Individualism vs. Collectivism

[henry quirk]

No, it's the silly cunts who can't accept their ignorance and insist everyone else 'see it their way or else' that fuck it up.

[uwot]

"(R)eliable contraception is a recent discovery, but people have been trying (and failing) for all of recorded history" so it's quite accurate to say "(s)ex without procreation is an innovation of human society that has not been available for most of history".

Well, blow-jobs, anal and homosexuality for example, have always been more reliable contraceptives even than the pill. On top of that, abortion and infanticide have been widely practised; so Mr Can's lament for the pre-pill world of happy-clappy, damn the Beatles and Mini skirts nostalgia is so ridiculous, it's funny:

"The pill" made it a problem, because it divorced sex from its other entailments, like love, marriage, commitment, security, family, responsibility, and so on. We haven't made very good decisions since, because human beings are notoriously self-indulgent and irresponsible when consequences are removed.

But go back and think about the way it used to be, and you'll see that the whole design of sexuality was for it to happen in the context of committed relationships, and with a view to the extension of the human race. It was an action heavily laden with social, personal, emotional, and other consequences. In other words, it was not a one-night-stand.

Neither men nor women were ever well-advised to forget how serious a thing creating another human life actually is; and we see the consequences of their irresponsibility in our present social disintegration.

[uwot]

Why worry about 8 billion people?

Eh?

[uwot]

No, it's the silly cunts who can't accept their ignorance and insist everyone else 'see it their way or else' that fuck it up.

No, it's the silly cunts who can't accept their ignorance and insist everyone else 'see it their way or else' and carry out their threats that fuck it up.

[surreptitious57]

The pill made it a problem because it divorced sex from its other entailments like love and marriage and commitment and security and family and responsibility and so on . We have not made very good decisions since because human beings are notoriously self indulgent and irresponsible when consequences are removed

But go back and think about the way it used to be and you will see that the whole design of sexuality was for it to happen
in the context of committed relationships and with a view to the extension of the human race

Human beings have always been notoriously self indulgent when the consequences have been removed so you cannot take
a single event in human history and use that as a metric for moral corruption because moral corruption has always existed

I think that you meant to say sexual activity rather than sexuality as that pertains to sexual orientation which is something else entirely

There was no wonderful period in human history when there was no sexual irresponsibility since like moral corruption it has always existed
So then no matter how far one does go back there would always have been irresponsibility even if it was less socially or morally acceptable

The extension of the human race has not been affected at all by the existence of the pill as global population is now the highest it has ever been

[Nick_A]

No, it's the silly cunts who can't accept their ignorance and insist everyone else 'see it their way or else' that fuck it up.

No, it's the silly cunts who can't accept their ignorance and insist everyone else 'see it their way or else' and carry out their threats that fuck it up.

One thing for sure; silly cunts and feminists by definition cannot be individuals. They have become part of great collective worshiping the Great Beast. Collectivism rules. Silly cunts and feminists obey their god.

[uwot]

Right, my turn to be a self-righteous hypocrite. That's not the way to use the c word, Nick_A. Gotta accept that not everyone uses it as casually as some. I'll mind my ps and qs in future. Well, for a bit anyway.

[Nick_A]

Right, my turn to be a self-righteous hypocrite. That's not the way to use the c word, Nick_A. Gotta accept that not everyone uses it as casually as some. I'll mind my ps and qs in future. Well, for a bit anyway.

Well it's a start.

[uwot]

Right, my turn to be a self-righteous hypocrite. That's not the way to use the c word, Nick_A. Gotta accept that not everyone uses it as casually as some. I'll mind my ps and qs in future. Well, for a bit anyway.

Well it's a start.

Not to anything you'd approve of, but thank you for reminding me that some silly cs, really are silly cs.

[Immanuel Can]

Human beings have always been notoriously self indulgent when the consequences have been removed so you cannot take
a single event in human history and use that as a metric for moral corruption because moral corruption has always existed

I wasn't using it as a "metric." I wasn't measuring it. Rather, I was only pointing out the truth of what you say, that human beings are indulgent when they have no consequences...and sometimes, even when there are consequences, as a matter of fact. So we agree.

I think that you meant to say sexual activity rather than sexuality as that pertains to sexual orientation which is something else entirely

This is a different debate, and not one I believe in, actually. You'll have to look to someone else to take that cause up.

There was no wonderful period in human history when there was no sexual irresponsibility

Of course there wasn't. But that's different from saying that the consequences didn't force people to think twice about what they were doing. And we can see that statistically.

Most previous ages of Western history have been nowhere near as promiscuous as our own. (In 1910, for example, the average woman had less than 2 partners in a lifetime -- pretty much what you would expect, given widowhood and remarriage. And the average for men -- some much higher and many lower -- was 6). So yes, promiscuity "existed," but nowhere near in the quantities it now does.

The pill wasn't, of course, the ONLY reason for the vast increase.1910 was a more sexually conservative culture, outside of marriage, at least. And there were serious ethical, religious, medical, reputational, familial and general social consequences for it too. There aren't so many now. But the pill made a lot of these consequences moot.

The extension of the human race has not been affected at all by the existence of the pill as global population is now the highest it has ever been

Not in the developed West. We are below replacement levels, between the pill and abortion. We have less than 2 children per couple.

I'm not against the pill, by the way: all I am doing is observing the behavioural outcomes of a sexuality with natural consequences removed.

[uwot]

(In 1910, for example, the average woman had less than 2 partners in a lifetime -- pretty much what you would expect, given widowhood and remarriage. And the average for men -- some much higher and many lower -- was 6). So yes, promiscuity "existed," but nowhere near in the quantities it now does.

Well, I'm no statistician, but from what I can work out, since those are averages, that means either the female population outnumbered the male by 3 to 1, a bit nearer the mark in 1920 than 1910; there were a lot of blokes shagging other blokes or someone wasn't telling the truth. Given that you concede that:

...1910 was a more sexually conservative culture, outside of marriage, at least.

I expect the last of those is the most likely.

And there were serious ethical, religious, medical, reputational, familial and general social consequences for it too. There aren't so many now.

It is still the case that women who enjoy sex are treated disgracefully by some sectors of society, especially the religious, even to the extent that their clistoris will be mutilated to try and ensure they don't. And despite spurious claims about hygiene, the only purposes served by male circumcision is to desensitise the glans and make masturbation more less comfortable. Religion has ruined sensuality for billions of people.

But the pill made a lot of these consequences moot.

I'm not against the pill, by the way: all I am doing is observing the behavioural outcomes of a sexuality with natural consequences removed.

It's a bit more than that, Mr Can, you are judging people for their sexual behaviour according to your own prurient standards.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes but the expression of sex energy may not result in anything beneficial when it is an expression of negative emotion.

Of course.

I'm not sure why you would suppose this was more effective outside the bounds of matrimony than inside. It seems obvious to me that the opposite is true: the more committed, stable, loving and permanent a bond is, the better it is at making human beings mature. I have not noted that people who cruise bars looking for hookups are remarkably emotionally mature...

The commitment to romantic love serves our needs. The beloved arouses the feeling of love within us. When they no longer serve the lover, they are no longer loved and they will be blamed for the loss of emotion

This is one example of what I mean about "not remarkably emotionally mature." To blame another for one's own misfortune, and not to consider one's own role in it strikes me as less than mature.

Do you really think that if adults had any understanding of the nature of sex energy they would allow the young to poison their being with violent video games arousing negative emotions and sex energy to fuel them?

Yes.

There are other things in the world that they count in favour of it. Many children like, or are at least curious about, video games that are violent and sexual; parents want to be friends with their kids, at all costs; the kids are quiet and easier to manage when they are allowed to do as they please; some adults like the games too, and don't want to be hypocritical about it, or don't want to have to explain; and so on, and so on, and so on...There are lots of reasons for bad or lazy parenting decisions. This isn't unusual.

[uwot]

...parents want to be friends with their kids, at all costs; the kids are quiet and easier to manage when they are allowed to do as they please...

You clearly don't have children.

There are lots of reasons for bad or lazy parenting decisions.

Passing the buck to some god springs to mind.

This isn't unusual.

Tragically not.

[Nick_A]

uwot

It is still the case that women who enjoy sex are treated disgracefully by some sectors of society, especially the religious, even to the extent that their clistoris will be mutilated to try and ensure they don't. And despite spurious claims about hygiene, the only purposes served by male circumcision is to desensitise the glans and make masturbation more less comfortable. Religion has ruined sensuality for billions of people.

This isn't a trick question but I am curious if you believe there are any legitimate reason for sexual mores. It seems everyone is concerned in one way or another with sexual expression but the question is why. I learned from the Secular Intolerance thread that the secular world is intolerant of these concerns as a societal influence The thinking person rather than emotionally reacting, questions if there are legitimate reasons for concern deeper than the belief that a personal god will be offended? Do you believe there could be some legitimate concerns for sexual expression you are unaware of?

[Nick_A]

I Can

There are other things in the world that they count in favour of it. Many children like, or are at least curious about, video games that are violent and sexual; parents want to be friends with their kids, at all costs; the kids are quiet and easier to manage when they are allowed to do as they please; some adults like the games too, and don't want to be hypocritical about it, or don't want to have to explain; and so on, and so on, and so on...There are lots of reasons for bad or lazy parenting decisions. This isn't unusual.

Yes, kids can be quieted down when they are enchanted by violence and aroused by sex energy. Wouldn't it be easier and more effective to use drugs? If the kids are strung out on heroine they will just be nodding out in the corner without bothering anyone. Either way, minds are destroyed but with drugs the process of destruction is less of an annoyance for adults. Seems logical