Sexual liberation

[Hagi]

The idea isn't tempting at all. It's hilarious if anything.

Your entire view of sexuality is hilarious. Your entire view of human psychology is hilarious.

It reeks of pop-psychology and simple easy answers for incredibly complex behaviors. Regarding evolution as some sort of conscious god that shapes species and behavior so that everything is engineered purely for survival. That our behavior is somehow consciously designed for procreation and survival. And that by simply thinking logically about how we ourselves would create our own species optimized for survival we can deduce our the reasons behind our own behaviors.

Utterly disregarding that this world is filled with thousands of species that survive and reproduce in the most convoluted and fragile ways imaginable. Evolution and survival instinct simply don't work how you think they do. They weren't engineered. They were accidents that survived. They're filled with inconsistencies, inefficiencies and convoluted methods. Just none of them bad enough to cause extinction. Yet.

Survival instinct isn't a conscious thing that's actively steering our behavior to what will produce exactly the right number of offspring, expertly calculating and directing to ensure our genes will live on. It doesn't care whether or not those genes carry on, it's incapable of caring.

Individuals and species aren't actively trying to continue their genetic lines, 99,99% of life nor the process of evolution even know what genetic lines are. They're simply doing random shit and the random shit that doesn't die out continues doing that random shit. The only thing that ensures is that from all that random shit there are some parts that in some way lead to just enough procreation to ensure that that specific random shit sticks around and that all the other random shit that's involved isn't quite shitty enough to cause extinction.

Before we delve into further discussion I need to be sure that I speak in terms you understand I need to know what your education is. IT, economics, math, linguistics, etc.? Bachelor, master, etc.?
1. It looks simple because I simplified it. Seriously, you expected that I will write here course paper on animalistic behavior in human society? No, I won't, so get some books on ethology and read them yourself.
2. I was talking mainly about human beings, of course there are "less successful" examples of evolutions. Snails for example
3. Stop assuming things I never said! Of course instinct isn't "conscious" and it doesn't "care". It is like assuming that script can process information when written on the paper. It can't, but if you put it into right hardware it starts working. Same here. It is actually your brain that cares and at some extent it is you.
4. Of course, it isn't directly "steering our behavior", it influences our higher thought pattern and those are directly "steering our behavior", but that means that instincts are involved indirectly. And everything can be traced back to survival or reproduction. It is simple- just start critically asking yourself "why?", and don't stop at broad answers, like "I want to help planet", dig deeper.
5. Well, there isn't such thing as "random", it is simply effect that is achieved when shitload of complex systems overlaps.
6. Besides I'm supposed to be cynic here. Can argument between two cynics can even happen? :/

Yes, I do know about these things.

It's exactly your point 4 why I took it not as a simplified, short version, but as an hilarious misunderstanding on your part.

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

And there is such a thing as random. It's is not as a layman would assume something that was somehow generated outside the realm of causality. It is simply something that is impossible to predict to any degree of accuracy beyond it's given bounds. A dice thrown without any tricks is random, I can not predict it's outcome beyond that it will end up between the bounds of 1-6.

 

[darlarosa]

How are we defining liberated?

I feel as though I can express my sexual desires or my very limited experiences with some people, but I'm always careful to leave out certain...things because I don't want to be judged. I think liberation is a cultural relative or at least a social one. I feel embaressed or like an outcast when I think about my interests at times. It took me a very long time to become comfortable with my sexual fantasies too. I would say liberation is difficult to measure. I feel proud and unashamed one moment and than embaressed the next

And sadly enough, some people feel that way for as little as choosing a non-missionary position.

Me? I'm a freak and I know it (clap clap).

lol right on.
I think sex is all about experimentation...otherwise *shrugs* I dunno tad dull

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

Empiricism isn't the only kind of verification. I'm not suggesting the poster to whom you are replying has done anything of the sort, but an answer to 'why?' can be sought and found in a non-empirical fashion. For example, we can infer the existence of A if a phenomenon B were not possible without it. Science would be lost if the only way of obtaining knowledge and 'truth' was through observation by the senses.

 

[Nemu]

When, exactly, were men repressed sexually?

Women in some countries might be more free than they were even 50 years ago, but they are still WAAAAAY behind in terms of equality and "respect". Women are still considered sluts if they enjoy sex, while men are considered studs. In some countries women are still bartered and enslaved, while men are free to have multiple wives of their own choosing.

It's still a man's world out there.

 

[likalaruku]

I'm biseaxual in taste, but at the same time I'm asexual, mostly from being a germophobe, so no, I'm not in the least bit sexually liberated.

 

[Stepan_RUS']

Goodness me, i do not mean to offend but it is truly disturbing to see the opinions of the foringers about this topic. i see now where this new wave of promiscuity in our country has come from!

Surely this is somthing that should only even be discussed with your wife?

 

[Hagi]

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

Empiricism isn't the only kind of verification. I'm not suggesting the poster to whom you are replying has done anything of the sort, but an answer to 'why?' can be sought and found in a non-empirical fashion. For example, we can infer the existence of A if a phenomenon B were not possible without it. Science would be lost if the only way of obtaining knowledge and 'truth' was through observation by the senses.

But ask yourself, how do we come across the knowledge that A always, without exception, leads to B?

Once we've determined that rule we can establish the existence of A by only knowing B.

But such rules don't magically come to us in visions. They're established through the scientific method, one of the cornerstones of which is empirical evidence.

Science wouldn't be lost if that was the only way of obtaining knowledge. Science is defined by it. That's exactly what science is, gaining knowledge through empirical and measurable evidence in combination with reasoning.

Even sciences as abstract as mathematics are based on axioms. Axioms which are rooted in reality, in observation.

 

[Dismal purple]

People are too promiscuous. We watched a movie about STD's in school that ended with the speaker encouraging us to have sex regardless.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

Empiricism isn't the only kind of verification. I'm not suggesting the poster to whom you are replying has done anything of the sort, but an answer to 'why?' can be sought and found in a non-empirical fashion. For example, we can infer the existence of A if a phenomenon B were not possible without it. Science would be lost if the only way of obtaining knowledge and 'truth' was through observation by the senses.

But ask yourself, how do we come across the knowledge that A always, without exception, leads to B?

Once we've determined that rule we can establish the existence of A by only knowing B.

But such rules don't magically come to us in visions. They're established through the scientific method, one of the cornerstones of which is empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence lets us establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360? If we had to demonstrate that rule empirically we would have to catalogue every single variety of triangle in existence, an impossible task and in any case one which we haven't deemed necessary to consider the proposition a true one.

And besides, we cannot establish by empirical induction that something ALWAYS leads to something. If we find that the boiling temperature of water is 100 degrees celsius by testing it a million times, we still can't be sure that on the million-and-one attempt the result will be the same.

Science wouldn't be lost if that was the only way of obtaining knowledge. Science is defined by it. That's exactly what science is, gaining knowledge through empirical and measurable evidence in combination with reasoning.

Even sciences as abstract as mathematics are based on axioms. Axioms which are rooted in reality, in observation.

That's partly true but what I'm saying is that empirical results wouldn't even make sense if there wasn't some pre-existing basis on which to assess them. The statements we are making right now in this thread are not 'based on observation', but a logic based on asserted truths we hold to as more fundamental.

 

[Hagi]

What empirical evidence lets us establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360? If we had to demonstrate that rule empirically we would have to catalogue every single variety of triangle in existence, an impossible task and in any case one which we haven't deemed necessary to consider the proposition a true one.

What? There's no variety in triangles.

It's a binary thing. Either something is a triangle or it's not.

A triangle is defined by a strict set of observable properties. Either an observable object matches all those properties, in which case it's a triangle. Or it does not, in which case it's not a triangle.

Every triangle we can observe is has those exact properties. If it hadn't then it wouldn't be a triangle.

Those properties are rooted in reality, in observation. That's our axiom. That defines what a triangle is.

Based on that axiom we can use reasoning, logic to establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360 degrees.

And besides, we cannot establish by empirical induction that something ALWAYS leads to something. If we find that the boiling temperature of water is 100 degrees celsius by testing it a million times, we still can't be sure that on the million-and-one attempt the result will be the same.

You treat science as a static thing. Where if a theory is considered valid if and only if it'll be valid for all time.

Science isn't static. Science is dynamic. Theories change all the time as new observations and new lines of reasoning become available. That doesn't make previous theories invalid, it merely makes them based on outdated observations.

That's how science works. We make observations. We come up with theories, through logical reasoning, that explain those observations. We make more observations. We come up with new theories and alter existing ones, again through logical reasoning, that explain those new observations. Repeat infinitely.

That's partly true but what I'm saying is that empirical results wouldn't even make sense if there wasn't some pre-existing basis on which to assess them. The statements we are making right now in this thread are not 'based on observation', but a logic based on asserted truths we hold to as more fundamental.

Logic is based on axioms. Axioms which originated from reality.

Some philosopher didn't have a wacky dream at one point in which all those axioms magically came to him.

Those axioms were established through observation of undeniable patterns in reality.

And based on those axioms we started reasoning. And from that reasoning came statements, such as you're making in this thread.

Where do you think those asserted truth we hold to as more fundamental came from? You think they came from visions special people had? You think they're ingrained in our brains so that everyone knows them?

Then how do we know that they're actual truths? We know because we can test them. And we can test them against reality.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

What empirical evidence lets us establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360? If we had to demonstrate that rule empirically we would have to catalogue every single variety of triangle in existence, an impossible task and in any case one which we haven't deemed necessary to consider the proposition a true one.

What? There's no variety in triangles.

It's a binary thing. Either something is a triangle or it's not.

A triangle is defined by a strict set of observable properties. Either an observable object matches all those properties, in which case it's a triangle. Or it does not, in which case it's not a triangle.

Every triangle we can observe is has those exact properties. If it hadn't then it wouldn't be a triangle.

Those properties are rooted in reality, in observation. That's our axiom. That defines what a triangle is.

Based on that axiom we can use reasoning, logic to establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360 degrees.

And where do "logic" and "reasoning" fit into your assertion that empiricism makes up the basis of knowledge and "reality"? The triangle example I gave is simply one example of a non-empirical method of obtaining knowledge. In your book, mathematical proofs are not empirical and therefore not science.

And besides, we cannot establish by empirical induction that something ALWAYS leads to something. If we find that the boiling temperature of water is 100 degrees celsius by testing it a million times, we still can't be sure that on the million-and-one attempt the result will be the same.

You treat science as a static thing. Where if a theory is considered valid if and only if it'll be valid for all time.

Science isn't static. Science is dynamic. Theories change all the time as new observations and new lines of reasoning become available. That doesn't make previous theories invalid, it merely makes them based on outdated observations.

That's how science works. We make observations. We come up with theories, through logical reasoning, that explain those observations. We make more observations. We come up with new theories and alter existing ones, again through logical reasoning, that explain those new observations. Repeat infinitely.

Then science is incapable of saying anything about 'reality'. If we cannot make statements that were true in the past and are true in the future, what use is that statement? It's not a law and doesn't describe any general principle about our world.

The proposition "water boils at 100 degrees" becomes "water boils at 100 degrees...unless it doesn't".

That's partly true but what I'm saying is that empirical results wouldn't even make sense if there wasn't some pre-existing basis on which to assess them. The statements we are making right now in this thread are not 'based on observation', but a logic based on asserted truths we hold to as more fundamental.

Logic is based on axioms. Axioms which originated from reality.

Some philosopher didn't have a wacky dream at one point in which all those axioms magically came to him.

Those axioms were established through observation of undeniable patterns in reality.

I don't know what you mean by "reality" but not all axioms are obtained by observation. Mathematical proofs, for example.

And based on those axioms we started reasoning.

"Started" reasoning? Are you suggesting we arrived at general rules without the use of reasoning in the first place?

And from that reasoning came statements, such as you're making in this thread.

Where do you think those asserted truth we hold to as more fundamental came from? You think they came from visions special people had? You think they're ingrained in our brains so that everyone knows them?

Then how do we know that they're actual truths? We know because we can test them. And we can test them against reality.

There's that word again - reality. You're going to have to say what you mean by it sometime, you know. Because your whole argument is based upon it.

I don't know where it came from but the brain obviously has an innate knowledge that didn't come from experience, because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to reason or experience anything in the first place.

 

[blackrave]

having a happy healthy sexlife is a farcry from "giving in your every wish" if I did that I'd be heading to work drunk everyday and wearing nothing but track pants and gaming shirts...but I know better (except for the trackpants and gaming shits thing)

What you call "happy healthy sexlife" I call trivializing, and like I said before, this isn't something we will agree upon.


[quote/]
based on...what..exactly?[/quote]

The very fact that we can have this discussion.


[quote/]sure sex drives everything we do....SO?[/quote]

If you want to comment on answer meant for other person, read what this person wrote before

we have been civilized in some form or another for a very VERY long time..and haven't been at caveman level for even longer...who cares if we really really like sex? who CARES how much fucking caveman did back in h day....are you a caveman?

We are closer to cavemen than you might think.
Well, technically we don't live in caves anymore and have a larger pool of knowledge, but besides that we haven't moved away from cavemen much.
Don't give humanity too much credit, ok?

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

Since when building chain of reasons and events is wrong?
For example deconstructing reasons behind our Bachelors degree took us all evening (I had an argument similar to the one we have now with my roommate)
In the end we had floor and partially walls covered with paper
Those papers were covered with web of reasons behind reasons behind reasons behind reasons, etc.
All ended up with either "Because I want to live" or "Because I want to have kids"
If you think we just stopped at this point you are wrong.
We couldn't come up with anything than emotional reasons for this ("I'm afraid of death", "I like living", etc.). Only more or less rational reason for kids was that when they'll grow up, you'll be old and they will take care for you (and that taps into "Because I want to live" reason).
When I told about this to our psychology professor and asked if he had any rational reasons for these reasons he said that we are in "the meaning of live" territory, and our guesses are as good as any other (and before you start to nitpick again, he said much more, but I'm simply providing you with basic idea).

And there is such a thing as random. It's is not as a layman would assume something that was somehow generated outside the realm of causality. It is simply something that is impossible to predict to any degree of accuracy beyond it's given bounds. A dice thrown without any tricks is random, I can not predict it's outcome beyond that it will end up between the bounds of 1-6.

And that is why I think our discussion will lead to nowhere. We are arguing even upon things we are agreeing :/

 

[jamesworkshop]

humans have been having sex for a few million years now, so i'm not sure whatever classed as non-sexual liberation, humans don't seem to have ever not had sex in the past, and at 7 billion quite a lot of sex it would seem.

I've seen the sluts/studs dynamic rolled out but it's completely false, when the common trope of our time is that the easy way to propel a women into stardom is the obligatory sex-tape.

Look at the female-led centric nature of them to, it's called the "paris hilton sex tape" for a reason, can anyone without going to Google tell me what the name of the guy she was sleeping with called? what subsequent notoriety do these men in various sex tapes get?, unless they were already well known names beforehand.

Women in pornography have far more brand recognition than their vastly anonymous male co-stars from the same effect.

 

[Vault101]

What you call "happy healthy sexlife" I call trivializing, and like I said before, this isn't something we will agree upon.

you can see it how you want....but beliving you somhow have the moral high ground here is (quite frankly) bull.....morality and sex is just a contruct of whatever society says

having regular sex with your partner in a relationship however you like..weather its straight up missionary, involving bondage or chicken masks....thats what I ment when I said a healthy sex life

more casual encounters like friend with benefits or one night stands(again) I dont think are bad as long as your safe about it


[quote/]
The very fact that we can have this discussion.[/quote]
so....you think I'm likley to go out and rape and pillage? you think I have this animal lust that I sturggle to keep under controll? I have not harmed anyone ever in regards to sex..I dont know what the hell your saying there


[quote/]
If you want to comment on answer meant for other person, read what this person wrote before [/quote]
what I want is an answer....

We are closer to cavemen than you might think.
Well, technically we don't live in caves anymore and have a larger pool of knowledge, but besides that we haven't moved away from cavemen much.
Don't give humanity too much credit, ok?

even in caveman times society still had a structure and stability...regardless of how prudish/not prudish people were....hell you could even say animal society has structure at least

but thats beside the point

"we havnt moved away from caveman much" may be true on a biological level...but on a social level.....look at it..LOOK AT THE FREAKING INTERNET for fucks sake, I don;t accept anything other than the fact that we are fucking brilliant...all of us

and if we want to fuck as we please there is no reason why we can't...

 

[blackrave]

you can see it how you want....but believing you somehow have the moral high ground here is (quite frankly) bull.....morality and sex is just a construct of whatever society says

Wait you mean, your standards are result of what society said you?
I started like that, but over time and after hours and hours of thinking I came up with my own moral standards. Yes, sometimes they resemble already existing principles, but that isn't such a big deal ("nothing new under the sun"'n'shit). In a matter of fact 10 years ago I would totally agree with you (and most probably would start flame wars with myself), but over the time and experience I came to realization that it is safer and overall better NOT to fuck any hot piece of ass when you have chance to. And yes my society standards were mostly "liberated sex to everyone".

having regular sex with your partner in a relationship however you like..weather its straight up missionary, involving bondage or chicken masks....that's what I meant when I said a healthy sex life

Do you have further plans with your partner? Family, kids, pets, etc.?
If you would like to see eventually your partner as your spouse and he have same desire than I don't see anything bad in it. Even if you never marry, it is ok.
And as far I care you can electrocute each others genitals and stick bottles into each others ass, while dressed as Santa Claus and Easter Bunny. Like I already said your bedroom (or other room you prefer) action isn't of my concern.

more casual encounters like friend with benefits or one night stands(again) I don't think are bad as long as your safe about it

And here our attitudes are beyond point of agreement
I even call one night stands "masturbating with a person", because you actually don't care or know anything about him/her. And I find it disgusting (and before you start assuming all the wrong things, no I don't shun or fight with people who like to do so, and yes I have plenty of friends who hooks up with girls for one night only. This is my personal preference only)


[quote/]
so....you think I'm likely to go out and rape and pillage? you think I have this animal lust that I struggle to keep under control? I have not harmed anyone ever in regards to sex..I don't know what the hell your saying there [/quote]

Again wrong assumptions :/
I meant that very fact that we are discussing means that we are educated and civilized.
If we would be raised by bears, then at this point I would be smashing my laptop with a chair.
If this discussion would happen in person, than we would start smashing each other with sticks (in case of bear provided education).


[quote/]
what I want is an answer....[/quote]

Answer? Ok, here it goes. [akhem] It is.

"we haven't moved away from caveman much" may be true on a biological level...but on a social level.....look at it..LOOK AT THE FREAKING INTERNET for fucks sake, I don;t accept anything other than the fact that we are fucking brilliant...all of us

and if we want to fuck as we please there is no reason why we can't...

And who made the internet possible? Masses? Or few exceptional individuals working together?
How masses are using this wonderful tool? To transcend and become better more educated people? Or to exchange thoughts about extermination of niggers and jews, pedophile porn and comments about eating now and shitting now?
Yeah of course, 99% of humanity are anything but caveman. (because occasionally they are worse)

 

[HalfTangible]

It still does. We live one life in the bedroom and another in the public realm. I don't see us being particularly open, even in the west. If you were new to the west and lived a normal life you wouldn't even guess that anything sexual ever occurred in anyone you interact with. The biggest different I see between the Victorian age and now is in literature and TV. Writers like DH Lawrence brought more sexuality into writing and now TV has a lot of it. But it hasn't yet permeated into being a totally acceptable subject of conversation unless with a close friend.

I'm referring to societies, not individuals. When we hear about the medevial age, we think castles, beautiful princesses with massive and impractical hats. The thought of erotica of porn doesn't even enter our heads. When I say digital age, you think computers, ones and zeroes, electronics you enjoy, the internet... and with the internet comes the thought of porn.

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks of Lancelot and Lady Guinevere doing the dirty under Arthur's nose? Or the lords of estates having sex with whomever the hell they please? Or knights, ahem, saving ladies and *winkwink nudgenudge*?

No, but then they didn't have songs where Lancelot was asking "what do i have to do to get inside of you", and Guinevere was talking about "her poker face" did they? =p

 

[Vault101]

Wait you mean, your standards are result of what society said you?

no. I mean applying moraltiy to sex (to a certain extent) is stupid...because theres no actual objectivity

[quote/]I came to realization that it is safer and overall better NOT to fuck any hot piece of ass when you have chance to[/quote]
while it is peoples right to do so should they wish....thats not even ehat I'm arguing for

I'm arguing (or what I think I was originally) that just because a women has been with a few previous partners (and lets say they are all full on relationships) it does not make her "damaged" or "used" in anyway

and just because somone has engaged in "casual" sex doesnt not make their "lovemaking" sex anyless special...there is a difference

Do you have further plans with your partner? Family, kids, pets, etc.?
If you would like to see eventually your partner as your spouse and he have same desire than I don't see anything bad in it.

I'm single right now...but even if I did get a boyfreind..at my age marrage/kids is NOT somthing I want to be thinking about right now

somtimes people arent ready for that level of comitment

And here our attitudes are beyond point of agreement
I even call one night stands "masturbating with a person", because you actually don't care or know anything about him/her. And I find it disgusting

so?...is masturbation evil now? if not then whats wrong with mutual masturbation?

I can understand the desire to releases ones "urges" without the added hassle of a relationship...hence a freinds with benefits scenario...I wouldnt know how such arrangements work out alot of the time (I'm not making any assumptions eather way) but whatever...I dont think involuntary celebacy is healthy




[/quote]
And who made the internet possible? Masses? Or few exceptional individuals working together?
How masses are using this wonderful tool? To transcend and become better more educated people? Or to exchange thoughts about extermination of niggers and jews, pedophile porn and comments about eating now and shitting now?
Yeah of course, 99% of humanity are anything but caveman. (because occasionally they are worse)[/quote]
BOTH

I can have acces to all kinds of information that I would never have dreamed of.....a memes..the spreading of Ideas and a whole new culture

on the internet I argue with strangers from halfway across the globe while browsing facebook and listening to a remix of music from donkey kong country 2...thats mind blowing

you can whine all you want about the masses but I dont care.....its all one big horrible and wonderful thing at the same time

but I;m getting off topic

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Look at the differences in pay for women, or the whole 'when a girl acts like a guy she's a slut' mentality, or most of the Middle east, or...

The first I've never seen legit statistics before, just people calling out that there's a massive gender pay gap. That girl fucks around thing is perpetuated by women as a bad thing far more than it is men, at least from what I've observed. There isn't that much further to go, especially compared to before this happened when women were stoned to death and pretty much sold by their fathers, didn't have any say, couldn't own property or have a career; go ahead, tell those women that the biggest problem is a pay gap and name calling and see if they feel sorry for women today.

OT: I guess it's cool, I sure as shit wouldn't want to live in a sexually oppressed society though.

 

[MadMage]

No. I have always been a little curious about the same sex. But as a guy I will be labled a "fag" for life. Why is it that girls are if not encouraged, at least not judged by experimentation in collage where as if a man so much as kisses another man he can never come back from that.