, go screw your best friend and see if everything is the same the next morning. The point being that sex is an important component of a relationship, but obviously one of many.

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. — Agustino

It's really not important to me if you have sex or not, but at least make sense when you present your case. Your references to celibacy conjure thoughts of lifelong abstinence for spiritual reasons, but then you go on to say that really you're only advocating abstinence before marriage. And by "marriage," unless you're committed to the Christian concept of two souls melding as one, I assume you simply mean a truly committed relationship. If that is the case, then all you're telling me is that you don't want to have casual sex, but you want to be sure it's with someone you truly care about. What started out as advocating celibacy turns out really to be just a hyperbolic way of saying you object to promiscuity. I mean that's hardly a controversial position. Such a position avoids STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and a certain amount of guilt, regret, and heartbreak I suppose from time to time, so it's a fairly supportable position.

Where your argument makes no sense is in your correlation of celibacy (as you've defined it) with being alone. I'm not sure why celibates who are just waiting for marriage cannot have meaningful friendships or even romantic non-sexual relationships. Those who preach abstinence do not mean that you can't date anyone. They just don't want you to have sex until marriage.

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"). — Agustino

I don't favor promiscuity, but your simple declaration that those who are out looking for meaningless sex are somehow flawed is nothing but a moral judgment by you as to what sex ought to represent to people. There are those who don't live by that standard and go happily on their way, which simply means that your advice may not be useful to a segment of the population.

Only when one has reached their potential for freedom and independence can they truly enjoy sex - not as slaves running after something without which they cannot live - but as dignified human beings, sharing their freedom with one another out of a free choice to do so. — Agustino

The gift of being able to channel other people's experiences and declaring them inadequate is quite a talent of yours. I can only imagine the surprise of those who thought they were truly enjoying sex, but are now learning they weren't.

Running to the closest woman because I cannot control my sexual impulse is shameful - a parade of my un-freedom, masking itself as a free decision, when it is no free decision, but a forced decision. — Agustino

It's not shameful as much as it might be embarrassing and futile. Although I am far from being one to offer advice on how to score with the ladies, sprinting up to them asking for sexual release might not be effective.

Your other comment here is striking for how incorrect it is. Sex can dramatically change a relationship, either improving it by bringing the people closer together or by destroying a friendship. If you don't believe me, go screw your best friend and see if everything is the same the next morning. The point being that sex is an important component of a relationship, but obviously one of many. — Hanover

Ok, I agree to this by and large. However, I disagree that screwing my best friend will necessarily change our relationship, anymore than taking her on a fantastic boat ride would - it depends on the expectations which each has. There's many shared experiences which can change a relationship, and sex is just one of them.

Your references to celibacy conjure thoughts of lifelong abstinence for spiritual reasons, but then you go on to say that really you're only advocating abstinence before marriage — Hanover

I think I said this in my very first post, sorry if this wasn't clear enough.

I'm not sure why celibates who are just waiting for marriage cannot have meaningful friendships or even romantic non-sexual relationships. Those who preach abstinence do not mean that you can't date anyone. They just don't want you to have sex until marriage. — Hanover

Dating without sex doesn't seem to make much sense. I would just call that a form of friendship, albeit different than what is usually understood by friendship. And yes, by marriage I mean a strong committed relationship, not necessarily something approved of by a priest. I do think that friendship comes first, dating is merely a transition from just friendship, to something more. In a Venn diagram, dating is the intersection between the friendship circle, and the relationship/marriage circle.

I don't favor promiscuity, but your simple declaration that those who are out looking for meaningless sex are somehow flawed is nothing but a moral judgment by you as to what sex ought to represent to people. There are those who don't live by that standard and go happily on their way, which simply means that your advice may not be useful to a segment of the population. — Hanover

I'm afraid this doesn't follow. A drug addict may happily go his way and ignore my advice, but that is not an argument against my advice being useful. My advice is useful if he had only listened to it. Arguments against my advice being useful are intellectual, his not being helped by my advice is a problem of will; he makes a free choice to ignore it.

I can only imagine the surprise of those who thought they were truly enjoying sex, but are now learning they weren't. — Hanover

Well perhaps they should think about it themselves, and ponder it carefully, and see afterwards if in fact they do not come to this same conclusion.

It's not shameful as much as it might be embarrassing and futile. Although I am far from being one to offer advice on how to score with the ladies, sprinting up to them asking for sexual release might not be effective. — Hanover

You understand what I meant though - of course there are "socially acceptable" (read, effective) ways of sprinting up to them and asking for sexual release, obviously not directly.

However, I disagree that screwing my best friend will necessarily change our relationship, anymore than taking her on a fantastic boat ride would - it depends on the expectations which each has. — Agustino

Uh, yeah. Sure. Just like going on a cool boat ride.

Dating without sex doesn't seem to make much sense. — Agustino

So it's not a date until you have sex? What was it before the moment of penetration? Just a friendly encounter?

A drug addict may happily go his way and ignore my advice, but that is not an argument against my advice being useful. — Agustino

My point is that there is enough variation in acceptable behavior that someone doesn't have to model themselves after you in order to be normal. I'd also say that your views seem to be based upon intellectual notions of virtue and righteousness as opposed to any real life analysis. We are talking about human behaviors and relationships which are inherently emotionally based, which means that any analysis that simply declares a behavior inappropriate based upon some logical reason will be incomplete (and really naïve sounding). We all understand that if logic controlled such matters, Romeo wouldn't have dated Juliette. Of course, they really never "dated" because they didn't have sex before they were married.

Well perhaps they should think about it themselves, and ponder it carefully, and see afterwards if in fact they do not come to this same conclusion. — Agustino

Sort of like telling me that I really didn't enjoy that glass of wine because I didn't comprehend the nuances of a glass of wine well drunk, despite my assurances that I did. We're now into refined fucking that only the sophisticated can truly appreciate I guess. Sounds complicated and somewhat tiring. Too each his own I guess.

So it's not a date until you have sex? What was it before the moment of penetration? Just a friendly encounter? — Hanover

In a Venn diagram, dating is the intersection between the friendship circle, and the relationship/marriage circle. — Agustino

This wasn't very well phrased from me, my apologies. I mean to say that there's no abrupt change between the two (friendship and relationship), but rather a gradual transition which passes through dating. I don't really consider it a relationship until sex is also included; it would seem strange, at least to me, taking into account the culture of the place where I've grown up, for it to be considered a relationship prior to sexual contact. But I agree by and large - this view is something that can differ between people, there's no intellectual argument for it one way or another.

My point is that there is enough variation in acceptable behavior that someone doesn't have to model themselves after you in order to be normal. — Hanover

True, but some things can be determined to be wrong. In this case promiscuity can be determined to be deleterious, both to the participants themselves, as well as to the society at large. If you would like I can provide a detailed argument for why this is so (I have just recently in fact provided the argument but only for social damage in a response to BC on the other forum http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=74551&findpost=1368094#post1368094
also post 29 in the same thread. )

I'd also say that your views seem to be based upon intellectual notions of virtue and righteousness as opposed to any real life analysis. — Hanover

My ideas of virtue and righteousness are based on real life. In fact most people on Earth share those values by and large - if not in practice, then at least as an ideal.

We are talking about human behaviors and relationships which are inherently emotionally based, which means that any analysis that simply declares a behavior inappropriate based upon some logical reason will be incomplete (and really naïve sounding). — Hanover

Yes but claiming that emotionally based behavior cannot be critiqued, and that right and wrong cannot be determined in emotionally based behavior is simply not true. Beating up your brother because he stole the keys to your car may be an emotionally based behavior, but that doesn't excuse it from being criticized, and being analyzed to determine whether it is right or wrong. Same for promiscuous sex.

Of course, they really never "dated" because they didn't have sex before they were married. — Hanover

This was addressed before in this current post.

Sort of like telling me that I really didn't enjoy that glass of wine because I didn't comprehend the nuances of a glass of wine well drunk, despite my assurances that I did. We're now into refined fucking that only the sophisticated can truly appreciate I guess. — Hanover

No it's not like this at all. It's about an activity that is bringing you some harm, and yet you refuse to perceive the harm. Just like taking drugs does harm to a drug addict, and yet they often fail to perceive the harm, and overly emphasize the good feelings they get from it.

...but that doesn't excuse it from being criticized, and being analyzed to determine whether it is right or wrong. Same for promiscuous sex. — Agustino

So what might one say about the rightness or wrongness of promiscuous sex (abb. PS)?

PS is inappropriate for the actor IF the behavior arises from a compulsion and not from a decision that one will engage in sex promiscuously. Compulsions need to be dealt with, since they can result in very bad outcomes.

PS is wrong for the actor if the behavior is intended to harm someone, such as a relationship partner with whom one has had a fight. Harm can be psychological, physical, or both. "Reprisal sex" doesn't have to be promiscuous, of course, once would be too often -- think of the vindictive sex in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe" by Albee.

Unprotected sex is risky for all actors who do not know (in detail) the health status of their partners. Most of the time we can not be absolutely sure of such matters (except for ourselves). However, people vary quite a bit in their risk aversion. Some people are willing to tolerate much more risk than others (and risks can be assumed only by one's self). If I am very risk averse and engage in unprotected sex, that is a risk I have assumed. If infection is the result, that is my fault more than the other person's. (No matter what he or she said, I am the only one who can risk my safety.) Of course, this view doesn't take into account trust which can be betrayed by dishonesty.

People who have AIDS can reduce their infectivity by faithfully taking the prescribed antiviral medicines. People who are HIV negative can reduce their vulnerability to HIV by taking Truvada*** as a prophylactic. Prophylactic Truvada is about 90% effective, but like condoms, is not 100% effective. There is little chance of a someone with AIDS who is taking antiretroviral drugs from transmitting the virus to someone who is taking Truvada, even without any barrier protection. It just isn't zero risk.

Engaging in PS and misleading one's partner(s) about one's promiscuity, is dishonest, deceptive, and therefore wrong for the actor. The actor's partners are well advised to decide for themselves how much risk the actor is worth, regardless of what the actor is saying.

Engaging in PS with partners who are also engaging in PS (or can be presumed from context to be so engaged) is right. People may choose how often and with whom they wish to have sex, and risk tolerant people can engage with many partners. There are contexts available for this kind of sexual behavior (gay bath houses, brothels, out-call services, parks, street prostitutes, etc.).

What this boils down to is this: IF people wish to engage in promiscuous sex, and they engage in promiscuous sex in settings where PS is expected, and the participants are risk tolerant, no one is being deceived, then PS is morally acceptable. No one could be harmed who was not aware that they were engaging in behavior that carried risks. PS is wrong where deception, deceit, or punitive intent is central.

***Truvada is an HIV nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor and prevents HIV from reproducing within target cells. There are no significant side-effects at low dosage.

I do not agree with the connection that you seem to be making between celibacy and anti-natalism. I don't often talk about this, but I am also celibate, i.e. I abstain from sexual intercourse, and have done so for years. I have rarely sought sexual activity with others in my life, and the few sexual encounters that I've had with others were not genuine for my part. I am not like the vast majority of people. I have little-to-no desire for sexual intercourse. But I strongly reject the suggestion that I am - and others like me are - therefore "practically assenting to anti-natalism". That's false. That you "happen to be celibate" does not imply that you're anti-natalist - I for one am not. That one is celibate because one is anti-natalist makes more sense (although that'd be extremely cautious, given the availability of effective contraception - especially with regards to this so-called weak anti-natalism, since ending up being responsible for something that is merely unjustified is not as big a deal as being responsible for something that is immoral, and greatly immoral at that, as most anti-natalists would claim), but the converse makes no sense.

Anyway, I've just seen that the lizard beat me to the punch back on page 2, meaning that this reply is redundant. I expected that someone would.

The reason why I do not identity as an anti-natalist is, unsurprisingly, because I do not agree with anti-natalism. I don't agree with anti-natalism because it requires a short-sightedness or willful ignorance. I think that anti-natalism is better defined as the view that we should not procreate, because that seems to be what drives anti-natalism - whether strong or weak, i.e, whether procreation is claimed to be immoral or only claimed to be unjustified.

I took the relationship between celibacy and weak anti-natalism in @Thorongil's post to be one of indistinguishability in behavioural commitments, but not moral commitments. A person with a commitment to celibacy will in practice also be an "anti-natalist" in a weak sense by virtue of the reproductive upshot of celibacy. I don't think Thorongil wanted to commit to the position that celibacy entails a corresponding anti-natalist attitude.

I took the relationship between celibacy and weak anti-natalism in Thorongil's post to be one of indistinguishability in behavioural commitments, but not moral commitments. A person with a commitment to celibacy will in practice also be an "anti-natalist" in a weak sense by virtue of the reproductive upshot of celibacy. — Soylent

No, it's not correct to state that a celibate is an anti-natalist, in any sense, simply by virtue of being celibate. The prefix "anti" means "opposed to" or "against", and natalism is the position that reproduction is acceptable. The abstention from sex is not the same as the opposition to reproduction, and the latter doesn't follow from the former. The distinction is clear. An anti-natalist doesn't need to be celibate, and a celibate doesn't need to be anti-natalist, and neither position implicitly supports, or conforms with, the other. To conform with anti-natalism, I'd have to oppose reproduction, and I do not, nor do I behave as one who does so, since I don't go around condemning it and trying to persuade others that no one should ever reproduce.

I don't think Thorongil wanted to commit to the position that celibacy entails a corresponding anti-natalist attitude. — Soylent

It's an inappropriate use of that term, regardless. Are you anti-religious, just because you don't go to church? Are you anti-abortion if you've never had an abortion? Are you anti-drugs if you don't do drugs?

A celibate is neither anti-natalism nor pro-natalism by virtue of being celibate. Celibates are just a small minority which, if they vastly grew in size, would - inadvertently in some cases - benefit the cause of anti-natalism; unless artificial insemination is ruled out by natalism, and I don't see why it would be, since my understanding is that it's about promoting birth, rather than promoting birth specifically through sex. So the two are irrelevant to one another, and the perceived connection is misguided.

Truvada is an HIV nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor and prevents HIV from reproducing within target cells. — Bitter Crank

Analog is so old school. Is this hipster medicine? When is the digitally remastered version coming out?

No, it's not correct to state that a celibate is an anti-natalist, in any sense, simply by virtue of being celibate. The prefix "anti" means "opposed to" or "against", and natalism is the position that reproduction is acceptable — Sapientia

Which is why I think Thorongil settled on anatalism to describe the weak "anti-natalist" position. I think it would be analogous to calling a person who doesn't go to church as irreligious, but irreligious is indistinguishable from the weak anti-religious position, whatever that might be, in behavioural commitments. I'm not sure what purpose Thorongil's use of anatalism serves for describing celibacy, but it seems to be related to the shift away from the anti-natalist self-identification, which might be related to your criticism of "anti-religion" and "anti-abortion" being an inappropriate description (i.e., they're not opposed to it, they just don't do it).

Analog is so old school. Is this hipster medicine? When is the digitally remastered version coming out? — Hanover

RCA Victor is having problems with the 78 rpm master of "Transcriptase Gets In Your Eyes" (it has to be played in reverse). When they do that the nukuler side explodes. What to do, what to do?

Which is why I think Thorongil settled on anatalism to describe the weak "anti-natalist" position. I think it would be analogous to calling a person who doesn't go to church as irreligious, but irreligious is indistinguishable from the weak anti-religious position, whatever that might be, in behavioural commitments. I'm not sure what purpose Thorongil's use of anatalism serves for describing celibacy, but it seems to be related to the shift away from the anti-natalist self-identification, which might be related to your criticism of "anti-religion" and "anti-abortion" being an inappropriate description (i.e., they're not opposed to it, they just don't do it). — Soylent

OK. Good for Thorongil if he finds the term "anatalism" useful. I, on the other hand, do not find it particularly useful. I don't talk about anti-natalism very often (I find it a little odd that it seems to have become a popular talking point on this site), and when I have done, I've found it sufficient to simply state that I am not one.

As for your analogy, it is not a true analogy for reasons that I've already stated. The relevant behavioural commitments of the irreligious and the weak anti-religious might be indistinguishable, but that is not the case with regards to the celibate and the weak anti-natalist. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion unless you're confused about what the respective positions entail and/or have been ignoring the distinguishing features that have already been pointed out. I will point out the difference once more:

• The celibate commits to not having sex, but is not necessarily committed against having children, and can consistently do so through artificial insemination.
  
• The anti-natalist is committed against having children, but is not necessarily committed against having sex, and can consistently do so with effective contraception.

So no, they're clearly not indistinguishable in terms of behavioural commitments, nor are the positions necessarily compatible.

I'd also add that if the celibacy is the result of social inability to find a partner or simple lack of interest in pursuing sexual relationships, then it has nothing at all to do with wanting or not wanting children. There are plenty of women who have chosen to become pregnant but have not wanted to be in a relationship and there are plenty of people who have wanted to have children but who couldn't find a partner.

I'd also point out that if your celibacy is the result of inability, then you may want to work on those issues as opposed to philosophizing them away and convincing yourself that you're advancing some higher objective. I have the sneaky suspicion that all this "I'm not interested in such matters" would get turned upside down if the right person came along. Own it and fix it.

I understand the difference, I was also trying to understand Thorongil's position in relation to anatalism. I understood the celibacy comment to describe that Thorongil identifies as an anatalist both because it is not justifiable to have children, and also because the lifestyle commitment is unlikely to produce a child by the reproductive upshot. I take that to mean that Thorongil is celibate and will not use artificial insemination or any other medical intervention to have a child. It's a personal identification as anatalist not referring to the moral status of having children.

I'd also point out that if your celibacy is the result of inability, then you may want to work on those issues as opposed to philosophizing them away and convincing yourself that you're advancing some higher objective. I have the sneaky suspicion that all this "I'm not interested in such matters" would get turned upside down if the right person came along. Own it and fix it. — Hanover

That might not have been directed at me, but I'll reply anyway.

Personally, I feel much better living a more comfortable and honest life identifying more as an asexual than anything else. I prefer to remain single, because I think that most people want something out of a relationship that I do not want. In public day-to-day life, I still tend not to reveal that information, but I started telling close friends and others a while back. Most people assume that I'm heterosexual, and some people think that I am - or might be - homosexual; and they assume that I want to have sexual and romantic relationships (and some people probably assume that I just can't get laid), and I often don't correct them and I will often go along with it.

I've moved on from the denial stage, and don't view this as a phase or a problem that needs to be fixed, if indeed it could be. Perhaps the right person will come along and change everything, but I very much doubt it. I can't imagine who the right person could be, given that I'm not attracted to people, whether male or female, in the way that others are.

If I got as much enjoyment out of having sex as the average person does, then I certainly wouldn't abstain from it. I am quite hedonistic and prone to excess, and I don't have much of a chip on my shoulder about such things, so I doubt that this would be an exception. I think that doing so for philosophical or - even worse - religious reasons is rather misguided.

I understand the difference, I was also trying to understand Thorongil's position in relation to anatalism. I understood the celibacy comment to describe that Thorongil identifies as an anatalist both because it is not justifiable to have children, and also because the lifestyle commitment is unlikely to produce a child by the reproductive upshot. I take that to mean that Thorongil is celibate and will not use artificial insemination or any other medical intervention to have a child. It's a personal identification as anatalist not referring to the moral status of having children. — Soylent

Are you saying that he is saying that he is celibate because he is anatalist, or vice versa? It seems to me that it's vice versa, based on the following:

So now I identify as an anatalist, both because I find natalism unjustified and because I happen to be celibate. — Thorongil

The first part makes sense to me, but not the latter part. The latter part seems irrelevant and not something that should determine whether or not one becomes an anatalist.

I also still reject the following:

[The weak anti-natalist] 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

Someone whose lifestyle negates the possibility of having children would just be someone who happens to inadvertently conform with the life choice of a weak anti-natalist. It has nothing to do with assent, which is a wilful acceptance, and without such explicit assent, it'd be a mistake to judge that they "practically assent" based solely upon said-lifestyle, unless it was clear that they held weak anti-natalist views without realising it. There are other, more likely, explanations.

Are you saying that he is saying that he is celibate because he is anatalist, or vice versa? It seems to me that it's vice versa — Sapientia

I don't think the celibacy and the weak anti-natalism inform each other. They are different commitments that are cashed out as the same behavioural upshot for Thorongil. Or to state otherwise, Thorongil's celibacy as a lifestyle choice is unlikely to produce children (anatalist) and the moral position that having children is not wrong but also not right is unlikely to produce children (anatalist). Because of the two distinct positions, Thorongil identifies as anatalist rather than anti-natalist.

I do agree though that celibacy simpliciter does not preclude the option to have children, but it may be the case that a person that chooses celibacy has, at least in themselves, tacitly assented to the position that it is not the case that one ought to have children. It might also be significant that Thorongil hasn't committed to a strong position either by disclaiming the weak anti-nalalist position with the word "could". That is different than saying "the weak anti-natalist is also someone whose lifestyle..." Celibacy from inopportunity is not anatalist in the weak "anti-natalist" sense and neither is infertility.

Or to state otherwise, Thorongil's celibacy as a lifestyle choice is unlikely to produce children (anatalist) and the moral position that having children is not wrong but also not right is unlikely to produce children (anatalist). Because of the two distinct positions, Thorongil identifies as anatalist rather than anti-natalist. — Soylent

But the former is a poor reason to become (or identity as) an anatalist, and should not influence the decision. It should be incidental.

Celibacy is one path that an anti-natalist could take subsequent to becoming an anti-natalist, but not the only path, and not necessarily the best path. For most anti-natalists, it will probably not be. For most anti-natalists, having a vasectomy or having only contraceptive sex will probably be the best path to take. Then they can continue to have worry-free sex if they so desire.

This underlying conflation of sex and reproduction is misguided. We naturally associate the two, but in this case it's problematic.

I do agree though that celibacy simpliciter does not preclude the option to have children, but it may be the case that a person that chooses celibacy has, at least in themselves, tacitly assented to the position that it is not the case that one ought to have children. — Soylent

That may or may not be the case. What matters here is the assent (whether "tacit" or otherwise), not the celibacy.

It might also be significant that Thorongil hasn't committed to a strong position either by disclaiming the weak anti-nalalist position with the word "could". That is different than saying "the weak anti-natalist is also someone whose lifestyle..." — Soylent

Yes, point taken.

I'd also point out that if your celibacy is the result of inability, then you may want to work on those issues as opposed to philosophizing them away and convincing yourself that you're advancing some higher objective. I have the sneaky suspicion that all this "I'm not interested in such matters" would get turned upside down if the right person came along. Own it and fix it. — Hanover

Hanover, your response would be appropriate if this were a therapy group. You're right -- people do sometimes disown what they can not do, can not get, can not have--the fox and the sour grapes bit.

However, this is ostensibly not a therapy group and when thoughtful, articulate posters claim certain ground on philosophical principles, their position should not be gainsaid.*** Maybe antinatalists have discovered they are sterile, but I would doubt any such explanation. I am a pro-natalist (in principle, a total flop in practice), though I think it is definitely a good idea to reduce the world's population. Celibacy is appropriate for some people; it was (is) inappropriate for me and thee.

***This is gainsay/gainsaid's debut here. Middle English, 'gain' from 'against'. Perhaps Germanic by way of Old French, gaigne (noun), gaignier.

I did point out the logical problems with the association of celibacy and the anti-natalist position, indicating that there is simply no way to correlate the two. You can hate sex and want more children in the world, love sex and want no more children in the world, hate sex and hate children, and love sex and love children. We could even change the word "hate" to "be indifferent to" and "love" to "sort of like" and even create more logical possibilities. Every possible logical possibility can exist.

This being a philosophy forum, and my response being so obvious, I can only wonder (and admittedly out loud) why someone might try to draw a correlation when there isn't one. My thought was that the OP wasn't rational at all, but more of a rationalization; thus my response, which included a possible reason one might wish to rationalize.

I'd also point out that if a rule were passed requiring that I remain on topic, the world would have lost out on some of my most interesting insights.

I did point out the logical problems with the association of celibacy and the anti-natalist position, indicating that there is simply no way to correlate the two. You can hate sex and want more children in the world, love sex and want no more children in the world, hate sex and hate children, and love sex and love children. We could even change the word "hate" to "be indifferent to" and "love" to "sort of like" and even create more logical possibilities. Every possible logical possibility can exist.

This being a philosophy forum, and my response being so obvious, I can only wonder (and admittedly out loud) why someone might try to draw a correlation when there isn't one. My thought was that the OP wasn't rational at all, but more of a rationalization; thus my response, which included a possible reason one might wish to rationalize.

I'd also point out that if a rule were passed requiring that I remain on topic, the world would have lost out on some of my most interesting insights. — Hanover

If you think about his premise, his reaction is logical. If his premise is a sort of Schopenhauerian view that we are sort of manifestations of will- a principle that does not care about our happiness, and constantly needs to be "fed" with cravings, he is trying to lessen the principle by diminishing its power over him. So based on the premise, which is assumed is true by Thorongil, the reaction to it follows. Though a valid response, you may question the premise, or offer an alternative response. For example, you may claim that there is no will. The counter might be that if there is no Will in a metaphysical sense, behind the scenery of the universe- that is to say, outside of space/time in the Schopenhauerian sense, there is at least a less grand version of this in the form of the sexual appetite which, in its own way may make the person a "slave" to its demands. All the dramas of love, loss, and the sheer amount of effort put in the venture can be more than ample empirical evidence for this. To diminish its grip on our desires, may be what he and other ascetics are trying to do here. Being that it is a powerful force that was/is necessary to propel the next generation, I cannot see how it could be downplayed as less than a basic drive (that may or may not be able to be diminished through ascetic practices). If Schopenhauer and the Buddhists were right that desire can lead to pain and suffering, then if one is really serious about kicking the desire habit, one would try to become an ascetic. One might even attempt suicide to completely get rid of oneself. In a way, asceticism is a long drawn out suicide of one's giving into desires- diminishing it to a degree of indifference where one is fine simply dying from starvation. I think the only group that even contemplates this approach to asceticism are hardcore Jains who by a certain age refuse food and water and are content to die of starvation.

I don't think that your reply to Hanover actually addresses the very clear and specific point that he made, nor does it seem to address anti-natalism or anatalism - which is clearly what this discussion was created to discuss.

In your block of text, there is just a single sentence which is closer to the topic of discussion, which states that sexual appetite is "a powerful force that is necessary to propel the next generation". But it remains the case that you don't need to have sex in order to reproduce, so that comment is mistaken or beside the point.

Your whole reply seems to boil down to an attempted justification of a restrained will or desire, but fails to even address - let alone resolve - the erroneous association between anti-natalism and celibacy that Hanover and I have pointed out.

I don't think that your reply to Hanover actually addresses the very clear and specific point that he made, nor does it seem to address anti-natalism or anatalism - which is clearly what this discussion was created to discuss. — Sapientia

That's just, like, your opinion man.

In your block of text, there is just a single sentence which is closer to the topic of discussion, which states that sexual appetite is "a powerful force that is necessary to propel the next generation". But it remains the case that you don't need to have sex in order to reproduce, so that comment is mistaken or beside the point. — Sapientia

Well, this thread seemed to talk about celibacy more than antinatalism so I am sticking to that.

Your whole reply seems to boil down to an attempted justification of a restrained will or desire, but fails to even address - let alone resolve - the erroneous association between anti-natalism and celibacy that Hanover and I have pointed out. — Sapientia

Yep, I didn't address antinatalism. I just thought the point about celibacy makes sense in a Schopenhauerian context. Hanover lobbed some comments regarding the need to get laid or some such, and I was just giving some possible context for Thorongil's justification for ascetic practice. As far as antinatalism, I think it is quite clear you don't have to be celibate to be an antinatalist or a weak antinatalist or whatever you want to call it.

I have a problem -- I am pro-natalist, BUT in the light of global warming and over-population various species, including us, may require a lot fewer people in the next several generations in order to survive and thrive. There's an obvious contradiction for you.

It seems to be the case that a high level of prosperity seems to discourage parenthood. It probably takes too much effort for most people to both raise lots of children and achieve a high level of prosperity. Plus, the 1 or 2 children born to prosperous parents are likely to survive, whereas a high percentage of the children born to those in deep poverty are likely to die in childhood.

How do we reduce the rate (or even reverse the rate) of population growth while maintaining that sex and children are a good thing?

We don't have the means to instantly create prosperity everywhere so that parents have fewer children. We don't want to impose draconian birth rate measures or reversal policies which would be extremely dehumanizing to live under or enforce. We don't seem to be able to persuade ourselves or other people to forego immediate pleasures for long-term survival. We also have zero likelihood of convincing a supermajority of the world's human breeding pairs to stop having sex and/or stop having children.

As part of my pro-nativity program, I wish for humans and the other species to thrive long into the future. More wolves will keep the deer under control, more owls, hawks, and eagles will keep the smaller vermin under control, but what will keep us under control, top predators that we are. Should we breed super-wolves and unusually smart lions to prowl our cities and prairies to reduce the human population? Put some teeth into those old rhymes, "Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf" or "Lions, and tigers, and bears..." ("But grandma, what big teeth you have! The better to eat you with, my dear.")

Bears? Cute little teddy bears? An adult bear can disembowel the toughest human with one swipe of their very strong, very long-clawed paw. (Well, to be precise, the appendage to which the long-clawed paw is attached is very strong.) And snarf up a 5 year old as a mid-morning snack. The howls and growls of what's lurking out there in the dark, and might come crashing through a window or door at any moment, should unnerve people enough that they won't feel like having sex. Populations drop; world is saved; future generations worship wolves, lions, and bears as their saviors.

Just joking, of course. Obviously. Right?