h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

I did not intentionally call anyone here stupid, wrong, or guilty. I'm sorry for any offense caused by misinterpretation of my meraning. I may not have been that clear. Sorry.

<>

<>

<>

<>

Thanks for the support. And, everyone, please note that I came back and am trying to deal with all the comments made in my absence--not the behaviour of soeone trying to get away from an arguement they don't think they can win.

<>

I'm sorry if I insulted you--I wasn't trying to make personal coments about anyone, nor insult people for choosing to have sex.

My comment was about someone who set a goal of avoiding sex and failed, not someone who chooses to have sex and has nothing against it.

Apology accepted.

Your choice of words in how you express yourself is important around here, as that's the only way that people know you.

Bol**cks to that, I say.

B

Sorry again. I'm new to thistype of online forum-only been here a few days. I'll try to be more careful.

Manfully drags thread back to topic...

Sean. Don't ask why.

Ok, so quick recap (correct me if I'm wrong):

LB is not telling anyone else what they should do, is just talking about what she feels she (or people like her) should do.

As Flying Betty noted, there are two issues: 1) the repulsion from sex and 2) the belief in abstinence (from food, sex, etc., possibly enjoyable but distracting things).

1) is a matter of taste (de gustibus non est disputandum) (not even about mushrooms)

2) is, I think, more interesting.

LB, if I'm reading you right, you don't want to be distracted from more important, larger scale things by short term enjoyable things. I'm ignoring the sex issue, because thats complicated by 1), I just want to stick to enjoyable food: You said before that you try to go for nutritious food rather than enjoyable food (and would be happier doing so?). I'd say surely you've got to have something of a balance.

Eating all 'enjoyable and not necessarily nutritious' food would probably feel unpleasant pretty quickly, and would stop other enjoyable things, such as feeling healthy. But are you saying you would always go for the nutritious every time, no exceptions?

(Aside: the best way of course is to happen to enjoy healthy food...)

It sounds like you're making sure you can live a long and healthy life - which makes perfect sense as long as you're going to enjoy it somehow? Or perhaps the future enjoyment of people you will help in your life is what you're doing it all for?

Ok, related issue: suppose one lives a long and productive life, and then slows down and is physically incapable of aiding the human race much more, and doesn't have much time left in one's own life left anyway. What now? One of my friends says hes going to try every mind altering drug he can, for the experience and the enjoyment. His argument for not doing that now is both that it would distract him from getting on with lots of longer term things now, and that it would damage his body so he wouldn't be able to do things later in life (both of which are irrelevant if he is going to die soon anyway).

This seems analogous to LB's position, but the situation moved a few notches more extreme. What do you think?

"Ok, related issue: suppose one lives a long and productive life, and then slows down and is physically incapable of aiding the human race much more, and doesn't have much time left in one's own life left anyway. What now?"

Simple answer: Bag-packer at Tesco's/Walmart (depending on nationality).

Seriously, there is a _huge_ growing sector out there in this sort of area who are looking for mature, retired people; simply beacue they are trusted with being able to carry on a normal civilised conversation - blatantly our 16-year-olds aren't capable of doing this.

B

<>

I don't wish to tell people what to do. I think they ought to think about my ideas for a minute or two, and I try to think about others ideas for a while. I don't expect people to follow them, though. There are many paths to enlightenment, whatever that is.


<>

I would be happier in the long term, and I'd get the short-term pleasure of knowning I'd avoided an impulse and forced myself to do something unpleasent.




>

Well, in an ideal world I would. Unfortunately I am weak and don't follow some of my own rules that well. That is one of them.



<>

Perhaps its more the enjoyment of knowing I made a difference and made things be more the way I think they should. But I'm certainly not suggesting ignoring all pleasures--just physical ones and ones that interfere with the long term.



<>

Perhaps you're right. I'd thik thered be more interesting things to do, but maybe not. I certainly don't think my policy on the matte applies in all cases. It does apply to me in my current situation, though.

I really do need to go to bed now. I'll check back tommorrow, or Wednesday if I have too much homework.

I'm sorry I can't stay online and I hope I won't be attacked for leaving to go to bed.

Thanks. Goodnight and talk to you later.

>>and forced myself to do something unpleasent<<

This is the heroic mistake you're making. You consider it unpleasant. Yet you accept the scientific method.

Science is unpleasant. I should know; I'm a Science Teacher.

B

It's not, there is neither un- no pleasantry, like boredom it's starts in our heads, personal perception. Science or sex, all nature related things are not ladden with adjectives, we are adding those to our current liking.

(ha what's that for a sentence!)

Hmmm...while I have read equally convincing articles on 'The Chemistry of Sex' and 'The Physics of Sex' [note to self: scientists have too much free time], I can still safely say that the two are largely unconnected by nature.

B

<>

I really don't see your point, or the relevance of the scientific method to it.

Now I really need to go to bed.

hi Lemon,

Gosh, you've been busy! Haven't seen you on the other other threads we are on together so came and checked out your PS.

So, you say you find sex disgusting without having ever tried it. But then you go further with this idea. It becomes not only something 'icky' but also becomes a personal evil (sexual desire) that you must overcome. Later you said:

<>

Do you ever smile and laugh, Lemon? And I ask this seriously. What exactly is it about pleasure that you find so distasteful (because really I think the anti-sex thing is just the tip of the emotional iceberg with you - no pun intended). What goals could be so important that you would prefer to live your life as an emotional zombie in order to attain them?

<>

Again - what goals are these?

It's obvious that you are trying to control your emotions in a very extreme manner. What's the real reason for this? Because you sound quite afraid of your emotions. That they will distract from your purpose, that they will make you do 'disgusting' things, that you are 'weak' for giving in to them . . . etc. etc.

<>

You don't actually come across as sounding too happy, Lemon, if I may say so. And that's not a criticism, just an observation. And what I just quoted above is one of the saddest things I have read in quite awhile.

We cannot really *control* emotions, you know. Yes, we can stop ourselves from reacting to certain emotions, as you have discovered. But in the end, the 'total denial' way actually gives the emotions you are trying to avoid more power. You can't just deny your emotions Lemon, because they *are* a part of you. Better to accept and try to understand them. Work with them rather than against them.

Why are you so afraid of your emotions?

Oh, was this posting long enough? Oops!

az

Interesting exchange of views here:

Opting for celibacy as a life choice is not new - nuns, priests and other religous groups do this. Granted, it's more a declartaion of their devotion to Christ rather than an aversion to sex because it's "icky", but still...

Sex means different things to different people. Some use it as an expression of love. Some to demonstrate power and control. Some for procreation. Some because it's a fun way to pass the time.

As long as both parties in the act are aware of the reason, fine.

I'm rather foolishly reading this thread backwards so sorry if this is out of place...

Hi LB,
You have interesting views here that clearly differ from many other researchers. I am glad you are sticking around and discussing them. You don't seem preachy to me, just definite about how your views apply to you

Ok, several things here. Firstly, I agree with azahar that you don't sound very happy - but I am not sure if that is your aim. Is your long term happiness desirable? If it is, how will it be possible without enjoying anything in the present? What long term goal precludes happiness now, and when will you consider yourself advanced enough to 'enjoy' the result of your long term abstemiousness?

You said that you get short term satisfaction fron resisting doing something, why is that pleasure any different from the pleasure obtained in another way.

You sound as though you wish to keep tight control over your emotions and body, do you feel this way because you don't have control over other areas of your life?

"Continuation of the human race doesn't require sex. In-vitro fertilization works fine, as do sperm donation. It makes sence, anyway to consider chosing mating partners on genetic grounds, not the emotional gropunds people use to chose people they have sex with.

In the long run, I don't see why humans should even have to carry a baby--all that humans are needed for is care of the child and supply of genetic material."

You seem to accept here that caring for a child is important, do you just mean meeting the physical needs of that child, or are you including their mental and emotional wellbeing in this?

k