Taramere Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 No, let's conform to the social matrix and bullsh*t ideas they managed to instill into us. I'm sure that people are much happier in this world than if they made their dreams come true. I thought that a collective, one-voiced "them" ceased to exist at some point in the 1960s. Have they now been resurrected, so that people might have a new social matrix to not conform to? We send young boys to the desert to kill human beings instead of teaching them how to make love. I'm sure some army units can cater for both of these recreational interests. Surely I can be who I really am if I conform to societal norms and submit to women's "needs"? hahaha... The only women's needs I care about are sex and emotional satisfaction. Incidentally, those are the only things that truly matter. Societal overlords don't want you to see that, because if people found out that sex and love is enough to live a happy life, this society would crumble: all the sexless worker drones would stop slaving for their companies, banks and mortgage firms would bankrupt because people wouldn't need worthless material possessions anymore etc. Give a man/woman unrestricted, unhindered love and sex, and he/she will be free of all societal chains. If you want to take a gap year abroad, just go ahead and take it. No need to convince LS posters of the merits. You can take a TEFL course very cheaply in Prague.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I had much more respect for your input when I thought you were on this thread speaking as a person who had chosen a path that differed from the norm. I respected you more when I though you had convictions for your choices and the ability to stand by them despite "normal" folks' protests. But then you killed it for me when you admitted that you have no convictions, but rather an inability to delay gratification and call it being "enlightened" rather than simply being an over indulged bore. You have chosen no path other than your next immediate whim and do not put in the work to ensure your mental, sexual , or reproductive health - let alone that of anyone you pretend to care for for the night. You do not live an enlightened life; you live the life any young ego driven person who can qualify for "groomed" or "fairly decent looking" can and does live everyday. Its not a bad thing but please, spare us all who've already realized this, the whole "enlightened" speech. It just makes you sound bratty. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I will second your opinion on Bethesda. That's about as far from the ghetto as you can get.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 Surely I can be who I really am if I conform to societal norms and submit to women's "needs"? hahaha... The only women's needs I care about are sex and emotional satisfaction. Incidentally, those are the only things that truly matter. Societal overlords don't want you to see that, because if people found out that sex and love is enough to live a happy life, this society would crumble: all the sexless worker drones would stop slaving for their companies, banks and mortgage firms would bankrupt because people wouldn't need worthless material possessions anymore etc. Give a man/woman unrestricted, unhindered love and sex, and he/she will be free of all societal chains. So according to your idealized view, men and women should not worry about rules, or norms, and just do whatever pleases them in the moment. If you want to make a "glorious connection" with another person, then that is what you should do. Now let's suppose you are in a relationship with an amazing woman- your perfect girl. According to you rules, if she finds herself attracted to another man, then she should just have sex with him because that is what would feel good at the moment. Now how would you feel about that? The fact is that if we are constantly chasing pleasure at any cost, we will hurt others. That's why morals and norms have their place. My search for euphoria does not override the overall health of society.
GorillaTheater Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I had much more respect for your input when I thought you were on this thread speaking as a person who had chosen a path that differed from the norm. I respected you more when I though you had convictions for your choices and the ability to stand by them despite "normal" folks' protests. But then you killed it for me when you admitted that you have no convictions, but rather an inability to delay gratification and call it being "enlightened" rather than simply being an over indulged bore. You have chosen no path other than your next immediate whim and do not put in the work to ensure your mental, sexual , or reproductive health - let alone that of anyone you pretend to care for for the night. You do not live an enlightened life; you live the life any young ego driven person who can qualify for "groomed" or "fairly decent looking" can and does live everyday. Its not a bad thing but please, spare us all who've already realized this, the whole "enlightened" speech. It just makes you sound bratty. I just got here, and am not 100% clear on the argument, but I have to say that this is about the most eloquent head-butt-to-the-nose that I've ever seen administered.
samspade Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 See, just because someone has a different life philosophy than you doesn't make it wrong. Or right. Only different. The only right thing is the one that makes your life worth living. I don't agree with this. Jack the Ripper could say this, or Adolf Hitler. However, I don't believe that picking up women and having sex with them makes you (or her) a bad person. You can be a pick up artist and still avoid causing harm to somebody, outside of the occasional broken heart. There is nothing "immoral" about two strangers having safe sex if that is what they want. Better to be single and out getting your rocks off than trapped in a sexless marriage!
clv0116 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I will second your opinion on Bethesda. That's about as far from the ghetto as you can get. I just wanted to poke at S4S until she put me back on ignore. It doesn't take much.
clv0116 Posted June 30, 2009 Posted June 30, 2009 I don't agree with this. Jack the Ripper could say this, or Adolf Hitler. However, I don't believe that picking up women and having sex with them makes you (or her) a bad person. You can be a pick up artist and still avoid causing harm to somebody, outside of the occasional broken heart. There is nothing "immoral" about two strangers having safe sex if that is what they want. Better to be single and out getting your rocks off than trapped in a sexless marriage! I don't have an issue with that, even the hardest core Christians should acknowledge that humans are supposed to be free moral agents and so on. Ones life is ones own. Where I disagree with this stuff is when people try to justify it (it doesn't NEED justified) with 'spreading the seed' and 'better DNA' and other baseless arguments. If we're gonna make those sort of assertions we should be ready to back them up with more than pop-sci BS.
samspade Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Where I disagree with this stuff is when people try to justify it (it doesn't NEED justified) with 'spreading the seed' and 'better DNA' and other baseless arguments. If we're gonna make those sort of assertions we should be ready to back them up with more than pop-sci BS. I'll admit my explanations were a little convoluted, but I was trying to explain the urges. Justification is more contextual. A single guy having safe sex with 100 women? Fine. A married man having one affair? Not okay. IMO. Science - and evolution - have been misused to justify a lot of wrongdoings, including genocides. I don't believe in justifying what I know to be wrong, but I do believe it can be explained and understood with more than silly superstitions and cliches. There ARE explanations; whether we find them distasteful or not, they exist. In any case, if you think evolution is "pop-sci BS," I can't help you.
Jersey Shortie Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 No, let's conform to the social matrix and bullsh*t ideas they managed to instill into us. I'm sure that people are much happier in this world than if they made their dreams come true. Oh sh*t, it's 21st century and marriage no longer guarantees stability and a good environment to raise children. That's why I don't care about useless outdated structures like marriage Call *me* an idealist Surfer Dude but I think more people strive to make their dreams come true then not. Not all dreams are made of the same stuff though. Some are big some are small. Those people that care about "oudated structures like marraige" could very well be working toward a goal of having their dreams come true. Who are you to say that their dream is "less" just because it's not a dream you want for yourself?
clv0116 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 There ARE explanations; whether we find them distasteful or not, they exist. In any case, if you think evolution is "pop-sci BS," I can't help you. I think anyone who's convinced a man screwing as many women as possible is a great reproductive strategy for the species should be willing to defend that stance. Human reproduction is a lot more involved than conception.
Surfer Dude Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Call *me* an idealist Surfer Dude but I think more people strive to make their dreams come true then not. Not all dreams are made of the same stuff though. Some are big some are small. Those people that care about "oudated structures like marraige" could very well be working toward a goal of having their dreams come true. Who are you to say that their dream is "less" just because it's not a dream you want for yourself? I see your point. But what about this... what if that dream was instilled there by someone else... society.. our parents maybe? Married people cheat majorly. Something tells me that what they really dream of, deep within their beings, is a lifestyle of freedom and sexual variety. "Cheating" is just a short term manifestation of those desires. Who knows, who cares. But it's an interesting point to consider. Whatever makes people happy, they should go along with it...
Isolde Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I think the only men who "decide" to be playboys are men that aren't secure in themselves and in their R's. The rest just are playboys; it comes naturally to them and they usually stay single or else meet a woman eventually and fall in love. One type is relatively obvious in his intentions; the other glorifies secrecy and deception and puts on shows of great drama and emotion.
Citizen Drawn Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I find the eternal playboys a bit sad and one dimensional, nothing particularly admirable about what they do. I'm sure they enjoy themselves though.
Woggle Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I think the only men who "decide" to be playboys are men that aren't secure in themselves and in their R's. The rest just are playboys; it comes naturally to them and they usually stay single or else meet a woman eventually and fall in love. One type is relatively obvious in his intentions; the other glorifies secrecy and deception and puts on shows of great drama and emotion. Some men just decide to play around until they meet a woman worth commiting to. If you ask me it is a smart strategy. When you finally meet the one you know it is real.
clv0116 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Some men just decide to play around until they meet a woman worth commiting to. If you ask me it is a smart strategy. When you finally meet the one you know it is real. While I agree with this, where I stop agreeing is when people (men usually) try to convince themselves that promiscuous behavior is ' obviously natural' for humans because it's widespread and then a second later declare monogamy or attempted monogamy unnatural. The facts at hand don't fit the conclusion. It seems to me that both are viable and natural reproductive strategies with promiscuity necessarily being a minority solution due to it's inherently parasitic components. It also amuses me how many pump their egos up by saying that when a woman has uncommitted sex with a man (and by extension, them) it's due to some mystical 'better genome detector' women have, thereby showing the promiscuous man has (in his own mind) some sort of 'better stuff' than her provider can impregnate her with. It's self serving fiction. I would suggest as an alternative theory that when mixing genes variety is good in general (this is known to be true) and by accepting multiple partners women might actually minimize the chances of all their offspring sharing some recessive genetic flaw or otherwise optimize their lifetime 'brood'. Just for one example.
You'reasian Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 These men usually end up having great relationships because they didn't just let some chick browbeat them into commiting only to get nagged and walked all over like a sidwalk. Most women will respect and be attracted to a man who will walk in a heartbeat if he is not treated right. So true. When we guys put our foot down, women respect us that much more.
sally4sara Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 So true. When we guys put our foot down' date=' women respect us that much more.[/quote'] But really, doesn't everybody respect people of either gender who don't eat $h!t more than they do human doormats? It isn't some playboy lifestyle trick or an exclusive quality only applicable to men. Its just human nature to give more respect to people who stand up for themselves. People treat you the way you let them treat you.
Recommended Posts