A great many highly accomplished people have delayed or forgone marriage in order to dedicate themselves fully to their careers. From that perspective the Church’s requirement for the celibacy of priests seems more rational. Remember when women school teachers were required to be unmarried? It is an old and outmoded rule in both cases.

If anyone truly wants to do without sex they ought to wait until they are 76 years old when it is much easier.

Given that the etymological roots of celibacy (not married) don't address sexuality, and that up until a few decades ago reliable birth control didn't exist, I suspect that the original religious resistance to marriage was more about the avoidance of family responsibilities and inheritance liabilities than sexual satisfaction per se. Religious disciplines typically do advise against overindulgence in any of the appetites, but I don't see any historical justification for strict sexual abstinence other than misguided, slavish adherence to an obsolete tradition originally aimed at something that, at the time, was inseparable from sex. A few individual exceptions notwithstanding, humans, by and large, never fully win any battle with Mom Nature. The closest we ever get is when we learn to use Mom's rules to our benefit.

What the post does not recognize is the sociological aspect of celibacy in the catholic church. Like it or not the organization has continued for a milenia and a half partly due to a lack of nepotism. The absence of children to follow into the family business leaves it as the longest surviving meritocracy in history. No G. W, Bush or his ilk as pope.

What was the question?
You're talking to a bunch of people that are celibate and we seem to be doing ok with it. Granted it isn't our choice but if so and so didn't live 7,362 miles? away from me I'm sure we would be going to town on each other so much you would get sick of all the ejaculatory gloating.

I have been celibate for almost 5 years. No sex toys, nothing. I don't recommend it to anyone, but it's what I've chosen.

I meditate, exercise, and keep my mind as busy as I can from the thought of sex until the right man for me comes along. He's gonna be in for a huge surprise after he experiences me.

Reason being, I haven't met anyone who wants to be with me for me. If a guy's only constant compliment to me is, "You're so hot. Oh, you're sexy, etc" he's not for me. While I appreciate compliments I don't like feeling like an object of sexual gratification.

To each his own.

I'm not sure why you expect trouble from us. You certainly won't get it from me.

Your point about arrested development is well-taken. Ironically, the only way for sex to be unmasked as the truly mundane and ho-hum thing it ultimately is, is to get it out of your system. Cast yourself into it with abandon, until you figure out that it's messy, ridiculous, absurd, and fraught with the conflicting (and often unspoken) needs / desires of Other People, as well as their personal problems and approach avoidance. Abstinence / celibacy is the exact opposite of what's needed to reduce our sexuality down to something manageable ... otherwise it just becomes a magic totem to be sought after at any cost.

There are a group of men ( incels ? ) who, by virtue of their unattractiveness remain virgins. My guess is that they do not want the women they could have ( women as unattractive as they are ) and resent that the hotties they DO want would not piss them out if they were on fire. Tough shit, Fernando. Diet, work out, do something about those ZITS. Concentrate on your wardrobe and get aggressive with personal hygiene. If you are a creep, try Zig Zigler and pretending you have a personality. There is someone for everyone, just don't reach for the best when you are the worst. You are entitled to nothing, but if you check out the bottom feeders you may find someone who might actually LOVE you as well as fuck you. Just don't have kids. Celibacy is wrong, totally un natural, and you will be a more pleasant if you have sex a couple of times a week.

I do not know why you would think that many on this site would disagree with you, at least that is what I take your first few lines to mean. It is more likely that you are preaching to the converted.