Sexual liberation

[blackrave]

The idea isn't tempting at all. It's hilarious if anything.

Your entire view of sexuality is hilarious. Your entire view of human psychology is hilarious.

It reeks of pop-psychology and simple easy answers for incredibly complex behaviors. Regarding evolution as some sort of conscious god that shapes species and behavior so that everything is engineered purely for survival. That our behavior is somehow consciously designed for procreation and survival. And that by simply thinking logically about how we ourselves would create our own species optimized for survival we can deduce our the reasons behind our own behaviors.

Utterly disregarding that this world is filled with thousands of species that survive and reproduce in the most convoluted and fragile ways imaginable. Evolution and survival instinct simply don't work how you think they do. They weren't engineered. They were accidents that survived. They're filled with inconsistencies, inefficiencies and convoluted methods. Just none of them bad enough to cause extinction. Yet.

Survival instinct isn't a conscious thing that's actively steering our behavior to what will produce exactly the right number of offspring, expertly calculating and directing to ensure our genes will live on. It doesn't care whether or not those genes carry on, it's incapable of caring.

Individuals and species aren't actively trying to continue their genetic lines, 99,99% of life nor the process of evolution even know what genetic lines are. They're simply doing random shit and the random shit that doesn't die out continues doing that random shit. The only thing that ensures is that from all that random shit there are some parts that in some way lead to just enough procreation to ensure that that specific random shit sticks around and that all the other random shit that's involved isn't quite shitty enough to cause extinction.

Before we delve into further discussion I need to be sure that I speak in terms you understand I need to know what your education is. IT, economics, math, linguistics, etc.? Bachelor, master, etc.?
1. It looks simple because I simplified it. Seriously, you expected that I will write here course paper on animalistic behavior in human society? No, I won't, so get some books on ethology and read them yourself.
2. I was talking mainly about human beings, of course there are "less successful" examples of evolutions. Snails for example
3. Stop assuming things I never said! Of course instinct isn't "conscious" and it doesn't "care". It is like assuming that script can process information when written on the paper. It can't, but if you put it into right hardware it starts working. Same here. It is actually your brain that cares and at some extent it is you.
4. Of course, it isn't directly "steering our behavior", it influences our higher thought pattern and those are directly "steering our behavior", but that means that instincts are involved indirectly. And everything can be traced back to survival or reproduction. It is simple- just start critically asking yourself "why?", and don't stop at broad answers, like "I want to help planet", dig deeper.
5. Well, there isn't such thing as "random", it is simply effect that is achieved when shitload of complex systems overlaps.
6. Besides I'm supposed to be cynic here. Can argument between two cynics can even happen? :/

 

[Something Amyss]

P.S.Do you have vagina? And if vaginas didn't became loose over time, there wouldn't be vaginal muscle training exercises. Unfortunately most females are starting to think about this problem only when it is a bit too late. As usual maintenance is much more easier than repair.

You know, you can have your own morals, but facts are not subjective. If you think kegel exercises are related to tightness from sexual frequency, you need to go back for some basic sex ed classes along with Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin and Rush "I don't know how birth control works" Limbaugh.

 

[Vault101]

I was about to write something horribly rational, ....

oh please do....I am very interested to see your version of "rationality"

[quote/]P.S.And yes, I consider myself last bastion of morality, thank you for noticing, good sir.[/quote]
seriously, so here is a few disclaimers: No, I don't consider myself as some sort of righteous pillar of rationality and moral.[/quote]
I onced argued with somone like you and they were pretty much that deluded so apologies


[quote/] No, I never had sexual experience (believe it or not, but monogamy isn't some crazy idea, it actually makes sense).[/quote]
and I take issue with this, I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on sex because you havnt done it...but "self rightious virgin" symdrom is...well its kind of laughable when you think about it

[quote/]and did you ever thought that maybe giving in your every wish and desire might be as "unhealthy" as suppressing most of them?.[/quote]
..and this statement right here as...[i/]how much[/u] to do with my argument?...(let me think" *fuck all* I think is the correct figure (if you'll excuse my languge)

having a happy healthy sexlife is a farcry from "giving in your every wish" if I did that I'd be heading to work drunk everyday and wearing nothing but track pants and gaming shirts...but I know better (excpet for the trackpants and gaming shits thing)


[quote/]
Yes I pretty much believe that only thing that stands between our instincts and civilized behavior is education and culture. Also common sense.[/quote]
based on...what..exactly?

[quote/]Now be fair. If you had chance to impregnate multiple women without responsibilities or consequences, like some sort of Genghis Khan. Every week a new beautiful woman to impregnate and you can do it freely, nobody will judge you. And you wouldn't do this? You would just say "no"?
[/quote]
unrealistic hypothetical is unrealistic....its like saying "if you could have a trillian dollars would you take it?" of coarse I would....but does that mean I go around robbing banks or embezzling to attain my dream trillion dolloars?....NO

[quote/]Nope, sorry, once again let me pull my bullish card on this.
But I admit that I must explain this thing a bit more.
Man's main urge is to make sure his DNA survives[/quote]

sure sex drives everyhting we do....SO?

we have been civilised in some form or another for a very VERY long time..and havnt been at caveman level for even longer...who cares if we really really like sex? who CARES how much fucking caveman did back in h day....are you a caveman?

heres somthing interesting I found....The Romans back in the day didn't identify as "gay or straight" but as "dominant and submissive"....my point there is how society veiws sexuality is not always the same

 

[Overusedname]

I find kissing gross for the exact same reasons I find nose-picking gross.
.

have you ever done it before?...its actually not that bad..even though I found the Idea pretty gross originally

now oral sex on the other hand *shudder* that disgusts me now as much as it did back then (he urinates out of that thing dammit!) I was actually a bit disturbed when I first heard the concept

I have. It was... wet. And sloppy. And I'm not a germophobe by any standard, but I felt pretty squicked out afterwards. Didn't taste good, either.

I'm more of a "hands on" person anyways. Hugs are waaaay better than kisses.

As for oral sex... I'm a bit neutral on it right now. It's not really attractive when you actually think about it, but then, neither is normal sex.

I'm accused of being a cuddlebug as well, and I hate oral sex. I'm not even sure if penetration is high on my list when there's just so much we can do with our hands. I haven't turned in the V-Card but I have a decent idea of the things I won't enjoy any time soon.

But I still like kissing. In my brief ventures, I've actually been a very emotional guy in private with a girl I trust. l like holding more than anything else.

I suppose in the 50's my sexual attitudes would have been considered the ideal, besides my disdain for missionary. But I still think consenting adults should be able to do whatever floats their boats, man on man, women on women, straight, Trans, whatever.

That doesn't necessarily mean I want to hear about any of my friends' sex lives. Bleck.

 

[Darken12]

We aren't sexually liberated enough. Especially women. They need a whole lot more sexual liberation to catch up with men (see: the whole 'slut vs. stud' thing).

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Sexual liberation seems to focus on female sexuality, though you know, males are more sexually liberated now too. Not just gay guys, guys in general are free to enjoy whatever sort of sexual adventures they want legally - with some exceptions. Sexuality has a deeper psychological meaning and it's transcended well beyond procreation and well, it has a whole different purpose now, as 99% recreational activity. And that's awesome.

So, my question for all genders, sexualities, and species is, do you feel sexually liberated? Is that important to you?

My humanities teacher once said that the male of the western world is the most screwed up psychology on the face of the planet. According to her this is because while restrictions on female sexuality are rather loose a man's is ridiculously tight. (meaning that a woman can walk down the street in guy's clothes without being called a lesbian as long as you can tell she's a girl, but a guy in a dress is likely to get the s*** beat out of him if anyone even BEGINS to think 'that's a guy!')

... Or something like that. I could be paraphrasing =/

It's not really important to me personally (I'm celibate) but sexual liberation strikes me as utter bullcrap. It's been stated that previous generations have been FAR more sexual and lecherous than ours - we're just more open about it.

(Seriously. It's kind of amazing how much back-alley sex went on in an era that believed sex was supposed to be about chastity, monogamy and purity)

It still does. We live one life in the bedroom and another in the public realm. I don't see us being particularly open, even in the west. If you were new to the west and lived a normal life you wouldn't even guess that anything sexual ever occurred in anyone you interact with. The biggest different I see between the Victorian age and now is in literature and TV. Writers like DH Lawrence brought more sexuality into writing and now TV has a lot of it. But it hasn't yet permeated into being a totally acceptable subject of conversation unless with a close friend.

 

[darlarosa]

How are we defining liberated?

I feel as though I can express my sexual desires or my very limited experiences with some people, but I'm always careful to leave out certain...things because I don't want to be judged. I think liberation is a cultural relative or at least a social one. I feel embaressed or like an outcast when I think about my interests at times. It took me a very long time to become comfortable with my sexual fantasies too. I would say liberation is difficult to measure. I feel proud and unashamed one moment and than embaressed the next

 

[Something Amyss]

We aren't sexually liberated enough. Especially women. They need a whole lot more sexual liberation to catch up with men (see: the whole 'slut vs. stud' thing).

A lot of people are ignoring that, it seems.

 

[Something Amyss]

How are we defining liberated?

I feel as though I can express my sexual desires or my very limited experiences with some people, but I'm always careful to leave out certain...things because I don't want to be judged. I think liberation is a cultural relative or at least a social one. I feel embaressed or like an outcast when I think about my interests at times. It took me a very long time to become comfortable with my sexual fantasies too. I would say liberation is difficult to measure. I feel proud and unashamed one moment and than embaressed the next

And sadly enough, some people feel that way for as little as choosing a non-missionary position.

Me? I'm a freak and I know it (clap clap).

 

[HalfTangible]

Sexual liberation seems to focus on female sexuality, though you know, males are more sexually liberated now too. Not just gay guys, guys in general are free to enjoy whatever sort of sexual adventures they want legally - with some exceptions. Sexuality has a deeper psychological meaning and it's transcended well beyond procreation and well, it has a whole different purpose now, as 99% recreational activity. And that's awesome.

So, my question for all genders, sexualities, and species is, do you feel sexually liberated? Is that important to you?

My humanities teacher once said that the male of the western world is the most screwed up psychology on the face of the planet. According to her this is because while restrictions on female sexuality are rather loose a man's is ridiculously tight. (meaning that a woman can walk down the street in guy's clothes without being called a lesbian as long as you can tell she's a girl, but a guy in a dress is likely to get the s*** beat out of him if anyone even BEGINS to think 'that's a guy!')

... Or something like that. I could be paraphrasing =/

It's not really important to me personally (I'm celibate) but sexual liberation strikes me as utter bullcrap. It's been stated that previous generations have been FAR more sexual and lecherous than ours - we're just more open about it.

(Seriously. It's kind of amazing how much back-alley sex went on in an era that believed sex was supposed to be about chastity, monogamy and purity)

It still does. We live one life in the bedroom and another in the public realm. I don't see us being particularly open, even in the west. If you were new to the west and lived a normal life you wouldn't even guess that anything sexual ever occurred in anyone you interact with. The biggest different I see between the Victorian age and now is in literature and TV. Writers like DH Lawrence brought more sexuality into writing and now TV has a lot of it. But it hasn't yet permeated into being a totally acceptable subject of conversation unless with a close friend.

I'm referring to societies, not individuals. When we hear about the medevial age, we think castles, beautiful princesses with massive and impractical hats. The thought of erotica of porn doesn't even enter our heads. When I say digital age, you think computers, ones and zeroes, electronics you enjoy, the internet... and with the internet comes the thought of porn.

 

[LittleThestral]

It still does. We live one life in the bedroom and another in the public realm. I don't see us being particularly open, even in the west. If you were new to the west and lived a normal life you wouldn't even guess that anything sexual ever occurred in anyone you interact with. The biggest different I see between the Victorian age and now is in literature and TV. Writers like DH Lawrence brought more sexuality into writing and now TV has a lot of it. But it hasn't yet permeated into being a totally acceptable subject of conversation unless with a close friend.

I'm referring to societies, not individuals. When we hear about the medevial age, we think castles, beautiful princesses with massive and impractical hats. The thought of erotica of porn doesn't even enter our heads. When I say digital age, you think computers, ones and zeroes, electronics you enjoy, the internet... and with the internet comes the thought of porn.

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*?

 

[Hagi]

The idea isn't tempting at all. It's hilarious if anything.

Your entire view of sexuality is hilarious. Your entire view of human psychology is hilarious.

It reeks of pop-psychology and simple easy answers for incredibly complex behaviors. Regarding evolution as some sort of conscious god that shapes species and behavior so that everything is engineered purely for survival. That our behavior is somehow consciously designed for procreation and survival. And that by simply thinking logically about how we ourselves would create our own species optimized for survival we can deduce our the reasons behind our own behaviors.

Utterly disregarding that this world is filled with thousands of species that survive and reproduce in the most convoluted and fragile ways imaginable. Evolution and survival instinct simply don't work how you think they do. They weren't engineered. They were accidents that survived. They're filled with inconsistencies, inefficiencies and convoluted methods. Just none of them bad enough to cause extinction. Yet.

Survival instinct isn't a conscious thing that's actively steering our behavior to what will produce exactly the right number of offspring, expertly calculating and directing to ensure our genes will live on. It doesn't care whether or not those genes carry on, it's incapable of caring.

Individuals and species aren't actively trying to continue their genetic lines, 99,99% of life nor the process of evolution even know what genetic lines are. They're simply doing random shit and the random shit that doesn't die out continues doing that random shit. The only thing that ensures is that from all that random shit there are some parts that in some way lead to just enough procreation to ensure that that specific random shit sticks around and that all the other random shit that's involved isn't quite shitty enough to cause extinction.

Before we delve into further discussion I need to be sure that I speak in terms you understand I need to know what your education is. IT, economics, math, linguistics, etc.? Bachelor, master, etc.?
1. It looks simple because I simplified it. Seriously, you expected that I will write here course paper on animalistic behavior in human society? No, I won't, so get some books on ethology and read them yourself.
2. I was talking mainly about human beings, of course there are "less successful" examples of evolutions. Snails for example
3. Stop assuming things I never said! Of course instinct isn't "conscious" and it doesn't "care". It is like assuming that script can process information when written on the paper. It can't, but if you put it into right hardware it starts working. Same here. It is actually your brain that cares and at some extent it is you.
4. Of course, it isn't directly "steering our behavior", it influences our higher thought pattern and those are directly "steering our behavior", but that means that instincts are involved indirectly. And everything can be traced back to survival or reproduction. It is simple- just start critically asking yourself "why?", and don't stop at broad answers, like "I want to help planet", dig deeper.
5. Well, there isn't such thing as "random", it is simply effect that is achieved when shitload of complex systems overlaps.
6. Besides I'm supposed to be cynic here. Can argument between two cynics can even happen? :/

Yes, I do know about these things.

It's exactly your point 4 why I took it not as a simplified, short version, but as an hilarious misunderstanding on your part.

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

And there is such a thing as random. It's is not as a layman would assume something that was somehow generated outside the realm of causality. It is simply something that is impossible to predict to any degree of accuracy beyond it's given bounds. A dice thrown without any tricks is random, I can not predict it's outcome beyond that it will end up between the bounds of 1-6.

 

[darlarosa]

How are we defining liberated?

I feel as though I can express my sexual desires or my very limited experiences with some people, but I'm always careful to leave out certain...things because I don't want to be judged. I think liberation is a cultural relative or at least a social one. I feel embaressed or like an outcast when I think about my interests at times. It took me a very long time to become comfortable with my sexual fantasies too. I would say liberation is difficult to measure. I feel proud and unashamed one moment and than embaressed the next

And sadly enough, some people feel that way for as little as choosing a non-missionary position.

Me? I'm a freak and I know it (clap clap).

lol right on.
I think sex is all about experimentation...otherwise *shrugs* I dunno tad dull

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

Empiricism isn't the only kind of verification. I'm not suggesting the poster to whom you are replying has done anything of the sort, but an answer to 'why?' can be sought and found in a non-empirical fashion. For example, we can infer the existence of A if a phenomenon B were not possible without it. Science would be lost if the only way of obtaining knowledge and 'truth' was through observation by the senses.

 

[Nemu]

When, exactly, were men repressed sexually?

Women in some countries might be more free than they were even 50 years ago, but they are still WAAAAAY behind in terms of equality and "respect". Women are still considered sluts if they enjoy sex, while men are considered studs. In some countries women are still bartered and enslaved, while men are free to have multiple wives of their own choosing.

It's still a man's world out there.

 

[likalaruku]

I'm biseaxual in taste, but at the same time I'm asexual, mostly from being a germophobe, so no, I'm not in the least bit sexually liberated.

 

[Stepan_RUS']

Goodness me, i do not mean to offend but it is truly disturbing to see the opinions of the foringers about this topic. i see now where this new wave of promiscuity in our country has come from!

Surely this is somthing that should only even be discussed with your wife?

 

[Hagi]

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

Empiricism isn't the only kind of verification. I'm not suggesting the poster to whom you are replying has done anything of the sort, but an answer to 'why?' can be sought and found in a non-empirical fashion. For example, we can infer the existence of A if a phenomenon B were not possible without it. Science would be lost if the only way of obtaining knowledge and 'truth' was through observation by the senses.

But ask yourself, how do we come across the knowledge that A always, without exception, leads to B?

Once we've determined that rule we can establish the existence of A by only knowing B.

But such rules don't magically come to us in visions. They're established through the scientific method, one of the cornerstones of which is empirical evidence.

Science wouldn't be lost if that was the only way of obtaining knowledge. Science is defined by it. That's exactly what science is, gaining knowledge through empirical and measurable evidence in combination with reasoning.

Even sciences as abstract as mathematics are based on axioms. Axioms which are rooted in reality, in observation.

 

[Dismal purple]

People are too promiscuous. We watched a movie about STD's in school that ended with the speaker encouraging us to have sex regardless.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Critically asking yourself "why?" is not in any shape, way or form anything even approaching a valid method of gaining knowledge about the world and ourselves. There's no verification or falsification whatsoever involved. You can give any answer you please and conclude you 'feel' you've dug deep enough and finally arrived at the right one. It's like reading between the lines of a religious text, you can come up with whatever 'feels right' for you and nobody will be able to tell you you're wrong, which I'll admit is a very secure-feeling way of gaining knowledge. You'll never find anything you disagree with, that'll just mean you haven't dug deep enough. Unfortunately any answers obtained have little to do with reality beyond your own personal bias.

I mean there's a reason why psychologists are making MRI scans, learning about neurology, conducting surveys and experiments. It's because there's nothing empirical about simply asking yourself "why?", it's an hilarious form of gaining knowledge.

Empiricism isn't the only kind of verification. I'm not suggesting the poster to whom you are replying has done anything of the sort, but an answer to 'why?' can be sought and found in a non-empirical fashion. For example, we can infer the existence of A if a phenomenon B were not possible without it. Science would be lost if the only way of obtaining knowledge and 'truth' was through observation by the senses.

But ask yourself, how do we come across the knowledge that A always, without exception, leads to B?

Once we've determined that rule we can establish the existence of A by only knowing B.

But such rules don't magically come to us in visions. They're established through the scientific method, one of the cornerstones of which is empirical evidence.

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.

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.

Science wouldn't be lost if that was the only way of obtaining knowledge. Science is defined by it. That's exactly what science is, gaining knowledge through empirical and measurable evidence in combination with reasoning.

Even sciences as abstract as mathematics are based on axioms. Axioms which are rooted in reality, in observation.

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.