This Silver Ring Thing.

[justaman]

But you're begging the question; you're assuming that abstinence is a result of a specific attitude, and then condemning abstinence for stemming from that attitude.

I think it's pretty self-evident that it must stem from some attitude. It's almost definitional. And since it's harder to articulate attitudes than actions, I continue to denounce 'abstinence' rather than denouncing 'the attitude that gives rise to abstinence'. Path of least resistance, you see.

No... But romance can survive quite nicely without sex.

I'm not convinced about this at all. In fact without sex, what biological need would there be for romance? Even that nice feeling of simply talking to a pretty girl stems directly from the desire for sex. Somewhere along the line, if that desire isn't being consumated, there will be problems. And we are designed to only only be satisfied with sex as that consumation. I'm not saying people can't, I'm saying most people won't.

While this might resolve the problems you have, it might leave you with other problems. I have known people who were always a little disappointed because they weren't their spouse's first sexual relationship, and I have known people who, for thirty years or more, would have given nearly anything to be able to retroactively change their minds about what they did when they were younger. You may not ever end up there - but you might.

This is an important one. I'm going out on a limb of my own and declaring that those same people you are talking about would likely also be prone to:
jealousy
possessiveness
a lack of independence
insecurity
low self-esteem
seclusion
and most importantly, these would be the same people who would think as I did, that if this person doesn't work out for them, no one will because this person is perfect.

The desires you described are themselves bad things.

That rather depends. Not all men feel the same way about these things. Sex drive varies from person to person. To a certain extent, she's filtering for men who will get along with her; for her, sex is not that big a priority, so it's important that she find a man who isn't too desperate for it, or they'll be incompatible.

Well I hope she realises she's going to be filtering a heckuva lot of people out. Instead of perhaps changing this attitude and being more open to sexual experience, she is going to deny herself relationships where sex would be requisite. She might, because of this, miss a soulmate in there.

It's the tail wagging the dog again. Instead of changing one little thing internally, she rejects the majority external to her. It's just nuts.

YMMV.

Yeah, 'never does' was a bit strong.

No... What I think is that, if you are a person who can be happy with that, you shouldn't be being pressured to "be normal" and have sex when you don't feel you're ready.

Of course not. But I'd just question what is and is not constituting them being 'ready'. I daresay it is likely a particular vulnerability which could make things very difficult if sparkling Mr Right suddenly turns out to be human.

Basically, I'm arguing that generalizing from your experience or emotional needs is no saner than generalizing from anyone else's. There's a lot of room for individual variance in these matters.

Well yeah, but bear in mind the topic I'm talking about is that abstinance is not something which should be encouraged. I do honestly think sex should be encouraged, but if they're going to be all flakey about it then obviously there's not much that can be done.

 

[justaman]

Can someone give me examples other than, say, weird allergies or something, of how two people who are attracted enough to each other to really want to be involved could be "incompatible"? If you can't post in the open fora, feel free to PM me.

Ah sweet innocent seebs.

Some girls like it rough, some slow and soft, some like one particular kind of stimulation, some another.

But more than this, there are of course a myriad of potential problems with men. Insufficient size, insufficient methods, insufficient lasting time, annoying habits.

When you get married you've got one person to satisfy your sexual needs for the rest of your life. You had better freaking be sure you've got someone who can do it. And since females are so freaking complicated to please, it makes buying-before-trying a heckuva risky gamble for them.

I mean yeah, sexual councilling is an option, but I certainly can't see myself going to one of those things - and I'm pretty darned liberal - so I'm tipping most conservative types are just going to forget about it.

 

[seebs]

I think it's pretty self-evident that it must stem from some attitude. It's almost definitional. And since it's harder to articulate attitudes than actions, I continue to denounce 'abstinence' rather than denouncing 'the attitude that gives rise to abstinence'. Path of least resistance, you see.

Except that, as pointed out, I think there's many attitudes. My friend doesn't believe that premarital sex is "sinful" or anything like that; only that she would rather not experiment with it outside of some heavy promises.

I'm not convinced about this at all. In fact without sex, what biological need would there be for romance? Even that nice feeling of simply talking to a pretty girl stems directly from the desire for sex.

Very questionable, IMHO. It may biologically relate to the same desire, but it works just fine without that desire.

Somewhere along the line, if that desire isn't being consumated, there will be problems. And we are designed to only only be satisfied with sex as that consumation. I'm not saying people can't, I'm saying most people won't.

Once again, I think this varies quite a bit from person to person.

This is an important one. I'm going out on a limb of my own and declaring that those same people you are talking about would likely also be prone to:
jealousy
possessiveness
a lack of independence
insecurity
low self-esteem
seclusion
and most importantly, these would be the same people who would think as I did, that if this person doesn't work out for them, no one will because this person is perfect.

I'd guess you'd be wrong on most of those... Among the people I had in mind, to varying degrees, are both me and my wife... She arguably has low self-esteem sometimes, and a tendency to seclusion... But she's bipolar. I am occasionally possesive, but... Both of us are well past most people's standards for "healthy" independence, into "wait, you mean you guys are ACTUALLY MARRIED?" territory. (Yes, someone actually said this to us.) Neither of us has ever for a minute, ever, in our entire lives, had the "if this doesn't work out, no one will" theory.

The desires you described are themselves bad things.

Question-begging, at best. They're bad because they lead to a conclusion you've said is bad because there's no reason for it... But they'd be a reason for it. Furthermore, what's it matter whether they're "bad" or not? This is my primate brain. I don't get to overrule it on this, any more than I could decide to be gay, or decide to no longer like sex at all.

Well I hope she realises she's going to be filtering a heckuva lot of people out.

Indeed. She is doing so intentionally, because those people are, in general, the ones she doesn't believe she'd be romantically compatible with. I think she's probably right.

Instead of perhaps changing this attitude and being more open to sexual experience, she is going to deny herself relationships where sex would be requisite. She might, because of this, miss a soulmate in there.

Theoretically, sure. You could miss a soulmate by refusing to get involved with people who beat you, too... But you can predict that some peoples' needs and interests are incompatible with your own.

It's the tail wagging the dog again. Instead of changing one little thing internally, she rejects the majority external to her. It's just nuts.

I would say that letting sex determine how you do everything else is the tail wagging the dog.

I reject, out of hand, well over 98% of people as prospective mates, without the slightest hesitation or regret. I think I've been attracted to MAYBE ten people in my entire life. I'm doing just fine; better, I might add, than some people I know who will date anything once.

Of course not. But I'd just question what is and is not constituting them being 'ready'. I daresay it is likely a particular vulnerability which could make things very difficult if sparkling Mr Right suddenly turns out to be human.

Once again, I think you have a very strange perception. You're assuming that all people who think abstinence is a viable strategy have surreal and crazy notions about ideal spouses. The person I selected as an example is well aware that there are many people she could be happy with, and that being happy with any of them will require a substantial commitment and a willingness to be adaptable.

Well yeah, but bear in mind the topic I'm talking about is that abstinance is not something which should be encouraged. I do honestly think sex should be encouraged, but if they're going to be all flakey about it then obviously there's not much that can be done.

Sure. But I think your position is just as wrong as the one that says that sex shouldn't be encouraged, but if people are too horny to control themselves, there's not much that can be done.

Different people experience sexuality very differently. I think you are projecting way too much of your own sexuality onto others, and arguing that people who don't have the same interests, needs, or goals that you do are probably wrong... This seems unlikely. Variety seems more reasonable.

 

[seebs]

Ah sweet innocent seebs.

Some girls like it rough, some slow and soft, some like one particular kind of stimulation, some another.

I know this... I used to be quite the sex geek, and I know more about peoples' sexual interests than most people ever care to think about. It was my hobby before I got sucked into philosophy.

But more than this, there are of course a myriad of potential problems with men. Insufficient size, insufficient methods, insufficient lasting time, annoying habits.

Size is the only one you can't do anything about, if you actually want to.

When you get married you've got one person to satisfy your sexual needs for the rest of your life. You had better freaking be sure you've got someone who can do it. And since females are so freaking complicated to please, it makes buying-before-trying a heckuva risky gamble for them.

Seems more important, IMHO, that they make sure their prospective mate is genuinely willing to be adaptable. Anyone halfway interested in trying can work something out.

I mean yeah, sexual councilling is an option, but I certainly can't see myself going to one of those things - and I'm pretty darned liberal - so I'm tipping most conservative types are just going to forget about it.

Never did sex counseling, although we did marriage counseling for a while. But... On the other hand, I find the topic fascinating. Er.

I really can't talk much about this subject without setting off flares and alarms left and right. If you want to PM or email me, I'd be happy to argue this point properly, but I really don't feel many of my arguments would survive the censor filter.

I'll stick with "I'm confident that nearly any man who actually WANTS TO could satisfy nearly any woman." Admittedly, many people have no interest at all in learning what they're doing. So... Don't marry one of those.

 

[justaman]

I'd guess you'd be wrong on most of those... Among the people I had in mind, to varying degrees, are both me and my wife... She arguably has low self-esteem sometimes, and a tendency to seclusion... But she's bipolar. I am occasionally possesive, but... Both of us are well past most people's standards for "healthy" independence, into "wait, you mean you guys are ACTUALLY MARRIED?" territory. (Yes, someone actually said this to us.) Neither of us has ever for a minute, ever, in our entire lives, had the "if this doesn't work out, no one will" theory.

You're a pod, seebs. A pod. And your wife's a pod too.

I mean yeah, we're two completely different people who have had completely different experiences. We also live, it must be said, in different cultures with different standards of what constitutes 'normality'. What I say isn't going to work for everyone. But from what I've personally experienced, I think my attitude - from the male perspective - is closer to reality than yours. For most men, satisfaction of libido is going to be important. So if all the boys want one thing and all the girls want something else, we have a problem.

I would be terribly interested to find out the gender ratios of those currently involved in the Silver Ring Thing.

Theoretically, sure. You could miss a soulmate by refusing to get involved with people who beat you, too... But you can predict that some peoples' needs and interests are incompatible with your own.

You are articulating the error here by equating sex to being beaten. There's something very wrong if that's her perception of it.

I would say that letting sex determine how you do everything else is the tail wagging the dog.

That's a bit broad-brushed. I certainly don't rape everyone I find attractive, now, do I?

I reject, out of hand, well over 98% of people as prospective mates, without the slightest hesitation or regret. I think I've been attracted to MAYBE ten people in my entire life. I'm doing just fine; better, I might add, than some people I know who will date anything once.

In that case you have beaten some pretty phenomenal odds. Of all the women you've encountered - well into the thousands at your age surely - you have found only ten attractive. It just so happened that one of them found you attractive also. Those odds are so small as to make your successful union a freaking miracle and I don't think it's a good thing to be advocating everyone try it, because the fact is those odds aren't going to pay for everyone.

 

[justaman]

I know this... I used to be quite the sex geek, and I know more about peoples' sexual interests than most people ever care to think about. It was my hobby before I got sucked into philosophy.

Yeah, you're the one with the freaking psychology degree! The heck are you asking me for??

Size is the only one you can't do anything about, if you actually want to.

And it's not like it isn't important. I know those sex therapists always talk about different types of genitalia fitting - dimension wise - with other type. They all had animal names from memory...weird.

Seems more important, IMHO, that they make sure their prospective mate is genuinely willing to be adaptable. Anyone halfway interested in trying can work something out.

I don't think you're really sympathising with how serious a problem this could potentially be. Do you really think this same conservative girl who hasn't ever had sex before is now suddenly going to be able to say "no no no! you need to rub this and put that there and do this..."

I'll stick with "I'm confident that nearly any man who actually WANTS TO could satisfy nearly any woman." Admittedly, many people have no interest at all in learning what they're doing. So... Don't marry one of those.

And how are they going to know if he's one of those if they don't have sex with him?!?!?!?!!

That's one to me, seebs.

 

[seebs]

You're a pod, seebs. A pod. And your wife's a pod too.

Yes.

But a lot of people are, by your standards, pods. You seem like a pod to them, too.

I mean yeah, we're two completely different people who have had completely different experiences. We also live, it must be said, in different cultures with different standards of what constitutes 'normality'. What I say isn't going to work for everyone. But from what I've personally experienced, I think my attitude - from the male perspective - is closer to reality than yours. For most men, satisfaction of libido is going to be important. So if all the boys want one thing and all the girls want something else, we have a problem.

Sure. I'm just saying that the "normal" (most common) position is not necessarily normative. I don't think it's right to tell people "you should do what these other people do, because it works better for them".

I would be terribly interested to find out the gender ratios of those currently involved in the Silver Ring Thing.

Indeed. I'd be shocked if it isn't predominantly women; there's likely biological explanations for that.

You are articulating the error here by equating sex to being beaten. There's something very wrong if that's her perception of it.

I used an intentionally hyperbolic analogy, simply to point out that "you could miss someone you're compatible with" is not necessarily a good argument against a policy.

In that case you have beaten some pretty phenomenal odds. Of all the women you've encountered - well into the thousands at your age surely - you have found only ten attractive. It just so happened that one of them found you attractive also. Those odds are so small as to make your successful union a freaking miracle and I don't think it's a good thing to be advocating everyone try it, because the fact is those odds aren't going to pay for everyone.

But I'm not proposing that anyone adopt my strategy, at all. I'm proposing that different people use different strategies, based on their own personal perceived needs.

I don't think you're really sympathising with how serious a problem this could potentially be. Do you really think this same conservative girl who hasn't ever had sex before is now suddenly going to be able to say "no no no! you need to rub this and put that there and do this..."

Not at first, no. It takes time. But... It's certainly possible. Exploring is half the fun.

And how are they going to know if he's one of those if they don't have sex with him?!?!?!?!!

By talking to him. If you can't tell from talking to someone whether or not he/she/it will be willing to take the time to learn how best to meet your needs, then you aren't ready to get seriously involved anyway.

 

[The Bellman]

I am having a hard time with this theory that sexual experience prevents sexual incompatibility. If, indeed, having slept with five other people would make me more compatible, then it's obviously a learning thing, not a compatibility thing. If the idea is to sleep around until I find someone "compatible", that seems a bit weird.

It's not that sexual experience prevents sexual incompatibility; just that it reduces its likelihood. The idea is to verify that you and your chosen partner are sexually compatible before marriage; otherwise it's a bit late.

Can someone give me examples other than, say, weird allergies or something, of how two people who are attracted enough to each other to really want to be involved could be "incompatible"? If you can't post in the open fora, feel free to PM me.

Sure. One partner is into something the other partner isn't. Oral sex. Anal. Pain. Any one of a number of 'gentle' fetishes. Amounts - one partner who likes it daily and another who thinks once a week is more than enough. Any number of things which make for incompabitility.

 

[The Bellman]

I'd be shocked if it isn't predominantly women; there's likely biological explanations for that.

I'd be amazed if it isn't predominantly women, for excellent biological reasons. In general, it pays women to wait; it pays men to not wait (from an evolutionary perspective).

I'll go further out on a limb...a lot of the men that ARE in it are there to pick up women. It's an age-old battle - men trying to get women to have sex without committment, women trying to get a commitment before sex.

By talking to him. If you can't tell from talking to someone whether or not he/she/it will be willing to take the time to learn how best to meet your needs, then you aren't ready to get seriously involved anyway.

You can't tell from talking to someone whether or not they will be able to learn how to meet your needs. You can, perhaps, tell whether they'll TRY to do so, but you can't tell whether they'll be ABLE too.

Apart from which, I would bet big sums of money that none of these abstinence programs promote talking about their future sex life with prospective partners before marriage to check for compatibility. After all, talking about it might lead to...

 

[seebs]

It's not that sexual experience prevents sexual incompatibility; just that it reduces its likelihood. The idea is to verify that you and your chosen partner are sexually compatible before marriage; otherwise it's a bit late.


Sure. One partner is into something the other partner isn't. Oral sex. Anal. Pain. Any one of a number of 'gentle' fetishes. Amounts - one partner who likes it daily and another who thinks once a week is more than enough. Any number of things which make for incompabitility.

Fair enough. I think many of these things could be talked out in advance.

But, in the end... Some people may decide they'd rather take the other set of risks, and I don't think they're crazy to do so.

 

[seebs]

You can't tell from talking to someone whether or not they will be able to learn how to meet your needs. You can, perhaps, tell whether they'll TRY to do so, but you can't tell whether they'll be ABLE too.

I would guess that "will genuinely try, but be unable" is very, very, rare.

Apart from which, I would bet big sums of money that none of these abstinence programs promote talking about their future sex life with prospective partners before marriage to check for compatibility. After all, talking about it might lead to...

Indeed. I am hardly defending "abstinence programs" in the general case, I think most are at best ill-considered and naive. I must give some props to the "technical virgin" abstinence program, which is at least funny. (I will not link to it, because a link to it would violate several forum rules. Find it yourself.)

 

[justaman]

But I'm not proposing that anyone adopt my strategy, at all. I'm proposing that different people use different strategies, based on their own personal perceived needs.

But this is the main problem. You are saying that there are instances where waiting is not a bad thing, i.e. yours. Ok. But what I'm saying is that those people who think the way you do and decide to wait for Mr/Mrs Right are not necessarily going to get the reward you did. So in fact, I would still not recommend the course of action you took to a like-minded person, because the chances of them pulling it off successfully are slim and none. And even if they do, they'd need to be prepared for potentially a long time without being with someone. That's a big ask.

Not at first, no. It takes time. But... It's certainly possible. Exploring is half the fun.

By talking to him. If you can't tell from talking to someone whether or not he/she/it will be willing to take the time to learn how best to meet your needs, then you aren't ready to get seriously involved anyway.

Well tell that to all these couples breaking up over sexually incompatibility, I guess. Your wife sounds very intelligent and I know you're smarter than your average bear. I have no doubt you would both be able to concur things quite easily. But the average Johnny Q Taxpayer may not have quite the problem-solving skills to deal with this stuff.

But as I've said, I really don't see that as the problem. It's the emotional tinges it puts on the relationship which is the real (potential) problem, not the success of the act itself. Sex can be used as a power thing - as I'm sure you're more than aware - and I'd think this is more likely to be the case if the couple is sexually immature. The guy, for instance, is finally getting some t&a and then suddenly she turns off the tap?? Suddenly a 30 year old would become 17 again.

But look, yes, there are probably some instances of abstaining being the better way to go. But frankly, in Justopia, the taboo would not exist.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Hmm, this goes down with the category "Department of Freethought Suppression". But what's even worse is a pop star telling people against sex before marriage. And the worst part; this has actually happened, and it happened in New Zealand.
I present to you, the first New Zealand Idol: Ben "the fundie" Lummis. Okay, he's hot and young and all, but he should stick to music and being cool and leave politics to the idiots at the Beehive.

Yeah. Reading an interview with Brooke Fraser was kind of the same thing.

Ryal Kane

 

[seebs]

But this is the main problem. You are saying that there are instances where waiting is not a bad thing, i.e. yours. Ok. But what I'm saying is that those people who think the way you do and decide to wait for Mr/Mrs Right are not necessarily going to get the reward you did. So in fact, I would still not recommend the course of action you took to a like-minded person, because the chances of them pulling it off successfully are slim and none. And even if they do, they'd need to be prepared for potentially a long time without being with someone. That's a big ask.

Well, keep in mind, I didn't actually take the course of action described. I know other people who have. I probably could have, and been happy; indeed, in some ways, I'd be happier if I had. In other ways, less happy... It's a tradeoff.

But... I think you're missing part of the point. Let's say I decide I want to be honest. I may find that this makes my life more difficult. Maybe I do pretty well anyway. But... The argument that it might not work out well isn't going to dissuade me. I am not entirely driven by the outcomes; the way I get there matters to me too.

If this is important to someone, then no amount of "but you could have better outcomes" will change that. It's like telling you that you should give up your "no killing people and taking their stuff" policy, because you might get some pretty cool stuff.

Well tell that to all these couples breaking up over sexually incompatibility, I guess.

I don't know enough of them to suggest anything. It could be that this is a much more common problem than I've heard, but... I note that many of the couples breaking up over sexual incompatibility had sex before they got married, and were "compatible enough" during the honeymoon period, too...

But as I've said, I really don't see that as the problem. It's the emotional tinges it puts on the relationship which is the real (potential) problem, not the success of the act itself. Sex can be used as a power thing - as I'm sure you're more than aware - and I'd think this is more likely to be the case if the couple is sexually immature. The guy, for instance, is finally getting some t&a and then suddenly she turns off the tap?? Suddenly a 30 year old would become 17 again.

Yeah. Hmm. Getting back to the Briggs-Meyers thread, my guess is that Idealists and Rationals are the ones most likely to be comfortable with abstinence as a plan. Especially Rationals; Idealists are too vulnerable to the "grass is greener" problem.

But look, yes, there are probably some instances of abstaining being the better way to go. But frankly, in Justopia, the taboo would not exist.

Heh. Actually, I tend to agree; I don't think there should be a taboo there; I think people should be making this decision based on an evaluation of their own personal natures.

Of course... This is all ignoring the possibility that there is some genuine moral objection to premarital, or just plain non-marital, sex. I recognize that you don't believe there is, but I think it'd be a bit premature to just dismiss it casually without consideration. A reasonable case can be made.

 

[Ryal Kane]

The problem with teaching abstinance is often that the teaching is limited.
If you don't talk about sex then kids are going to figure out for themselves.

Caught and article on CNN the other day about teens in the USA. The pregnancy rate is down, but the STD rate is up. Why? Because, they define 'sex' and intercourse. Other types of sex are just 'fooling around'. This includes oral and anal sex, both of which can transmit diseases readily. They're taught that sex means disease but in their minds They're Not Having Sex! Only with an open approach of education and discussion can you deal with STD rates. How can western culture ever hope to deal with Aids problems in Africa when we don't even educate ourselves? The religious right spreadign a culture of denial and shame is not going to make this problem any better.

There are lots of types of sexual activity, many of which are almost as safe as abstinance. Teach safe sex. Talk about it.

Sadly things are just as bad here in NZ. The city I live in has one of the highest STD rates in the country. Just last weke a letter in the local paper quoted the fallacy that condom's can't stop Aids. What this translates as is, don't bother with condoms because they're worthless. Frustrating.

Ryal Kane

 

[Seeking...]

I think we really mixed apples and oranges in this thread. We should have separated secular vs. religious based abstinence programs. The difference is significant and addresses some issues that I think may have been glossed over. A solid secular abstinence program that includes frank discussions of sexual activity, diseases, pregnancy, self-pleasure, etc. can be great - it gives people the knowledge, options, and tools to make life decisions without making sex a bad thing & without making discussion about it taboo.

Religious based programs, on the other hand, really handicap people IMHO. Some of you think that issues of sexual incompatibility can be resolved with discussion, but you are ignoring the fact that many religious-based programs don't really allow for unmarried couples to do that. These couples are strongly urged to push away thoughts of sex and any activity or discussion with their partner that could lead to lustful thoughts. Can you imagine what it would feel like to be married to someone and then find out that something you would like (or would like to try anyways) your partner won't do because they think it is a sin, or dirty, or "defiling the marriage bed"? You think they are well, frigid, and they think you are perverse. Both of you are disappointed and feel alienated from each other. Not being able to find intimate comfort in your spouse is no small thing.

Abstaining with knowledge can be great. Abstaining while remaining ignorant is taking a risk greater than neccesary IMO.

 

[seebs]

I freely admit that many religiously-based abstinence programs are ill-considered at best. I'm not advocating one-size-fits-all solutions, but rather, specific people making informed decisions about their own needs.

 

[justaman]

But... I think you're missing part of the point. Let's say I decide I want to be honest. I may find that this makes my life more difficult. Maybe I do pretty well anyway. But... The argument that it might not work out well isn't going to dissuade me. I am not entirely driven by the outcomes; the way I get there matters to me too.

I'd question the priorities here. Action should be (and when considering a small enough timescale, is) considered as the means to an end. When one starts valuing the means over the end, you have action without reason. That's not to say the value of action is zero, but if it is more valued than an outcome, I'd say you weren't being rational. Again, it depends on the individual. Extremely ugly people, for example, must tell themselves that relationships are not important etc or else they'd constantly be miserable.

If this is important to someone, then no amount of "but you could have better outcomes" will change that. It's like telling you that you should give up your "no killing people and taking their stuff" policy, because you might get some pretty cool stuff.

You and your hyperbole. Outcomes are the driving force of action. That's not to say the end justifies the means in all scenarios, but all action is outcome driven. You need to prioritise the outcomes. i.e. will denying myself relationships make me happy or will loosening my conservative opinions and opening myself to more relationships make me happy? For some (touched) people, the first will indeed be the case. I feel sorry for those people and don't pretend to have anything in common with them.

Yeah. Hmm. Getting back to the Briggs-Meyers thread, my guess is that Idealists and Rationals are the ones most likely to be comfortable with abstinence as a plan. Especially Rationals; Idealists are too vulnerable to the "grass is greener" problem.

I'm going to kill this Brick Mines tosser. Slowly.

I mean you sound like a freaking astrologist. Ooooo, pisces and saggitarius won't mix since pisces are so judgemental and artistic and eccentric.

Of course... This is all ignoring the possibility that there is some genuine moral objection to premarital, or just plain non-marital, sex. I recognize that you don't believe there is, but I think it'd be a bit premature to just dismiss it casually without consideration. A reasonable case can be made.

I don't think it can be (hence I don't believe it). Objective morality doesn't work because if it is objective, there should be empirical evidence of what is constituting success and failure. You just can't do that with morality in general or sex specifically. Is it bad that a teenage girl gets pregnant and has a baby for instance?? I've no doubt that for all it is generally frowned upon, there would be plenty of instances of teenage pregnancies being a wonderful thing for all involved at the end of the day.

 

[seebs]

I'd question the priorities here. Action should be (and when considering a small enough timescale, is) considered as the means to an end. When one starts valuing the means over the end, you have action without reason.

I disagree. The end is "I die". Obviously, some portion of how I live along the way matters. A relationship carries with it some substantial baggage from the way you got into it. It matters.

That's not to say the value of action is zero, but if it is more valued than an outcome, I'd say you weren't being rational.

Well, how much is "more"? If I don't care that much about a specific outcome, but I care very much about the ways to it... Consider, for instance, almost any sport activity. The net outcome is not nearly as important as the experience of playing the sport. I don't play Angband because I believe it matters whether or not the big dark grey "P" at the bottom of the dungeon dies. I play Angband for the experience of playing Angband.

I don't necessarily see a relationship as having an "end condition". I've been married about ten years. At what point do I make this transition from "means" to "end"? I've been in the "end" for the entire time, and I've been in the "means" the entire time. To a certain extent, what you're dismissing as "means" is, in fact, the "end" from my perspective; the day-to-day life of the relationship is the purpose of being in it.

You and your hyperbole. Outcomes are the driving force of action. That's not to say the end justifies the means in all scenarios, but all action is outcome driven.

Oversimplification when talking about lives and relationships.

You need to prioritise the outcomes. i.e. will denying myself relationships make me happy or will loosening my conservative opinions and opening myself to more relationships make me happy? For some (touched) people, the first will indeed be the case. I feel sorry for those people and don't pretend to have anything in common with them.

You could phrase it the other way, with the same kind of loading: "Will a bunch of crappy relationships make me happy, or will one decent one make me happy?"

If what I want is a relationship with someone I can really talk to, who understands my interests... No amount of dating people who think Survivor is the pinnacle of Western civilization will ever get me closer to my goals.

If what I want is a relationship built around friendship, not sex... Then intentionally omitting sex from my relationships will help me find the people I'm looking for.

I don't think it can be (hence I don't believe it). Objective morality doesn't work because if it is objective, there should be empirical evidence of what is constituting success and failure. You just can't do that with morality in general or sex specifically. Is it bad that a teenage girl gets pregnant and has a baby for instance?? I've no doubt that for all it is generally frowned upon, there would be plenty of instances of teenage pregnancies being a wonderful thing for all involved at the end of the day.

I'm not sure why there needs to be empirical evidence for an objective truth. Truth can be true but unknown, in which case, a lack of evidence is hardly surprising. You're omitting the very real case where something isn't knowable, or perhaps just isn't knowable yet.

What happens if someone invents a moraloscope, which can tell us how good or bad a person is?

Furthermore, we do have pretty good statistical-level information about the consequences of some apparently moral or immoral actions...

 

[justaman]

I disagree. The end is "I die". Obviously, some portion of how I live along the way matters. A relationship carries with it some substantial baggage from the way you got into it. It matters.

I wish you were an atheist so I could debate nihilism with you. David and Zoot are thoroughly sick of it.

Well, how much is "more"? If I don't care that much about a specific outcome, but I care very much about the ways to it... Consider, for instance, almost any sport activity. The net outcome is not nearly as important as the experience of playing the sport. I don't play Angband because I believe it matters whether or not the big dark grey "P" at the bottom of the dungeon dies. I play Angband for the experience of playing Angband.

I'd suggest you only value that 'experience' because of an unconscious link to a reward at the end. Ever been frustrated in a game? The moment you are you can be sure you aren't playing it simply for the current enjoyment.

As it happens I say the precise same thing about life. I believe the only reason humans do anything is because of an unconscious belief of importance coming into fruition somewhere down the track.

Oversimplification when talking about lives and relationships.

I disagree, you mention in the paragraph above this in your post that your marriage is not an end. I agree entirely. In fact I submit to you no actions is an end, they are all means.But we act as if ends exist. You do something because of something which is because of something else. So yes, I'm treating a relationship as an end, because that is how we conceive it, even though it in fact is not.

If what I want is a relationship built around friendship, not sex... Then intentionally omitting sex from my relationships will help me find the people I'm looking for.

Fair enough, but remember your pod status. I guarantee you when it comes down to the male concept of sex-in-relationships, justaman is far more conformist than seebs. So if the ladies think they are just going to find all these wonderful seebses strutting about ready for the choosing they've got another thing coming.

I'm not sure why there needs to be empirical evidence for an objective truth. Truth can be true but unknown, in which case, a lack of evidence is hardly surprising. You're omitting the very real case where something isn't knowable, or perhaps just isn't knowable yet.

It's entirely knowable. I guarantee that there has been a teen pregnancy where the outcome was horrific and a teen pregnancy where it was fantastic. I can equally guarantee that the murder of one man hundreds of years ago deterministically allowed the second world war to occur, and the murder of another man at about the same time saved the Cuban missile crisis.

Ergo, it's impossible to describe action independantly in moral terms.

What happens if someone invents a moraloscope, which can tell us how good or bad a person is?

Then I'm screwed.

Furthermore, we do have pretty good statistical-level information about the consequences of some apparently moral or immoral actions...

But how do you rate the outcomes as 'good' or 'bad'? Last year on another board I launched an attack on everyone in America who were for keeping weapons in their homes. Despite statistical information about crime rates, about accident rates, about homocide rates, and even suggestions about suicide rates, nothing swayed my opponents. I ultimately had to concede on the point that if the vast majority want something, who am I to say it's 'wrong'? By what criteria do I tell them 'you people are nuts'? They know the risks, they accept the incidents, and they still want the weapons.

So if there is no dedicated 'this is it' type of moral instruction regarding relationships, one must evaluate the various outcomes and work out which is the better. Objectively - I believe - the one that provides the greatest chance for happiness is where the individual is strong independantly and is able to experience many relationships without worrying about cracking up over some boy or girl.

You say nay to this because it's not right for everyone. I say fair enough, but why not try to change?