Sexual liberation

[Hagi]

Since when building chain of reasons and events is wrong?
For example deconstructing reasons behind our Bachelors degree took us all evening (I had an argument similar to the one we have now with my roommate)
In the end we had floor and partially walls covered with paper
Those papers were covered with web of reasons behind reasons behind reasons behind reasons, etc.
All ended up with either "Because I want to live" or "Because I want to have kids"
If you think we just stopped at this point you are wrong.
We couldn't come up with anything than emotional reasons for this ("I'm afraid of death", "I like living", etc.). Only more or less rational reason for kids was that when they'll grow up, you'll be old and they will take care for you (and that taps into "Because I want to live" reason).
When I told about this to our psychology professor and asked if he had any rational reasons for these reasons he said that we are in "the meaning of live" territory, and our guesses are as good as any other (and before you start to nitpick again, he said much more, but I'm simply providing you with basic idea).

Yes... clearly if you yourself are incapable of coming up with other reasons and dismiss reasons anyone else might offer as simply being your own reasons in disguise that conclusively proves that survival and procreation are the only reasons behind existence.

Your professor was very correct though, albeit more friendly than I'd have been. Your reasons are indeed as good as any other, or rather as bad as any other. They're pure conjecture, incapable of being falsified or validated. Equally valid as "Because of Jesus" or "Because of Karma", and we all know how very scientific those reasons are...

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

NO.
Because nobody loves me.

 

[Hagi]

What empirical evidence lets us establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360? If we had to demonstrate that rule empirically we would have to catalogue every single variety of triangle in existence, an impossible task and in any case one which we haven't deemed necessary to consider the proposition a true one.

What? There's no variety in triangles.

It's a binary thing. Either something is a triangle or it's not.

A triangle is defined by a strict set of observable properties. Either an observable object matches all those properties, in which case it's a triangle. Or it does not, in which case it's not a triangle.

Every triangle we can observe is has those exact properties. If it hadn't then it wouldn't be a triangle.

Those properties are rooted in reality, in observation. That's our axiom. That defines what a triangle is.

Based on that axiom we can use reasoning, logic to establish that the angles of all triangles add up to 360 degrees.

And where do "logic" and "reasoning" fit into your assertion that empiricism makes up the basis of knowledge and "reality"? The triangle example I gave is simply one example of a non-empirical method of obtaining knowledge. In your book, mathematical proofs are not empirical and therefore not science.

And besides, we cannot establish by empirical induction that something ALWAYS leads to something. If we find that the boiling temperature of water is 100 degrees celsius by testing it a million times, we still can't be sure that on the million-and-one attempt the result will be the same.

You treat science as a static thing. Where if a theory is considered valid if and only if it'll be valid for all time.

Science isn't static. Science is dynamic. Theories change all the time as new observations and new lines of reasoning become available. That doesn't make previous theories invalid, it merely makes them based on outdated observations.

That's how science works. We make observations. We come up with theories, through logical reasoning, that explain those observations. We make more observations. We come up with new theories and alter existing ones, again through logical reasoning, that explain those new observations. Repeat infinitely.

Then science is incapable of saying anything about 'reality'. If we cannot make statements that were true in the past and are true in the future, what use is that statement? It's not a law and doesn't describe any general principle about our world.

The proposition "water boils at 100 degrees" becomes "water boils at 100 degrees...unless it doesn't".

That's partly true but what I'm saying is that empirical results wouldn't even make sense if there wasn't some pre-existing basis on which to assess them. The statements we are making right now in this thread are not 'based on observation', but a logic based on asserted truths we hold to as more fundamental.

Logic is based on axioms. Axioms which originated from reality.

Some philosopher didn't have a wacky dream at one point in which all those axioms magically came to him.

Those axioms were established through observation of undeniable patterns in reality.

I don't know what you mean by "reality" but not all axioms are obtained by observation. Mathematical proofs, for example.

And based on those axioms we started reasoning.

"Started" reasoning? Are you suggesting we arrived at general rules without the use of reasoning in the first place?

And from that reasoning came statements, such as you're making in this thread.

Where do you think those asserted truth we hold to as more fundamental came from? You think they came from visions special people had? You think they're ingrained in our brains so that everyone knows them?

Then how do we know that they're actual truths? We know because we can test them. And we can test them against reality.

There's that word again - reality. You're going to have to say what you mean by it sometime, you know. Because your whole argument is based upon it.

I don't know where it came from but the brain obviously has an innate knowledge that didn't come from experience, because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to reason or experience anything in the first place.

"water boils at 100 degrees...unless it doesn't".

Yup, it does. On Mars water boils at 10 degrees. Even on very high altitudes on our own planet it does not boil exactly at 100 degrees, but at a slightly lower temperature. So yeah, water boils at 100 degrees... unless it doesn't.

New observations followed by an adjustment on the theory of boiling water. Science. It's wonderful isn't it.

And no, I'm not saying reasoning takes no part in science. That observation is all there is. Reasoning is just as important as empirical evidence. Those are the two legs science stands on.

Logic didn't come purely from observation. As you say, it couldn't have. But it plays a large part in it. Even in logic and mathematics. Because those principles are always taken to the real world, where they are validated. Through observation.

That's how we know those principles actually work and that they aren't simply flukes and wild imaginations. That's the difference between sciences such as logic and mathematics and nonsense such as astrology and homoeopathy. When you take the first two and apply them to the real world they work. When you take the latter two and apply them to the real world they do not.

 

[II2]

It's an odd topic - a kind of kaleidoscope of facets that it 'means' to people.

I'd generally say: "Love is Love" or "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law; but keep SSC / RACK (Safe Sane & Consentual, or Risk-Aware Consensual Kink)"

I'm "for" that. I don't mind "pro sex" or "Sex+" Feminists, for the lady's consideration... Most I've met have been fun, intelligent young women to whom personal empowerment and enjoying a good time don't have to exist at loggerheads.

On self identified "poly amorous" people, who have a steady partner, but also openly swing ... I don't care on the level of ideal or morality, but I've only seen a couple such arrangements that didn't end in tears. I'm happy enjoying "it doesn't have to BE anything" encounters and HAPPIER in lasting monogamous relationships. I like my girlfriends to be my PARTNERS - involved, interested and important... I've been burned plenty and have no patience left in me for bullshit and half measures.

I guess "sexual liberation" and it's conceits seem as subjectively important as any other deeply personal issues, but bedroom politics just leave me with a hard off...

 

[peruvianskys]

Then choose a higher paying job, nobody is forcing anyone to follow cultural standards.

It's really very easy for the person in power to criticize the disempowered person for just not trying hard enough to escape their oppression. Do you really think that women who get paid less do so because they're just too lazy to try for higher-paying jobs? Or could it have something to do with this country's hideously outdated maternity policies? The fact that fewer women are given scholarships for math and science programs in college? The fact that women are taught from a young age to go into lower-paying jobs? The fact that several CEOs and hundreds of business analysts have stated upfront that they won't hire women into high management positions because the endemic sexism of the men in the office would make them a liability? The fact that a woman is going to be called back for a management position interview at roughly half the rate that a man with the same resume would do so? The fact that our patriarchal society pounds the idea of women being unfit for high-paying jobs into the brains of young girls since the moment they're born?

I'm sorry, but I'm really fucking tired of wealthy white men who have had every single possible goddamn privilege handed to them telling women that they wouldn't be paid less, or be raped, or be beaten or murdered or generally abused if they just tried a little harder.

 

[blackrave]

Yes... clearly if you yourself are incapable of coming up with other reasons and dismiss reasons anyone else might offer as simply being your own reasons in disguise that conclusively proves that survival and procreation are the only reasons behind existence.

Your professor was very correct though, albeit more friendly than I'd have been. Your reasons are indeed as good as any other, or rather as bad as any other. They're pure conjecture, incapable of being falsified or validated. Equally valid as "Because of Jesus" or "Because of Karma", and we all know how very scientific those reasons are...

What our professor told that finding reasons why should one want to survive were taping into "meaning of life" discussion, not the very reason behind reason thing.
He mostly agreed upon survival instinct being the main driving force behind everything, but said that reproduction is also driven by survival instinct (and once again it is simplified version- of course there are exceptions, but these are nothing more than exceptions).

You seriously compare survival instinct with some imaginary friend?
And you seriously consider other person who tried to prove me wrong to be biased?
Really? Fine! Perfect!! Excellent!!!
Now lets hear your ideas of basic human "programing", because bashing someone is easy, so, please, enlighten me about deepest layers of human psyche.

P.S. Especially when I read your discussion with Blood Brain Barrier. It's just something. I'm glad that you finally find out that water (and any material) status depends on pressure and temperature. But the very beginning just blew my mind. So how many degrees corners of triangle sum up to again? Because in 2D triangles always have 180 degrees, while in 3D they can build up to ~900 degrees. So 360 degrees? Were you speaking about one exact triangle?

P.P.S. No wait don't answer this. I'm going to bash my head against the wall, because it seems more productive than arguing with you.

 

[Marcus Kehoe]

I think there's a MAJOR difference here.

When a guy cheated on his wife, he was slapped around a few times.
When a girl cheated on her husband, she/is stoned to death.

Female liberation is FAR from over.
Look at the differences in pay for women, or the whole 'when a girl acts like a guy she's a slut' mentality, or most of the Middle east, or...

To be fair if a guy acts like a girl he's gay is a huge thing to.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

It's really very easy for the person in power to criticize the disempowered person for just not trying hard enough to escape their oppression. Do you really think that women who get paid less do so because they're just too lazy to try for higher-paying jobs?

I'm hardly the person in power. I think they choose lower paying jobs because they want that job more. Please go back and review your approach, you made a very big mistake in this one.

 

[Quadocky]

What bothers me at the moment is given how the internet is mostly dominated by the perspective of white middle class men it leaves other perspective somewhat lacking. This is especially true in the way they view sex and gender. This leads to a very annoying Ethnocentrism and possible discrimination on the basis of what they do not consider normal.

While the internet has allowed for the proliferation of what white middle class people find erotic, yet, it still does not have much in the way of honest insight in terms of sexuality and responsible conduct. Its rather tragic from my point of view in the way that its not so much liberation than a sort of superficial source of entertainment.

 

[Aetera]

I consider myself sexually liberated, but as I don't know any other out lesbians in my area, there isn't much I can do about it. Stupid small town. D:

 

[Hagi]

Yes... clearly if you yourself are incapable of coming up with other reasons and dismiss reasons anyone else might offer as simply being your own reasons in disguise that conclusively proves that survival and procreation are the only reasons behind existence.

Your professor was very correct though, albeit more friendly than I'd have been. Your reasons are indeed as good as any other, or rather as bad as any other. They're pure conjecture, incapable of being falsified or validated. Equally valid as "Because of Jesus" or "Because of Karma", and we all know how very scientific those reasons are...

What our professor told that finding reasons why should one want to survive were taping into "meaning of life" discussion, not the very reason behind reason thing.
He mostly agreed upon survival instinct being the main driving force behind everything, but said that reproduction is also driven by survival instinct (and once again it is simplified version- of course there are exceptions, but these are nothing more than exceptions).

You seriously compare survival instinct with some imaginary friend?
And you seriously consider other person who tried to prove me wrong to be biased?
Really? Fine! Perfect!! Excellent!!!
Now lets hear your ideas of basic human "programing", because bashing someone is easy, so, please, enlighten me about deepest layers of human psyche.

P.S. Especially when I read your discussion with Blood Brain Barrier. It's just something. I'm glad that you finally find out that water (and any material) status depends on pressure and temperature. But the very beginning just blew my mind. So how many degrees corners of triangle sum up to again? Because in 2D triangles always have 180 degrees, while in 3D they can build up to ~900 degrees. So 360 degrees? Were you speaking about one exact triangle?

P.P.S. No wait don't answer this. I'm going to bash my head against the wall, because it seems more productive than arguing with you.

I merely copied Blood Brain on the 360 degrees, but you're correct that's indeed not true.

I have no idea on basic human "programming". I do not believe we know enough about the way our brains work to come anywhere close to being able to make substantiated statements about our programming such as you're making. In that way it is the same as some imaginary friend, neither is substantiated by any empirical evidence because we, currently, do not have the means to back either statement up.

There is simply too much we don't know about how our brains work, about our own psychology, in order to make any reasonable statements about what exactly it is that drives all behaviour.

But just because we don't know does not mean that you can start filling in the gaps with whatever you come up with in random discussions with your room mate.

 

[blackrave]

I merely copied Blood Brain on the 360 degrees, but you're correct that's indeed not true.

I have no idea on basic human "programming". I do not believe we know enough about the way our brains work to come anywhere close to being able to make substantiated statements about our programming such as you're making. In that way it is the same as some imaginary friend, neither is substantiated by any empirical evidence because we, currently, do not have the means to back either statement up.

There is simply too much we don't know about how our brains work, about our own psychology, in order to make any reasonable statements about what exactly it is that drives all behavior.

But just because we don't know does not mean that you can start filling in the gaps with whatever you come up with in random discussions with your room mate.

Wow. Simply wow.
You don't believe more than 100 years of extensive studies have uncovered most of what our mind and personality consists of?
Simple question before we continue.
How much percents of brain average person uses?

 

[MrPeanut]

Wow. Simply wow.
You don't believe more than 100 years of extensive studies have uncovered most of what our mind and personality consists of?
Simple question before we continue.
How much percents of brain average person uses?

Yeah, neuroscience is still taking baby steps.

We have barely scratched the surface when it comes to this.

Also, I seriously hope you are not referring to the 10% brain usage myth.

 

[viranimus]

Nope. Not possible for males to feel sexually liberated. Hell, in this generation with as repressed and emasculated as men have become, we are still looked down on as monsters for our sexuality. Could you imagine the chaos that would come from male sexuality being unfettered and at its full capacity?

 

[blackrave]

Yeah, neuroscience is still taking baby steps.

We have barely scratched the surface when it comes to this.

Also, I seriously hope you are not referring to the 10% brain usage myth.

Dude, not cool.
Because I WAS referring to the myth, but as a myth.
Just to check if he answers 10%, but now thanks to someone, I wont know what his answer would be.
(seriously though this myth is alive and kicking, just last week needed to explain someone, that if person would suddenly get direct control over all brain, instead of superpowers he would die)

Because from his answers and comments it is hard to understand his knowledge level.
One moment he claims that he knows things, next moment he is spewing non-sense and playing safe by claiming that we don't know anything.
And also refuses to reveal his education field.
So it is really hard to discuss things over internet with someone who is of unknown intelligence level.
Thanks for ruining attempt of shedding a bit more light.

P.S.And before someone starts accusing me of being "cheap", let me notice that most of probing techniques can be considered "cheap".

 

[DugMachine]

I've said "it's just sex" before but in reality I view sex as a very personal thing that shouldn't be rushed. I haven't had many sex partners and almost all of them were long relationships or the occasional one night stand that I almost always regret.

Truth be told, not all guys are out to get laid but if you are then more power to you. Sex is just that, sex. But to me it holds more meaning.

 

[Stasisesque]

Yeah, neuroscience is still taking baby steps.

We have barely scratched the surface when it comes to this.

Also, I seriously hope you are not referring to the 10% brain usage myth.

Dude, not cool.
Because I WAS referring to the myth, but as a myth.
Just to check if he answers 10%, but now thanks to someone, I wont know what his answer would be.
(seriously though this myth is alive and kicking, just last week needed to explain someone, that if person would suddenly get direct control over all brain, instead of superpowers he would die)

Because from his answers and comments it is hard to understand his knowledge level.
One moment he claims that he knows things, next moment he is spewing non-sense and playing safe by claiming that we don't know anything.
And also refuses to reveal his education field.
So it is really hard to discuss things over internet with someone who is of unknown intelligence level.
Thanks for ruining attempt of shedding a bit more light.

P.S.And before someone starts accusing me of being "cheap", let me notice that most of probing techniques can be considered "cheap".

You don't need to know his/her educational background. (S)he's demonstrated time and time again with his/her posts that (s)he is more than capable of holding a conversation with you. (S)he might have a PhD in neuroscience, (s)he might be a home-schooled thirteen year old.

There's a terrifying trend on this forum of people dismissing others because they don't have the required qualifications. Only three pages ago you were arguing that vaginas became loose through sex. Do you really think someone without basic knowledge of anatomy should be arguing behavioural instincts, programming et al? If you believe you can continue to argue your points despite displaying such a painful lack of knowledge, then you can let Hagi continue his/her argument.

 

[blackrave]

You don't need to know his/her educational background. (S)he's demonstrated time and time again with his/her posts that (s)he is more than capable of holding a conversation with you. (S)he might have a PhD in neuroscience, (s)he might be a home-schooled thirteen year old.

There's a terrifying trend on this forum of people dismissing others because they don't have the required qualifications. Only three pages ago you were arguing that vaginas became loose through sex. Do you really think someone without basic knowledge of anatomy should be arguing behavioral instincts, programming at all? If you believe you can continue to argue your points despite displaying such a painful lack of knowledge, then you can let Hagi continue his/her argument.

1.That isn't basic anatomy.
2.I was wrong, simple as that, it's no shame to admit you're wrong when you're wrong.
3.I don't need his background to dismiss him, but to find out better ways to speak with him (he already misunderstood me on several occasions, so that was attempt to fix that)
4.Also I didn't noticed that "terrifying trend" you mentioned, maybe wasn't hanging in right topics.

 

[LittleThestral]

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks of Lancelot and Lady Guinevere doing the dirty under Arthur's nose? Or the lords of estates having sex with whomever the hell they please? Or knights, ahem, saving ladies and *winkwink nudgenudge*?

No, but then they didn't have songs where Lancelot was asking "what do i have to do to get inside of you", and Guinevere was talking about "her poker face" did they? =p

Touché! Though I do vaguely remember Merlin singing something along the lines of "relax and get on your back"...

 

[LittleThestral]

Nope. Not possible for males to feel sexually liberated. Hell, in this generation with as repressed and emasculated as men have become, we are still looked down on as monsters for our sexuality. Could you imagine the chaos that would come from male sexuality being unfettered and at its full capacity?

Wha? Are you serious?

I'm not sure who looks at men as monsters for having sex drives (other than, you know, the handful of crazies who equate consensual vaginal intercourse with rape) unless, of course, you're referring to the idea that men are not able to control themselves unless women cover the fuck up. I doubt that's what you were referring to, though, given the rest of your post.

Exactly how have men become emasculated and had their sexualities gutted? And how, precisely, do you define an "unfettered and at...full capacity" male sexuality?