This article is pretty wonderful. It continues to amaze me that some people just don't believe that not all the single people are looking for partners to marry and produce children with.
Also, I love this quote: "She’s been in long-term relationships, and once thought about getting married, but decided to go to Nigeria instead."
and now you see why. Another thing at which I suck. ;P
It's actually a whole lot worse. You should hear the horror stories about siezu... err leisure world here in socal.
Ccat, I'm not arguing for celibacy specifically. Yes, it is true that I'm a virgin (which apparently makes me a freak) but this is beside the point. I don't think that a fair portion of the population would "aspire to be celibate." And it's not something I aspire for either. The fact that I happen to be celibate sexually inactive doesn't mean I think that it's "normal" per se. I admit that. And I admit that it might be a response to some of the other emotional problems in my life.
However, I see a difference between being celibate and being single. I like being single because I value my independence. This part IS normal. I have no desire to have a significant other in my life at the moment. I just moved into a new apartment and started a new career. Maybe later I will think about having a relationship, but for now, I am perfectly happy being single. There is not some sort of "void" in my life that I need a relationship to fill.
EDIT- changed "celibate" to "sexually inactive" as a more appropriate word choice. When I think of "celibate," I think of someone who is intentionally abstinent due to a religious or personal conviction, which isn't really the case for me.
Seems really straightforward to me...
Can I imagine a situation where a guy might want to be single?
Sure. While I tended towards serial monogamy, I've known plenty of guys who liked being single. It just suited their temperament.
For women? I see no reasons at all why it wouldn't be the exact same deal, and I expect often for the exact same reasons... including nothing more than just wanting to be free of commitment for the joy of it.
Edit: Also, if you think "single" means "celibate"... wow, are you delusional. Go to a singles bar sometime, you know, a place with "single" right in the name, and see what goes down. Hell, half the time people are hooking up in the bathroom stalls.
'Love' is a convenient fiction that describes a range of experiences. It doesn't actually exist, as such, we only agree to talk as if it does.
The affection and and expectations and boredom and planning and rubbing and fighting and shared memories & kids & property and bloodrush and oxytocin and comfort and risk, and loneliness (together/apart) and staving off of it can happen in all kinds of ways.
But, as one conforming to ignayshus' typology, I am currently ecstatic about not having to compromise for anyone or thing. Or spending 1000% more labour-hours physically or metaphorically cleaning up after another person. (Those stinking sitcoms capture little pearls of truth, don't they? 'Oh Ray/Bob/Sam/Jim, please pick up your socks, please try to understand why asking for directions is a good idea, please imagine for one half second that you are not the sun in our little universe, please try to not be what you are in actuality, a black hole of narcissistic need and cruelty.' Haha, kidding.)
You're likely to die alone when it comes down to it. Women tend to outlive their partners most of the time, look around retirement homes and you'll find little old ladies vying for the few single older men. So figure your last decade is alone and your prior decade is devoted to caring for your partner...gah!
If you are wedded to someone who cannot stand to be alone then in the event that you come down with a debilitating illness or simply old age you're likely to be alone.
Don't kid yourself, if you cannot stand to be alone it's quite likely that you are ill suited to being with a partner.
The % difference between those who can be alone and those who can't is huge.
In the grand scale of things we are all insignificant in this world and for that reason the vast majority of people need to have something in their life which will focus attention towards them, and vice versa.
This gives the persons life reasoning, and value.
Everyone but everyone in some way shape or form needs to feel needed, be that from another human, pet, working with people less fortunate, conservation the list is endless.
We all need to feel that our life is making a difference and is of importance to someone or something.
I just don't 'get' why celibacy is such an ordeal to people. It's normal when you're not in a loving, caring relationship. Sorry, but people who think they 'need' sex really have some growing up to do because neither or bodies or our lives depend on it for survival. It can be, and in fact, should be, an integral part of a loving, caring relationship...one in which two people are ready and willing to give of themselves completely to the other. Otherwise, it's just sex. And dogs have sex.
@jweddington, I disagree. Sex should be a choice whether it's part of a loving committed relationship or not. I chose to be celibate for a year, that was a personal decision and not mostly a great hardship. By the same token I no longer choose to be celibate and I do choose the sex that I do have very carefully. Sex can be loving without being in love with the other person.
Original Post by jweddington:
I just don't 'get' why celibacy is such an ordeal to people. It's normal when you're not in a loving, caring relationship. Sorry, but people who think they 'need' sex really have some growing up to do because neither or bodies or our lives depend on it for survival. It can be, and in fact, should be, an integral part of a loving, caring relationship...one in which two people are ready and willing to give of themselves completely to the other. Otherwise, it's just sex. And dogs have sex.
Yes, and people can survive for long periods of time eating just rice. Doesn't mean it's healthy to do so, it just means that we're adapted to survive given hostile conditions.
Sex has a number of positive effects on the body. Aside from the simple mechanics of aerobic and anaerobic activity (if you're doing it right), it has a marked levelling effect on brain neurochemistry and reduces cortisol (stress hormone) levels. Regular sex, in essence, helps to keep you healthy.
The human body a system evolved from the ground up to serve two essential functions: a) survive and b) reproduce. It cares not a whit about your particular morality. It doesn't care if you stole a loaf of bread from a store, it just cares that you're getting nutrients. It doesn't care if you're getting sex from a wife, an old friend, a new lover or a one-night hookup, it just cares that the contact is happening.
PS - Dogs also eat, sleep and poop. We're all mammals.
I disagree but then again...that's part of what makes the world go round...differences ;)
Do you disagree from a well-considered and logically backed stance based on empirical observation and study, or do you disagree just because you've been told that sex outside of marriage is dirty and wrong?
If it's the former, I'd love to hear your supporting points, even at the risk of taking the thread ever more off-topic.
If it's the latter, then there's really nothing to say. You know what you know, and no amount of fact will crack that.
Edit: ... and if it's just an opinion with no real foundation, I would urge you to set aside what you've been told is "moral" for a while and look into the actual physiology of the matter, then re-evaluate whether the moral system helps or disrupts human flourishing and happiness.
I will certainly agree that there is a psychological impact from sex just like there is one from not having sex. The history of a person probably is the factor that makes the greatest difference as to whether or not sex outside of a committed relationship can be delightful or is just dirty.
So what's the difference, really?
- Sex only for procreation
- Sex only in a committed relationship
- Sex only in a marriage
- Sex only in a heterosexual marriage
- Sex only for procreation in a marriage
- Sex for the sake of mutual pleasure
- Sex as a duty
If you're not having fun, then imo you're not doing it right.
From a physiological standpoint, sex is sex. All the benefits accruing thereof will happen regardless of state of mind.
One could say the same thing about, say, doing sprints or running from a tiger: both involve starting from a dead stop and running like hell, and the physiological response from your body (lactic acid buildup, glycogen depletion et al) is going to be the same... but the perception of the event is sure going to be different! 
I have a distaste for the term "dirty" sex because it implies that sex itself is impure unless prepared and executed under particular circumstances. From a biological basis, sex is one of the most pure and undiluted basic urges we have, on par with the need to eat, sleep and poop (which is why I mentioned them above, they're all basic biological needs). As such, it's neither immaculate nor debased, it simply is... the extra weight of whether or not it's "clean" or "dirty" or whatever is entirely subjective and given to the vagaries of individual moralistic perspectives, or of societies trying to control individual behaviours for whatever reasons.
Edit - To clarify, sex is sex, but the quality of the sex itself can and does of course vary. Crappy sex is going to be crappy sex regardless of whether or not you love some one. Great sex is going to be great sex even if it's a proverbial hate-f***. I don't mean to imply that all sex is the same when it clearly isn't, but rather that the perception of the action is only marginally attached to the physicality of it.
observation and experience. I don't recall mentioning marriage or even eluding to it in my post. I don't, however, believe in the institution of marriage with the right people (I know very few and that's a whole different topic).
perception....a very powerful word and very very relative
Original Post by jweddington:
observation and experience. I don't recall mentioning marriage or even eluding to it in my post. I don't, however, believe in the institution of marriage with the right people (I know very few and that's a whole different topic).
Supporting points?
Original Post by jweddington:
observation and experience. I don't recall mentioning marriage or even eluding to it in my post. I don't, however, believe in the institution of marriage with the right people (I know very few and that's a whole different topic).
so your beliefs are true to your own observation and experience. do you concede that other people's observation and experience could yield different conclusions? because in post #88, you seem to make a point of speaking for "people" not just for yourself.
I believe we're all able to make our own choices and yet we're allowed to have our own opinions.
wow. scientific. experience would be my supporting point.
