Is monogamy becoming an underrated value in our society?

[Velasco]

Tony, what is it that gets you going about Nathan's point of view?

Regardless of Nathan's point of view (which is obviously much closer to mine than mine is to yours), he's being as articulate as one possibly can on these kinds of topics, while you are just... being yourself.

'Articulate'?  He just said he likes monogamy, doesn't like sex, and name-dropped Hume.  It wasn't terrible or anything, but I wasn't really amused all that much.

Almost anything is a better argument than "I like fycking lots of Thai girls".
[/quote]

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. On the other hand, some visions of sexuality -and in a more wide sense morality, which is not a synonymous of prudishness as any of you seem to believe- that I have read in this thread seem to me simply ridiculous and shortsighted.

For general information, I state that I have kissed some girls and even I have slept with someone. I'm not in the habit of judging people for this type of circumstances and I find ridiculous people who does it, honestly.

[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?

[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. 

[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.

[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.