05-23-2011, 11:13 PM
I suppose that's true. I myself would distinguish between solicited and unsolicited feedback. Then again, I have no business speaking for Dave here, so i'm really no better.
(05-23-2011 07:59 PM)Extropy Wrote: [ -> ]Not really, just imagine a a social and charismatic guy who stays a virgin because of a political ideology. Obviously, this guy would be better off, i.e. have more pleasure, without his beliefs. The girls around him would probably be happier as well. ;-) Isn't it sad when a irrational ideology makes his life worse?
You know, in northern Europe allmost no one stays a virgin but religious fundamentalists and that's maybe 1% of the population. Most people in countries like England, Germany, etc. couldn't understand it at all. Obviously, the US are very religious compared to Europe and things are different there.
The notion that pre-marriage sex is immoral is unjustified and unrealistic. It is obviously against human nature as you will see in any book on evolution, biology and human sexuality. Even if it was in some way immoral, there would be no reason to make it a rule, because this norm is determined to fail. Same like prohibiting alcohol: Even if it was immoral to drink (responsibly), there is no sense in prohibiting it, because it doesnt stop people and the rule is determined to fail. It is just plain silly to expect people to do things which are against their nature.
(05-24-2011 06:16 AM)Mark Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are both arguing past each other... either way, this is not the place for this kind of debate, much less attacking people's religious and philosophical beliefs. If you want to keep it going Extropy, take it to PM. Otherwise, cut it out.