Celibacy

[RoguePaladinTrian]

I would note that for two of the societies included in your list, Athens and Rome, even if you could make the argument that they “fell” (if you read some histories, Rome was falling there for over a thousand years and yet still managed to be the top dog of the Mediterranean world) because of pervasive immorality (and I don’t think the case is there to be made), you definitely could NOT make the case that they fell because people had sex the wrong way (with perhaps two exceptions - a pre-empire Athenian citizen was hauled in to court because he was literally accused of have sex with a woman in an abnormal way, and one of the later pagan emperors of Rome defiled a Vestal Virgin on the altar of the sacred flame the Virgins had tended for centuries. That was prettymuch the worst sacrilege possible, I think. Makes for one of my favorite stories of the ancient world. In his case, though, I think his mother just had him killed and replaced with another puppet, so you would be better off saying the empire wasn’t affected so much by the sexual perversion as it was by that poisonous bitch.

[Cavelcade]

Because it will be disturbing, obviously. Way not to get the joke.

[vanguard_Ziggy]

I would note that for two of the societies included in your list, Athens and Rome, even if you could make the argument that they “fell” (if you read some histories, Rome was falling there for over a thousand years and yet still managed to be the top dog of the Mediterranean world) because of pervasive immorality (and I don’t think the case is there to be made), you definitely could NOT make the case that they fell because people had sex the wrong way (with perhaps two exceptions - a pre-empire Athenian citizen was hauled in to court because he was literally accused of have sex with a woman in an abnormal way, and one of the later pagan emperors of Rome defiled a Vestal Virgin on the altar of the sacred flame the Virgins had tended for centuries. That was prettymuch the worst sacrilege possible, I think. Makes for one of my favorite stories of the ancient world. In his case, though, I think his mother just had him killed and replaced with another puppet, so you would be better off saying the empire wasn’t affected so much by the sexual perversion as it was by that poisonous bitch.

Based on pure sexuality and different acts, I do agree with you on this, but what I was trying to point out was that with certain sexual acts, and pleasure for pleasure, it begins to dehumanize an ascpect that was once seemed very holy and important. Once that dominoe fell, others would follow. Gladiator games, slaughtering people because of illness or age. Massacring people because they have different religious beliefs, or because they held religious beliefs at all, or because they did NOT hold any religious beliefs. One by one, each domno falls, and each element then becomes dehumanized. With the lack of humanization, we then become corrupt, and the government falls.

[Rhaka]

Once upon a time it was very holy and important to massacre people who didn’t believe as you did. Just saying.

And exactly what makes this de-holying a bad thing? How does taking your religion out of the equation of an incredibly vital human act negatively affect society at large? I assure you that we still fuck as often as we did 50 years ago.

[Steve]

[i]Post removed to moderator forum so conversation can continue.

That was flaming, Steve, don’t do it[/i]

[vanguard_Ziggy]

Once upon a time it was very holy and important to massacre people who didn’t believe as you did. Just saying.

And exactly what makes this de-holying a bad thing? How does taking your religion out of the equation of an incredibly vital human act negatively affect society at large? I assure you that we still fuck as often as we did 50 years ago.

Once upon a time, it might have been called holy, but it was not holy at all, and this is coming from an orthodox roman catholic.

Yes but let’s look at our age compared to fifty years ago. Divorce rate is higher, abortion rate higher, single parent families higher, spoucal abuse and child abuse a little bit higher, perhaps not as much as it was back fifty years ago with that, but still higher. And all because we decided we didn’t need morals and could de-holify something as important as sexual intercourse.

[demigod]

Based on pure sexuality and different acts, I do agree with you on this, but what I was trying to point out was that with certain sexual acts, and pleasure for pleasure, it begins to dehumanize an ascpect that was once seemed very holy and important. Once that dominoe fell, others would follow. Gladiator games, slaughtering people because of illness or age. Massacring people because they have different religious beliefs, or because they held religious beliefs at all, or because they did NOT hold any religious beliefs. One by one, each domno falls, and each element then becomes dehumanized. With the lack of humanization, we then become corrupt, and the government falls.

Wait, what? I’m pretty sure that prior to adopting Christianity, the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t place sex on a moral pedestol. Heck, most of the Greek myths I know involve sexual debauchery, and one of my high school history teachers in complete seriousness described Zeus as a “slut-puppy”.
As for the religious massacres you imply, I’m inclined to think that was incidental to the fact the enemies of Rome or Greece tended to be of an ethnicity or tribe that had different gods, rather than religion being the driving factor. Besides which, what civilization at some point hasn’t used religion as a pretext for justified combat? U.S. vs Islamic extremists, eh?
As for standards of entertainment, sex is rated more harshly than violence in TV, movies, and video games in the U.S. We’re really quite prudish in public about it.

[vanguard_Ziggy]

Wait, what? I’m pretty sure that prior to adopting Christianity, the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t place sex on a moral pedestol. Heck, most of the Greek myths I know involve sexual debauchery, and one of my high school history teachers in complete seriousness described Zeus as a “slut-puppy”.
As for the religious massacres you imply, I’m inclined to think that was incidental to the fact the enemies of Rome or Greece tended to be of an ethnicity or tribe that had different gods, rather than religion being the driving factor. Besides which, what civilization at some point hasn’t used religion as a pretext for justified combat? U.S. vs Islamic extremists, eh?
As for standards of entertainment, sex is rated more harshly than violence in TV, movies, and video games in the U.S. We’re really quite prudish in public about it.

This much is true, but my point is, once you start dehumanizing one point of the society, step by step you’re going to have more and more elements that ARE dehumanized, and thus civilization falls.

[RoguePaladinTrian]

Yes but let’s look at our age compared to fifty years ago. Divorce rate is higher, abortion rate higher, single parent families higher, spoucal abuse and child abuse a little bit higher, perhaps not as much as it was back fifty years ago with that, but still higher. And all because we decided we didn’t need morals and could de-holify something as important as sexual intercourse.

Once again, Ziggy, you have absolutely no evidence to link an unspecified looser attitude towards sex to any of these things. May I suggest that views on sex are merely incidental towards what you might think makes a good society? It seems to me that any society that manages to enforce strict regulations regarding sex and child-rearing will have a more ordered society, regardless of what those regulations demand. In effect, what you are bemoaning here is a consequence of freedom, not immorality, since these things - single parent families, abuse, etc. - might be reduced in a society where the types of regulations are completely different from what you’d call moral.

Let’s take ancient Sparta for example. If some histories are to be believed, the entire point of the Spartan society was to breed a core of male warriors. For a while it was successful and the Spartans raped any force on land they happened across, but you would have to ask whether what they achieved was worth the ridiculously strict laws they have. For the record, if one idea is to be believed, Sparta dwindled down into a powerless village because they followed their strict laws of citenzenship so faithfully that they just weren’t able to breed enough males. So let’s kick that whole decline of civilizations thing out the window, for the Spartans were both dominant and wildly immoral (by most modern standards) at the same time, and then “fell” not because their public morality fell apart but because they kept to it too strictly.

This is unnecessary, though. If there is a single example out there that puts your views on sex to a lie, it’s the fact that there are gay couples who are able to raise perfectly happy families. If liberal attitudes towards sex should automatically induce the problems above, explain THAT one. It should be noted that the highest rates of divorce are in the red states here in the US.

Edit: It bears repeating that your theory about the fall of civilizations is utterly false. It’s more like a boring refrain that grumpy people use when they don’t like what other people are doing in their society, and serves only as a distraction from real explanations. Cato the Elder was blubbering about it before Rome had even expanded far beyond Italy, fer’ chrissakes.

Edit 2: I would also like to say that what you think about “dehumanizing” sex sounds exactly like the sort of thing people will laugh at as absurd 50 years after the fact, as with race relations, prohibition, woman’s suffrage, women’s (insert something from last 200 years HERE), evolution, etc. Your argument is more something you want to believe rather than something you have grounds for showing why you believe it, really.

[vanguard_Ziggy]

Once again, Ziggy, you have absolutely no evidence to link an unspecified looser attitude towards sex to any of these things. May I suggest that views on sex are merely incidental towards what you might think makes a good society? It seems to me that any society that manages to enforce strict regulations regarding sex and child-rearing will have a more ordered society, regardless of what those regulations demand. In effect, what you are bemoaning here is a consequence of freedom, not immorality, since these things - single parent families, abuse, etc. - might be reduced in a society where the types of regulations are completely different from what you’d call moral.

Let’s take ancient Sparta for example. If some histories are to be believed, the entire point of the Spartan society was to breed a core of male warriors. For a while it was successful and the Spartans raped any force on land they happened across, but you would have to ask whether what they achieved was worth the ridiculously strict laws they have. For the record, if one idea is to be believed, Sparta dwindled down into a powerless village because they followed their strict laws of citenzenship so faithfully that they just weren’t able to breed enough males. So let’s kick that whole decline of civilizations thing out the window, for the Spartans were both dominant and wildly immoral (by most modern standards) at the same time, and then “fell” not because their public morality fell apart but because they kept to it too strictly.

This is unnecessary, though. If there is a single example out there that puts your views on sex to a lie, it’s the fact that there are gay couples who are able to raise perfectly happy families. If liberal attitudes towards sex should automatically induce the problems above, explain THAT one. It should be noted that the highest rates of divorce are in the red states here in the US.

Edit: It bears repeating that your theory about the fall of civilizations is utterly false. It’s more like a boring refrain that grumpy people use when they don’t like what other people are doing in their society, and serves only as a distraction from real explanations. Cato the Elder was blubbering about it before Rome had even expanded far beyond Italy, fer’ chrissakes.

Edit 2: I would also like to say that what you think about “dehumanizing” sex sounds exactly like the sort of thing people will laugh at as absurd 50 years after the fact, as with race relations, prohibition, woman’s suffrage, women’s (insert something from last 200 years HERE), evolution, etc. Your argument is more something you want to believe rather than something you have grounds for showing why you believe it, really.

And why should I show why I believe in it? Explain that?
Two, I don’t give a fuck what people laugh at and do not laugh at, let them live their lives, and let me live mine, and let this poor guy live his life, instead of telling him how moronic it is that he is thinking that a life in celibacy is. How is that any different than any religion telling you are an idiot for pleasure for pleasure? I’d like to know that.
Three, I am fully aware of the history of Sparta, and its bounded in immorality, and the fact that it could not let go of it brought it down, the fact that they dehumanized humans, male and female, for the sake of the state, brought it to extinction.

As for the evidence of these things, and the looser ideas, what then was the cause if you do not mind me asking?

[RoguePaladinTrian]

First, if you do not wish to justify your comments, then do not offer advice to the one who started this thread or bother criticizing, indeed, anything that anyone said. Truly, if you’re so non-interventionist, why did you post in this thread in the first place?

Second, you skip the part about Sparta where its supposed immorality allowed it to be a powerful civilization in the first place. How could it decline by the same method that it rose? There naturally must be other circumstances which contributed to its history, and this whole morality play thing is not the equation you try to make it to be.

As for what caused the problems you mentioned, it would go far beyond my means to explain them, but I believe it is sufficient to say that a liberal attitude towards sex itself is tertiary to a more general loosening of social and financial bonds which has resulted in a much freer and less standardized society. Certainly there are individuals to which your harshest concerns apply, but to magnify their faults and lay the at the feet of EVERYONE, many of whom can carry out perfectly normal, happy, productive lives, whether as singles or in families, all the while taking part in the type of lifestyles you decry, is really, really unfair.

And even if nothing anyone’s written does anything to prove what causes those problems, your assumption that attitudes towards sex do still does not stand unless you provide some evidence to back it up beyond mere apparent correlation.

[Steve]

Oh RPT you can just eat my dick for editting that out.

You could have at least let me keep it for posterity you jerk.

still.

[vanguard_Ziggy]

First, if you do not wish to justify your comments, then do not offer advice to the one who started this thread or bother criticizing, indeed, anything that anyone said. Truly, if you’re so non-interventionist, why did you post in this thread in the first place?

Second, you skip the part about Sparta where its supposed immorality allowed it to be a powerful civilization in the first place. How could it decline by the same method that it rose? There naturally must be other circumstances which contributed to its history, and this whole morality play thing is not the equation you try to make it to be.

As for what caused the problems you mentioned, it would go far beyond my means to explain them, but I believe it is sufficient to say that a liberal attitude towards sex itself is tertiary to a more general loosening of social and financial bonds which has resulted in a much freer and less standardized society. Certainly there are individuals to which your harshest concerns apply, but to magnify their faults and lay the at the feet of EVERYONE, many of whom can carry out perfectly normal, happy, productive lives, whether as singles or in families, all the while taking part in the type of lifestyles you decry, is really, really unfair.

And even if nothing anyone’s written does anything to prove what causes those problems, your assumption that attitudes towards sex do still does not stand unless you provide some evidence to back it up beyond mere apparent correlation.

I posted to defend the guy’s ideals of wanting to live his life in celibacy, as everyone else was practically calling him out for it, and calling it “mad” and “stupid”. Just because they have sex, why does he have to accept it? So I came in to give him some support. The ONLY thing I think would be wrong with him doing it, was by jumping into that lifestyle without giving it serious thought, that CAN lead to serious problems.

Sparta was corrupt from the beginning then and as their dehumanized lifestyle continued, so too then did their extinction.

I have no problems against homosexuals and bisexual people as people, though I disagree with their lifestyle. I do agree that their marriages and unions do last longer than hetrosexual, as most homosexuals and thus see it for what hetro have taken for granted and thus forgotten… love, and commitment. In that we can learn a lesson from them. But that being said, life isn’t very fair now is it?

[RoguePaladinTrian]

I posted to defend the guy’s ideals of wanting to live his life in celibacy, as everyone else was practically calling him out for it, and calling it “mad” and “stupid”. Just because they have sex, why does he have to accept it? So I came in to give him some support. The ONLY thing I think would be wrong with him doing it, was by jumping into that lifestyle without giving it serious thought, that CAN lead to serious problems.

Sparta was corrupt from the beginning then and as their dehumanized lifestyle continued, so too then did their extinction.

I have no problems against homosexuals and bisexual people as people, though I disagree with their lifestyle. I do agree that their marriages and unions do last longer than hetrosexual, as most homosexuals and thus see it for what hetro have taken for granted and thus forgotten… love, and commitment. In that we can learn a lesson from them. But that being said, life isn’t very fair now is it?

You issued a judgement on our own judgements, but whereas we are at least willing to explain why we hold our opinions you reject my request to justify your position, in a thread where the person had come asking opinions about the subject. To, I’m sure, most here, your stance seems ridiculous and baseless, as well as unsavory. If he had come asking advice, perhaps, about something like whether he should post naked pictures of an old girlfriend as revenge for some unclear slight, and we all told him not to, and furthermore your natural reaction was to, since we had all said otherwise, advise him that it was a perfectly fine response even though so many people recommended against it for certain reasons, would you still be comfortable in not trying to justify your advice?

To be clear on this Sparta issue: if it rose to power while supposedly corrupt and then later fell while supposedly corrupt, and other civilizations rose to power while supposedly virtuous and then fell while supposedly corrupt, why is there any reason whatsoever to believe that the supposed corruptness has anything to do with either the rise or fall? You don’t have an argument here. You are projecting a desired explanation onto a general pattern that doesn’t lead to it naturally.

To the last segment, it need only be said that your problem is with a lack of love and commitment, then, not with sex itself. And behind that is some kind of assumption that love, commitment, and sex are intrinsically and irrevocably somehow 'naturally" paired, which would need an explanation on your part.

[vanguard_Ziggy]

You issued a judgement on our own judgements, but whereas we are at least willing to explain why we hold our opinions you reject my request to justify your position, in a thread where the person had come asking opinions about the subject. To, I’m sure, most here, your stance seems ridiculous and baseless, as well as unsavory. If he had come asking advice, perhaps, about something like whether he should post naked pictures of an old girlfriend as revenge for some unclear slight, and we all told him not to, and furthermore your natural reaction was to, since we had all said otherwise, advise him that it was a perfectly fine response even though so many people recommended against it for certain reasons, would you still be comfortable in not trying to justify your advice?

To be clear on this Sparta issue: if it rose to power while supposedly corrupt and then later fell while supposedly corrupt, and other civilizations rose to power while supposedly virtuous and then fell while supposedly corrupt, why is there any reason whatsoever to believe that the supposed corruptness has anything to do with either the rise or fall? You don’t have an argument here. You are projecting a desired explanation onto a general pattern that doesn’t lead to it naturally.

To the last segment, it need only be said that your problem is with a lack of love and commitment, then, not with sex itself. And behind that is some kind of assumption that love, commitment, and sex are intrinsically and irrevocably somehow 'naturally" paired, which would need an explanation on your part.

I did give reasons why I believed its a good thing to be celibate for life, maybe not facts, or links to other sites, but I did give reasons. Same as he did, it shows self control, it shows you can master the fetish or habits, or instincts, and doing so without going mad. There are many who have a hard time with that, again I do masturbate too much, but I am most definately not insane.

When people allow civility to fall, so falls goverments, it is proven time and time again. People went to chaos in France during the revolution, and what happened? That chaos destroyed many lives. Same as Russia, same with Rome, same with many nations. All one has to do is pick up a history book and see that with the lack of civility, nations crumbled. Abandoning or never accepting some humanity and going hog wild in dehumanized behavior has helped lead to the fall of nations, again pick up a history book. It wasn’t the only reason for their fall, but it was one of the largest.

If you can not see that sex and relationships and love are all naturally paired in the human world and sensiblity I do feel sorry for you.

[Rinn]

What the fuck are you talking about? People turning to chaos during the French Revolution is what caused the eventual downfall of the government? No fucking shit, of course that is going to happen when the monarchy is inept and can’t properly run the government or military campaigns, or the Church is levying harsh taxes on the peasants that live on it’s lands, or the widespread malnutrition and famine that was sweeping across Europe at the time. What do you expect these people to do, sit back and starve to death while the upper class continues to fuck them for everything their worth? You have no idea what you’re talking about, you can’t reason away the failings of government and the cause of revolution by saying people turned to chaos, it’s vastly undermining the nature of such extreme events. You can only push the collective population of a nation so much before the pressure causes a backlash.

[BlueMageOne]

Your kind of oversimplifying things. Yeah there was a lack a lack of “civility” in those situations but it seems like blaming masturbating and sex for the downfall of every powerful society is really silly.

The USSR fell because of a flawed central economic system, massive corruption in the government, and a huge division of power. Rome fell because they spread themselves out to thin, and liked using lead a little too much. You should follow your own advice and hit the history books, you might learn something that changes your world view!

How are you so sure that your current path is the most civil and right? I know the pope just said that Catholicism is the only one true holy religion, but that just doesn’t fly for the rest of the non-catholic world.

[Silhouette2]

Is sex bad because God hates it or does God hate sex because it is bad?

[Rhaka]

If you can not see that sex and relationships and love are all naturally paired in the human world and sensiblity I do feel sorry for you.

Rather than whining about it maybe you should explain why you see these things as naturally paired, you know, so there is an arguement to be made. When you get right down to it it’s just the swapping of bodily fluids.

[Skankin_Garbage]

Is sex bad because God hates it or does God hate sex because it is bad?

Rofl, it can be fun to argue on your side sometimes.

Look Vanguard Ziggy, you’re clearly arguing from a relgious stance. You’re also being very dogmatic about it.

For one, you don’t accept other people’s opinions about sex, even if you think you do. You’re arguing from a stance that clearly shows that you have little to no tolerance for other opinions on the subject.

Furthermore, a few things you’ve said also indicate that you’re arguing with no idea of the female perspective. Saying things like “YOU got it, she might have it too, but she was just an INSTRUMENT in which you had the pleasure handed to YOU.” This pretty much indicates that you have no idea how women think It’s not as if girls don’t like the idea of sex for its own sake, either. No matter what you think, sex is what you make of it. I’m not insane because I enjoy sex in whatever manner I want. Just because YOU think that YOU can’t control yourself if you were put in a situation where you could have sex any time you wanted, doesn’t mean that I can’t, or that others can’t. I know this, because I pretty much CAN have sex any time I want, and it doesn’t dominate my life. This pretty much ruins your entire “people that indulge themselves are insane” argument.

Lastly, as Cless asked, “When you play tennis with a friend, are you also bothered by this question of them being a mere instrument of your carnal, immoral pleasures?”

Well, ARE you? Or is sex different because it’s sex? Really, I gotta know