Chastity

[nous]

Assuming humans are inherently the type that are supposed to mate for life is a moral addendum.

A moral addendum in the interest of a healthy society, and one with merit on an individual level as well.

There is also an intrinsic morality, which seems to agree with the moral law more than not.

Intrinsic morality is the voice of justice in you that cannot be suppressed. It whispers, says, or yells: "Do not use other bodies for your lust only. Do not make love if you do not also love the soul". (It also tells you that sex can be a gift as much as it can be a curse.)

[scourge]

There is definitely a small percentage of the population for whom intrinsic morality is transparent, or silent. These are the people who will rail against such notions as fantasy, because for them there is no such thing, but they have no idea the numbness is isolated to themselves as a small minority. It is similar to expecting a dunce to comprehend brilliance. Impossible!

[devolved]

There is definitely a small percentage of the population for whom intrinsic morality is transparent, or silent. These are the people who will rail against such notions as fantasy, because for them there is no such thing, but they have no idea the numbness is isolated to themselves as a small minority. It is similar to expecting a dunce to comprehend brilliance. Impossible!

One can have a weakened or absent instinctual morality and still recognize that moral rules are necessary for a healthy civilization! Story of my life...

[scourge]

Very true. But I do mean there are millions of people in the world who are full blown sociopaths and they are adaptive enough to not just blend in, but to rise in stature and implement certain aspects of social or industrial progress. The Finnish study is potentially invaluable, but tragically it is unable to be utilized with the universal human rights runtime error hanging our whole program.

[Caffeine]

In my opinion, the whole moralistic chastity thing is unnatural with typical humans.  Of course, as a few of you have said, it is required for a functioning society (well, maybe not required but it's desirable).  Experience tells me that females who are unchaste are that way due to their own impulses and not because they ignored their christian upbringing.  Christianity doesn't do a very good job at abating the "sleeping around" issue that seems to be so common.  Divorce rates are high for christians as well, and many people in general will often delude themselves with personal excuses as to why they did something that's considered negative.  To sum up my rambling, I think that the discipline required for these relationships (society pushes them, why?) is lacking in many folks.  As someone mentioned earlier, the media represents (literature as well) an idiotic, ideological side of relationships that can turn something beautiful like sex/companionship into something vile.  I know several women who look for "the one" while continuously whining about a boyfriend's flaws to their friends.  And yet, they love to get into relationships for that selfish satisfaction; pleasing the partner is secondhand.  I see that as a large issue as well....

[Wolfgang]

The existence of Christian belief in the modern slut doesn't change the reality that if you're chaste because of your church you probably don't even believe in divorce at all. Those stats are useless in today's society.

[Veritas]

When a woman has had 16 or more past lovers, the odds that a marriage to her will end in divorce rise to over 80%!

Why are failed societies always the most promiscuous?

Do we have our causal relations sorted out here? How much of it is "multiple partners reduces the likelihood of successful relationships" and how much is "those with low potential to have successful relationships tend to have multiple partners"? How much fail results from promiscuity, and how much promiscuity simply accompanies the fail?

[devolved]

Do we have our causal relations sorted out here? How much of it is "multiple partners reduces the likelihood of successful relationships" and how much is "those with low potential to have successful relationships tend to have multiple partners"? How much fail results from promiscuity, and how much promiscuity simply accompanies the fail?

The negative consequences of promiscuous idiots are really, really obvious. If this is a chicken/egg question, I don't know. But having a strong cultural demand of monogamy results in a healthier culture by a) evening the fertility gap between smart and dumb, since dumb people and/or manipulators will always have more meaningless sex and offspring; and b) ostracizing those without the (genetic) self-control to not be sluts.

[Dinaric Leather]

ostracizing those without the (genetic) self-control to not be sluts.

In this, man is blessed to find itself in such a degenerate era. What time in history would it be easier to tell who is strong than in the one where there is almost no authority to enforce any standards? If the better men are able to apply eugenics on a wide scale, it will be more than obvious who they'd like to be sterile.

[Veritas]

Do we have our causal relations sorted out here? How much of it is "multiple partners reduces the likelihood of successful relationships" and how much is "those with low potential to have successful relationships tend to have multiple partners"? How much fail results from promiscuity, and how much promiscuity simply accompanies the fail?

The negative consequences of promiscuous idiots are really, really obvious. If this is a chicken/egg question, I don't know. But having a strong cultural demand of monogamy results in a healthier culture by a) evening the fertility gap between smart and dumb, since dumb people and/or manipulators will always have more meaningless sex and offspring; and b) ostracizing those without the (genetic) self-control to not be sluts.

The purpose was more to point out that it's both. If, for one reason or another, you lack the capacity for a long-term relationship, you're going to end up having more partners. Once a society loses self-control, promiscuity will rise.

Your points are certainly valid, and must each be addressed. We need to a) encourage breeding of those of higher quality (who often place careers ahead of parenting) and discourage those of low quality from breeding (who are motivated more by immediate concerns than for the future), and b) provide more support networks for those who do have self-control, so they will no longer be dragged down by those around them.

ostracizing those without the (genetic) self-control to not be sluts.

In this, man is blessed to find itself in such a degenerate era. What time in history would it be easier to tell who is strong than in the one where there is almost no authority to enforce any standards? If the better men are able to apply eugenics on a wide scale, it will be more than obvious who they'd like to be sterile.

I don't think this is accurate. In a degenerate era, degenerates will prosper whereas those with self-control will be the ones who are ostracised - and if you are shunned for positive behaviour, you're probably going to shift towards degenerate behaviour, or just make yourself as unnoticeable as possible. To discriminate between the strong and weak we must give adequate opportunity to live a lifestyle that would be suited to each and then gauge individuals based on where they end up. We haven't quite reached this stage yet.

[Dinaric Leather]

I don't think this is accurate. In a degenerate era, degenerates will prosper whereas those with self-control will be the ones who are ostracised - and if you are shunned for positive behaviour, you're probably going to shift towards degenerate behaviour, or just make yourself as unnoticeable as possible. To discriminate between the strong and weak we must give adequate opportunity to live a lifestyle that would be suited to each and then gauge individuals based on where they end up. We haven't quite reached this stage yet.

I'm honestly not entirely sure I know what you are trying to say. Degenerates of our society seem to be as failing as ever, in general they stay poor and miserable. Healthy people are still most commonly found in the upper economic echelons and live much more enjoyable and exciting lives than people who pathologically can't get their shit together. Sure, you'll find plenty of people who really don't need to be breathing in those same upper class neighborhoods but these are the people who have used their lack of character, average competence, and dedication to becoming wealthy to their advantage and these are the degenerates who have prospered. Geniuses rarely (if ever, honestly) find themselves below middle class.

It's also worth noting most people middle class and above are a mix of noble and peasant backgrounds, mostly (if not entirely) noble men with peasant women which brings us back to what I claimed earlier that even the best men have often uncontrollable sexual instincts that interfere with good breeding.

[nous]

It's also worth noting most people middle class and above are a mix of noble and peasant backgrounds, mostly (if not entirely) noble men with peasant women which brings us back to what I claimed earlier that even the best men have often uncontrollable sexual instincts that interfere with good breeding.

Maybe these "instincts" are not so bad after all. Aristotle probably didn't want any children at all; I can well imagine his grimace when the slave woman announced her pregnancy to him. And  then remember that the exception proves the rule; a peasant woman can in theory and in fact be a good choice. In any case, if one were to establish polygamy for the virtous and the death sentence for adultery, other eugenic measures would probably be unnecessary.

I doubt that Aristotle's sons would have been geniuses. Brilliant men are always exceptions; intelligent breeding can not make up for everything. Genius is a divine spark which no amount of breeding can replace.

[Umbrage]

Apparently this had to be posted. Virgin by choice? Fine with me. Virgin not by choice but pretending you're better than others? Get out of here.

Personally I'll take a non-virgin over a virgin any day since I've never met a mentally stable virgin that was over the age of 20. But whatever rocks your boat, I don't believe in "Love (TM)" anyway so I can pretty much throw all romantic nonsense out the window. I don't know about you but I've got better things to do than looking for Miss Perfect in a dying world that's filled with retards. It's like the needle in the haystack except the haystack is on fire.

And as far as society goes... make babies in test-tubes!

[Levy_Spearmen]

It's like the needle in the haystack except the haystack is on fire.

It should be easy to find a healthy woman considering this. This simile supports Dinaric Leather's point that healthy individuals(needles) would easily stick out amongst the undermen(burnt hay). We just need plenty of that fire.

[Wolfgang]

People's behavior are driven by social norms. If "sexual freedom" becomes a social norm, even otherwise healthy people would likely follow. You can absolutely check the "people who are sluts are hellbound miscreant scum with bad genetics" assbabble at the door, thank you gentlemen. Useless morality that is part neo-nazi and part Bible thumper I really have no time or tolerance for. Don't take this as a defense of modern sexuality, just as an attack on some pretty useless moral baggage.