This Silver Ring Thing.

[seebs]

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

I'd be happy to debate it. If you'd like, I'd even be willing to debate it without reference to my theistic beliefs.

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.

Not exclusively, but... Obviously, "winning" the game isn't the point; if it were, people wouldn't play solitaire. There are easier ways to sort cards. The desired "end" is the state of having gotten there. It's like a road trip...

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.

I think this is an oversimplification. While expected future outcomes are doubtless part of our evaluation, one future outcome is "I will look back on what I did and have feelings about it". We wouldn't care about ends, either, if we didn't anticipate looking back on them...

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.

Indeed. Competition is fierce.

Seriously, I know that. But... I also know that some people would rather find out early on whether or not someone is going to be willing to be flexible about this, and whether or not he's got anything to offer other than hormone releases.

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

If you use the wrong level of abstraction, certainly so. We may be able to condemn murder, but not the act of "swinging a bladed instrument" in the general case. No problem.

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.

One caveat there: Statistically, hospitals are among the most dangerous places on earth. You are more likely to die in a hospital than almost anywhere else. If your statistics don't take into account the reasons for which people want weapons in the first place, they're not very informative.

However, you're also making a second error, and one that keeps cropping up: You're assuming that generalizations work. Often, the correct thing to do with data is not average them, but to split them into groups, and understand the differences between the groups. This can apply to wanting weapons, it can apply to whether or not people want sex in a relationship, and when.

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.

Statistically, that's probably the best for many people. Not all of us are like that. I've been in very few relationships, and I still miss the people with whom I couldn't work things out. For me, attachment is permanent. I do not get over people. At least, not in 15-20 years. No one can replace anyone else. My wife is not a "replacement" for the girl I fell in love with in college. I am not "over" that girl. Or the other girl I was in love with in college. My heart still skips a beat when I talk to someone I was in love with ten years ago.

For me, "experiencing many relationships" is a sure path to disaster. I would not want many more relationships. I wish I'd been able to get settled sooner; I would be happier.

Not all people are the same. You are trying to impose a universal standard on a thing which clearly varies from person to person.

Think about how unhappy you would be if you were compelled to adopt my relationship strategy. Now... Why should it be any different if I am compelled to adopt yours? We have established that our needs are not similar. Psychology being what it is, each of us will think his own experience more representative than it really is...

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

For the same reason you don't try to change. If you and the first girl you liked changed so you were like me, you would be happy together for the rest of your lives, because you'd be very willing to adapt to each others' needs, and you would have no regrets, and never worry about "what if ..." situations. That sounds great.

But... You can't change that kind of thing about yourself, so perhaps the right thing to do is try to know yourself, and live appropriately, rather than trying to change yourself so that you'd be happy living a totally different way.

 

[justaman]

I'd be happy to debate it. If you'd like, I'd even be willing to debate it without reference to my theistic beliefs.

I'll pm you some time about it and maybe start up a thread. Maybe not for a little while though, because I think if Zoot or David find out I'm even mentioning the word nihilism they may never speak to me again I have been pestering CF with this topic since my arrival so maybe a break is in order to keep j's opinion polls ahead of the game.

But I will take you up on it sometime.

Seriously, I know that. But... I also know that some people would rather find out early on whether or not someone is going to be willing to be flexible about this, and whether or not he's got anything to offer other than hormone releases.

Sure, but those people are stu-pid.

The point being, seebs, that you're drifting to the other side of the spectrum and lumping a desire for sex in with a banal relationship. I assure you I am intensely interesting and fun to be around for girlfriends. Sex does not detract from this, it adds to it. I may not want to marry everyone I have a relationship with, but I do still love them.

The thing about me is I turn it on and off. My last girlfriend, for instance, I loved intensely when she would go to sleep with her head on my chest, but then I'd virtually forget about her when she was gone the next day. I think this is spectacularly awesome, because now I am able to experience love and be stoically independant at the same time. I don't need any body. But I can still love them.

And bear in mind, I have personally experienced the "I love her all the time no matter what and need her by my side" thing too. I've seen both sides, and my side is shinier.

However, you're also making a second error, and one that keeps cropping up: You're assuming that generalizations work. Often, the correct thing to do with data is not average them, but to split them into groups, and understand the differences between the groups. This can apply to wanting weapons, it can apply to whether or not people want sex in a relationship, and when.

I honestly think that in the majority of cases where people desire abstinence they are in fact valuing an end that will produce less happiness than if they did not desire abstinence. Yes it's broad-stroke, but because abstinence doesn't appear to have any empirical benefits beyond "it's right for the flakes", I think it stands firmly enough to call into question the validity of abstinence programs.

P.S. about that website, riiiiiight!! hehehe, some of the things I remember reading take on a whole different meaning in that context That's awesome!

For me, "experiencing many relationships" is a sure path to disaster. I would not want many more relationships. I wish I'd been able to get settled sooner; I would be happier.

Well ok. If you can do it, great. I'll tell you why I think it's risky because you articulate it pretty well towards the end...

For the same reason you don't try to change. If you and the first girl you liked changed so you were like me, you would be happy together for the rest of your lives, because you'd be very willing to adapt to each others' needs, and you would have no regrets, and never worry about "what if ..." situations. That sounds great.

The bolded bit is the important bit. This is it. You can't make someone else change. You can only change yourself.

This said, what then is the safer course of action? Pursuing an ideal whereby you only need control of yourself to be happy? Or pursuing an ideal whereby you need control of yourself...and your partner to be happy?

If my partner turns out to be a freakshow, I leave them and move on. If the conservative Silver Ring Thing person's partner turns out to be crazy, they're crushed and are forced to go through a nervous breakdown or something.

Independance is the best thing in the world, and it does not prevent relationships forming as you suggested.

 

[seebs]

Sure, but those people are stu-pid.

The point being, seebs, that you're drifting to the other side of the spectrum and lumping a desire for sex in with a banal relationship. I assure you I am intensely interesting and fun to be around for girlfriends. Sex does not detract from this, it adds to it. I may not want to marry everyone I have a relationship with, but I do still love them.

My point, which I am not making very well, is that different people have different priorities in relattionships.

And bear in mind, I have personally experienced the "I love her all the time no matter what and need her by my side" thing too. I've seen both sides, and my side is shinier.

For you. Don't you see? You're evaluating a preference, and then saying "I have found the better choice". You might as well do a taste test and inform all the fools out there that, in fact, chocolate is simply better than caramel. (Or vice versa.)

I honestly think that in the majority of cases where people desire abstinence they are in fact valuing an end that will produce less happiness than if they did not desire abstinence. Yes it's broad-stroke, but because abstinence doesn't appear to have any empirical benefits beyond "it's right for the flakes", I think it stands firmly enough to call into question the validity of abstinence programs.

I certainly question the validity of naive abstinence programs. However, I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the people for whom it's a viable strategy as "flakes". They're people who have different preferences and priorities than you.

The bolded bit is the important bit. This is it. You can't make someone else change. You can only change yourself.

Right. But you can try to find out what other people are like...

This said, what then is the safer course of action? Pursuing an ideal whereby you only need control of yourself to be happy? Or pursuing an ideal whereby you need control of yourself...and your partner to be happy?

Ahh, but you don't need control, except in the sense of selection, to be happy. At least, I don't.

If my partner turns out to be a freakshow, I leave them and move on. If the conservative Silver Ring Thing person's partner turns out to be crazy, they're crushed and are forced to go through a nervous breakdown or something.

Only in the case where the partner turns out to be crazy in some way that cannot be discerned through a year or two of romantic involvement.

I think you're conflating several different strategies here. The person I used as my example has had a few boyfriends; she just hasn't slept with any of them. But she was able to rule 'em out fast enough anyway.

Independance is the best thing in the world, and it does not prevent relationships forming as you suggested.

Independence can be taken too far, just as dependence can. A certain amount of trust implies a certain amount of dependence... But without that trust, things aren't quite as good as they could be.

It's a trade-off. Ultimately, the safest place is to not care at all, and the happiest place is to be totally enthralled by someone who is perfect to you. In practice, you'll have to pick something inbetween.

I have found that the amount of trust and, to a certain extent, dependence that produces the best outcomes for me is a lot more trust and dependence than I would have predicted I'd want when I was, say, 20.

 

[justaman]

I certainly question the validity of naive abstinence programs. However, I don't think it's reasonable to dismiss the people for whom it's a viable strategy as "flakes". They're people who have different preferences and priorities than you.

I know. Flakes.

I'm kidding. My point is yes, I'm aware different people want different things. But just as there is universally more fun to be had on a beach than there is on a large spike impaled through your elbow, there is equally universally a greater possibililty for happiness for an independent person than for a dependent person searching for relationships. Only one has the potential to get burned very badly. It might not happen all the time, but by keeping oneself as a dependent personality, that is the risk one runs.

Ahh, but you don't need control, except in the sense of selection, to be happy. At least, I don't.

People change and so relationships change over time. If your partner is unable or unwilling to change with it, there's not a thing you can do about it.

Only in the case where the partner turns out to be crazy in some way that cannot be discerned through a year or two of romantic involvement.

Honestly, though, who does this?? Look, what you're saying is wonderful for all the pods out there, but I'm here for the people.

Independence can be taken too far, just as dependence can. A certain amount of trust implies a certain amount of dependence... But without that trust, things aren't quite as good as they could be.

You can trust people and still be independant. You can still love and not be hurt. I've done em both.

It's a trade-off. Ultimately, the safest place is to not care at all, and the happiest place is to be totally enthralled by someone who is perfect to you. In practice, you'll have to pick something inbetween.

Exactly, and because you can't guarantee success, you'd best hope you have a personality fit to handle a compromise or possible failure.

I have found that the amount of trust and, to a certain extent, dependence that produces the best outcomes for me is a lot more trust and dependence than I would have predicted I'd want when I was, say, 20.

I hate to get personal on you here but what if your wife goes mental and decides she needs to be with some Jamaican dude named Dexter? It's a risk you run. A calculated risk, sure, but where is that risk for me? And what do I lose out on - in terms of happiness - that you have?

I would definitely say to not care completely is the safest way to go. If I thought I could do that, I would. Buddhists veer away from passion for a reason, after all.

 

[seebs]

I'm kidding. My point is yes, I'm aware different people want different things. But just as there is universally more fun to be had on a beach than there is on a large spike impaled through your elbow, there is equally universally a greater possibililty for happiness for an independent person than for a dependent person searching for relationships. Only one has the potential to get burned very badly. It might not happen all the time, but by keeping oneself as a dependent personality, that is the risk one runs.

Well there ain't nobody safer
Than someone who doesn't care
And it isn't even lonely
When no one's ever there.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Happier a little more vulnerable, because I am also "exposed" to the "risk" of a substantial upside.

People change and so relationships change over time. If your partner is unable or unwilling to change with it, there's not a thing you can do about it.

True. But... Perhaps a chance is better than nothing. I know enough people for whom that risk has worked out pretty well that I'm inclined to say it's not such a bad bet.

You can trust people and still be independant. You can still love and not be hurt. I've done em both.

Independent isn't boolean. (It's also not spelled "-ant".) There are shades and degrees. It is my belief that there is substantial reason to prefer some degree of interdependence with a mate.

I hate to get personal on you here but what if your wife goes mental and decides she needs to be with some Jamaican dude named Dexter? It's a risk you run. A calculated risk, sure, but where is that risk for me? And what do I lose out on - in terms of happiness - that you have?

I can't articulate it, but.... There is a difference. There is something I have now that I would not have without that trust and vulnerability.

I would definitely say to not care completely is the safest way to go. If I thought I could do that, I would. Buddhists veer away from passion for a reason, after all.

Yes. But, they have made a crucial mistake. While all suffering comes from attachment, so does all joy.

So... I love 'em and be left, and on the whole, I feel my life is richer for it.

"It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."
(Samuel Butler, I believe.)

In the end, this is a personal taste. You see the downside. I do too. I've been hurt, and badly, before. I've spent weeks wondering why I was bothering to breathe, since all it did was remind me of how miserable I was... But on the whole, I think it's been worth it.

 

[justaman]

Well there ain't nobody safer
Than someone who doesn't care
And it isn't even lonely
When no one's ever there.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Happier a little more vulnerable, because I am also "exposed" to the "risk" of a substantial upside.

Well since my baby left me
I found a new place to dwell
It's down at the end of lonely street
At Heartbreak Hotel

You make me so lonely, baby
I get so lonely
I get so lonely, I could die.


Try to trumps the King, baby.

True. But... Perhaps a chance is better than nothing. I know enough people for whom that risk has worked out pretty well that I'm inclined to say it's not such a bad bet.

But do you realise what we're saying here? People are advocating abstinence to prevent risk!! We are talking about how this attitude is risky itself! Surely this must be enough to cast the whole thing in doubt.

Independent isn't boolean. There are shades and degrees. It is my belief that there is substantial reason to prefer some degree of interdependence with a mate.

I won't argue with this, but I'd keep the loading further towards the independent end than you would agree with I think.

(It's also not spelled "-ant".)

A momentary lapse *sniffs austerely*

I can't articulate it, but.... There is a difference. There is something I have now that I would not have without that trust and vulnerability.

The difference is you are satisfying something you invent. "I'm going to really really really want this arbitrary thing and if I get it, woohoo!!" One could logically do that about anything. It's the foundation that sport rests upon. But it comes with an in-built risk. So while you get your kicks out of indy car racing and maybe dying, I get mine out of football and get all the women for the occasional sprained ankle.

It's each to their own, but gee I'm glad I like my sport better than yours.

Yes. But, they have made a crucial mistake. While all suffering comes from attachment, so does all joy.

Tell that to the Dalais Lama. If you can find a man with more smile-lines I'd like to see it. I hope I have a fraction of the enjoyment of life that he has.

"It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."
(Samuel Butler, I believe.)

Now multiply that sentiment either by 1 or by dozens. What's better?

 

[seebs]

Try to trumps the King, baby.

Why? We're obviously talking about fundamentally different approaches to life.

But do you realise what we're saying here? People are advocating abstinence to prevent risk!! We are talking about how this attitude is risky itself! Surely this must be enough to cast the whole thing in doubt.

But there's a bit of misdirection. I'm talking about an entire lifetime strategy that exposes you to emotional risk. The people promoting abstinence programs are talking about a very different set of risks.

Curiously, to a certain extent, both are true. There is some risk/reward tradeoff in each scenario.

The difference is you are satisfying something you invent. "I'm going to really really really want this arbitrary thing and if I get it, woohoo!!" One could logically do that about anything. It's the foundation that sport rests upon. But it comes with an in-built risk. So while you get your kicks out of indy car racing and maybe dying, I get mine out of football and get all the women for the occasional sprained ankle.

It isn't something you invent; it's something you find yourself already wanting. You don't make these things up from whole cloth.

Tell that to the Dalais Lama. If you can find a man with more smile-lines I'd like to see it. I hope I have a fraction of the enjoyment of life that he has.

Tibetan Buddhism is not the branch of Buddhism focused on entirely eliminating attachment.

Now multiply that sentiment either by 1 or by dozens. What's better?

Doesn't work. You're assuming each love is interchangable, and further, that loves viewed as interchangable are as good as loves viewed as unique and irreplaceable...

You can't do simple mathematics on human emotion. It doesn't work. Losing two family members is not precisely twice as bad as losing one. Etcetera.

Anyway... What it comes down to is that different people have very different priorities. The "ends" you are looking at vary from person to person, and are not especially easily changed. I think any attempt to judge one end in terms of another is fundamentally meaningless. One might as well judge skepticism worthless because "it doesn't lead you reliably and consistently into a good strong religious faith". Assuming the conclusion isn't valid.

 

[justaman]

It isn't something you invent; it's something you find yourself already wanting. You don't make these things up from whole cloth.

I think you can teach yourself to desire things. Like I said, I've had and desired both. Not through choice, granted, but clearly there is not some 'this is you' perfect fit for me.

Tibetan Buddhism is not the branch of Buddhism focused on entirely eliminating attachment.

But is he married? Ey? That's gotta be two to me

Doesn't work. You're assuming each love is interchangable, and further, that loves viewed as interchangable are as good as loves viewed as unique and irreplaceable...

Au contrare, I'm assuming quite the opposite. You said yourself, each love is different yes? So it's not a matter of love, not-love, love in multi-relationships. It's love this person + that person + that person.

You can't do simple mathematics on human emotion. It doesn't work. Losing two family members is not precisely twice as bad as losing one. Etcetera.

I think simple calculations work. I think I experience more happiness than a married couple who have a set routine they go through every day of their lives.

Anyway... What it comes down to is that different people have very different priorities. The "ends" you are looking at vary from person to person, and are not especially easily changed. I think any attempt to judge one end in terms of another is fundamentally meaningless. One might as well judge skepticism worthless because "it doesn't lead you reliably and consistently into a good strong religious faith". Assuming the conclusion isn't valid.

I think all our priorities are the same. It's what = max happiness. Some define happiness differently. I think it's up to us to define what makes us happy as much as we can to achieve a goal. We are limited in what we desire, but I think there is some flexibility there.

 

[seebs]

I think you can teach yourself to desire things. Like I said, I've had and desired both. Not through choice, granted, but clearly there is not some 'this is you' perfect fit for me.

Oh, indeed. I don't believe in the "soulmate" thing. But... You can certainly learn to settle for things. I am not sure how much change desire is subject to; it may well vary from person to person.

Au contrare, I'm assuming quite the opposite. You said yourself, each love is different yes? So it's not a matter of love, not-love, love in multi-relationships. It's love this person + that person + that person.

But they affect each other. I am not as close to other women as I would be if I weren't married to this one. Changes in one relationship affect others. They're not independent factors.

I think simple calculations work. I think I experience more happiness than a married couple who have a set routine they go through every day of their lives.

You may. It depends on the couple; some people very much like the routine. But...

I might be much less happy living your life than you are with it, and you might be much less happy with mine than I am.

I think all our priorities are the same. It's what = max happiness.

By "priorities", I mean "the things that make us happy".

So, we all want to maximize happiness at some level... But what will make you happy, and what will make me happy, may not be the same.

If it were that easy, many people would just learn to like being alone.

Some define happiness differently. I think it's up to us to define what makes us happy as much as we can to achieve a goal. We are limited in what we desire, but I think there is some flexibility there.

There is some. But... There is also some degree to which we have our interests, and our goals, and need to live within them.

So... I believe there can exist people for whom some form of abstinence until marriage is a rational strategy, and perhaps the best available. I am sure there are many people for whom abstinence until at least a very serious level of emotional involvement has been reached is the best strategy. I have been told that there are people for whom casual sex is the best strategy, but the people who have told me that it works for them have not given convincing accounts of how happy and sane they are.

 

[justaman]

But they affect each other. I am not as close to other women as I would be if I weren't married to this one. Changes in one relationship affect others. They're not independent factors.

I disagree. The different loves I've had have not impacted upon the others. Maybe in how I go about them, but I think that's been a good, constructive thing.

Honestly, this seems to be in complete contradiction to what you were saying earlier about loving individuals being a unique experience...

If it were that easy, many people would just learn to like being alone.

I think many do out of necessity. The ugly and unapproachable, for instance. Transvestites and transexuals often remain celibate, choosing to live as their ideal gender rather than have sex.

So... I believe there can exist people for whom some form of abstinence until marriage is a rational strategy, and perhaps the best available. I am sure there are many people for whom abstinence until at least a very serious level of emotional involvement has been reached is the best strategy. I have been told that there are people for whom casual sex is the best strategy, but the people who have told me that it works for them have not given convincing accounts of how happy and sane they are.

I dunno. In point of fact I have a personality capable of some quite severe depression and I therefore need to form a strong base of independence lest it be too magnified. Yes people are varied, I can agree with this, but when it comes down to it, I still can't think of an actual example where abstinence would be constructive. I mean if someone is brought up being told "sex is dangerous sex is dangerous sex is dangerous..." then I wouldn't recommend they go to a swingers club. But whatever is prompting them to take on the 'abstinence is good' attitude is, I think, an unhealthy thing.

 

[seebs]

I disagree. The different loves I've had have not impacted upon the others. Maybe in how I go about them, but I think that's been a good, constructive thing.

Honestly, this seems to be in complete contradiction to what you were saying earlier about loving individuals being a unique experience...

I don't think so. It's because each is different that they have impact. More relevantly, there's a simple question of time. Being deeply involved with one person precludes having the time to be simultaneously deeply involved with many others.

I dunno. In point of fact I have a personality capable of some quite severe depression and I therefore need to form a strong base of independence lest it be too magnified. Yes people are varied, I can agree with this, but when it comes down to it, I still can't think of an actual example where abstinence would be constructive.

Hmm. For me, at least, I think it might have helped me with some coping things early on. There's at least one relationship where I'm glad I never got sexually involved...

I mean if someone is brought up being told "sex is dangerous sex is dangerous sex is dangerous..." then I wouldn't recommend they go to a swingers club. But whatever is prompting them to take on the 'abstinence is good' attitude is, I think, an unhealthy thing.

I think it depends. For some people, whose brains are inclined to stronger imprinting, sex is more dangerous... This is just what it is to live in such a body, and there's not much point in arguing with it, I'd guess. Perhaps it's "unhealthy", but I could just as well argue that needing to have sex in a relationship to explore it is "unhealthy".

I'm inclined to see this as a case where people need to be aware of their own needs and nature, rather than being told to do what someone else would have found beneficial.

 

[justaman]

I think it depends. For some people, whose brains are inclined to stronger imprinting, sex is more dangerous... This is just what it is to live in such a body, and there's not much point in arguing with it, I'd guess.

I'm going to concede this point but with a few caveats:

a) Such people are not the norm, so promoting abstinence programs to the masses is effecitvely saying 'this is right for everybody' which is, I'm sure you'll agree, inappropriate.

b) A bit of pain isn't such a bad thing. I would suggest that these 'stronger imprinting people' (which I'm probably one, in all honesty) have a fling and get a bit burned, just to learn. That way when the big one comes, you're skin's a bit thicker just in case. A little pain now solves a lot later.

c) Abstinence would only be a solution to a particular symptom of what I would dub a skewed upbringing. Probably the issues would go much deeper than could be solved so then, abstinence would probably be necessary. But I tend to think that individual would have a lot of other issues also.

However yes, I do concede that saying 'everyone should try sex' is too broad-brushed, though the actual number who shouldn't would be very small indeed, I think.

 

[seebs]

I'm going to concede this point but with a few caveats:

a) Such people are not the norm, so promoting abstinence programs to the masses is effecitvely saying 'this is right for everybody' which is, I'm sure you'll agree, inappropriate.

I'm not sure what "the norm" is; it's very hard to tell.

b) A bit of pain isn't such a bad thing. I would suggest that these 'stronger imprinting people' (which I'm probably one, in all honesty) have a fling and get a bit burned, just to learn. That way when the big one comes, you're skin's a bit thicker just in case. A little pain now solves a lot later.

Perhaps. But this has its own peril; why should you abandon a good relationship just in the interests of learning? A guy I knew once fell in love, then very carefully and precisely broke up with his girlfriend because he had been advised not to just settle down with the first girl he fell for. After much soul-searching, he realized how stupid this was, and got back together with her. A great deal of pain for both parties, no perceptible gain. (I may have some of the details of the story wrong, but the essence holds.)

c) Abstinence would only be a solution to a particular symptom of what I would dub a skewed upbringing. Probably the issues would go much deeper than could be solved so then, abstinence would probably be necessary. But I tend to think that individual would have a lot of other issues also.

You're assuming that it's an upbringing thing, not an inherent temperament thing. I don't see any reason to believe this. A great deal of what we are comfortable with appears to be inherent and immutable.

But... To call it "issues" is to make exactly the same error that these people would make in calling your perceived needs "issues". It's a difference; to assign value to one over the other requires us to start with one of our conclusions.

However yes, I do concede that saying 'everyone should try sex' is too broad-brushed, though the actual number who shouldn't would be very small indeed, I think.

I think it depends. I think many people could happily go either way, depending on the circumstances they find themselves in. Some people, I think, would be crippled in their search for a healthy relationship by adhering to one strategy or the other. I'm not sure how many.

I think that, for most people, abstinence can be a healthy choice - but I think many of the reasons for which people actually pursue it are unhealthy at best.

 

[justaman]

Perhaps. But this has its own peril; why should you abandon a good relationship just in the interests of learning? A guy I knew once fell in love, then very carefully and precisely broke up with his girlfriend because he had been advised not to just settle down with the first girl he fell for. After much soul-searching, he realized how stupid this was, and got back together with her. A great deal of pain for both parties, no perceptible gain. (I may have some of the details of the story wrong, but the essence holds.)

It seems odd. If I'm in love with a chick, I'm not going to break up with her just because someone tells me to, I'd have to want to myself.

You're assuming that it's an upbringing thing, not an inherent temperament thing. I don't see any reason to believe this. A great deal of what we are comfortable with appears to be inherent and immutable.

Again, if people are inherently this way, then this is where I concede. I doubt there's many of them who couldn't learn to toughen up a bit, though.

I think that, for most people, abstinence can be a healthy choice - but I think many of the reasons for which people actually pursue it are unhealthy at best.

I agree with the second part but disagree quite vehemently with the first. Abstinence would have forced me to currently be married to (or perhaps divorced from) a witch.

 

[seebs]

It seems odd. If I'm in love with a chick, I'm not going to break up with her just because someone tells me to, I'd have to want to myself.

Yeah. But that's the thing; people who are strongly imprinty will likely not want to try for all those experiences... Which means that one of the purported benefits of not participating in abstinence programs is lost to them.

Again, if people are inherently this way, then this is where I concede. I doubt there's many of them who couldn't learn to toughen up a bit, though.

Sure. But "could learn to toughen up" doesn't mean "will have the most fulfilling life possible to them after doing so". You can learn to stop caring, but it doesn't necessarily make you a happier person overall.

I agree with the second part but disagree quite vehemently with the first. Abstinence would have forced me to currently be married to (or perhaps divorced from) a witch.

Would it have? I'm not sure I see the connection. Your entire relationship strategy would be different, remember.

 

[aeroz19]

The problem is that abstinence programs lead to an increase in unplanned pregnancies, and STDs! The reason should be obvious: teens like sex and some will have sex despite their noble intentions. But those who plan to abstain will not take the precaution of purchasing condoms or other birth control devices. This has been demonstrated time and time again - when abstinence programs are introduced, pregnancies and STDs increase. When they are removed replaced with proper sex education classes, the figures immediately drop.

Like I said in another post:

Sex ed reduces STDs and pregnanies (if it incorporates contraceptives).

Abstinence ed reduces sex, and can and does reduce STDs and pregnancies, although it might not be as effective in the latter area as sex ed.

A lot of you are going to get mad at this response, but I think that those who indulge in sex deserve the consequences. When you break the law, you get punished. When you harm someone or their property, you get punished. When you do something wrong, there is usually a punishment to pay. If you have sex with multiple partners (which is what people do outside marriage or in an affair or in gay relationships), you deserve the consequences.

 

[aeroz19]

This is strongly supported statistically. In the Texas Panhandle where I live, abstinance is very heavily taught and promoted. We have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the entire USA. The Christians, of course, take this as evidence of sin and every year, double the efforts. And every year, the teen pregnancy rate rises.

The teens in Texas are having just as much sex (actually, probably somewhat less) as the teens in WA, OR, CA, or anywhere. It's just that they're using a lot less condoms. They deserve what they're getting!

 

[seebs]

If you have sex with multiple partners (which is what people do outside marriage or in an affair or in gay relationships),

This seems rather a bit overstated. I grant that an affair implies multiple partners... But the gay guy who first came to mind when I read your post has been in a relationship with one guy for twenty years now, neither of them going outside the relationship. So I'm not sure where the "multiple partners... in gay relationships" comes from. You might be arguing from the observation that statistically, men are more promiscuous than women... But I don't think the generalization holds.

Similarly, I know people who have chosen not to get married due to objections to the social context, who are nonetheless monogamous. They seem to be, if anything, more monogamous on average than married people are.

 

[aeroz19]

This seems rather a bit overstated. I grant that an affair implies multiple partners... But the gay guy who first came to mind when I read your post has been in a relationship with one guy for twenty years now, neither of them going outside the relationship. So I'm not sure where the "multiple partners... in gay relationships" comes from. You might be arguing from the observation that statistically, men are more promiscuous than women... But I don't think the generalization holds.

People in homosexual relationships almost always cheat.

Similarly, I know people who have chosen not to get married due to objections to the social context, who are nonetheless monogamous.

The social context? Of what? Committing to one person for a lifetime? I'm offended.

They seem to be, if anything, more monogamous on average than married people are.

But not for long.

 

[seebs]

People in homosexual relationships almost always cheat.

Could you give a more concrete number here than "almost always"? Also, distinguish between "cheat" and "have relationships allowing multiple partners". There's a meaningful distinction there.

In fact, like most people spouting rhetoric without sources or study, you're making a gross error, which is to take studies of the behavior of a very narrowly defined group, and generalize. For reference, the lowest rate of infidelity among people in relationships is that of lesbians, most of whom never cheat. The majority of straight people who get married cheat on their spouses. The infidelity rate among gay men is, of necessity, less than twice that of straight men, because you can't have a rate of twice 60%.

The social context? Of what? Committing to one person for a lifetime? I'm offended.

No. The social context of signing up for tax and health benefits with no intention whatsoever of committing for a lifetime. I have known people who chose to express their commitment by refusing to "get married", and honestly, I think they've shown more commitment in doing so than most people who get married fresh out of high school ever do.

But not for long.

Simply false. Most married people cheat. People who make commitments and consciously decide to reject the social norms are very likely to be making a careful and considered decision to commit, and they are comparatively unlikely to cheat or break up.