You were the one being rude, hence a one sided scolding. I do not wish to hijack this thread further. If you have more to say about the subject of my “scolding” please take it to the Pit.
We have them outnumbered, so it’s only sporting. Besides which one should never have to resort to strawmanning christianity; I mean, seriously, moon walking?
Out of curiousity, you wouldn’t happen to have held Christian beliefs until recently, would you? This 'there are no rules since I’m not Christian" thing you’re saying gives me that vibe, that you have abruptly shed an old system of morality and found nothing to replace it with yet. Allow me to assure you, the golden rule isn’t just a christian thing, it’s also guide to living a long and enjoyable life. If you treat other people like crap all the time, people will get wise and start treating you like crap. So the selfish approach is to time your selfishness carefully, which usually doesn’t include raping the first child you come across. Unless you like the whole prison-rape thing, anyway.
What he said.
You don’t need to have some sort of objective moral compass given from religion to guide your interactions within a society. Things that are “bad” are those that cause pain to others. We all wish to avoid pain as much as possible; so it follows that to be part of society we have to moderate our urges to an acceptable level. For example, there are plenty of people who annoy the hell out me on a daily basis, but I don’t beat the hell out of them because eventually I’d probably be killed in retaliation. Take more abstractly we get concepts like “right” and “wrong”. As societies change the mores change with them; that’s life.
Being sexually liberated means doing with a willing partner, or partners, what makes you happy in the bedroom; and not giving a monkey turd what anyone else thinks. It also means being tolerant of all those who do it differently than you.
Eh. Scientific meaning of the word vs vernacular. In the former, we are members of the kingdom Animalia. And in this tread, we are using the scientific meaning of the term.
We’re merely mammals. Let’s misbehave!
Another voice chiming in to say, yes, we are animals, so what? Don’t engage in a semiotic bait-&-switch. We are animals. Not all animals are “you ANIMAL!” animals, i.e., ravening wanton beasts.
We animals [del]may well have[/del] probably did anciently come up with standards of fidelity for our own animal reasons. Like disease vectors. It is in heaven, as Yeshua said, that the angels neither marry nor are given in marriage (which I take to mean they’re sluts :D).
Also, you got that stupid earworm song stuck in my head. Garrrh!
Really Not All That Bright, let’s not go down this road. And Pink Majik Trix, the next time you draw a penis in ASCII, you’re out of here. People here have to act like adults or something close to it.
Good point. In-group killing vs out-group killing are typically governed by different sets of sanctions.
nm
I’m going to take this as your volunteering for the Most Dangerous Game.
Getting to the point where I have enough capital and social influence so I can have sex with 10 women in a pool of chocolate pudding is hard work. Also, I think getting chocolate pudding in your hoohah can cause yeast infections. I’ll assume that’s why no one’s answering the ads.
Ok so we’ve exchanged a lot by now.
Do you need to be religious to live by the golden rule? No. Is morality objective, No. Does that mean it serves no purpose? No.
Here is my point.
People govern themselves on a day to day basis in a self-conscious manner that is sometimes, if not most of the time, contradictory to happiness.
In the context of sexual causality:
Man meets woman, both are attracted to one another - sexually. Man invites woman for a night of sexual adventure. Although woman deep down inside wants to, she denies because she doesn’t want to appear “slutty”, or doesn’t want to initiate a relationship based solely on sex. They exchange numbers but nothing ever comes of it.
If these same two people met thousands of years ago, we’d likely see another outcome.
This whole idea of romanticism has evolved over the years into what we have now. Women wanting to be courted by men who’d rather just have sex with them. In the womans mind, sex is something that is earned, and because men desire sex they feed into her values and code of conduct adopting lifestyles that constrain the man’s biological desires. So what happens?
Most men conform and play the womans game, justifying it as “love” which like morality is subjective. With any game, there is always the option of cheating. And that’s what men do best.
Marriages destruct, relationships fold, man lives with guilt and angry, woman lives heartbreak and depression.
My point?
Cases of depression go up every year, as well as suicide. Why? In a nation of abundance, even in times of a recession, more people are becoming less happy, an American paradox.
The reason why? My theory is because people are playing a game that conflicts with their natural interests. Mostly because we still perceive ourselves in modern times with a humanistic image ourselves rather then with the correct scientific image. It’s flattering to believe that we’re made in the image of God, or think we’ve above animals when we are animals. Sophisticated, rational, complex, but at the end of the day, another animal.
If we accepted the scientific image, people would find the ridiculousness in the way we govern ourselves on a daily basis; who has the nicest clothes, how big of a ring a woman gets, how nice is my car, what he thinks of me or what she thinks of me. It’s sad, but it seems most of us only exist as a mental image in other peoples minds, rather then enjoying what short time we have on earth and just living.
Science doesn’t argue in favor of the notion that we need not concern ourselves with how others view us. There is no “scientific image”, as you put it - it’s completely agnostic on the subject. The aspects of science you are trying to refer to simply have better things to do than worry about than that.
(There are aspects of science -social sciences- which do have opinions on the subject, but as best I can tell they don’t particularly support your conclusions.)
You proposed an example where the woman wanted sex, but shut it down because there were alternative consequences that she feared more than she wanted the quickie. This is not fundamentally different than choosing not to eat a gallon of ice cream in one sitting because you fear the hours of indigestion will be worse than the minutes of enjoyment. In other words, this is not a case of somebody acting contrary to happiness; it’s a case where a person is taking a big-picture view of happiness - they’re as-or-more worried about the long term consequences than they are about the momentary pleasures.
This is generally considered to be a good thing.
If your argument is “wouldn’t it be nice if society was different and there were no consequences for casual sex?”, then my answer would be “maybe”. You’re proposing a gigantic change that would hugely effect many aspects of society. Perhaps you should look into speculative fiction on the subject, or write some.
If your argument is “She should just diregard the consequences so that I can get a quick lay”, then, um, no. That would be stupid of her.
It looks to me like there’s more opportunity today for casual, meaningless, no-strings-attached sex than there was in the past. If Americans really are less happy and more depressed today, how does it follow that casual sex is conducive to happiness?
The scientific image im suggesting is the one where we perceive are selves as nothing more then animals. Social animal, rational animal… still animal. It’s simple really.
Isn’t the fundemental difference is that one will have an objective consequence rather then a subjective consequent? Fundamentally, I think there is a huge difference there.
Long term desires built on romantic fantasy then on biological truth?
You see, she WANTED to have sex with him. But objected because of how she MIGHT be percieved. Which translates: I am happy when other people approve of my actions.
And my argument is, that mentality is does not benefit to happiness but deprives the person of it.
Come on now, let’s not be naive. When sex is stopped looking at something that is a “gift from God” and meant to be “special” and instead looked at as something that is a “gift from life” and is special, inevitability people would practice is on a casual basis.
If this is the thought process, it is conducive to happiness for these 10 reasons:
- Sex Helps You Sleep Better
- Sex Strengthens Pelvic Floor Muscles
- Sex Reduces Prostate Cancer Risk
- Sex Reduces Pain
- Sex Improves Intimacy
- Sex Boosts Self-Esteem
- Sex Improves Cardiovascular Health
- Sex Burns Calories
- Sex Boosts Immunity
- Sex Relieves Stress - read more here
Which means what, exactly? Run around naked, eschew all forms of modern technology, scamper around on all fours? You realize that if you act like an animal, people will treat you like one - they’re cage you up. (Though to be fair they probably won’t eat you.)
Most likey you’re just hoping to cherry-pick little bits of animal-hood, that you think would be convenient to justify particular specific actions. This isn’t any more impressive when you do it with animalness than when Christians do it with the bible.
This sounds really good until she gets shunned by all her peers; cast out of the tribe; forced to live run around naked, eschew all forms of modern technology, and scamper around on all fours; and eventually dies miserable and alone of starvation and exposure.
If the woman was paranoid and incorrect that would be one thing, but in today’s culture she would be right in worrying that people might see her as a slut and treat her worse. And the other subjective thing you mentioned, not wanting a loveless relationship of meaningless sex - who are you to tell her what she should be looking for in a relationship? That’s subjective in the way my dislike of raisins is subjective: it’s personal. And there’s nothing at all illogical about catering to your own personal preferences; to do so is the very definition of pursuing happiness.
Your own personal preferences???
So people were born seeking romance? Get out of hear.
Those preferences were adopted by people, they became personal, were not born personal. Maybe you were raised to want that, or maybe they fit in with your religious beliefs.
My point is, too many people do pursue such things as monogamous relationships for example, when we’re not biologically built to be monogamous.
So when your fairytale dream doesn’t end how you hoped it to, you get depressed and unhappy.
Unhappy for something that in the sense objectivity, never existed.
I wasn’t born with my dislike of raisins (or Sarah Palin), either. Doesn’t make it any less a personal preference.
Given that you’re wrong about that, I’m not sure that anything else in your post here makes sense.
Am I saying run around naked, no. Am I saying scamper around on all fours? Let’s not be ridiculous.
What I am saying is be FREE for goodness sakes.
If you expect sex to be something meaningful and it’s not, that generates negativity.
If you expect that sex is something meaningless and experience meaning, that generates positivity.
That’s the point, and sex is just one example in a universe of relative themes.
now if you can’t derive sense out of that, then maybe this thread is not for you, because we’re talking about a lot of more complex things then that.
Relating this to “love” or seeking “relationships”, you are dependent on another person. You want someone to LOVE you back, something that you can’t control. And if that person sabotages your “personal preference” then you lose and become unhappy.
This happens all the time. And there are a lot of people who are unhappy and hold cynical views because of it.
If that’s a personal preference that you want to live by, leaving your happiness up to chance, lmao then so be it!