I'm not quite sure this warranted a thread, but, perhaps showing my hand, you are vastly underestimating hte liberality of people in general about sex. You more than likely have friends who are absolute freaks, swingers, kinksters etc... but they respect you and so do not intrude on your lifestyle with theirs. A huge number of people are in this position.

I'm not quite sure this warranted a thread, but, perhaps showing my hand, you are vastly underestimating hte liberality of people in general about sex. You more than likely have friends who are absolute freaks, swingers, kinksters etc... but they respect you and so do not intrude on your lifestyle with theirs. A huge number of people are in this position. — AmadeusD

:sweat: lol.

For 'square' type of people I wonder how they ever 'do the do' and actually have sex. I think of very reserved Brits such as Richard Dawkins, or just the idea of the 'stiff upper lip' Brit in general and think 'how did they ever manage to loosen up enough to have sex?' — unimportant

Believe me, there are uptight introverts whose sex acts match their own personality. Are you a quiet personality and don't interact much? Then the way you are in bed with another person would mirror that.

I don't think sex is dirty, but instead is (or ought to be) an intimate act - just like taking a dump, or sobbing hysterically, etc. - it doesn't belong in the public space.

You are basically claiming that there is an incommensurability between the act of sex and the effect of procreation. It's an interesting argument. My suggestion would be that sex is not as irreducibly bestial as it has come to be seen in our culture. In any case, this is another outgrowth of the fact that man is the strange amalgam that lies between the angels and the beasts.

incommensurability between the act of sex and the effect of procreation — Leontiskos

Indeed.

Most things are of a like kind to produce more of the same.

Not sure how to articulate, but living a certain kind of way produces more of the same. If someone lives a life of abusing their bodies they can expect results in kind. If someone eats healthy they can expect healthy results.

I suppose what I mean is that sex is nasty by nature, and nasty in a good way, due to being naughty, but babies are like a wholesome thing. It is like a strange alchemy where one base material produces its opposite.

This is the saddest, creepiest OP I’ve ever seen on the forum. It’s worse than even Hanover’s true stories.

I have some of the same thoughts the OP has. But I don't think babies are all that special.

I have some of the same thoughts the OP has. But I don't think babies are all that special. — RogueAI

There is a difference between having thoughts and making them public. And babies are very special. The most special things.

I had this reply as a saved draft, but originally decided not to post it due to it seeming "spammy" or non-genuine. But in light of @T Clark's scathing analysis I now feel it slightly more appropriate:

Best thread on TPF in years, OP. :up:

Best thread on TPF in years, OP. — Outlander

It doesn’t surprise me that’s your opinion.

This is the saddest, creepiest OP I’ve ever seen on the forum. It’s worse than even Hanover’s true stories. — T Clark

Best thread on TPF in years, OP. :up: — Outlander

Why turning to base trolling and name calling I would expect on other forums?

T Clark you are the one also made the 'low effort' "get help" response in the very productive Suicide thread that many are enjoying so not going to put much stock in your comment.

I am not saying the OP has the highest intellectual vigour and was rightly placed in The Lounge but there is no need for guttural replies as there it was an honest observation and don't see what is 'creepy' about it. If you want to say it is creepy then say why, as this is a Philosophy forum, not just a little hit and run insult.

Seems your delicate sensibilities are easily offended.

But in light of T Clark's scathing analysis — Outlander

Again this bandwagoning is what I see far too much on other forums. As soon as one negative post comes, others seem to get their courage and pile on.

Again this bandwagoning is what I see far too much on other forums. As soon as one negative post comes, others seem to get their courage and pile on. — unimportant

To be fair mine was written well in advance. And it was funny. The classic "everything's fine" in a situation where it's clearly not. You have people in this thread who relate to you and validate your premise(s), and you have those who don't. What more do you want? :chin:

Sure, I don't actually think it's the "best thread on TPF" but the fact that some people see that remark as wry humor (that's what it is: gentle, lighthearted absurdity not vindictive mockery or belittlement) addresses a common sentiment that does no good in ignoring or acting like the people (a majority) who hold it are inherently incorrect or out of touch, no?

Though, I do see your point. I withheld that remark not because I thought it was offensive but because it was non-serious. Whereas once a serious (potentially offensive) remark was made, I offered mine so as to lighten the mood with wry humor. This should have made you feel better and more confident in the face of the other person's more serious critique.

The Lounge is supposed to be a lighthearted place. It takes two to tango when it comes to negativity. So perhaps one might ask who it really is who isn't playing fair. :wink:

Why turning to base trolling and name calling I would expect on other forums? — unimportant

I don’t consider expressing my distaste for the OP as trolling and there was no name calling. I didn’t say anything about you, I only commented on the OP.

I am not saying the OP has the highest intellectual vigour and was rightly placed in The Lounge but there is no need for guttural replies as there it was an honest observation and don't see what is 'creepy' about it. — unimportant

I found it disgusting and I expressed that feeling. That seems reasonable to me.

I found it disgusting and I expressed that feeling. — T Clark

Of course, because it shows what an animal who laps at the bosom of primal lust without any deep meaning really is. His is a scathing commentary on how humanity has failed to evolve. That despite all our machines and pleasantries we still value that which the animals value first and foremost, much like the same.

Some might have the self-respect and dignity to admit, yes, there are faults we have personally that should be exposed so as to result in a better society and state of mankind.

I think there's a view you're not considering, one which is probably closer to the way @T Clark sees things. I mean the view that sees the idea that sex is dirty or that the animal in us is something to be ashamed of or to transcend—that this idea itself is what is offensive, rather than sex or the "bestial". In other words, it is disgusting that people find sex disgusting.

The idea that our animal nature is "base" and "dirty" has deep links with philosophy and religion, of course. That's a problem for philosophy. If this discussion could go in that direction, that might be enough to raise it up out of the Lounge.

The traditional scheme is that the good is what is eternal, necessary, pure, and rational. The contingent, mutable, finite, passionate and affective—like life and love (real love, with sex and everything)—are relegated to inferior status, as belonging to the wordly realm that philosophy is meant to transcend.

I am very much against this binary scheme, and I like the philosophers who have challenged it. Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, and Adorno. Generally, 20th century scepticism towards reason, and its inclusion of the body, saved philosophy from becoming a complete idiot.

One interesting angle is the possibility that a neurotically adolescent view of sex, as expressed in the OP (which is not to say it's unusual), might actually be founded on a long-standing philosophical tradition going back to Plato and Siddhartha Gautama.

I think there's a view you're not considering — Jamal

Oh I'm absolutely sure of that. This is the Lounge after all. I enjoy taking my thinking cap off here, if that's alright.

I mean the view that sees the idea that sex is dirty or that the animal in us is something to be ashamed of or to transcend—that this idea itself is what is offensive, rather than sex or the "bestial". In other words, it is disgusting that people find sex disgusting. — Jamal

Right, that's not quite what I was getting at. Different strokes for different folks. However, if one has what a thinking society might consider an irrational (that is to say, what should be irrational due to the heavy contrast of what intelligence, restraint, and pursuit of higher [to some, "lofty"] ideals have produced) fixation or perhaps even obsession with the lowest levels of the human experience, well, perhaps one ought listen and hear out the opposing party. Again, the people who chastise or outright condemn the values that brought about everything said condemning people use everyday don't really have a right to turn around and say "oh that's nice that it gave me everything I use and take for granted, but now I'm going to talk down about it as something I don't need" when in reality it gave them everything they have. That's what I feel many people can rightfully pose an issue toward.

Perhaps it can be likened to eating. Everyone eats, they have to. We wouldn't be alive without eating. But when someone just can't control themself to the point it starts to negatively affect not only their own life but that of others (specifically others who can control, or perhaps simply do value concepts such as restraint and planning, and as such want neither deserve no part of the burden that those who cannot). I mean, there has to be a limit to over-indulgence and what is socially-acceptable as far as inflicting your willful lack of restraint (and resulting detriment) on unsuspecting upstanding members of society if they can easily make the choice not to. There's a limit to how much burden and moral degradation (and resulting social detriment) the average person should reasonably bear, especially in the context of anything possibly detrimental or likely to cause degradation being wholly and perhaps even easily avoidable.

But anyhow. Perhaps the OP's underlying sentiment can be likened to how coal (a crude, dirty material) is the only way that results in diamonds (highly valued and generally clean and pure material) from otherwise violent, messy, and mindless forces.

one which is probably closer to the way T Clark sees things. I mean the view that sees the idea that sex is dirty or that the animal in us is something to be ashamed of or to transcend—that this idea itself is what is offensive, rather than sex or the "bestial". In other words, it is disgusting that people find sex disgusting. — Jamal

That seems a very charitable appraisal of them calling my post creepy. Seems you are assigning your own interpretation.

It seems the much more likely evaluation is they said it is creepy/disgusting simply because I am talking about sex in probably what they think is a puerile manner; one which they deem as socially inept which is usually the reason for calling something creepy.

I just shared what I found to be a biological observation that there is an incongruence between the base act of sex and the happy act of baby productions.

You are misinterpreting what I was saying. I am not saying sex is dirty in a Puritan type of way. I am saying it is nasty in the 'sexy' way. Like you want your girlfriend to be nasty in the bedroom. That is not to be prudish. Quite the opposite. It is to embrace the nastiness and revel in it.

I am not making value judgements about it. Sex is nasty by nature and that is all fine. I am only pointing out the juxtaposition between nasty sex and sweet coochy cooo babies which result from the act.

I had thought of another corollary which is salient. Manure is also thought of as nasty and yet that feeds the soil to produce good healthy crops.

That seems a very charitable appraisal of them calling my post creepy. — unimportant

Them? I see one post that mentions anything of the sort. Are you seeing double? People pile things on yes. But, many a time, it is but our own mind that plays tricks on us. Per past experience, of course. No shame. We all have our horror stories. However, one ought wish to make a fine distinction, a point of remembrance, a baseline of reality, when the illusions of one's own mind is made so glaringly evident.

Them? — Outlander

You are not familiar with them being used to refer to a person in the singular?

Also let's not forget the 'new' none binary gender!

One 'them' made 2 comments in the derogatory - that my post is creepy and then followed up that it is disgusting.

Rather than some noble interpretation that Jamal states I read it more in the "shutdown this line of enquiry because it deviates from the societal norm" in the cancel culture type of vein.

Perhaps the OP's underlying sentiment can be likened to how coal (a crude, dirty material) is the only way that results in diamonds (highly valued and generally clean and pure material) from otherwise violent, messy, and mindless forces. — Outlander

This is the one and I don't see anything creepy or disgusting about stating such.

One 'them' made 2 comments in the derogatory - that my post is creepy and then followed up that it is disgusting. — unimportant

Oh, okay. We refer to people whose gender is unknown and impolite to assume as "they." Yes, I do that too! My mistake. Sorry about that. Carry on. And relax! It's the Lounge. Have a drink, get comfortable. We're not going anywhere. :smile:

Though in the future, a simple "that person" might suffice. I was concerned since you had previously mistakenly mentioned my post as something derogatory, thus priming my expected use of "they" to include multiple persons as opposed to it's actual use. An understandable misunderstanding. As it were. :grin:

"that person" — Outlander

First time I am learning referring to someone as they is improper. Nowadays it is improper to assume gender and be told off of 'misgendering'.

"that person" — Outlander

Doesn't make sense to me, perhaps a language difference thing? Nitpicking anyway to look further.

since you had previously mistakenly mentioned my post as something derogatory, thus priming my expected use of "they" to include multiple persons as opposed to it's actual use. An understandable misunderstanding. As it were. — Outlander

Yes I see, no problem.