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

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

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

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

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

Nope. — Michael

Let me ask you this then, apart from the 'health' reasons for having sex... — Question

Nothing I've said would preclude that. Whether its preferable or not depends on the context. When I was referring to "full top-down intellectual control" to repress the sex drive I was referring primarily to the type of repression that occurs in those who have chosen celibacy as a way of life. — Baden

And forgive the following bit of analysis, but this seems to me to be the nub of it. Ultimately what you want is prestige (i.e. social power) - your goal is to elevate your social self, which is natural enough, but you are frustrated by a society that considers sex as both normal and desirable. — Baden

prestige and social power are normally desired not simply as ends in themselves but, whether we are conscious of it or not, as furthering the biological end of sex. — Baden

Children are growing up oversexed and underfucked with all sorts of self-esteem issues due to the image society projects of a 'healthy' and 'successful' male. — Question

Lord Agu. — Heister Eggcart

I don't know what religious background you've come from, but I remember telling Agustino (to his confusion) that I see myself as being Christian, but a Christian. — Heister Eggcart

your patiently waiting balls — Heister Eggcart

You blind, Agu? — Heister Eggcart

Yes, like how we treat those who are mentally ill...oh wait. — Heister Eggcart

The latter, however, I see as preferable (as long as both partners are aware of the circumstances and consensual) to pretending to have full top-down intellectual control of the sexual drive and repressing it for whatever religious or ideological reason (preferable for a normal male at least - as mentioned earlier). — Baden

At last! The admission that explains your views. When it comes to the healthy sex drives of 3.5 billion men, you don't know what you are talking about. ` — Bitter Crank

They were here at the beginning and they are still here. Most species have long, long, long since disappeared. They will be here long after everything else. They are the preeminent success story in terms of survival. — Bitter Crank

Actually, fires have never brought down steel buildings, ever, in the past. And, no plane had to hit WTC7; but, supposedly office fires brought it down also. It's an insult to the intelligence and effort of the engineers who build the World Trade Centers, who by the way actually overengineered the buildings to withstand a plane hit. What you're describing was first called the "pancake effect", which NIST even walked back on due to its absurdity. — Question

Your strenuous arguments against people having sex in anything but the pristine confines of a lasting monogamous relationship is clearly a form of sublimating your own sex drive — Bitter Crank

You are substituting argument for sex in this discussion and getting the results all over everybody. — Bitter Crank

If sex depended on culture, evolution would have ceased and desisted a very long time ago. We, and everything more complicated than bacteria, wouldn't be here. Sex is a biological drive, like hunger, thirst, and sleep. The restrictions of society are the price of human advancement. Culture channels sex, but it doesn't provide its power. That's biology. Culture attempts to specify what sorts of emotional satisfactions we are to obtain from "proper sex" but our emotions always supersede culture. — Bitter Crank

Our human natures are always in conflict with our created societies. That's why life is essentially neurotic. The closer we come to actually blocking drives (and not just channeling them) the closer we are to neuroses bordering on actual pathology. Your path of restricting sex to either a consecrated marriage or an unconsecrated, long-term monogamous relationship, and disparaging all others, amounts to recommending that the sex drive either obey your rules or be blocked. That is the path to craziness. — Bitter Crank

You are more mesmerized by sexual imagery than most people are, apparently. You are taking what you see on the screen for the content of western culture. It isn't so. — Bitter Crank

More gobbledygook. You're making a real fool out of yourself here. But go on... — Baden

Rather mine than yours, methinks. — Baden

"Neurosis" and "society" are a combo package. In order to construct society we have to limit our individual drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites. Limiting natural drives, urges, aspirations, and appetites produces neuroses. "Limit" isn't the same as "blocking", however. It's a fair tradeoff. Society makes all kinds of things possible, and we have more or less learned to live with the resulting neuroses. — Bitter Crank

It works for them. It works for bacteria so well, that they have been around longer than any other form of life. — Bitter Crank

Bare assertion. Either read and try to understand my posts sans prejudice, and respond with an actual argument or stop wasting both of our time. — Baden

I also think that unless you are biologically abnormal (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) denying yourself sex (as a man at least) is bound to lead to neurosis. — Baden

For a brief period of my life, I had been interested in Buddhism and Eastern Philosophy in general. It made so much sense and I saw so much overlap with Stoicism, which also deeply intrigued me -- until I stumbled upon this video. Then I remembered this TED talk as well. That is when I decided to let go of Stoicism and Buddhism. — Emptyheady

Read my posts again and try to respond to the substance with a minimum of charity. — Baden

However, natural selection is a beautiful thing: — Emptyheady

What it does suggest is that sex, stripped of its prudish sacralization, can be a sensual pleasure like any other, and that sex-snacking isn't such a bad thing. — jamalrob

The problem there in my opinion is the culture of monogamy. In a culture where monogamy isn't the norm by polyamory is, then there's no issue there. — Terrapin Station

They can live together. It requires the virtue of forbearance instead of the sin of violence. — Benkei

So can I. What do you think I was doing while writing the poem? :P — Baden

A neurosis would consist in an intellect thinking it can reverse engineer the biology of the human animal in which it resides into something that meets its metaphysical standards. Or one which fails to recognize the influence of the social/emotional level sandwiched between its intellectual and animal selves. — Baden

And you are obsessed with people being obsessed with sex. At least you must be to draw that conclusion from what I wrote. — Baden

Also, nothing in what I wrote suggests I have to "explain" monks or celibates as if their existence contradicts anything I've said. — Baden

Getting back to the OP. No, I don't think sex is "idolized" in the west. Sex, like violence, is repressed in every human society, some more so than others. I also think that unless you are biologically abnormal (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) denying yourself sex (as a man at least) is bound to lead to neurosis. — Baden

Not if you're protestant. Damn you and your materialist body, save your soul and pray to God and thank Jesus for dying for your carnal sins. (Also, him dying didn't help because you're still a sinful slacker). — Benkei

Ethics is the answer to the predicament of material human beings. It makes no sense otherwise. — jamalrob

I dare say if you were to find out that the material doesn't exist, the same thing would happen. Which is to say that a virtuous person is virtuous not in spite of but because of his materiality. — jamalrob

I don't think it follows that the analogy fails, but only that sex is far more complicated than food. — jamalrob

That seems to be an ignorant and prejudiced judgment, and nothing more. I can't see how you think that I have given up on what is noble, unless you're simply regurgitating (though you're in good company) the old prejudice of philosophy and religion, namely that the material world is inferior--and thus opposed to--the spiritual. I've never gone along with that, but that doesn't mean I have to ditch nobility. It just means I want to redefine it without reference to the dichotomy. — jamalrob

Perhaps both. And clearly it's enough to warrant whatever risks there may be (I assume you mean pregnancy and STIs?), especially given appropriate protection. — Michael

And which have said that casual sex is always a bad thing? — Michael

So the one study is right and the others wrong because you agree with the one and not the others. (Well, and plus the conclusions you've already reached in the course of your life experience.) — Terrapin Station

Would you explain this to women when it comes to chocolate — m-theory

Right, so you have no empirical evidence supporting your conclusion there, though? — Terrapin Station

You appeared to be saying that regardless of what people claimed re psychological benefits versus detriments, in reality, there were detriments only. Were you not claiming that? — Terrapin Station

And psychologists are more knowledgeable than you about psychology (assuming that you're not a psychologist yourself, but an engineer, say), and they have taken the evidence and concluded that casual sex isn't always a bad thing. — Michael

Because I might find sex more pleasurable than masturbation. — Michael

Because I might not want the level of intimacy found in a life-long monogamous relationship, or anything else that comes with such commitment. I might prefer the intimacy of friends and casual sex. — Michael

Body am I entirely, and nothing more; and soul is only the name of something in the body. — jamalrob

Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility. The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to receive a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should prefer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning

It's the tapas thing again (is this a vulgar analogy? perhaps). A snack need not be a sordid indulgence, but rather a brief sensual pleasure taken seriously. — jamalrob

I wouldn't entirely go along with what I imagine others here might say, viz., whatever floats your boat. — jamalrob

Sure, and you claim that regardless, there was empirical evidence of negative psychological consequences in that study? — Terrapin Station

So in all of the studies, there was empirical evidence of negative psychological consequences, despite what the research subjects said and despite the conclusions reached by the people conducting the studies. Could you explain how this is the case? — Terrapin Station

With this line of reasoning one can dismiss any and all evidence. — Michael

Do you have a method for determining the effects of casual sex that is better than that of professional psychologists doing professional studies? — Michael

Thus, I want to say that casual sex is an important or good part of life — jamalrob

Are you really sure? — TheMadFool

Are you sure? — TheMadFool

So you're appealing to empirical evidence of something that is not at all in any studies? — Terrapin Station

So this evidence makes the claim "casual sex doesn't always have negative psychological consequences" more justified than the claim "casual sex always has negative psychological consequences". — Michael

That was meant to say "casual sex". — Michael