- Sex Helps You Sleep Better - can’t argue with that
- Sex Strengthens Pelvic Floor Muscles - or that
- Sex Reduces Prostate Cancer Risk - not quite proven, and it increases the risk of other cancers
- Sex Reduces Pain - not when you get older
- Sex Improves Intimacy - not casual sex
- Sex Boosts Self-Esteem - usually not true with casual sex, and a downside anyway
- Sex Improves Cardiovascular Health - unproven, and not when coupled with STDs
- Sex Burns Calories - being alive burns calories, there are better exercises
- Sex Boosts Immunity - again the STD exception, even the benign ones like colds and flus
- Sex Relieves Stress - more nonsense, it seems to be the major cause
So in other words, objective emotional experiences are not objective in your world? I mean, basically what you’re saying is that you believe that sexual activity is ultimately to be engaged in as often as practical, with no consideration to one’s actual desires for said activity or their emotional responses to it.
I could say the same thing about you eating a vegan diet. That’s objectively beneficial, and you’re weak if you don’t do it.
Biking to work every day and leaving your car at home is objectively beneficial, and you’re weak if you don’t do it.
Going canoeing every day is objectively beneficial, and you’re weak if you don’t do it.
Doing yoga is objectively beneficial, and you’re weak if you don’t do it.
See the problem with your thesis yet?
That was tongue in cheek. It’s the fundamental basis of Buddhist philosophy.
Not weak for not participating in sex.
Weak for allowing another person to dictate your emotional experience through sex
And we’re back to the idea that Man is an Island.
In other words, those who participate in sex are weak - the strong only masturbate.
Or rape. Rapists don’t allow other people’s unwillingness to boink interfere with their emotional experience either.
Friendly suggestion: stick to masturbation.
You see you’re suggesting that what, sex is only enjoyable if you can be apart of it emotionally?
I like to have sex because of the experience, not the emotions. That’s where you are confused my friend and that’s why masturbation is a stupid alternative if i can have a better sexual experience with someone rather then by myself.
I just wont fall in love because of it.
Not exactly. If we didn’t have all the constaints on sexual behavior today, the rich and powerful would have many wives and mistresses cast them off when they were no longer sexually desirable and leave a lot of young men sexually frustrated roaming in gangs raping girls. Very little respect for age as well. Doesn’t exactly sound like freedom if as a girl you have no choice and as a young poor considerate man you have no options.
Now I don’t think that females are cast off for age in the animal kingdom, but every other inhuman social/sexual practice I mentioned is not uncommon amongst our fellow mammals and does occur in human societies free of social constraints.
The suggestion is that you are not everyone, your experience is not universal, and in some cases sex IS only enjoyable due to the emotional experiences.
You have your cause and effect backwards a bit here–the idea for at least some people is that sex is more enjoyable if you fall in love first, and that’s more important in choosing a sexual partner than any other consideration.
I ain’t saying you have to do it. I’m saying your experience and preferences are not universal. Further, I’m saying that the women of the world are not obligated to attempt to conform to your preferences in order that your sex life get better.
No - while other people are arguing that point, I am merely pointing out the flaws inherent in your position.
What, precisely, is your beef with the woman in your hypothetical telling the boy, “I’m sorry, but while the idea of having sex/doing drugs/gambling away all my money/committing ritual suicide together with you sounds like it would be fun right now, by brain has activated and I’ve realized that there would probably be some consequences down the line that would be so bad that I would right now be less happy having sex than refraining, due to my worries about the future”?
I can think of two options as to what your problem with the situation is:
-
you think that it’s stupid to care about consequences, and are overwhelmed with pity that the poor foolish woman can’t enjoy the pleasures of casual sex due to her foolish aversion to social pariahism and STDs.
-
you pity the poor man, who has blue balls now because the stupid woman wasn’t easy.
(Largely because objection 1 is stupid, I have a difficult time believing that your problem with the situation isn’t actually objection 2.)
So. “Masturbation is a stupid alternative if I can have a better sexual experience with someone rather then by myself”, you say. What you’re not getting is that for the woman, retaining her self-respect (and infection-free status), that’s a better life experience. For her masturbation may not be as directly pleasurable as sex, but it lacks the downsides, and so all in all is the better way to go.
That, or you actually don’t care about the woman’s life experience and are rooting for the blue-balled man, and are asserting that he should just have sex with the woman, because he can have a better experience with her than by himself. But since we’re speaking of an unwilling woman, for his experience to still be better, he’d have to enjoy rape. Which is not something I can sympathize with.
Humans are not animals. We are human, which is a level above animal. The human’s abilty to think, rationalize, create and make choices raise us about the beasts.
I disagree–it’s at least plausibly much more of a spectrum than a bright line.
It’s not possible to prove one way or the other, after all, if the great apes, other primates, and cetaceans have the abstract and moral reasoning abilities we do–any more than it’s possible for me to prove that you are, and not some kinda p-zombie automaton.
When you start a question, based on an incorrect premis… you can never reach the truth, at least not until you discover that your first assumpsion lead you astray from the start.
Man is not an animal.
This idea is a lie. It one of the nine basic satainc lies that lead men away from the truth. Google the Nine Satanic Statments for a complete list of what you have been fooled into believing.
The Word said that God made man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into him, and man became a living Soul. The dust represents our body, our flesh. The breath of God represents our Spirit, which was initial a part of God himself. The Soul represents that which makes us unique in all the Earth. It is our mind which gives us both our connection to the matterial word (via the five sences) and our connection with the Spirit. It is where we deal with logic and emotion. Reason and Desire. It is where we choose which to listen too and what to do. In short our Soul is where we exercise free will.
That is why humanity can be both the monster of distruction, dropping an atomic bomb… and an angel of compasion, building hospitals, feeding the hungry and giving to the poor.
…show me an animal that has built anything with two or more moving parts… a static item like a birds nest… shur, but to design and build objects with moving parts, for futuristic goals… only man does that. Only man does that becase… man is not an animal.
Man kind has the ability to think in the abstract. Man can see trends and think in terms of futuristic outcomes. We plan a lot of our choices today on what we expect the future to be.
Given all that… men saw that sexual relation tends to produce children. Children without a father and mother pair tend to do poorly compaired to those who had both thier parents support. Thus the issue is not about you. Your sexual relationships are not yours alone. These choices have life-long impacts on many people besides yourself. And everyone involved is better served if the sexual relation is accompanied by the loyalty and devotion to your partner which the marrige cerremony tradisionaly conveyed to the entire community.
We are a social bunch, and so it is only right that such commiments to a partner be expressed for all to hear and understand.
What you call ‘liberation’ in this context is actualy a betrayal of trust, and a violation of the commitment. The problem is simple, if you have commited yourself to one person… and you turn away from them; how can any person in the futur believe you when you ask them to become commited to you, seeing that you have already broken this vow to someone else?
Your words are meaningless if they are not followed up by actions.
So your answer is:
Man is not an animal because we can think in terms of futuristic consequense to our actions.
And sex is not something you can practice in isolation, meaning it will effect many different people than just the individuals initially involved. Ergo those effects must be considered, and the eternal impact on other peoples lives weighed in contrast to your momentary pleasure.
Weclome to the boards, Pastor Torch.
By the way, I was disappointed when this turned out to just be from that ‘protest’ version of Satanism, rather than something that was actually, you, know, evil. I wanted to see instructions on sacrificing chickens and eating protestant babies, but got weaksauce nice-person rules instead.
I’m sorry. You seem to have begun with an incorrect premise.
golf clap
Thank you!
I have been an avid fan of BBS’s (Builiten Board Services’s) since 1984, and the invention of the 300 Buad modem. I know that dates me bit.
Again, thank you.
No. That is not how this works.
I’m not a Hamster.
Nor did God die and leave you in charge.
If you have any such credintails to present, and back up your claim, so beit, but present them. I’m new here and tend to jump in to the middle of things. I might have missed your wonderful-self exhaltation in some proir post. Enlighten me.
Otherwise, reality will remain what-it-is, and not what you want to think it is.
In the mean time… I have set forth some substanance, namely: commonly known facts to support my claim. You offered none.
I offered reason based on information, you offered none.
A lie does not become truth merely because “everyone” knows it. If that were in any case the facts of the matter, I supposed Christopher Columbus would have fallen off the edge of the Earth.
And by the way… aren’t Hampsters and Leming related? Just a thought.
-PT.
What…the crap?
Let me translate for our dear royal rodent. Your argument is based on the assumption that the bible is right. Plenty of us here disagree. As you yourself note, unless you can sell us on you assumption, your argument collapses due to lack of a foundation, and we all dismiss you, while possibly scoffing.
This is the forum for witnessing, but there’s nothing saying we have to agree with you. So first you need to convert us all to fervent christians, and then your post will work.