And normal straight men are extremely icked out by the idea of sex with other guys. There’s also a lot of social pressure to that extent. Very few would admit to being willing to have sex with men even under extraordinary circumstances.
And I don’t think you guys are deliberately lying, I just think you’re deluded. In this game of hypotheticals, you’re not actually challenged to make a hard decision. I think, on some level, admitting that you’d do something really icky, even under dire circumstances, would bother you. Just saying “yeah I’ll take no sex ever/blindness/whatever” is the easy way out to avoid actually commiting to something, though completely hypothetical, would squick you out just to admit to.
It’s very easy when playing the “gun to your head, pick one of two bad choices” to go with the cognitively easy, and socially acceptable answer, because nothing real is at stake, and going the easy route preserves your mental status quo. Even if, logically, the squicky choice is overwhelmingly obviously better.
I’m not saying the no sex again thing is overwhelmingly obviously better - that’s why I made the other poll. I will say that one night of discomfort is better than quadrapelegia/blindness/etc. because no temporary discomfort could possibly be worth those things. The fact that 1/3rd to 1/2 of people would choose to degrade the quality of the rest of their lives by 95%+ in order to avoid one bad experience clearly shows that people are not being rational on this issue.
The point of the poll, by the way, was to examine just how deluded people were on the issue. If I was an evil supervillain and had you in my volcano lair, and strapped you into a chair, and then brought out my spine crushing machine and my eye gouging henchman and said “Hey, want to rethink this one?” with your mother in the room, there’s no way more than a very small percentage of people are choosing the permanently damaging options. But I’m curious to see how many will say they would.
I’ll just reiterate that some of us *have *actually been in this situation, and gladly would (or did) choose things much worse than a life without sex in order to avoid sex with a parent.
Let me assure you that the “discomfort” of having sex with a parent is in no way “temporary”, and if you think so, then you’re the one who’s deluded.
ETA: I’m not saying that people who would choose sex with their parent are sick or deluded; I’m saying that I know all too intimately the horror that is having sex with a parent, and for me, it’s far worse than pretty much anything I can imagine. I *know *the choice I would make.
Getting raped or molested by a parent is an entirely different situation. We’re supposing a hypothetical in which some evil force is forcing you and your parent to have consentual sex. You both know the situation sucks, but you’re willing to do it to avoid the consequences. The situation isn’t at all analagous to a parent raping a child.
Yikes!!! I’m one of the sick people!!! I read it as partner…not parent!!! Now I’m traumatized and need to wash my eyes and fingers with soap and water!!! Lol
Right, and I’m saying that there’s no way in hell I, as a consenting adult, would have sex with my reluctantly consenting, adult father just to avoid never having sex again. I’m 100% sure that I am not mistaken about this. And as I said, it would be moot anyway; I’d be allowed to have sex, but I’d be completely repulsed at the idea of ever doing it, ever, ever, ever again.
You’ve said that the people voting this way are deluded or abnormal, and that if push came to shove, we’d all choose a lifetime of sex over the “temporary discomfort” of sex with a parent. I can only speak for myself of course, but again, I am absolutely not deluded (though I’ll cop to abnormal), and while I agree that your scenario is nothing approaching child rape, I still think you’re grossly underestimating the psychological impact it would have for many people, on both the parent and the child, and grossly overestimating how bad it would be for many people to go without sex.
Why can’t it be the case that, given these two horrible choices, most people would choose to forgo sex, and a few would choose sex with their parent, and neither of them is sick or deluded? Different people feel differently about things. Personally, I’d only find it disgusting if someone were like, “Hell, yeah! I’d give up a lifetime of sex just for the chance to do my mom!”
Although I’d gladly give up a lifetime of sex to do your mom. Is that weird?
I don’t think there’s anything deluded, and by definition, given the poll numbers, anything abnormal about people who find the idea revolting. There are good evolutionary reasons for an incest taboo, regardless of whether it gets maintained biologically or sociologically.
::cheerfully notes yet another way in which he is unusual::
Does it squick you out to know that some people don’t share that response-pattern, nonetheless?
You’re going to appeal to evolutionary drives - when the other end of the equation is that people have to give up sex forever?
I agree that there’s nothing abnormal about giving the proper response to this question. I’m saying actually doing what the said they would would be abnormal.
And looking at the other thread - we see that between 1/3rd and 1/2 of the people say they’d rather be blind or quadripalegics than do it. Surely most of us can agree that that’s fucking insane, right? So clearly people are not being rational on this issue.
It doesn’t squick me out, I just know most of you are delusional - and it’s generally irritating when delusional people insult you for not being delusional. I sometimes get this way in arguments with creationists, for example. Frustrating.
Ugh. Dude, I’d fuck ten guys before I’d fuck my mom. Yeah, we get it, you’d fuck your mom. Maybe you should write her an email or something about it.
And you say that quality of life would be reduced to “zero”? As in life would literally not be worth living if you couldn’t have sex? A few people have responded in the thread that they’re already living a life of no sex.
So you’re a guy coming into a thread with people admitting to you that they’re already celibate (by choice or not) and telling them that they’re delusional for not thinking that fucking their mom is worth getting sex back. Or are you saying that they obviously think that porking mom is worth getting sex back but they’re deluding themselves into thinking that they don’t actually think that?
50%+ of the people here would fuck their mom. They’re just really bad at the hypothetical game.
You can’t have possibly missed the very sentence before the one you’re quoting here.
I am clearly saying that being blind or a quadripalegic reduces the quality of your life to near zero. Why lie about what I said?
Again, I’ve moved on. I wanted to examine this very issue - is it easy for people to give up sex because they don’t anticipate having it anyway? Hence my follow up questions in the other thread.
I’m talking about people who would pick quadripalegia or blindness rather than one night of discomfort.
You’re conflating two issues:
A) There is a crowd here who answered 2, and they would stick with it. I believe it. It’s not nearly as high as the poll indicates, but I don’t doubt some percentage would. But it’s not just that - the people from this side are not merely saying it’s not worth it to me, they’re saying ANYONE who sees it differently from them is fucking sick, and other such judgements. So they’re not just picking option 2, they’re saying anyone who picks option 1 is beyond the pale.
B) A significant fraction of the respondants in the follow up poll indicated that they’d choose blindness or the loss of the use of their body rather than do it. This is clearly irrational and an indicator of either self-deception/social pressure at work, or someone that’s truly fucked up. The irony here is that they’re saying the people who’d experience one night of discomfort to keep their sex lives are insane, meanwhile they’re the ones saying they’d suffer the worst things you could suffer for the rest of their lives to avoid one instance of discomfort. The ones throwing around the insults about being crazy are actually the crazy ones here.
90%+ of the people here would fuck their mom. They’re just really bad at the hypothetical game.
You can’t have possibly missed the very sentence before the one you’re quoting here.
I am clearly saying that being blind or a quadripalegic reduces the quality of your life to near zero. Why lie about what I said?
Again, I’ve moved on. I wanted to examine this very issue - is it easy for people to give up sex because they don’t anticipate having it anyway? Hence my follow up questions in the other thread.
I’m talking about people who would pick quadripalegia or blindness rather than one night of discomfort.
You’re conflating two issues:
A) There is a crowd here who answered 2, and they would stick with it. I believe it. It’s not nearly as high as the poll indicates, but I don’t doubt some percentage would. But it’s not just that - the people from this side are not merely saying “it’s not worth it to me, this is my choice”, they’re saying ANYONE who sees it differently from them is fucking sick, and other such judgements. So they’re not just picking option 2, they’re saying anyone who picks option 1 is beyond the pale.
B) A significant fraction of the respondants in the follow up poll indicated that they’d choose blindness or the loss of the use of their body rather than do it. This is clearly irrational and an indicator of either self-deception/social pressure at work, or someone that’s truly fucked up. The irony here is that they’re saying the people who’d experience one night of discomfort to keep their sex lives are insane, meanwhile they’re the ones saying they’d suffer the worst things you could suffer for the rest of their lives to avoid one instance of discomfort. The ones throwing around the insults about being crazy are actually the crazy ones here.
I’d choose pretty much any transient discomfort over a severe decrease in quality of the rest of my life. I’d get waterboarded rather than get my dick cut off I’d eat a hundred cockroaches rather than have my eyes gouged out. I’d rather take a beating that left no permanent damage than have a surgeon painlessly cut off my hand.
One negative transient experience that leaves no lasting damage only hurts you as much as you allow it.
So I misread your shit. I didn’t lie about anything.
It’s funny that you brought up creationists. You remind me of the religious who claim that atheists really do believe in God, they just don’t want to admit it.
And I don’t give a shit if you think we’ve switched topics and moved on. You already admitted that the point of your other poll was to see just how far the “delusion” went. That poll only exists because you think the people who wouldn’t fuck their mothers are delusional and you wanted to see just how delusional.
So just to be clear - you believe that 40% of the respondents to my poll would honestly say “ok, go ahead” when someone held a jackhammer to their upper spine rather than have sex with a parent? That they’d say “yep, easy decision” when someone started pushing their power drill to their eyeballs? These people’s steely resolve is accurate and true, that they’d really suffer those fates if it was put up or shut up time?
It would be extremely difficult to misread what was plainly stated in the sentence preceeding the one you decided to quote.
Well, it had two points. If you weren’t planning to have sex again, then not having sex again isn’t much to give up. So I gave a wider range of consequences that would apply to all people just to see how bad people perceived parent fucking to be.
I thought quadripalegia was far enough to accurately granulate the results. I thought no one could seriously answer the question in that manner, and yet almost 40% did, so apparently I needed to go further. Maybe I should’ve asked “would you fuck a parent to prevent the holocaust?” - apparently it is such an uncontemplatable thing that, what, 10 or 20 percent probably would rather work the nozzle on the gas chambers?
And I did want to see just how delusional people would be about what they’d claim to do vs what they’d actually do. That was the point. I’m not sure how you think this statement is a victory for you.
How does option #1 work for those whose parent is deceased? Is it just a given your parent wants to have sex with you? There’s a lot of “it depends” to consider.
Myself, if I could go back in time to when my mother was 20, hadn’t married or had children yet, and had no idea who I was- then I would take that option over involuntary lifelong celibacy.
It’s right there. You think it’s unlikely that anyone would turn down sex for the rest of their life rather than have sex with their mother. You might be talking about something else, but that’s what I’m talking about.
Because when I argued that it’s bullshit to claim that someone’s delusional because they say they’d rather give up sex for the rest of their lives you responded with “well, I’m not talking about giving up sex for the rest of their life. I’m talking about being crippled.”
Misread was a bad choice of word. More like “skimmed.” I saw “zero quality of life” or whatever, assumed you were talking about the topic of this thread, rolled my eyes, moved on, saw you spouting more bullshit and included a reference to it in my post. Why would I try to outright lie about what you’re saying? Why would I think you wouldn’t point out if I misquoted you?
The poll as presented was a night of “marathon” sex with your parent. That pretty much implies consensual, not child molestation, not rape, no force or coercion involved. The consequence for not fucking your parent was no sex for the rest of your life. It says nothing else about the situation. You can make up whatever you want about it.
See, in my mind I had a bed with silk sheets and rose petals, my mom about the time she married my dad — she was hot when she was 19 — and the only person who even knew about the situation was me. (And in the SF version of the story, that’s how I was conceived; I’m my own father.)
It’s a silly poll. It’s like saying, “which would you rather do, eat worms for breakfast for a week, or a baby for just one morning?” And some people are like, “OMFG!!i Anyone who would even ENTERTAIN the thought of eating a baby should be committed to an insane asylum!” and “This is not a joking matter. My mother was almost eaten by her neighbor when she was a baby. You never get over the trauma.”
Whatever. I’m with SB in thinking that all y’all is nuts.
Like Inner Stickler said on the first page, I doubt I could get it up for my mother. She’s my mother and it’s rare for me to be attracted to a woman at all. Doesn’t matter if my life is depending on it. Ain’t happening.
