My post was originally just "I'm sure you have none of those," but I realized by saying that alone, I was being a passive-aggressive prick.Mortai Gravesend said:
I was talking about my statement about the vast majority of people lying to suit themselves. It was you who then decided it had to be somebody who lies at every turn. I'm not saying most people are pathological liars, but most people will lie very often to make circumstances easier.
Thanks. That's quite a relief.
I know that, that's not what I meant. I'm well aware that you don't have to prove the negative of any assertion I make at all, even if I said "gravity exists." It'd be easy enough for me to demonstrate gravity myself.
Barring the troubles of getting to the moon itself, what I meant was that there is a moon orbiting earth that is accessible by humans, and there is empirical evidence looming above our heads that the moon is, in fact, not cheese.
That's what I meant, I'm skeptical about public surveys, especially things that ask the person to reveal something that would make them nervous if it wasn't completely held anonymously. The same applies to a survey about the social cycle I'm talking about.
Fair enough. But I suppose you could say that about anybody, really. I'm just making observations based on what I see.
I meant the vast majority that I've encountered, and then assumed a societal pattern. Sure in a perfect world I would give everyone I don't know the benefit of the doubt, but I find people far too predictable for that.
I see what you're saying. But clearly we're working with separate pools of people where I see it as extremely prominent, rampant almost, and you don't see it at all. Like I said, I find that interesting and, frankly, it gives me a bit of hope that the entire world isn't a big ball of trash.
I only did that because, in light of the recent topics at the escapist, I assumed the hot word going around was "misogynist" and I expected you to sling the same thing at me.
This is basically the same thing you said before, and I said 'fair enough,' so fair enough. Although I'd say that's true of almost anybody who's not, say, a diplomat. But you're certainly right about that. Though, I have been around the United States and Germany and I get the same sexual vibe from each place, that that's the way it is in a lot of modern, secular (which the United States really isn't, but still) societies.
I agree.
I meant sexual superiority, where men are encouraged to accept any advance and women are encouraged to deny any advance. It's really counter-intuitive to everyone if you ask me, but I said the only reason people would want to uphold it is that people on both sides get a rush from it. Men like the thrill of the chase, and they enjoy bragging (something I absolutely never understood.. bragging about sex. It makes you look like a filthy, sad human being) and the women enjoy being manipulative.
I think more of it comes from sex being held as this 'holy grail' of social status. That if you're a guy and you have lots of sex you must have the blood of a Norse god. That translates to people being able to nullify other social statuses and instead feel superior to somebody else due to how much sex they have (or how little, for females). It assumes that everyone's on an equal playing field in the sexual realm, which they're not. It's really a matter of circumstance.
Many physically attractive people find their life devoid of sexual advances, it's called involuntary celibacy. And many physically unattractive people have sex on a regular basis. It could be anywhere from prostitution, to simply that there are people out there who don't find that person to be unattractive. There certainly is no one standard for attractiveness.
But it all boils down to the idea that your sex life makes you socially superior to others. When, in fact, I believe it's something you should keep a secret. You'd never hear me saying "I totally did XYZ with my girlfriend last night," because I find that ridiculously derogatory. But that's not what other people think-- or at least are led to think. That's why it seems like it's a forced social standard to me, because the idea of objectifying another person that heavily seems borderline sociopathic to me.
I'm not complaining that men aren't getting sex. In fact it's in my best interest that nobody reproduce, because I think the world is absolutely rotten thanks to human beings.
But there also is the issue of psychological damage from sexual frustration (and this could apply to either side). There could be men and women who have equal libido, but the man becomes sexually frustrated because he can't have sex due to the woman's withdrawal of it, and the woman becomes sexually frustrated because she feels the need to withdraw sex as long as possible in order to maintain her Puritan status of "virgin" or even just "not a slut."
And when it becomes a constant thing, sexual frustration is not just an "Aww, man. I didn't have sex," kind of thing, it can literally drive people to the brink of insanity.
