Is monogamy becoming an underrated value in our society?

[opebo]

Sex is not a necessity of life, opebo.

Well, it is certainly one of the basics, and, for most people, a necessity in order to live in a way that could be seen as better than a bare, miserable survival...

Also, there's a difference between moral beliefs and ideals, and sexual kinks or preferences.

No, they're all just preferences, Beet.

[Beet]

Well, it is certainly one of the basics, and, for most people, a necessity in order to live in a way that could be seen as better than a bare, miserable survival...

For most, but not all. Particularly, not to the one you were addressing, so a rather glaring mistake on your part. I mean, most people would be miserable without access to heterosexual sex, yet heterosexual sex is not considered a necessity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all; man is more than just a hedonistic creature. There is a thing called moral values, and although it is certainly something that people select, it is qualitatively different from whether you take your tea with or without sugar.

[Torie]

One should worry about getting one's own life in order, rather than worry about the private lives of others. Anyway, different strokes for different folks. We are all wired differently. The one big advantage of monogamy, is that it makes matters a lot more convenient - at least until matters go bad, and then it can be hell. Hunting around for sex is very time consuming. But if you find the right person, that is better than winning the lottery really - at least for most people.

[opebo]

Well, it is certainly one of the basics, and, for most people, a necessity in order to live in a way that could be seen as better than a bare, miserable survival...

For most, but not all. Particularly, not to the one you were addressing, so a rather glaring mistake on your part. I mean, most people would be miserable without access to heterosexual sex, yet heterosexual sex is not considered a necessity.

But now you're just nit-picking - like saying peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches are not a necessity.  Still, some form of sexual pleasures are a necessity for most people to live and function in a 'healthy' or 'happy' manner.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all; man is more than just a hedonistic creature. There is a thing called moral values, and although it is certainly something that people select, it is qualitatively different from whether you take your tea with or without sugar.

No, they're exactly the same, its just that society insists more on the one than the other.

[opebo]

Hunting around for sex is very time consuming.

This is yet another of the many excellent arguments for a strong, thriving and legal prostitution industry.

[Beet]

No, they're exactly the same, its just that society insists more on the one than the other.

Ha. I doubt that even you believe that, although admitting it would be tantamount to the death of opebo.

[Torie]

Hunting around for sex is very time consuming.

This is yet another of the many excellent arguments for a strong, thriving and legal prostitution industry.

Indeed.  I'm in your corner by and large on this one opebo. The US has far more pressing problems than who is f'ing whom when and how and under what circumstances. Anyway, I don't care what others think on this matter. I don't need their help in managing my sex life, or any other aspect of my life. They should be tending to their own garden.

[opebo]

No, they're exactly the same, its just that society insists more on the one than the other.

Ha. I doubt that even you believe that, although admitting it would be tantamount to the death of opebo.

I absolutely do think that way, Beet.  It isn't a matter of 'belief' it is a matter of skepticism.

They should be tending to their own garden.

As I understand it, Nathan doesn't even tend his own garden!  Nathan, chime in if you read this - is it true you don't even prune your own vine?

[Beet]

No, they're exactly the same, its just that society insists more on the one than the other.

Ha. I doubt that even you believe that, although admitting it would be tantamount to the death of opebo.

I absolutely do think that way, Beet.  It isn't a matter of 'belief' it is a matter of skepticism.

Ah, hiding behind skepticism of the idea that there are higher joys and values than hedonism. You are quite mistaken.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I understand it, Nathan doesn't even tend his own garden!  Nathan, chime in if you read this - is it true you don't even prune your own vine?
[/quote]

I'll bite. There you go flaunting your bigotry. You clearly have disdain for his identity, which he isn't obligated to respond to in the least.

[opebo]

No, they're exactly the same, its just that society insists more on the one than the other.

Ha. I doubt that even you believe that, although admitting it would be tantamount to the death of opebo.

I absolutely do think that way, Beet.  It isn't a matter of 'belief' it is a matter of skepticism.

Ah, hiding behind skepticism of the idea that there are higher joys and values than hedonism. You are quite mistaken.

What I've said makes no claim or statement about the existence of other 'joys or values', Beet.  I'm sure they might very well exist for some people.  Its just a matter of taste, or perhaps indoctrination to a taste.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I understand it, Nathan doesn't even tend his own garden!  Nathan, chime in if you read this - is it true you don't even prune your own vine?

I'll bite. There you go flaunting your bigotry. You clearly have disdain for his identity, which he isn't obligated to respond to in the least.
[/quote]

Well, certainly I disdain him, but he does the same for me so I suppose it all evens out in terms of politeness and respect?

[Lief 🗽]

This thread's title is silly. "Monogamy" is not a value, it's just a social behavior. The social behavior can be said to represent, support or defend certain values (loyalty, devotion, etc.), but ultimately it's just one of many ways one can live ones life.

Also Nathan's slut-shaming of opebo is pretty gross and I hope he apologizes for it. The amount of sexual desire one has has no bearing on whether or not one is a good or bad person, whether one is moral, etc.

[Torie]

Of course Nathan need not respond, but I don't think he is ashamed of his identity in the least (which not doubt is far more complex than the cartoonish image painted here), and is more than able to handle this. Why should he?  Gandhi didn't have sex either. His life still had meaning and fulfillment now didn't it? Heck I don't respond to all of opebo's inquiries about my sex life either, just more than most other forumites (hi Grumps!) would like.

[Beet]

What I've said makes no claim or statement about the existence of other 'joys or values', Beet.  I'm sure they might very well exist for some people.  Its just a matter of taste, or perhaps indoctrination to a taste.

And for those in whom they do exist, they are qualitatively different; they are experienced differently as a class than what you know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slut-shaming is making women feeling guilty about violating traditional gender expectations; it is based on the double standard between men and women. Saying someone has too much sex drive is not inherently slut-shaming (not that I agree with it, necessarily). On the other hand, you seem to have no problem with opebo's acephobia.

[opebo]

What I've said makes no claim or statement about the existence of other 'joys or values', Beet.  I'm sure they might very well exist for some people.  Its just a matter of taste, or perhaps indoctrination to a taste.

And for those in whom they do exist, they are qualitatively different; they are experienced differently as a class than what you know.

Yes, precisely - an absolutely subjective preference.

Also Nathan's slut-shaming of opebo is pretty gross and I hope he apologizes for it. The amount of sexual desire one has has no bearing on whether or not one is a good or bad person, whether one is moral, etc.

Bravo. And what is worse - his supposition about me is terribly inaccurate.  I have sex only quite rarely, I just have it in a convenient form devoid of unpleasant complication.  I daresay my 'desires' are far less than the average here upon a youthful forum.

Of course Nathan need not respond, but I don't think he is ashamed of his identity in the least (which not doubt is far more complex than the cartoonish image painted here), and is more than able to handle this. Why should he?  Gandhi didn't have sex either. His life still had meaning and fulfillment now didn't it? Heck I don't respond to all of opebo's inquiries about my sex life either, just more than most other forumites (hi Grumps!) would like.

The point is, Torie, he's been insulting me!  I wouldn't dream of criticizing (even by implication) his worm-like existence if it weren't for his attacks.

[Beet]

What I've said makes no claim or statement about the existence of other 'joys or values', Beet.  I'm sure they might very well exist for some people.  Its just a matter of taste, or perhaps indoctrination to a taste.

And for those in whom they do exist, they are qualitatively different; they are experienced differently as a class than what you know.

Yes, precisely - an absolutely subjective preference.

Well yes, morality is subjective, but it is still experienced differently than hedonism. That doesn't mean that arguments for or against monogamy can be dismissed simply because morality is part of where the speaker is coming from. In fact, the very notion that all subjective preferences are morally equal or neutral, is itself a moral judgment.

[opebo]

What I've said makes no claim or statement about the existence of other 'joys or values', Beet.  I'm sure they might very well exist for some people.  Its just a matter of taste, or perhaps indoctrination to a taste.

And for those in whom they do exist, they are qualitatively different; they are experienced differently as a class than what you know.

Yes, precisely - an absolutely subjective preference.

Well yes, morality is subjective, but it is still experienced differently than hedonism. That doesn't mean that arguments for or against monogamy can be dismissed simply because morality is part of where the speaker is coming from. In fact, the very notion that all subjective preferences are morally equal or neutral, is itself a moral judgment.

No, I'm not attributing any 'equality' to them, I'm just noting that they're figments. 

However, regarding, this idea that 'morality is experienced differently than hedonism', how do you know this?  Or why do you believe this?  I can't imagine there being any evidence for this. 

[Beet]

Well all thoughts are figments opebo, including your lust. You are getting quite profound aren't you?

As for how 'moral' sentiments are experienced differently than hedonism, to begin with, I experience them differently. Hedonism gives me a more immediate form of pleasure that dissipates quickly, whereas moral pleasure (or pain) lasts long after particular event(s) that caused it. That's not the only difference between them, but that's one example.

[opebo]

Well all thoughts are figments opebo, including your lust. You are getting quite profound aren't you?

No, just skeptical.  However lust is at least partially a physical response - not entirely a figment.  I would imagine one could rub the nethers of a lobotomized and said nethers would engorge.  A worthy research for you or any other young enthusiasts might be to discover: do the comatose get erections?

As for how 'moral' sentiments are experienced differently than hedonism, to begin with, I experience them differently. Hedonism gives me a more immediate form of pleasure that dissipates quickly, whereas moral pleasure (or pain) lasts long after particular event(s) that caused it.

Are you sure you're not just concerned with what other people think of you or how they might punish or reward you?

[Beet]

As for how 'moral' sentiments are experienced differently than hedonism, to begin with, I experience them differently. Hedonism gives me a more immediate form of pleasure that dissipates quickly, whereas moral pleasure (or pain) lasts long after particular event(s) that caused it.

Are you sure you're not just concerned with what other people think of you or how they might punish or reward you?

Yes, there's certainly some of that. Then again, reward me with what? Approval? I'd argue that's a different form of pleasure than hedonism- knowing that one is approved of, loved, and in good standing. Certainly. But there are people that I genuinely care about too, and would sacrifice a great deal of my life for. I wouldn't say punishment and reward vs. other-regard are entirely mutually exclusive. Those that I care about most, are also those whose opinions matter the most.

[opebo]

Are you sure you're not just concerned with what other people think of you or how they might punish or reward you?

Yes, there's certainly some of that. Then again, reward me with what? Approval? I'd argue that's a different form of pleasure than hedonism- knowing that one is approved of, loved, and in good standing. Certainly.

Well sure, given the nature of human society and one's place in it (after all few of us here have much power), we live in a state of abject fear and any reassurance is quite welcome.  No doubt!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My, so much drama just for my (I think relatively moderate, certainly compared to other people of my personal inclinations and religious beliefs) antisexualism! I'll respond as best I can.


Now that I'm not writing a quick response on my way out the door to class, I will say afleitch and drj101 are entirely right--the problem with opebo is how he chooses to indulge his sex drive, which is completely within his control, not the fact that he has it, which presumably is not.

opebo, assuming your characterization of your own sex drive is correct, I retract my accusation of perversion as regards the degree and retain my accusation as regards the kind. It may not be sexual perversion--you're correct that I'm probably more 'perverted' than you are, in that sense--but it is emotional and spiritual perversion, which is far more important.

Also Nathan's slut-shaming of opebo is pretty gross and I hope he apologizes for it.

Could what I was just saying be characterized as an apology? If so, you're welcome. If not, your hope is vain.

opebo, my figments are a lot more fulfilling to me than your reality seems to be to you.

Well, certainly I disdain him, but he does the same for me so I suppose it all evens out in terms of politeness and respect?

I think so too. I'd say we're more or less fine here. Arguing with you is good fun.

[Kitteh]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slut-shaming is making women feeling guilty about violating traditional gender expectations; it is based on the double standard between men and women. Saying someone has too much sex drive is not inherently slut-shaming (not that I agree with it, necessarily). On the other hand, you seem to have no problem with opebo's acephobia.

I couldn't have said this better myself. I don't agree with shaming someone for their sex drive in any way, for being too high or too low  but by any objective standard what opebo has said to Nathan in this thread is far more objectionable than what Nathan has said in response.

Also, I really haven't ever heard a good argument for making hedonism your guiding moral principle, or one that doesn't make you sound like a sociopath. Other than utilitarianism, which requires a much more altruistic type of hedonism than opebo is practicing.

[opebo]

the problem with opebo is how he chooses to indulge his sex drive, which is completely within his control, not the fact that he has it, which presumably is not.

opebo, assuming your characterization of your own sex drive is correct, I retract my accusation of perversion as regards the degree and retain my accusation as regards the kind. It may not be sexual perversion--you're correct that I'm probably more 'perverted' than you are, in that sense--but it is emotional and spiritual perversion, which is far more important.

Really?  I also go to the restaurant rather than cook my own food.  Does that rile you?

opebo, my figments are a lot more fulfilling to me than your reality seems to be to you.

What now?  Rather presumptuous of you to think you know me so well, n'est-ce pas?  For all I know you may get tremendous fulfillment from lying on your divan thinking about duty and honor whilst wearing a feminine costume, but I don't presume to judge.

Well, certainly I disdain him, but he does the same for me so I suppose it all evens out in terms of politeness and respect?

I think so too. I'd say we're more or less fine here. Arguing with you is good fun.

Yes I suppose.  Though it is a bit one-sided.  You suggest that monogamy is somehow 'better for everybody' than other practices.  So, I guess I would say the burden of salesmanship is on you - sell away!

[opebo]

...by any objective standard what opebo has said to Nathan in this thread is far more objectionable than what Nathan has said in response.

What now? You must be joking - the converse is clearly the case!

Also, I really haven't ever heard a good argument for making hedonism your guiding moral principle, or one that doesn't make you sound like a sociopath. Other than utilitarianism, which requires a much more altruistic type of hedonism than opebo is practicing.

Dude, my argument is for sociopathology, not for hedonism.  And after all that is how society is actually run.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

the problem with opebo is how he chooses to indulge his sex drive, which is completely within his control, not the fact that he has it, which presumably is not.

opebo, assuming your characterization of your own sex drive is correct, I retract my accusation of perversion as regards the degree and retain my accusation as regards the kind. It may not be sexual perversion--you're correct that I'm probably more 'perverted' than you are, in that sense--but it is emotional and spiritual perversion, which is far more important.

Really?  I also go to the restaurant rather than cook my own food.  Does that rile you?

I kind of assume that food and sex present different types of social engagement and for that matter different types of pleasure, but that's secondhand. I'd say it depends on the kind of restaurant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What now?  Rather presumptuous of you to think you know me so well, n'est-ce pas?  For all I know you may get tremendous fulfillment from lying on your divan thinking about duty and honor whilst wearing a feminine costume, but I don't presume to judge.[/quote]

I do, actually, except for the divan which I don't have, and I said 'seems to' so as to hedge, you see. Don't worry, I know you get at least some fulfillment from your quixotic expatriate sybaritism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think so too. I'd say we're more or less fine here. Arguing with you is good fun.
[/quote]

Yes I suppose.  Though it is a bit one-sided.  You suggest that monogamy is somehow 'better for everybody' than other practices.  So, I guess I would say the burden of salesmanship is on you - sell away!
[/quote]

I promise that if and when I'm capable of taking one of these conversations seriously I will. I'm not doing this for your edification so much as the entertainment of our fellow Forumites, you see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dude, my argument is for sociopathology, not for hedonism.  And after all that is how society is actually run.
[/quote]

I presume when you go out to dine you don't eat your food with Hume's Fork, then.