Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   You're either straight, gay, or lying?
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 76 of 158 (511425)
06-09-2009 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Chat Bots and X-Men mutants unite!
Rahvin writes:
There is no need for sex to be so overrated in terms of bonding. One can have casual sexual partners and still maintain a healthy, loving relationship with one or more individuals. Frankly, sex doesn't need to be associated with love at all. Love is good enough by itself, with or without sex.
Hydro writes:
So, then, tell me... If there is such a big difference between sex and love, then why do mates become jealous of affairs? Why do they feel so hurt if it's just sex?
Well, equally then, what about situations in which someone is having an affair with someone just for the sex? They still love the person they're with but perhaps they were on the road doing a comedy show, got a little drunk and lonely and decided to bang on of the waitresses. In this situation neither the waitress or the unnamed comic feel anything for each other. I would consider that "just sex", wouldn't you...?
In the scenario you described you are telling of a situation in which a trust was broken due to sex. The hurt person usually cares more for the broken trust than for the actual act of sex.
I, too, know swinger couples. And from what I've seen, the cream inevitably rises to the surface.
... It doesn't get old. That's gotta be one of the funniest, unintentional lines I've read in this forum.
If what you speak of was true in most cases, the entire world would live this way. The evidence is overwhelmingly not in your favor. And it is entirely independent of cultural differences. Seems like there is something a little more hardwired than that, knowing that this is the case.
Monogamy is forced on us socially, we are hardwired against it; when I mean "we" I mean men.
The example of this is simply to look at who are normally more unfaithful? Men. So men are not "hardwired" for monogamy, in fact look at our sperm count and the fact that we can get a "new load ready for battle" within minutes of having "deployed the last load". This is a clear sign of multiple sexual encounters being the norm. Current social standards frown upon this, and we try to repress these instincts, but make no mistake, men seek more than one partner and current standards force us against it.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 3:25 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2009 11:31 PM onifre has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 77 of 158 (511436)
06-09-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Chat Bots and X-Men mutants unite!
quote:
Bullshit.
Ummmm.... Okay...
quote:
Who cares?
Well, me, for one...
Haven't you seen those very sad people that can't form meaningful relationships and live their lives in continual, destructive relationships? And you ask, "Who cares?" I care. I don't like to see people hurt. That's like saying, who cares about drug addicts? I care. They are welcome to live whatever lifestyle they choose, but shooting rays of sunshine up their ass by pretending it's not self-destructive isn't the way to go about it.
I'm telling you that, for many people, it is not self-destructive.
It's not a universal. People who have casual sex can and do form committed, loving, long-term relationships. There is no pretending involved.
I don't like seeing people hurt, either - but I also feel the need to correct those who think that the way they feel is the way everyone feels. Perhaps casual sex would in fact dull your ability to feel love, because for you sex and love are hopelessly intwined. That's not necessarily the case for me, or anyone else. As I said, I know many people who engage in casual sex, and yet are also in deeply committed, loving and healthy relationships. Some of those people share their sexual partners, some do not. But saying that casual sex inevitably leads to dulling an individual's ability to bond to another person on an emotional level is patently fucking flase.
quote:
There is no need for sex to be so overrated in terms of bonding. One can have casual sexual partners and still maintain a healthy, loving relationship with one or more individuals. Frankly, sex doesn't need to be associated with love at all. Love is good enough by itself, with or without sex.
So, then, tell me... If there is such a big difference between sex and love, then why do mates become jealous of affairs? Why do they feel so hurt if it's just sex?
Becasue of the lying and betrayal, genius. And not everyone gets jealous over sex. I and my partner are both able to have sex with whomever we choose. I'm not jealous of the people she's had sex with, and she's not jealous of me. We have a happy, committed, long-term relationship, and we are perfectly capable of bonding emotionally regardless of any sexual activities.
If she slept with someone else and didn't tell me about it, then I'd be upset, not becasue of the sex (I've never agreed with the social value placed on "purity" or that I somehow have "ownership" of my partner's sexuality beyond what we agree to ourselves), but because she would have done it behind my back.
If a couple are in a monogamous relationship where they both agree that neither will have sex outside of the relationship, then any outside sex would constitute dishonesty and betrayal. My point is that this does not describe all relationships.
quote:
Love exists independently from sex.
Yes, I agree to an extent, but I think you are oversimplifying. Wouldn't you also agree that there are different forms of love. Is my love for music the same as my love for my dog? Is the love for my dog the same as my love for my father? Is my love for my father the same as the love for my wife? Is the love for my wife the same as the love for my son?
Are they really different beyond the degree of the bond shared? I love my family, and the love I feel for my partner can be described as "different" in that she knows me better and so the bond is deeper, and because we are sexually attracted to each other. Were I to have a child, that very same bond would still exist, simply without the sexual attraction (obviously). It seems to me that love is love is love, and there are simply degrees and extras that differenciate love between family/friends/spouse/etc.
I'm not saying that if you engage in some casual sex that you'll all-of-a-sudden turn in to some sex-crazed, disease-infested whore. Shit, I've had plenty of casual sex in my time. I'm just recognizing that there are consequences for our actions. The human psyche is a fragile thing; more fragile than I think we aware of. I'm simply saying that the more we indulge in it and trivial sex, the more social problems we run the risk of having.
And I'm saying that you're playing armchair psychologist and speaking from the orifice typically utilized for expelling solid waste. Casual sex need not have consequences in terms of the ability to bond with other human beings. The actual consequences of casual sex are an increased risk of pregnancy and STDs, both of which can be controlled to some extent. The emotional consequences you're talking about do not always apply.
Is that really such a bizarre interpretation?
Bizarre? No. It's simply the result of "common-sense" idiocy. Just becasue it "makes sense" to you personally doesn't mean it actually applies in the real world. Again, you're playing armchair psychologist.
quote:
I personally know couples that are deeply committed and madly in love with each other, but who do have casual sex outside of their relationship. It hasn't lessened the amount of love and respect they have for each other.
Great, but that doesn't mean that's the norm, nor does it mean that there are not issues within that relationship because of that lifestyle. Very few couples can actually live a swinger lifestyle while maintaining a healthy relationship. I, too, know swinger couples. And from what I've seen, the cream inevitably rises to the surface.
What exactly is "the norm?" Who defines it? Is it anything more than an appeal to popularity, where whatever the most people do must be the "right" way? Because that's all it appears to be.
How many monogamous relationships are stable? It looks to me like all human interactions runt he risk of being filled with conflict and drama, whether they are mongamout, polyamorous, straight, gay, bisexual, or even just friends. The mere fact that interaction requires multiple distinct individual personalities means that some degree of conflict and itnerpersonal tension is inevitable, and the deeper a personal bond that exists, the more painful the conflict can be if/when it arises.
Why are you singling out polyamorous relationships? Because for every poly relationship I know of, I can point to a dozen monogamous relationships that are self-destructive, abusive, unhealthy, filled with lies, and downright just awful.
I think you're singling out people who engage in casual sex because they're different, and becasue you are personally incredulous at the idea of a stable, committed relationship that is not monogamous.
quote:
Love, being a subjective human emotion, is different from one person to the next. Don't make the mistake of assuming that love must work for everyone else the same way that it works for you. Casual sex and even polyamory do not necessarily have any effect on a person's capacity to feel love and engage in committed relationships.
If what you speak of was true in most cases, the entire world would live this way.
Why? I said it's not the same for everyone. Many people like being monogamous.
The evidence is overwhelmingly not in your favor.
WHAT EVIDENCE? Point out where in this thread you have used any sort of evidence beyond personal anecdotes. Granted, I've doen the same, but don't feed me a pile of bullshit by saying the evidence is against me when you've not even attempted to show any.
And it is entirely independent of cultural differences. Seems like there is something a little more hardwired than that, knowing that this is the case.
Wrong. Many cultures have engaged in non-monogamous traditions. Typically, this involves polgamy, though I've heard of women with multiple husbands as well. Just because monogamy is widespread today in developed countries doesnt mean that there's anything hardwired.
You have to ask yourself why that is while trying to sell the pipe dream.
To reiterate: If you want to have lots of casual sex with lots of willing partners, you are more than welcome to it. But I also don't think that Taz's observations here are ridiculous. He makes a good point, as do you to some degree.
I didn't ask for your permission, nor do I require your blessing. I'm simply stating that human relationships are many and widely varied, and that blanket statements like "casual sex leads to reduced capacity to establish meaningful relationships and bond to other people" are ignorant and demonstrative of armchair psychology. Not everyone thinks, feels, loves, or bonds the same way you or Taz or I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2009 3:25 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 12:27 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 78 of 158 (511441)
06-09-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rahvin
06-09-2009 1:57 PM


I agree
I think that your approach is the most rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 06-09-2009 1:57 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 7:16 PM Phat has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 79 of 158 (511446)
06-09-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Phat
06-09-2009 6:39 PM


Re: I agree
I think that your approach is the most rational.
Have you give any consideration to Catholic Scientist's "rational" approach that "everything freaky is gay"...?
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 06-09-2009 6:39 PM Phat has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 80 of 158 (511468)
06-09-2009 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by onifre
06-09-2009 1:07 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
Well there is a saying that goes with this.
If you bake one cake they don't call you a baker, but suck one c___ and they call you a ...

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 1:07 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 12:00 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 81 of 158 (511471)
06-09-2009 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by New Cat's Eye
06-09-2009 12:35 PM


Of course, Catholic Scientist, you've just declared you're gay:
So tell us...what sort of man turns you on? You into the big, burly bears or the twinks? Suits? Sweatsocks? Tightie-whities?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-09-2009 12:35 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2009 2:38 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 82 of 158 (511472)
06-09-2009 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by onifre
06-09-2009 5:25 PM


onifre writes:
quote:
The example of this is simply to look at who are normally more unfaithful? Men.
No, not really. Women are just as likely to be unfaithful. After all, those men are sleeping with somebody.
And when it comes to the relationship, it's the men who usually propose while it's the women who usually seek the divorce.
quote:
in fact look at our sperm count and the fact that we can get a "new load ready for battle" within minutes of having "deployed the last load".
The second one is usually not that good as far as insemination value goes and it takes longer to produce.
quote:
This is a clear sign of multiple sexual encounters being the norm.
And women have multiple orgasms and have a much easier time with "round two." By your logic, this is biological proof that women are more "hard wired" to be promiscuous.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 5:25 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 11:58 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 83 of 158 (511473)
06-09-2009 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Rrhain
06-09-2009 11:31 PM


No, not really. Women are just as likely to be unfaithful. After all, those men are sleeping with somebody.
Maybe so, but in my everyday experience it has been males. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong but just because the men are sleeping with women and being unfaithful doesn't mean that the women they're doing it with are also being unfaithful. It has also been my experience that the women are usual delusional in the sense that they believe the men will leave their wives. But that's getting too deep into the matter.
In my opinion, and I don't think we could reference any study for this, I think overall, to include all of the different cultures in the world, men usually have more mates than women do, and are usually more prone to affairs than women. In the US it may be a closer percentage, but that's because our culture is a bit more even in terms of gender equality.
And when it comes to the relationship, it's the men who usually propose while it's the women who usually seek the divorce.
Again, this is more of a cultural thing than a overall human race thing. Many cultures have no proposal process in which women have a say so, and in many cultures thay also don't get any rights to divorce.
I would agree though that that does describe what the culture in the US is like.
The second one is usually not that good as far as insemination value goes and it takes longer to produce.
Fair enough, but lets take my example to the next day. The woman you had sex with the night before got pregnant from your sexual encounter, for the next 9 month, and a while after, she will not be able to reproduce. While you are free to inseminate another woman the next day, and the day after, and so on...
And women have multiple orgasms and have a much easier time with "round two."
If they get pregnant during "round one", then "round two" is not even an issue. However, you can have as many rounds as you like with as many different women as you like and run the risk of getting most, if not all, pregnant.
Womens orgasims, (I apologize in advance to all women reading this), is more of an after thought because it adds nothing to the ability to reproduce.
By your logic, this is biological proof that women are more "hard wired" to be promiscuous.
I would say that women are "hardwired" to select a single mate that will provide and take care of them, while men are "hardwired" to inseminate as many females as possible to progress the species.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2009 11:31 PM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Son Goku, posted 06-10-2009 4:53 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 84 of 158 (511475)
06-10-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Theodoric
06-09-2009 10:19 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
If you bake one cake they don't call you a baker, but suck one c___ and they call you a ...
I think we found CS's campaign slogan if he ever runs for office.
Just kidding CS...
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 06-09-2009 10:19 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 158 (511592)
06-10-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by onifre
06-09-2009 5:05 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
Because things have been defined in terms of strait-ness.
If we defined it as gay or not-gay, then being gay would mean that you could never have done it with the opposite sex.
"We defined it in terms of straightness"...?
Old definitions are no longer relevant these days. There is no destinction between a gay human and a straight human, so if a gay person can have sex with the opposite sex, then a straight person can have sex with the same sex, both keeping to their original sexual orientation.
Now I agree that by "old" society standards, it may not be viewed like that by everyone, you being an example of that. But an eventual social change will take place where this opinion will be more and more the norm.
No, because straight is being defined as never doing anything with the same sex.
Fine but then gay is defined as "never having sex with the opposite sex."
But wait, what about people who were straight for a portion of their lives and are now gay? Clearly those people have had sex with the opposite sex so, "gay" doesn't mean "never having sex with the opposite sex." Then equally, straight isn't defined as "never having had sex with the same sex".
Hey! They're my premises in my argument so I get to define the words.
But yeah, its old vs new. /shrugs
Wait, I was in one with another dude and it was totally not gay. Our swords never crossed paths and it was always eye contact between him and I.
You couldn't keep your eyes off him, could you Versace?
Here's a great radio interview with Jim Jeffries and Patrice Oneil on what's considered gay, both stand-up comics, on the Opie and Anthony show. I laughed my ass off. And it goes well with this thread.
I'll take a look when I can. Thanks for the link.
But honestly, this is an old view that will eventually fade out.
Meh. Probably eventually. People are still making a big deal about it these days though.
I mean, take a look at the latest cover of Rolling Stone magazine...
Is some flaming douche comming out of the closet really cover material!?
And why the absolute dichotomy if its all a big grey scale?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 5:05 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 4:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 158 (511593)
06-10-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rrhain
06-09-2009 11:25 PM


Of course, Catholic Scientist, you've just declared you're gay:
You wish, Mr. Fancyshirt.
Just face it, Rrhain: I'm not going to have sex with you. You might as well just stop trying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2009 11:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 5:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 95 by Rrhain, posted 06-11-2009 4:50 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 87 of 158 (511616)
06-10-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2009 2:37 PM


Re: Bi/Gay/whatever
Hey! They're my premises in my argument so I get to define the words.
But yeah, its old vs new. /shrugs
You do get to define them, but I get to challenge your definitions.
You couldn't keep your eyes off him, could you Versace?
...at one point we high-fived the occasion in mid-stride. I'll let you figure out how we were able to do that, without getting too explicit.
Is some flaming douche comming out of the closet really cover material!?
I would say no, but then again, Rolling Stone magazine's covers are never that normal so...news is news, I guess.
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2009 2:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 158 (511617)
06-10-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by onifre
06-09-2009 11:58 PM


Not clear cut!
I just wanted to post here because I have been having lunch conversations with a sexologist over the last academic semester and I've learned some interesting things.
First of all, it would appear to be very difficult to know what is "hardwired" with regard to sex. Remember that our main evolutionary advantage is having a big large brain which works things out, so our advantage in some sense is to not be hardwired.
Secondly, the field seems to be coming down on the side of human beings being a sexually sequentially monogomous or "shamed" monogomous species. Shamed monogomous means monogomous with occasional allowance for "lapses" which are punished with "shame". Some of our ape relatives are totally monogomous, others are sequentially monogomous, some are shamed monogomous and others are not monogomous, so it can be difficult to settle this from our nearest relatives. However one must keep in mind that we didn't evolve from an animal like pack wolves, so there isn't really an evolutionary precedant for the male to deposit his sperm left, right and centre.
So scientifically monogomy probably isn't entirely cultural or even mostly cultural. The attitude to lapses could be, but that's another issue.
There's some great books on this stuff ranging from academic monographs to near pop-science level. If anybody wants references just ask.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by onifre, posted 06-09-2009 11:58 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Taz, posted 06-10-2009 4:59 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 89 of 158 (511619)
06-10-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Son Goku
06-10-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Not clear cut!
Son Goku writes:
First of all, it would appear to be very difficult to know what is "hardwired" with regard to sex. Remember that our main evolutionary advantage is having a big large brain which works things out, so our advantage in some sense is to not be hardwired.
This makes sense. In fact, because of our large brain and ability to reason, it becomes quite hard to distinguish between what parts of ourselves are hardwired and what parts are learned behavior.
This is why bigoted arguments against homosexuality in regard to it being unnatural can only be countered by examples of homosexuality in lower animals. We see homosexuality in everything from birds to reptiles to mammals. And as such, it becomes increasingly harder for the bigots to make the argument that homosexuality is a learned behavior rather than hardwired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Son Goku, posted 06-10-2009 4:53 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Son Goku, posted 06-10-2009 5:06 PM Taz has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 158 (511620)
06-10-2009 5:00 PM


...more clear cut.
I just wanted to add something. Some of the evolutionary reasons for monogomy can be difficult to see when looking at society today. In modern times a single mother can actually raise a healthy child, but in the time of early humans this would be very unlikely considering the hardships.
So a male was more likely to have differential reproductive success by "sticking around", as it would be beneficial for the health of the child.
Edited by Son Goku, : Clarity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by onifre, posted 06-10-2009 5:55 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024