Emily Austin Seems To Think That Sex Is An Extravagant Pleasure aka natural but unnecessary. Do you agree?

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

I wanted to make a new topic about another question as well. It seems so many young people (18-50) are just not having sex. Men but also women increasingly as well. I couldn't find the exact quote but it's something like "I can't distinguish the Good without sex, food etc.." Why do you think young people are leaving sex behind despite increasing secularization?

I found this very good article about the trend of less sex (in California), which brings up lots of reasons why (and also briefly mentions an increase in depression).

A 'failure to launch': Why young people are having less sex

Nearly 40% of young adults surveyed in California in 2021 had no sexual partners in the prior year. Millennials and Gen Zers are having less sex than earlier…

www.latimes.com

There are other reasons which the article doesn't fully address: perhaps modern sex-education (which likely occurs in California) increases the fear of sexually transmitted diseases...The awareness of disease is so prevalent and the fear of disease is so great that no one wants to risk it. And perhaps there is a higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases going around.

Also, maybe technology (cellphones/internet) is subduing the mind-body connection so that people are less aware of sensations of the body.

Epicurus didn't know about the bodily chemicals of dopamine and seratonin, but yet he was referring to the good feelings that arise with food, sex, etc. One can only determine for themselves if they don't need sex -- so this is a subjective feeling that is up to each individual. If it is too difficult to find a romantic partner and to do so safely, then one must find other physical enjoyments.

I don't have anything specific to contribute at the moment but I think this is an important issue. It's not "necessary" in the sense that a certain individual can live quite a while without it, but it is "necessary" for the "preservation of the species," and Lucretius cites it repeatedly as an important aspect of life. Ebbs and flows of population seems to have many causes but I doubt it's a healthy phenomena.

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

it makes things difficult outside of one night stands which as you move from early 20s to early 30s become less desirably it seems for most.

Just want to mention that "one night stands" -- may or many not bring more pain then pleasure, it depends on both parties fully understanding the terms of the encounter. And before considering a "one night stand" one should contemplate this guidance:

PD5: "It is not possible to live joyously without also living wisely and beautifully and rightly, nor to live wisely and beautifully and rightly without living joyously; and whoever lacks this cannot live joyously."

The other issue intertwined in this is that of having children, which we talk about little, but which has traditionally been a critical part of human life. We wouldn't be here otherwise, and Epicurus showed that he himself was concerned about the welfare of children within his philosophical community (at least the children of Metrodorus). Setting out a productive and philosophical view of "family life" would appear to me to be an important part of life in general, even though we talk about it little. I can see the Stoics and those who want to detach from everything downplaying it, but I would not expect that from the ancient Epicureans. Especially if you identify all normal activities of life which are not painful to be a part of pleasure, then you would expect Epicureans probably had a lot to say about this subject too.

Also worth commenting is that everyone (including I think Emily Austin too) struggles with finding the right word for "not natural and not necessary." I think we all -- including Emily -- agree that the real issue is whether the activity produces more pleasure than pain. That's a question that is so fact specific to circumstances that it becomes very difficult to determine what "natural" and "necessary" really means except by setting out a specific set of facts.

And for the sake of appreciating that complexity we should all take a second to revel in the appropriateness of Don's hostility to hypotheticals! How do you set out a hypothetical "natural" and "necessary" that is actually useful without referring to the facts of a particular situation?

"Necessary" to whom and for what? "Natural" for whom and for what? I think there are common sense answers that most of us would agree on, but common sense also probably is what warns us about trying to be too legalistic with what natural and necessary means.

Lucretius is supportive of sex as a way to satisfy the claims of the body, but he is critical of romantic love. I'll be at more liberty to comment when I get home from work.

Ok to be more specific for the record, I am much closer to your "Asian" friends on this question. I consider it to be part of a normal healthy human life. I personally have an extremely dim view of anti-natalist positions, and I consider both to be examples of an unfortunate sickness in Western civilization deriving at least in part from the rise of monotheism. None of this is to be critical of those who for whatever reason choose otherwise, but as a "general" observation about the way nature has led humanity to evolve, that's the way I would see the standard default position.

There are real questions about overpopulation and other social aspects of reproduction, but my personal preference to deal with those issues would be to get the rocket ships ready for extraterrestrial colonization so we can go look for those "gods!".

I realize sex and reproduction are not the same question but I would analyze them largely together.

Quote from Joshua

Lucretius is supportive of sex as a way to satisfy the claims of the body, but he is critical of romantic love. I'll be at more liberty to comment when I get home from work.

The mores of the time of ancient Greece were such that prostitutes were legal and were taxed. So if a man developed a romantic attachment to a prostitute it would lead to problems, since he could never be assured of her love (as she would have other clients, and perhaps was pitting him to try to make him jealous).

Quote from Cassius

I realize sex and reproduction are not the same question but I would analyze them largely together.

There were birth control methods back in time, read about them here -- but ease and availability of the modern use of birth control (and for a time there was legal abortion in the USA -- Roe vs. Wade passed in 1973 but was overturned June 2022) -- the pill created the freedom to enjoy sex without concern for pregnancy.

Here is a good article on enjoying the sensual quality of sex through tantra:

What is tantric sex? Definition and how to practice

What is tantric sex? Read on discover the definition, processes, breathing techniques, and positions of tantric sex, as well as how to prepare for it.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

From the article linked by Kalosyni above:

“I’ve been really preoccupied with my studies, and I’m always stressed because of all the things I have going on,” she said. “My libido is always shot, and I don’t really ever think about sex.”

This seems certainly unhealthy – the stress, that is; not just substituting one good (study/education) for another (immediate sexual gratification). Sexual release might well have a beneficial effect, not just vis-à-vis the stress but also on the mental activity of studying. [No judgmentalism here: I tended to be stressed when I was a student, largely because I was older than most of the others – and the fact that I had to work fulltime while going to school. But. Looking back, I recognize that the stress (anxiety) was toxic.]

On the other hand (from the same article): “Maybe you don’t have to have sex all the time,” Rhodes said. “Maybe if you’re doing other things in your life, and you’ve got other priorities, or you just don’t feel like it, that can be a good enough answer.”

I just want to add that sexual stimulation and release are generally believed to be contributive to good health (for example, prostate health in men “of a certain age”). And there are non-relational means.

At bottom, though, Kalosyni is sure right: “One can only determine for themselves if they don't need sex -- so this is a subjective feeling that is up to each individual.”

Quote from Cassius

I personally have an extremely dim view of anti-natalist positions

I had to look up anti-natalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism.

That strikes me as extreme to the point of silliness. (While affirming the right of couples to choose not to have children -- I know a couple of wonderful couples who so choose. No one should feel ethically obligated to procreate -- which seems to be the position of some evangelical Christians I've come across.)

Quote from Eoghan Gardiner

The whole anti natalist thing reminds me of the greek hedonist who tried to convince people to self-delete, think he was a Cyrenaic..

Yes, Hegesias, a later Cyrenaic (at least he was so accused by Cicero).

Here is a good article, about happiness and sex, "It's not sex that makes you heathier and happier--it's what you do before and after":

It’s not sex that makes you healthier and happier—it’s what you do before and after

The secret to happy people and happy couples isn't weekly sex—it's something far simpler, and sweeter.

qz.com

I think that sex cannot be necessary, because many people are not healthy enough to have sex, and Epicurus reminds us that one is never too young, nor too old, nor too impotent to tend to the health of one's soul.

(We also might be thinking about this in terms of celibate adults, but let's keep in mind that most children are not having sex, and they can still enjoy the natural pleasure of wisdom; and even then, the natural pleasure that is sex does not become available until a certain point in a person's life, so we might even say it is unnatural below a certain age).

Also, not that anyone was making this point, but just to share this perspective: we have no obligation to the species to reproduce. It is no one person's duty to perpetuate the genes of ancient creatures just because one shares their DNA.