What is your thought on marriage?

[Twilight Imperium]

Monogamy is defendable in order to have some kind of sexual welfare among men if the amount of men surpass that of women.

That's a pretty big "if" you have going on there.

[The Parkus Empire]

You know as well as I do that the "health" studies about sex are very, very tenuous, mixing a lot of correlation and causation, and basically the stuff of novelty magazines. The only reason they exist is to justify it for us, to say it is okay and get an endorsement from our gods. It's the same reason we have magazines saying wine or coffee is good for your health, it's not really about that. If you really care about your health, there isn't any secret about it, you just have to stay active and eat right.

That's outside the scope of this thread.

Well, to stay active and eat right, you need to know what sort of active and right.

Also, sex has a large probability of being healthy - you just gotta burn a lot of calories by doing it.

I think being active isn't just about burning calories, but that's a topic for another thread.

[The Eternal Aulus]

Monogamy is defendable in order to have some kind of sexual welfare among men if the amount of men surpass that of women.

That's a pretty big "if" you have going on there.

Yes. Because men and women have the tendency, or need, to survive and that also means to procreate. Women can procreate if there are more women than men or vice versa. This is not the case for men, as the ''strongest'' men would get the women. This would lead to social instability. I think this is one reason to defend marriage/monogamy.

[The Parkus Empire]

Monogamy is defendable in order to have some kind of sexual welfare among men if the amount of men surpass that of women. However, this does not defend marriage per se. Just monogamy, of which I am supportive in long term relationships.

That's a pretty bland and sad reason for fidelity.

[Twilight Imperium]

That's a pretty big "if" you have going on there.

Yes. Because men and women have the tendency, or need, to survive and that also means to procreate. Women can procreate if there are more women than men or vice versa. This is not the case for men, as the ''strongest'' men would get the women. This would lead to social instability. I think this is one reason to defend marriage/monogamy.

I meant the "if the amount of men surpasses that of women" part. Humans have more or less a 1:1 sex ratio, so that's basically never been the case?

[The Eternal Aulus]

Yes. Because men and women have the tendency, or need, to survive and that also means to procreate. Women can procreate if there are more women than men or vice versa. This is not the case for men, as the ''strongest'' men would get the women. This would lead to social instability. I think this is one reason to defend marriage/monogamy.

I meant the "if the amount of men surpasses that of women" part. Humans have more or less a 1:1 sex ratio, so that's basically never been the case?

China is a good example where this is not the case.

[The Parkus Empire]

Yes. Because men and women have the tendency, or need, to survive and that also means to procreate. Women can procreate if there are more women than men or vice versa. This is not the case for men, as the ''strongest'' men would get the women. This would lead to social instability. I think this is one reason to defend marriage/monogamy.

I meant the "if the amount of men surpasses that of women" part. Humans have more or less a 1:1 sex ratio, so that's basically never been the case?

Infanticide or exposure of females was an EXTREMELY common, legal and socially acceptable practice in the West prior to Christianity.

[New haven america]

First, the "health" part is just saying "look, it's not just fun, it's also good for you".

Second, how do you know these people were actually possessed by God, instead of being liars or delusional?

You know as well as I do that the "health" studies about sex are very, very tenuous, mixing a lot of correlation and causation, and basically the stuff of novelty magazines. The only reason they exist is to justify it for us, to say it is okay and get an endorsement from our gods. It's the same reason we have magazines saying wine or coffee is good for your health, it's not really about that. If you really care about your health, there isn't any secret about it, you just have to stay active, eat right and get regular check ups.

That's outside the scope of this thread.

And I'm convinced that people saying sex isn't healthy is just to justify their overzealous views, prove me wrong.

Also, wine contains Resveratrol, which helps prevent damage to red blood cells, reduces LDL cholesterol, and acts as a weak anti-coagulant to reduce or even stop blood clotting. So yes, having wine in moderation is actually a good thing.

[The Parkus Empire]

You know as well as I do that the "health" studies about sex are very, very tenuous, mixing a lot of correlation and causation, and basically the stuff of novelty magazines. The only reason they exist is to justify it for us, to say it is okay and get an endorsement from our gods. It's the same reason we have magazines saying wine or coffee is good for your health, it's not really about that. If you really care about your health, there isn't any secret about it, you just have to stay active, eat right and get regular check ups.

That's outside the scope of this thread.

And I'm convinced that people saying sex isn't healthy is just to justify their overzealous views, prove me wrong.

Also, wine contains Resveratrol, which helps prevent damage to red blood cells, reduces LDL cholesterol, and acts as a weak anti-coagulant to reduce or even stop blood clotting. So yes, having wine in moderation is actually a good thing.

I don't think it is about zeal, more it's just about the same thing as "coffee is healthy!" articles in magazines.

Does whether or not you have wine in moderation, have anything to do with your red blood cells? It shouldn't, but I hear this about wine being healthy over and over and over, it's entirely clear to me that it's become some way people feel positive about drinking wine, which is very sad.

[Twilight Imperium]

Infanticide or exposure of females was an EXTREMELY common, legal and socially acceptable practice in the West prior to Christianity.

I wonder if that's why the people who wrote the bible included the "man and woman" part?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Infanticide or exposure of females was an EXTREMELY common, legal and socially acceptable practice in the West prior to Christianity.

I wonder if that's why the people who wrote the bible included the "man and woman" part?

I seem to remember watching a documentry about how the Catholics put together the canon, and there was some stuff like going hard against homosexuality and cracking down on women taking virginity vows withen marriage to help with a declining population

[The Parkus Empire]

Infanticide or exposure of females was an EXTREMELY common, legal and socially acceptable practice in the West prior to Christianity.

I wonder if that's why the people who wrote the bible included the "man and woman" part?

Man and woman part was included because in Biblical ontology, male and female are two halves of a human, who becomes complete in their union. In pagan ontology, female and male are not two halves of humanity, rather male is a perfect human and female is an impaired human.

[The East Marches II]

You know as well as I do that the "health" studies about sex are very, very tenuous, mixing a lot of correlation and causation, and basically the stuff of novelty magazines. The only reason they exist is to justify it for us, to say it is okay and get an endorsement from our gods. It's the same reason we have magazines saying wine or coffee is good for your health, it's not really about that. If you really care about your health, there isn't any secret about it, you just have to stay active, eat right and get regular check ups.

That's outside the scope of this thread.

And I'm convinced that people saying sex isn't healthy is just to justify their overzealous views, prove me wrong.

Also, wine contains Resveratrol, which helps prevent damage to red blood cells, reduces LDL cholesterol, and acts as a weak anti-coagulant to reduce or even stop blood clotting. So yes, having wine in moderation is actually a good thing.

Nah, the burden of the proofs is on you

[Twilight Imperium]

-snip-

So "yes"?

[Constantinopolis]

I'd like a poll option for those of us who are already happily married, thank you very much.

[New haven america]

And I'm convinced that people saying sex isn't healthy is just to justify their overzealous views, prove me wrong.

Also, wine contains Resveratrol, which helps prevent damage to red blood cells, reduces LDL cholesterol, and acts as a weak anti-coagulant to reduce or even stop blood clotting. So yes, having wine in moderation is actually a good thing.

I don't think it is about zeal, more it's just about the same thing as "coffee is healthy!" articles in magazines.

Does whether or not you have wine in moderation, have anything to do with your red blood cells? It shouldn't, but I hear this about wine being healthy over and over and over, it's entirely clear to me that it's become some way people feel positive about drinking wine, which is very sad.

You keep avoiding my requests, is there any reason behind this? All I'm asking for is a unbiased source saying that sex between two consenting adults is bad. And yes, it does have a lot to do with zealousness, specifically right-conservativism and ultra-religiousness (Specifically of the Abrahamic variety, seeing as how there are other religions in the world that don't care about sex or sexuality).

Yes, it does, I literally just stated it in my last post (You can also get resveratrol supplements if you're interested, they generally range from $10-$50 a bottle). Also, you do realize that people with drinking problems (Or any addiction, for that matter) don't care about if science or anything else backs them or not, right? They're going to continue with the destructive behavior anyway, so complaining about these medical reports doesn't really hold any weight.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't think it is about zeal, more it's just about the same thing as "coffee is healthy!" articles in magazines.

Does whether or not you have wine in moderation, have anything to do with your red blood cells? It shouldn't, but I hear this about wine being healthy over and over and over, it's entirely clear to me that it's become some way people feel positive about drinking wine, which is very sad.

You keep avoiding my requests, is there any reason behind this? All I'm asking for is a unbiased source saying that sex between two consenting adults is bad. And yes, it does have a lot to do with zealousness, specifically right-conservativism and ultra-religiousness (Specifically of the Abrahamic variety, seeing as how there are other religions in the world that don't care about sex or sexuality).

Yes, it does, I literally just stated it in my last post (You can also get resveratrol supplements if you're interesting, they generally range from $10-$50 a bottle. Also, you do realize that people with drinking problems (Or any addiction, for that matter) don't care about if science or anything else backs them or not, right? They're going to continue with the destructive behavior anyway, so complaining about these medical reports doesn't really hold any weight.

I don't know what you mean by "bad".

I'm not talking about wine as a "drinking problem," I just mean general enjoyment.

[New haven america]

I wonder if that's why the people who wrote the bible included the "man and woman" part?

I seem to remember watching a documentry about how the Catholics put together the canon, and there was some stuff like going hard against homosexuality and cracking down on women taking virginity vows withen marriage to help with a declining population

Also, most beliefs against homosexuality, virginity vows, [Insert other weird rules here], come from the OT and not the NT, even though Christians are only supposed to follow the NT. (IIRC, Jesus barely even mentioned anything about homosexuality)

Seriously, if Christians still followed the OT, then eating shellfish and pork or wearing mixed fabrics would earn you a one way ticket to hell.

[The Parkus Empire]

I seem to remember watching a documentry about how the Catholics put together the canon, and there was some stuff like going hard against homosexuality and cracking down on women taking virginity vows withen marriage to help with a declining population

Also, most beliefs against homosexuality, virginity vows, [Insert other weird rules here], come from the OT and not the NT, even though Christians are only supposed to follow the NT. (IIRC, Jesus barely even mentioned anything about homosexuality)

Seriously, if Christians still followed the OT, then eating shellfish and pork or wearing mixed fabrics would earn you a one way ticket to hell.

NT stresses virginity and sexuality much more than the OT. In the OT, all sorts of guys of have tons of wives and concubines and prostitutes.

[New haven america]

You keep avoiding my requests, is there any reason behind this? All I'm asking for is a unbiased source saying that sex between two consenting adults is bad. And yes, it does have a lot to do with zealousness, specifically right-conservativism and ultra-religiousness (Specifically of the Abrahamic variety, seeing as how there are other religions in the world that don't care about sex or sexuality).

Yes, it does, I literally just stated it in my last post (You can also get resveratrol supplements if you're interesting, they generally range from $10-$50 a bottle. Also, you do realize that people with drinking problems (Or any addiction, for that matter) don't care about if science or anything else backs them or not, right? They're going to continue with the destructive behavior anyway, so complaining about these medical reports doesn't really hold any weight.

I don't know what you mean by "bad".

I'm not talking about wine as a "drinking problem," I just mean general enjoyment.

Bad: Not good in any manner or degree; Of poor or inferior quality, defective/deficient. I want my sources, now.

Well then that's fine, a glass of wine every once in a while won't kill anyone. Hell, in ancient times people were required to drink wine and beer on a regular basis because water quality in most places would be considered undrinkable today.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't know what you mean by "bad".

I'm not talking about wine as a "drinking problem," I just mean general enjoyment.

Bad: Not good in any manner or degree; Of poor or inferior quality, defective/deficient

Well then that's fine, a glass of wine every once in a while won't kill anyone. Hell, in ancient times people were required to drink wine and beer on a regular basis because water quality in most places would be considered undrinkable today.

Bad is a value judgement, so I can't help unless I know your values.

That undrinkable water thing is a myth, probably also a product of our clinical thought. People in ancient times did drink a lot of wine, and in the Middle Ages they drank a ton of beer--because they liked it.

[Petrolheadia]

You keep avoiding my requests, is there any reason behind this? All I'm asking for is a unbiased source saying that sex between two consenting adults is bad. And yes, it does have a lot to do with zealousness, specifically right-conservativism and ultra-religiousness (Specifically of the Abrahamic variety, seeing as how there are other religions in the world that don't care about sex or sexuality).

Yes, it does, I literally just stated it in my last post (You can also get resveratrol supplements if you're interesting, they generally range from $10-$50 a bottle. Also, you do realize that people with drinking problems (Or any addiction, for that matter) don't care about if science or anything else backs them or not, right? They're going to continue with the destructive behavior anyway, so complaining about these medical reports doesn't really hold any weight.

I don't know what you mean by "bad".

I'm not talking about wine as a "drinking problem," I just mean general enjoyment.

So, something shouldn't be both enjoyable and good for us?

Honestly, is there something wrong with you?

[New haven america]

Bad: Not good in any manner or degree; Of poor or inferior quality, defective/deficient

Well then that's fine, a glass of wine every once in a while won't kill anyone. Hell, in ancient times people were required to drink wine and beer on a regular basis because water quality in most places would be considered undrinkable today.

Bad is a value judgement, so I can't help unless I know your values.

That undrinkable water thing is a myth, probably also a product of our clinical thought. People in ancient times did drink a lot of wine, and in the Middle Ages they drank a ton of beer--because they liked it.

I just want unbiased, scientific evidence that shows that consenting adult having sex has negative side-effects when it comes to their health.

Got any sources on that too? Cause I can assure you, I wouldn't want to drink any water that came from the Nile or from Rome's lead pipes.

Ok, here's the deal, you give me sources on your claims, or you just prove that your spouting nonsense. Pick one.

[Oil exporting People]

Here's the thing. You can't get AIDS from sex it's not fucking possible. What you get is HIV and AIDS is a complication of HIV. However HIV isn't the death sentence it was 10 years ago. Most people with HIV, especially those in first world nations, tend to live at least a good 40-50 years after contacting it.

We are also getting very close to finding a vaccine for HIV and a possible cure for it. So please stop with the fear mongering to spread your point

You might wanna read the article before automatically jumping to your conclusions, because you embarrass yourself by doing so:

The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, or UNAIDS, reckons 36.7 million people are living with HIV today: More than half of them are on drugs that, when used properly, hold the virus at bay, blocking progression to full-blown AIDS and decreasing the odds that they will pass the virus onto their sexual partners or via drug use. Thanks to that treatment, substantially paid for by U.S. taxpayers, death rates have plummeted from a 2005 annual high of nearly 2 million to about 1 million in 2016. But half of the HIV-positive world is still in need of those life-sparing medicines. And despite having 19.5 million people on the medicines, the new infection rates haven’t improved: Roughly 2 million more people are added every year to the HIV-positive population that need medication and can spread the virus to others.

Simple math illustrates the problem: If 36.7 million were living with HIV in 2016, and 2 million more become infected annually, by 2020 the pool will swell to 44.7 million, minus the annual death rate, bringing the total to 40.7 million. By 2030, if the world continues to muddle through using the same approach and funding to the HIV problem, there would be nearly 54 million people living with HIV — all of them in need of daily medications.

Even that grim forecast is probably too rosy, as increasingly the forms of HIV spreading to the newly infected are drug-resistant. A new World Health Organization survey estimates that in some countries roughly 10 percent of the people who start antiretroviral therapy have a virus that defies easy treatment, greatly increasing the costs of care and diminishing treatment success. At the dismal 10 percent rate, controlling HIV worldwide over the next five years will cost an extra $650 million in second-line, more expensive drugs, and the medicines will fail more often, increasing the death toll by 135,000 and allowing an additional 105,000 new infections. The WHO drug resistance estimates are based on new cases diagnosed in Argentina, Guatemala, Namibia, Nicaragua, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. A 2015 survey of newly infected Mexican patients found that 14 percent had drug-resistant viruses. A London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine 2016 analysis of African patients whose treatment was failing found that 16 percent of them carried viruses that were multidrug-resistant, meaning they already needed third-line therapy.

Furthermore, this is also ignoring the fact that production is tapped out:

In addition to profit disincentives, the possibility of expanding drug production into other regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa, is limited by a paucity of technical and managerial personnel and scientific expertise. Combined global production capacity for affordably priced anti-HIV drugs hasn’t much improved since 2012, though patent manufacturers enjoy a booming market and profits in the European and North American markets. California-based Gilead, the lead patent-based maker in the world, sold $3.5 billion worth of its top anti-HIV drug, Truvada, in 2015, and sales growth has been steady ever since. But Paul Stoffels, the chief scientific officer for Johnson & Johnson, warns that with or without profit potentials the world’s manufacturers simply cannot sustain 40 or 50 years of manufacturing sufficient anti-HIV drugs to keep 35 million, much less more than 50 million, people alive. As individuals develop resistance to the cheap first-line drugs, each new category of anti-HIV chemistry gets more difficult to make, more costly, and carries more risk of dangerous side effects that require expensive monitoring and care.

This also doesn't address all the other STDs that are becoming drug resistant either.

I just want unbiased, scientific evidence that shows that consenting adult having sex has negative side-effects when it comes to their health.

Mental or physical? Both?

[The Parkus Empire]

Bad is a value judgement, so I can't help unless I know your values.

That undrinkable water thing is a myth, probably also a product of our clinical thought. People in ancient times did drink a lot of wine, and in the Middle Ages they drank a ton of beer--because they liked it.

I just want unbiased, scientific evidence that shows that consenting adult having sex has negative side-effects when it comes to their health.

Got any sources on that too? Cause I can assure you, I wouldn't want to drink any water that came from the Nile or from Rome's lead pipes.

Ok, here's the deal, you give me sources on your claims, or you just prove that your spouting nonsense. Pick one.

I never claimed it was bad for you physical functioning, I said it is sad that it's becoming so clinical. I have no interest in arguing for or against on clinical grounds, I say clinical justification of sex is sad. Just as clinical justification of love would be.