Is monogamy becoming an underrated value in our society?

[fezzyfestoon]

I don't think social fears make everyone afraid of sex, just some people. There are a lot of social fears after all. And I don't see what the obsession is with labeling yourself and confining yourself to anything as complex and fluctuating as sexuality. Which ties into the initial, apparently wildly offensive, notion I initially suggested that maybe instead of definitively proclaiming something about yourself that has in my experience been something that more often than not fades, one should just roll with it as casually as all of us take our own sexuality. Nor is it much of a perch to heap judgment on others from. Instead of taking that for what it's worth I get treated like I'm the one that lurched into an all-out assault on sexuality rather than the one who came in specifically to say that was shameful. Thanks, that's really pleasant and mature of all of you. Dicks

[Beet]

I don't think social fears make everyone afraid of sex, just some people.

Again, asexuality is not 'fear of sex'. We are not discussing that. If some teenagers you know have sworn off sex, that's a choice of theirs and has nothing to do with asexuality unless they've explicitly stated that they are asexual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the point of labelling yourself sexual, heterosexual or homosexual?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am rolling with it casually; I'm also asexual. I don't see these two as being mutually exclusive. You're acting as if I'm written my asexuality on a stone tablet, when instead all I'm doing is observing a fact about myself. I do think there's some value to proclaiming it openly and correcting misconceptions about it, as a concept, because there seems to be a lot of it floating around.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who sex said sexuality was shameful? Not anyone that I could see. P.S. I don't think that you've lurched into an 'all-out' assault on anything.

[fezzyfestoon]

I don't think social fears make everyone afraid of sex, just some people.

Again, asexuality is not 'fear of sex'. We are not discussing that. If some teenagers you know have sworn off sex, that's a choice of theirs and has nothing to do with asexuality unless they've explicitly stated that they are asexual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the point of labelling yourself sexual, heterosexual or homosexual?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am rolling with it casually; I'm also asexual. I don't see these two as being mutually exclusive. You're acting as if I'm written my asexuality on a stone tablet, when instead all I'm doing is observing a fact about myself. I do think there's some value to proclaiming it openly and correcting misconceptions about it, as a concept, because there seems to be a lot of it floating around.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who sex sexuality was shameful? Not anyone that I could see.

Am I typing in another language? In my eyes I pretty clearly differentiated between actual asexuality and those who proclaim it, a la those in the past on this forum I have repeatedly mentioned, out of social fears. That's the precise point I started from when I came in to respond to the entire thread being devoted to shaming sexuality. Nathan is the one I was referring to, not you. He's the sole reason I posted in this thread, not you. Calling sexual activity perverse repeatedly is pretty akin to calling it shameful, but I apologize for not being perfectly explicit in my wording. This thread is driving me insane.

[Beet]

Am I typing in another language? In my eyes I pretty clearly differentiated between actual asexuality and those who proclaim it, a la those in the past on this forum I have repeatedly mentioned, out of social fears. That's the precise point I started from when I came in to respond to the entire thread being devoted to shaming sexuality. Nathan is the one I was referring to, not you. He's the sole reason I posted in this thread, not you. Calling sexual activity perverse repeatedly is pretty akin to calling it shameful, but I apologize for not being perfectly explicit in my wording. This thread is driving me insane.

You made some statements that seemed general, but if you were just talking about Nathan, I'm sorry if I over-interpreted you. I don't know Nathan well enough to judge all of your characterizations... but I do agree with you that there should be nothing shameful about sexuality. For what it's worth, I read him as saying opebo's (and perhaps Torie's) particular method of seeking sexual activity he finds perverse, not all sexuality, but I could be wrong about that.

[fezzyfestoon]

I was being broad because I was trying not to be rude in calling out specific people outside the initial point I made to Nathan, but I definitely apologize for overreacting. I thought the whole tone and direction was bizarre and wanted to make an appropriately brief comment and move on. And now I feel like I'm talking in circles and I'm dumbfounded by the extreme reaction I've received from the other people who've responded so far.

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

Beet's interpretation of my intent is correct. Of course not all sex is perverse and whether or not I think an instance of it is actually doesn't have that much to do with the act itself.

[Velasco]

BTW - I think this should be nominated for worst threat in the history of Atlas...

Did you forget that thread about why women avoid the Atlas Forum?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

BTW - I think this should be nominated for worst threat in the history of Atlas...

Did you forget that thread about why women avoid the Atlas Forum?

Trust me... the nomination list grows weekly.

[opebo]

I think he argued why he prefers monogamy. His point of view may be very particular or influenced by his circumstances -I suspect that yours also is- but is reasoned: Nathan always reasons his points of view. Also, it's a sample of bad taste discrediting an argumentation being based on personal circumstances: argumentatio ad hominem.

Actually, Velasco, he only stated the things he likes about monogamy, he didn't 'argue why he prefers' monogamy.  The latter would have been the case if I were for example, claiming the reason he was because he was afraid of his own homosexuality, or was abused, or whatever, and he was claiming 'no, no, its because sex is an ad agency's deception' or 'politically abusive' or whatever.  But in fact we didn't get into that.  

My reference to personal circumstances was precisely the same as Nathan's - he likes monogamy, I like to go with more of a 'fast food' approach.  We both stated things we like about our respective preferences.  But there was very little 'attempt to persuade' and certainly no 'disputation of fact or of interpretation of fact'.  

I resort to argumentatio ad hominem when appropriate - that is, precisely when faced with argumentatio ad hominem.  Nathan likes 'X', and I like 'Y'.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a curious way, we have much in common, opebo, including a disdain for convention. We revel in doing our own thing, and take some risks doing so. But on this we are polar opposites. I found paid employment ennobling, not degrading. I still remember the excitement of my first job working in a record store for the summer while in high school. I felt independence, I felt like a man, I felt like I was growing up. I hated the condition of dependency, and wanted out of it as soon as possible. And I don't consider answering to a boss as being "humiliating." In general I have always respected my bosses. If I didn't, I decamped. And then about your age, I become "The Man," with just the right two partners, who filled in where I was inadequate, as I filled in where they were (I was the "creative" one, and the quantitative one - so far as that goes in the legal world). We did well. And so it goes.

Sorry to go off topic. I tend to do that. Sorry. But I felt the need to say it. There are a lot of youngs around here, and they deserve more perspectives than just yours on this one. It's important - at least to me.

Quite alright, an excellent digression, Torie.  However, I think given the way the modern capitalist economy is going, my attitude fits their situation a lot better than yours.  Becoming the Man might be in the cards for a small minority of (even our privileged set of) forumites, but for the vast majority they will labor in hopeless and desperate insecurity.

[afleitch]

Well this was fun. First of all, I think jumping on fezzyfestoon for his comments and some of the implications that he’s in the same league as a homophobe was one of the most bizarre things I have ever read on here. It was unmerited. At the risk of exposing myself to similar accusations I also have reservations, as a gay man, about individual claims of asexuality. In some cases (as has later been proven) a self labelled ‘asexual’ can be someone in denial about their homosexuality or bisexuality because of a personal or religiously driven discomfort over non vaginal sexual acts or intimacy. I am not for one second suggesting this applies to anyone on the forum, but merely pointing out observations from my own experiences. As a result, while there is nothing pathological about asexuality in that it isn’t a sexual disorder, claims of asexuality from some people can be nothing more than a ‘closet’, in the same way in which in claims of heterosexuality can also be a ‘closet.’

Part of what I think fezzy may have been trying to say is that we know from studies by the Kinsey Institute that some asexuals are not entirely sexually inhibited but comfortable with sexual release through masturbation but less comfortable or with less desire for sexual intimacy with another person. People are often too keen to compartmentalise their sexuality; the same goes for gays and straights too. For those with a degree of social awkwardness, you may have a generally ‘sexless’ life until the point in life where for whatever reason, you simply don’t.

[Velasco]

I think he argued why he prefers monogamy. His point of view may be very particular or influenced by his circumstances -I suspect that yours also is- but is reasoned: Nathan always reasons his points of view. Also, it's a sample of bad taste discrediting an argumentation being based on personal circumstances: argumentatio ad hominem.

Actually, Velasco, he only stated the things he likes about monogamy, he didn't 'argue why he prefers' monogamy.  The latter would have been the case if I were for example, claiming the reason he was because he was afraid of his own homosexuality, or was abused, or whatever, and he was claiming 'no, no, its because sex is an ad agency's deception' or 'politically abusive' or whatever.  But in fact we didn't get into that.  

My reference to personal circumstances was precisely the same as Nathan's - he likes monogamy, I like to go with more of a 'fast food' approach.  We both stated things we like about our respective preferences.  But there was very little 'attempt to persuade' and certainly no 'disputation of fact or of interpretation of fact'.  

I resort to argumentatio ad hominem when appropriate - that is, precisely when faced with argumentatio ad hominem.  Nathan likes 'X', and I like 'Y'.

I think that saying the things that you like about monogamy is giving reasons to prefer it. Do you realize that you are making judgements on some individual experience about you (or me) have not an actual idea? There's a point on which I could agree with some people around here: in our society sex is a commodity, and that's not my idea of what sexuality should be (not to mention sexual exploitation and related issues).

I have no problems with people whose conception of sexuality is 'utilitarian', satisfying a physiological immediate need and not going farther. Nevertheless, it's shocking to me reading some comments denying, misunderstanding or not accepting the sentimental, affective or even cultural connotations of sexuality, which is something more than satisfying the libido. I prefer not commenting about other questions concerning some people's sexuality (or asexuality) because I think that we are touching a delicate topic. 

[opebo]

There's a point on which I could agree with some people around here: in our society sex is a commodity, and that's not my idea of what sexuality should be (not to mention sexual exploitation and related issues).

It is really a 'chicken and egg' argument, Velasco.  After all, sex could not be 'commodified' were it not something that most people want.  The preexisting condition - that most men want to see the naked or sexually displayed bodies of young women, and to have sex with them - is not going to go away just because you stop 'commodifying' this desire by banning sexy advertising or revealing clothing.

I've no doubt that Nathan might want to try some form of Pavlovian conditioning on the poor men to try to break them of these urges, and I confess if I were electrocuted every time I saw a pretty girl I might change my tune, but still, the underlying physicality is still in existence, however much you overlay it with social taboo.

[traininthedistance]

BTW - I think this should be nominated for worst threat in the history of Atlas...

It's not even close. The Sandra Fluke thread was definitely worse than this one, especially before BK sanitized it. I'm sure there were some terrible threads here before I joined, too.

Seconded.  The Fluke thread was absolute sexist filth through and through.  I accept that a forum populated largely by nerdy boys in their teens and twenties is going to have woman problems as a matter of course, but that one went above and beyond, and made me ashamed to be part of this community.

[Velasco]

There's a point on which I could agree with some people around here: in our society sex is a commodity, and that's not my idea of what sexuality should be (not to mention sexual exploitation and related issues).

It is really a 'chicken and egg' argument, Vlasic.  After all, sex could not be 'commodified' were it not something that most people want.  The preexisting condition - that most men want to see the naked or sexually displayed bodies of young women, and to have sex with them - is not going to go away just because you stop 'commodifying' this desire by banning sexy advertising or revealing clothing.

I've no doubt that Nathan might want to try some form of Pavlovian conditioning on the poor men to try to break them of these urges, and I confess if I were electrocuted every time I saw a pretty girl I might change my tune, but still, the underlying physicality is still in existence, however much you overlay it with social taboo.

That's not the point at all. It's not a question of forbidding desire nor sexy clothes. Desire is natural, or preexisting if you like it more, and also the taste for beauty. The question is that desire is carried out and sex is a merchandise just like any other one.

Nowadays there are used more or less subliminal sexual references to sell all kinds of products, from a car to an orange juice. These references flood the cinema, the TV series, the variety shows and even the news. And certainly these 'hooks' are directed preferably to a male audience, because it seems that the feminine desire was the great forgotten one until recently. Women have suffered more sexual dissatisfaction that your poor men, believe me. I prefer to consign to oblivion the internet, which is full of much more explicit references that you bump into though you're not looking for them.

However hard I like the pretty girls and they turn out to be agreeable at sight, I don't stop realizing that they are used as an envelope to transmit any type of message. I can see the sexism and the mercantilism. Is it really so difficult to understand?

I don't begin to think about the distaste of other people about this invasion (it seems to me is a logical reaction to overexposure) but I find displeasing when I open my email and there skips a chat that I haven't requested, to give you an example.

[opebo]

...certainly these 'hooks' are directed preferably to a male audience, because it seems that the feminine desire was the great forgotten one until recently.

Actually no.  Female sexuality is the-desire-to-be-desired, and thus all the advertising which appeals to female insecurity (such as ads about feminine odor and weight loss and the like).

However hard I like the pretty girls and they turn out to be agreeable at sight, I don't stop realizing that they are used as an envelope to transmit any type of message. I can see the sexism and the mercantilism. Is it really so difficult to understand?

Yeah it is - I don't see why this bothers you.  Its like sugar - you can dislike the way it was made, but it still tastes good.

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

...certainly these 'hooks' are directed preferably to a male audience, because it seems that the feminine desire was the great forgotten one until recently.

Actually no.  Female sexuality is the-desire-to-be-desired, and thus all the advertising which appeals to female insecurity (such as ads about feminine odor and weight loss and the like).

That's what women are told to have their sexuality be, yes. I'm sure for at least some it in fact is, but women aren't fungible. Nice use of hyphenation, by the way. Very Heidegger.

[Velasco]

...certainly these 'hooks' are directed preferably to a male audience, because it seems that the feminine desire was the great forgotten one until recently.

Actually no.  Female sexuality is the-desire-to-be-desired, and thus all the advertising which appeals to female insecurity (such as ads about feminine odor and weight loss and the like).

However hard I like the pretty girls and they turn out to be agreeable at sight, I don't stop realizing that they are used as an envelope to transmit any type of message. I can see the sexism and the mercantilism. Is it really so difficult to understand?

Yeah it is - I don't see why this bothers you.  Its like sugar - you can dislike the way it was made, but it still tastes good.

Well, I'm not a woman, but sometimes is agreeable to see that someone likes you. I know that there's some truth in the stereotypes, but if you think that everybody acts according to them you have a very simplistic vision of the human relationships and certainly you don't know women or you lack the interest to understand them. I had a bisexual female friend with a very hedonistic conception of sexual relationships and a very strong personality. I'm afraid that she would spite you in the eye if you approached to her saying things like that.

As for the sugar, I prefer honey or brown sugar instead of white. Refined sugar is not good at all.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Personally, after seeing the generation before absolutely decimated by divorce and unhappiness stemming from making the wrong decision, I'm a lot less likely to jump into marriage as my parents were. And so are my friends, it seems. It doesn't mean we won't get married, but it does mean we'll be having fewer children later, and it means that any marriage we do create will be stronger than something slapped together by a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old because the dude accidentally got one past the goalkeeper.

Not that I can get married, of course. Just an observation.

[RI]

Personally, after seeing the generation before absolutely decimated by divorce and unhappiness stemming from making the wrong decision, I'm a lot less likely to jump into marriage as my parents were. And so are my friends, it seems. It doesn't mean we won't get married, but it does mean we'll be having fewer children later, and it means that any marriage we do create will be stronger than something slapped together by a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old because the dude accidentally got one past the goalkeeper.

Not that I can get married, of course. Just an observation.

It somewhat depends on the person. My family has a long history of divorce, some times multiple divorces. My parents divorced when I was young, my mom has been married three times, etc., and it quite frankly sucks. However, this doesn't make me want to avoid marriage or have fewer kids, or what have you. It makes me want to do it right. It makes me want to prove that it can be done, that having a successful lifelong marriage is not some relic of the past. Some of that is in finding the right person, but I believe it's mostly in your attitude toward your relationships. If you view your relationships/marriage as something to work on, to cultivate, to sacrifice for, to try to fix rather than replace, and your partner does too, then there is no reason in the world why it can't be done. The trick is in the perspective.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This was a fascinating thread to read, for whatever that's worth.

As for myself, I come down somewhere around Realisticidealist's perspective. Serial monogamy is becoming more of the accepted value in society, and that isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that doesn't mean that we should accept serial monogamy as a goal. Each relationship should be something you put all of your heart and soul into making work, each relationship should be treated as something that will last, if not forever, then indefinitely, because what is the point of being in a relationship otherwise?

[fezzyfestoon]

This was a fascinating thread to read, for whatever that's worth.

I'm embarrassed by it

[opebo]

I was not sure entirely of my sexuality until I was age 59. The oddest thing of all, is that I think I am rather a normal guy

I have to say, that doesn't sound very normal... to be in the dark so long about that.  But perhaps I'm wrong.  I don't have a window into the 'mind of the elderly gay'.

at bottom. Go figure! 

Ah, well, that's good to know, I always wondered!

[Torie]

I was not sure entirely of my sexuality until I was age 59. The oddest thing of all, is that I think I am rather a normal guy

I have to say, that doesn't sound very normal... to be in the dark so long about that.  But perhaps I'm wrong.  I don't have a window into the 'mind of the elderly gay'.

at bottom. Go figure!  

Ah, well, that's good to know, I always wondered!

I was wondering if you were going to harvest that ripe low hanging fruit that I deliberately left there for you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I was not sure entirely of my sexuality until I was age 59. The oddest thing of all, is that I think I am rather a normal guy

I have to say, that doesn't sound very normal... to be in the dark so long about that.  But perhaps I'm wrong.  I don't have a window into the 'mind of the elderly gay'.

at bottom. Go figure!  

Ah, well, that's good to know, I always wondered!

I was wondering if you were going to harvest that ripe low hanging fruit that I deliberately left there for you.

I saw it as well but I didn't want to touch your fruit.