Is Celibacy Good?

[Pasong Tirad]

Yeah, sex is cool but not having sex is also cool.

[Istoreya]

Either or - let's just go with a divine order that does not say celibacy/no sex before marriage is the 'right'/'best'/'default' choice

The dharmic religions, for example.

Yeah, sure, but that's still not answering the question - how does your view of sex account for those who don't believe in the same stuff as you? Why do you think that your God must be taken into consideration when people who don't believe in your God have sex?

[Nuroblav]

Up to said person to decide, in my opinion.

[Forsher]

Some things that exist defy moral judgement... at least, some of the time.

Celibacy and promiscuity pose social and private challenges if they were laws or conventions, but on an individual level as long as the frequency is low, what basis to judge either as good or bad?

[Eahland]

The dharmic religions, for example.

Yeah, sure, but that's still not answering the question - how does your view of sex account for those who don't believe in the same stuff as you? Why do you think that your God must be taken into consideration when people who don't believe in your God have sex?

Obviously he believes that his imaginary friend is real, and everyone else's imaginary friends are delusions.

What's not clear to me is why he insists on attributing opinions to his god that are clearly contradicted by not only his god's actions as reflected in the world He allegedly created, but also by the literal Word of God as outlined in his holy book.

[The Blaatschapen]

Yeah, sex is cool but not having sex is also cool.

I dunno.

I mean, sex can be pretty hot

[Kannap]

Yeah, sex is cool but not having sex is also cool.

I dunno.

I mean, sex can be pretty hot

Why be hot when you can be cool

[Bienenhalde]

Well since neither you, nor anyone, is actually transcendent, we can have no idea what that order is. And your saying it involves celibacy is completely baseless speculation. It could just as well involve jelly babies.

Which tastes better than celibacy.

Seriously the only people who say celibacy is better are folks who haven't been laid

Not true. Some people are just asexual and don't enjoy sex even when they try it. And some people, despite enjoying the physical sensation of sex find it emotionally unfulfulling and find that they are happier and have a better life being celibate. I might be a virgin myself, but I really think you are making an unfair generalization here.

[Ethel mermania]

Which tastes better than celibacy.

Seriously the only people who say celibacy is better are folks who haven't been laid

Not true. Some people are just asexual and don't enjoy sex even when they try it. And some people, despite enjoying the physical sensation of sex find it emotionally unfulfulling and find that they are happier and have a better life being celibate. I might be a virgin myself, but I really think you are making an unfair generalization here.

I would think most asexuals have not been laid.

My personal thought is to each their own, their loss, or more for me, depending on my whim at the time. Mostly the former

However when I am told celibacy is by definition better, my response is more of a "as commanded go forth be fruitful and multiply".

[Sundiata]

The dharmic religions, for example.

Yeah, sure, but that's still not answering the question - how does your view of sex account for those who don't believe in the same stuff as you? Why do you think that your God must be taken into consideration when people who don't believe in your God have sex?

Well, substantively that question is equivalent to "why are you not a Hindu," and the answer is a question of metaphysics. As for those who disagree, I do. A person who disagrees with me in metaphysical terms can still be virtuous. The issue is, the great risk they're taking by getting their time from a broken clock, so to speak. God must be taken into consideration when people have sex because the physical act isn't the whole picture.

[Istoreya]

Yeah, sure, but that's still not answering the question - how does your view of sex account for those who don't believe in the same stuff as you? Why do you think that your God must be taken into consideration when people who don't believe in your God have sex?

God must be taken into consideration when people have sex because the physical act isn't the whole picture.

But that's not true. It might be the case for you but I don't believe in God, and for me, the physical act is the whole picture, since I'm not looking to have kids just yet. So you can't tell me, or anyone else in a similar position as me, that I need to consider God when having sex, because that's simply untrue. God is not, never was, and never will be important to my sex life.

[Esalia]

Yeah, sure, but that's still not answering the question - how does your view of sex account for those who don't believe in the same stuff as you? Why do you think that your God must be taken into consideration when people who don't believe in your God have sex?

Well, substantively that question is equivalent to "why are you not a Hindu," and the answer is a question of metaphysics. As for those who disagree, I do. A person who disagrees with me in metaphysical terms can still be virtuous. The issue is, the great risk they're taking by getting their time from a broken clock, so to speak. God must be taken into consideration when people have sex because the physical act isn't the whole picture.

A religious argument has ended up at a point where the existence of God needs to be proven for it to hold any water, as usual.

To avoid the threadjack, I'll say that there's several billion people who do not share your religion and do not believe that your God needs to be taken into consideration when engaging in sex, and they have about as much standing, if not more, as you do when you say your God needs to be taken into consideration.

[Suriyanakhon]

I used to consider being abstinent to be morally superior or at least preferable, but being in a romantic relationship changed my perspective a ton.

Either or - let's just go with a divine order that does not say celibacy/no sex before marriage is the 'right'/'best'/'default' choice

The dharmic religions, for example.

Um, Sun, celibacy and no sex before marriage is the norm in those religions.

[Sundiata]

I used to consider being abstinent to be morally superior or at least preferable, but being in a romantic relationship changed my perspective a ton.

The dharmic religions, for example.

Um, Sun, celibacy and no sex before marriage is the norm in those religions.

It's more debateable in that context than it is in the Abrahmic, but you're not completely wrong.

[Suriyanakhon]

I used to consider being abstinent to be morally superior or at least preferable, but being in a romantic relationship changed my perspective a ton.

Um, Sun, celibacy and no sex before marriage is the norm in those religions.

It's more debateable in that context than it is in the Abrahmic, but you're not completely wrong.

I don't think you've met many Vashnaivites and Jains then.

[Hittisha]

It potentially could be, although not in and of itself, as simple-minded puritans would have us believe. If anything, it's necessary to start from the physiological factors linked to sexuality along with whatever else can be explained in empirical terms, and whether this in any way affects the faculties associated with what we call morality or virtue, before we consider any correspondence with the workings of some unseen metaphysical order. If we look at how nofap became a thing, that might give us some data we could work with, in which a favorable view of celibacy would be the logical conclusion (even though it's mainly intended for cases of compulsive masturbation). People often describe it as giving them a greater sense of clarity, and an ability to redirect their sexual energy towards higher pursuits. On the other hand, going through one's life repressing any inclination towards sexuality can't be a healthy way to avoid slipping towards the other extreme. I don't doubt there are those who can stick to celibacy without even needing to use repression, which likely makes them better masters over themselves than the average person. In any other case, having everything bottled up to the point of near explosion would more likely be a recipe for disaster.

There are some noteworthy perspectives on sexuality and celibacy from a spiritual standpoint which I found expressed by Mantak Chia (his books on the Taoist Secrets of Love, in particular) as well as in the subject of tantric esotericism. They describe a more practical alternative to celibacy which seems as if it would be more suitable to the average person.

[A Thousand Islands]

I think it can be a good thing, if it's your free choice.

[Sundiata]

It's more debateable in that context than it is in the Abrahmic, but you're not completely wrong.

I don't think you've met many Vashnaivites and Jains then.

I haven't, what do they have to say about these matters?

[Kernen]

Typically so people can have sex without the fear of their lives being upended by a child.

But if you're not open to parenthood and/or marriage there's no reason to be doing something so serious as sex.

There totally is when you have access to contraceptives and family planning. Sex without the risk.

[Greed and Death]

Refusing to contribute your genes to the human race should be punished by mandatory sperm/egg donations.

[Sundiata]

But if you're not open to parenthood and/or marriage there's no reason to be doing something so serious as sex.

There totally is when you have access to contraceptives and family planning. Sex without the risk.

That's supposed to be the idea but people forget to take the pill, condoms break, people change their minds or even lie.

There's also the damage being done to your soul, or in more conventional terms, a greater distance being established between yourself and what is truly good.

[Kernen]

There totally is when you have access to contraceptives and family planning. Sex without the risk.

That's supposed to be the idea but people forget to take the pill, condoms break, people change their minds or even lie.

There's also the damage being done to your soul, or in more conventional terms, a greater distance being established between yourself and what is truly good.

Right, and there are other family planning tools available.

And if one doesn't buy into the post-death punishment, it rather seems like noncelibacy is a no-brainer.

[Kernen]

Refusing to contribute your genes to the human race should be punished by mandatory sperm/egg donations.

I've seen what people post here. If NSG is representative, the human race could be dodging a bullet with noncontribution.

[Sundiata]

That's supposed to be the idea but people forget to take the pill, condoms break, people change their minds or even lie.

There's also the damage being done to your soul, or in more conventional terms, a greater distance being established between yourself and what is truly good.

Right, and there are other family planning tools available.

And if one doesn't buy into the post-death punishment, it rather seems like noncelibacy is a no-brainer.

From a materialistic perspective, why is non-celibacy a no-brainer? Is your only concern the discernable physical effects?

[Neanderthaland]

There totally is when you have access to contraceptives and family planning. Sex without the risk.

That's supposed to be the idea but people forget to take the pill, condoms break, people change their minds or even lie.

You could avoid all risk of choking by injecting all meals directly into your stomach via a gastrostomy feeding tube. Yet for some reason people still prefer to taste.

There's also the damage being done to your soul, or in more conventional terms, a greater distance being established between yourself and what is truly good.

You have dishonestly ignored all critiques of this idea, and calls for real evidence, in favor of mindlessly repeating yourself over and over again. If anything is "truly good" you're moving further away from it.