• Agustino
    4.2k
    You are so very melodramatic.
    You don't have to worship sex to have your first experience be an awkward disappointment.
    m-theory
    No you must simply take heed of what your culture is telling you "have sex have sex have sex" without understanding the spiritual dimension that's always involved in sex, and you're gonna end up with a not so great experience. Quite simple. Has nothing to do with being a virgin - in other words, your experience isn't lacking because you're a virgin, it's lacking because you're an idiot.
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    That is silly.
    Culture is not what compels people to have sex, biology does.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    Culture is not what informs people to have sex, biology does.m-theory
    That's what your culture has been telling you ;)
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    No, that is what my body tells me.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    No, that is what my body tells me.m-theory
    No it's really what you THINK you're body has been telling you. I used to think the same when I was a teenager. I was wrong. Our culture has deceived us, to the point we're not even able to see its effects anymore.
  • jamalrob
    1k
    What is the spiritual dimension of sex, and do you think one can explore this dimension, or do justice to it, in a one-night stand?
  • m-theory
    1.1k

    That is just what your ideology is telling you.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    What is the spiritual dimension of sex, and do you think one explore this dimension, or do justice to it, in a one-night stand?jamalrob
    Well they could explore the negative aspects of it, that's for sure >:O

    As for what the spiritual dimension is, it's the bond (or in the case of one-night stand, the broken bond) that is created with the other.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    That is just what your ideology is telling you.m-theory
    Yeah, pity that I arrived at this "ideology" independently through my own thinking - an ideology which is opposed by my Western culture, and which I pretty much could not have found propounded, and even if I did, I could not have found it advantageous to believe. So either I'm an idiot, or I see certain advantages in holding it that you don't. I think the latter.
  • jamalrob
    1k
    So you think it's impossible to form a temporary bond, one that lasts only for one night? Or do you think temporary bonds are insignificant or pointless (or something else bad)?

    And what negative aspects are you referring to? And does this apply to all one-night stands or just some or most of them?
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    You on the other hand m-theory, you sit there with what everyone else is thinking. That in itself should have you worried - that everyone else is thinking so.
  • m-theory
    1.1k
    Yeah, pity that I arrived at this "ideology" independently through my own thinkingAgustino

    Except it is a common theme in western culture.

    an ideology which is opposed by my Western cultureAgustino

    Your views are actually fairly common in western culture in my experience, especially among the religious.
  • Michael
    2.3k
    As for what the spiritual dimension is, it's the bond (or in the case of one-night stand, the broken bond) that is created with the other.Agustino

    Is this bond just some sort of psychological thing? Or by "spiritual" do you mean it in the mystical sense (as non-physical and non-psychological)?
  • Benkei
    385
    A natural desire. You have a natural desire for food. In what sense is that seeking to fulfill that a fallacy?Agustino

    It follows from the context of your discussion. First you said:

    Right it would be better that your partner gets fucked by hundreds of people before you get married to him/her - that sounds nice! Sure! >:OAgustino
    (emphasis mine)

    Then you said:

    Not at all. It's a natural desire of the human being, which has nothing to do with insecurity. The desire for specialness with your partner is a desire that is natural to the human being.Agustino

    You seem to claim that desire for specialness is better to have because it's natural. You moved from a statement of fact (desire to be special to your partner is natural) to a value judgment (therefore its better not to have a partner fucked by hundreds of people). That's the fallacy you are making.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    So you think it's impossible to form a temporary bond, one that lasts only for one night?jamalrob
    No it is possible, but as you say it is temporary, and hence it is a "broken bond" - as in always already broken.

    Or do you think temporary bonds are insignificant or pointless (or something else bad)?jamalrob
    Well they are insignificant and pointless on the one hand (no big thing gained, why waste all the effort merely for physical pleasure - as Epicurus would put it - avoid sex, bigger source of problems than of pleasures), and on the other, they destroy the very capacity for forming permanent bonds, and thus take away a greater good.

    And what negative aspects are you referring to? And does this apply to all one-night stands or just some or most of them?jamalrob
    All non-committed relationships.

    Your views are actually fairly common in western culture in my experience, especially among the religious.m-theory
    Not true. I don't view sex between people who don't get married as immoral so long as they are life-long devoted to each other, faithful and live monogamous lives together (or at minimum intend to do so). The religious do view that as problematic.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    You seem to claim that desire for specialness is better to have because it's natural.Benkei
    Nope. I merely identify that it exists, naturally and by itself - as opposed to artifically. I don't discuss whether it's good to have it or not. But if it exists, its in the nature of desire to seek its fulfilment, so if you do things which render it impossible to fulfil, then yes, you have hurt yourself, because that desire was part of you, and you have denied it.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    Is this bond just some sort of psychological thing? Or by "spiritual" do you mean it in the mystical sense (as non-physical and non-psychological)?Michael
    It is psychological and mystical. Or rather it has both dimensions.
  • Michael
    2.3k
    It is psychological and mystical.Agustino

    The "mystical" part is problematic. Unless the rest of us believe in such a thing then all your arguments are going to fall flat. It would be like arguing with an atheist that we shouldn't do something because God forbids it; given that they reject your premise the argument won't convince them how to behave.

    So if your arguments against casual sex depend on there being some spiritual connection between people then you first have to argue in favour of there being this spiritual connection, else you're never going to convince me that casual sex is wrong (at least not with this line of reasoning).
  • m-theory
    1.1k
    Not true. I don't view sex between people who don't get married as immoral so long as they are life-long devoted to each other, faithful and live monogamous lives together. The religious do view that as problematic.Agustino
    I am not sure how common this view is among the religious, I have not made a habit of asking about this specifically.

    But this may be the only difference between your views and that of those that claim promiscuity is immoral.

    Certainly it is not an uncommon view in the US that monogamy should be preferable to promiscuity.
    Monogamy is celebrated in modern mediums within the US as much if not more than promiscuity.

    I definitely don't agree that you get to claim you are surrounded by an unsympathetic culture.
  • Agustino
    4.2k
    The "mystical" part is problematic. Unless the rest of us believe in such a thing then all your arguments are going to fall flat. It would be like arguing with an atheist that we shouldn't do something because God forbids it; given that they reject your premise the argument won't convince them how to behave.Michael
    Yes but I can discuss with you in terms of the psychological - as the mystical is intimately related with the psychological anyway - it's a step beyond it, that's all there is to it.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.