| It's time to get used to it, that a significant part of the anime community is a mob of hypocritical and incredibly puritan moralfags, who hate ecchi and fanservice, but fantasize about the relationship between the characters and liked hentai fan art with them. |
 |
katsucats said: Frassati said: Ad hominem is to dismiss a person's argument with an attack on character. Unfortunately, I did not attack your character, I addressed your argument directly. You made two arguments, and I will focus on the latter:Your words don't merit a response for a few reasons: 1. You are not arguing my logic but my institution that is a result of my beliefs when I also used non-religious, natural law based arguments as well. This is called an ad hominem logical fallacy where you attack a persons character rather then their logic. So please in future arguments do not resort to a fallacy for the sake of your own intelligence and integrity. Frassati said: In syllogistic form, you meanThe reason it's very hard to find data on incest is because of the large amounts of shame and fear that come with it- leading to social isolation and science. What kind of loving and healthy relationship is coupled with fear and shame? P1. Loving and healthy relationships are not coupled with fear and shame. P2. Incest of often coupled with fear and shame. C1. Therefore, incest is often not a loving and healthy relationship. Such an argument follows the linguistic form: P1. A does not have property X. P2. B has property X. C1. Therefore, B is not A. If you accept an argument of this form, then we make the following corollary about the same property: P1. Black people in America often suffer fear and shame. P2. Healthy people should not suffer fear and shame. C1. Therefore, black people are not healthy. Note that even this is inadequate. When you said that relationships are unhealthy, you didn't mean that incestuous couples needed to see psychologists for marriage counseling, you meant that they are evil, not sick. You made a value judgment. So if we are to be fair to your argument, we should conclude that black people are evil. You can't reject your own logic and call it an extension of your character or something, that's just silly. Frassati said: Dude, my last post was 10 sentences long, with 5 examples, and a question. If that's convoluted, you have shit reading comprehension.2. You write in circles, changing the topic and convoluting any point you are trying to make. Frassati said: The proof is in the pudding.3. You are claiming that I am victim blaming which is blatantly untrue (I assume you are trying to combine out of context sections of my words and attaching them to some misconception about my religion) Frassati said: This is not a defense of anything you've said, but just an appeal to definition. You've made no attempt relating this definition to your post. You implied that a person who feels fear and shame is responsible for it. In many contexts, that is precisely victim blame. I gave you 5 examples of this.But... I will respond anyways because I enjoy it. The thesis that I can make out from your numerous unrelated examples is that I am victim blaming; which, besides from being completely off topic is wrong. This clearly can't be true nor can it be found in my writing. Apparent in the definition of victim: "someone or something that has been hurt, damaged, or killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else, or because of illness or chance" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/victim to blame a victim is completely paradoxical being that it is the fault of another that the victim is suffering. It is clearly the fault of the abuser. Frassati said: If you somehow have proof that at the core of the christian faith is a tenant of shame and fear, then I would love to hear it so I could leave and spit in the face of the institution that has duped me for so long. But perhaps do so in a private message as it is not topical to this forum. https://carm.org/incest No, incest is not okay. Incest is the sexual relations between family members either by birth or marriage. God has forbidden this in the Bible. katsucats said: Frassati said: Ad hominem is to dismiss a person's argument with an attack on character. Unfortunately, I did not attack your character, I addressed your argument directly. You made two arguments, and I will focus on the latter:Your words don't merit a response for a few reasons: 1. You are not arguing my logic but my institution that is a result of my beliefs when I also used non-religious, natural law based arguments as well. This is called an ad hominem logical fallacy where you attack a persons character rather then their logic. So please in future arguments do not resort to a fallacy for the sake of your own intelligence and integrity. Frassati said: In syllogistic form, you meanThe reason it's very hard to find data on incest is because of the large amounts of shame and fear that come with it- leading to social isolation and science. What kind of loving and healthy relationship is coupled with fear and shame? P1. Loving and healthy relationships are not coupled with fear and shame. P2. Incest of often coupled with fear and shame. C1. Therefore, incest is often not a loving and healthy relationship. Such an argument follows the linguistic form: P1. A does not have property X. P2. B has property X. C1. Therefore, B is not A. If you accept an argument of this form, then we make the following corollary about the same property: P1. Black people in America often suffer fear and shame. P2. Healthy people should not suffer fear and shame. C1. Therefore, black people are not healthy. Note that even this is inadequate. When you said that relationships are unhealthy, you didn't mean that incestuous couples needed to see psychologists for marriage counseling, you meant that they are evil, not sick. You made a value judgment. So if we are to be fair to your argument, we should conclude that black people are evil. You can't reject your own logic and call it an extension of your character or something, that's just silly. Frassati said: Dude, my last post was 10 sentences long, with 5 examples, and a question. If that's convoluted, you have shit reading comprehension.2. You write in circles, changing the topic and convoluting any point you are trying to make. Frassati said: The proof is in the pudding.3. You are claiming that I am victim blaming which is blatantly untrue (I assume you are trying to combine out of context sections of my words and attaching them to some misconception about my religion) Frassati said: This is not a defense of anything you've said, but just an appeal to definition. You've made no attempt relating this definition to your post. You implied that a person who feels fear and shame is responsible for it. In many contexts, that is precisely victim blame. I gave you 5 examples of this.But... I will respond anyways because I enjoy it. The thesis that I can make out from your numerous unrelated examples is that I am victim blaming; which, besides from being completely off topic is wrong. This clearly can't be true nor can it be found in my writing. Apparent in the definition of victim: "someone or something that has been hurt, damaged, or killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else, or because of illness or chance" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/victim to blame a victim is completely paradoxical being that it is the fault of another that the victim is suffering. It is clearly the fault of the abuser. Frassati said: If you somehow have proof that at the core of the christian faith is a tenant of shame and fear, then I would love to hear it so I could leave and spit in the face of the institution that has duped me for so long. But perhaps do so in a private message as it is not topical to this forum. https://carm.org/incest No, incest is not okay. Incest is the sexual relations between family members either by birth or marriage. God has forbidden this in the Bible. I think the core of your misunderstanding (I cannot tell whether or not it is intentional) is that you cannot make a distinction between the victim and the perpetrator. In your second syllogism you made a false premise that "Healthy people should not suffer fear and shame.", healthy people suffer fear and shame all the time, but it is not their fault or a result of their actions. This second syllogism is also a different format then the one you set up, it now reads: P1. If a has the property x P2. and b does not have the property x C1. Then, therefore a does not equal b Despite being different from the one you set up, this seems to be a logically sound format, but as I said earlier, your premise is false. Incest is wrong, the Bible dictates that and it makes perfect sense and can be backed up by natural law. But incest being victims are at a receiving end, and if they are unwillingly in an incestual relationship then they are not at fault or doing evil actions. The perpetrators of incest are however doing an evil action. Any fear or shame that the victim feels is misplaced. |
| "It’s a dangerous business, going out of your door. You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to." -J.R.R. Tolkien |
Ryuk9428 said: Frassati said: Virtue and vice according to Aristotle are "up to us". Christianity (along with myself) believes that in every action you have a choice, a virtuous (good) choice and a vice (evil) choice (read aristotle's nicomachean ethics if you want a better understanding of what virtue is and how to become more virtuous). Masturbation is an evil act according to Christianity as it is an improper use of a sexual organ (in aristotilian terms it is a vice and an excess of temperence). The semen is natural produced and DOES need to go somewhere, luckily the body takes care of this by either: 1. Absorbing the semen back into the body, or 2. Nocturnal emissions (wet dreams). Masturbation is, however, addictive as when you do it it releases high levels of dopamine (makes you feel good), this is a natural reaction to encourage procreation. As far as monogamy and "saving it for marriage," the sexual act also produces a number of chemical reactions in both participants creating a bond between the two. This is why Christians believe Marriage is both procreative and unitive as these are the natural result of sex, but we also attach a spiritual meaning to these results and actions. We believe that you can only be fully bonded to one person and misusing the sexual act (with other people) damages the connection with your spouse. We also view sacrifice as very good thing so when you sacrifice your desires (things like premarital sex) for your future spouse, you display greater love for that person. If you want to know any more about that pick up anything written by Carol Wojtyla/St. John Paul II (I suggest "Man and Woman he created them" or "Love and Responsibility" or "Humae Vitae" by Paul VI) these are pretty tough reads though as they are philosophically dense. I might have to check those out. Okay then, my question is why are nocturnal emissions less sinful? I feel like nocturnal emissions are proof that masturbation is inevitable. Back when I was 13 and 14 and still had wet dreams, they felt just as good if not better than masturbating while awake. So if the issue with masturbation is pleasure, then wet dreams still provide a lot of pleasure. To me, waiting until you have a wet dream is basically like holding in your pee until your body forces you to urinate. Its just not necessary to wait that long and then you have a mess to clean up that could've been avoided. You either have to masturbate while awake or your body will essentially force you to masturbate in your sleep so why not do it while you're awake? So it is just sex specifically? What if serially monogamous people who are dating but not married decide to make out with and intimately cuddle other people besides the person they end up marrying? Is that considered sinful by Christians too or is it just having sex specifically? I'll answer your second question first because it is easier to explain. Life isn't black and white, there are gray areas and things that lead lead into other things. It is perfectly okay for a dating couple to cuddle and kiss. However, romance and physical actions are ordered to marriage and the sexual act. So say the dating couple finds themselves cuddling and making out and they become physically aroused, they should use their judgement to prevent the temptation for premarital sex and stop. But it is important to note that they should not stop themselves from having sex because sex is bad, but because sex is a beautiful thing that is the matter that should be kept sacred for the form of marriage and the promise to love each other freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully. So your first question has an extremely complicated answer and has many different routes of conversation that result. A prerequisite for this conversation is a knowledge of Aquinas' thoughts on moral actions (Object-Intent-Circumstance). In your personal case (and I speak from experience) masturbation has become a habit and your body is addicted to the pleasure you receive from it. In this way your will is impaired, so when you try to not to masturbate your weakened will now has to fight against a body that craves the pleasure. This itself points to another way you can characterize that masturbation is evil: seeking bodily pleasure for its own sake is evil as it damages your will. This also makes you less culpable for your actions and points to the evil of the time you did it without the habituation. but that is a long and winding road. Someone who disagrees with this ascribes to the tenants of Epicureanism (pleasure is the chief good in life), so if you find yourself in that vain then it is impossible to find common ground here. You can hopefully see from this how urination and masturbation are different as masturbation is an act that you chiefly do for pleasure and your body has the necessary functions to take care of it with no physical sideffects, urination is an action done to remove waste from your body and if it is not done, you can die. Nocturnal emissions are not sinful as it is not an action that you can choose to do and therefore there is no intentionality. The object itself on nocturnal emission is also different from masturbation as it is not done chiefly for pleasure, though pleasure may ensue from it. Bodily pleasure in itself is not bad but bodily pleasure sought for the sake of bodily pleasure is bad. And lastly, life is full of messes, this is just a drop in the ocean. P.S. Their is a difference between disordered and sinful. Christians can view nocturnal emissions as a disordered result of the fall as we are meant to have control of our sexuality for the purpose of procreation and unification. They are not however sinful because their is no involvement of the will. |
FrassatiJul 2, 2019 11:07 AM
| "It’s a dangerous business, going out of your door. You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to." -J.R.R. Tolkien |
Frassati said: That is not my premise, that is your premise. You do not see this, because you are cognitively dissonant about the consequences of your own argument. I demonstrated this using this perfect grammatical analogy. If you say that incest couples are evil because they feel fear and shame, then that is equivalent (modus tollens) of saying people who do not feel fear and shame are not evil. You are blaming the victim. I don't know whether you're just trolling by ignoring the response that is to your post and pretending to take it in a separate context, but nah, no one is that dense.katsucats said: Ad hominem is to dismiss a person's argument with an attack on character. Unfortunately, I did not attack your character, I addressed your argument directly. You made two arguments, and I will focus on the latter: In syllogistic form, you mean P1. Loving and healthy relationships are not coupled with fear and shame. P2. Incest of often coupled with fear and shame. C1. Therefore, incest is often not a loving and healthy relationship. Such an argument follows the linguistic form: P1. A does not have property X. P2. B has property X. C1. Therefore, B is not A. If you accept an argument of this form, then we make the following corollary about the same property: P1. Black people in America often suffer fear and shame. P2. Healthy people should not suffer fear and shame. C1. Therefore, black people are not healthy. Note that even this is inadequate. When you said that relationships are unhealthy, you didn't mean that incestuous couples needed to see psychologists for marriage counseling, you meant that they are evil, not sick. You made a value judgment. So if we are to be fair to your argument, we should conclude that black people are evil. You can't reject your own logic and call it an extension of your character or something, that's just silly. Dude, my last post was 10 sentences long, with 5 examples, and a question. If that's convoluted, you have shit reading comprehension. The proof is in the pudding. This is not a defense of anything you've said, but just an appeal to definition. You've made no attempt relating this definition to your post. You implied that a person who feels fear and shame is responsible for it. In many contexts, that is precisely victim blame. I gave you 5 examples of this. https://carm.org/incest katsucats said: Ad hominem is to dismiss a person's argument with an attack on character. Unfortunately, I did not attack your character, I addressed your argument directly. You made two arguments, and I will focus on the latter: In syllogistic form, you mean P1. Loving and healthy relationships are not coupled with fear and shame. P2. Incest of often coupled with fear and shame. C1. Therefore, incest is often not a loving and healthy relationship. Such an argument follows the linguistic form: P1. A does not have property X. P2. B has property X. C1. Therefore, B is not A. If you accept an argument of this form, then we make the following corollary about the same property: P1. Black people in America often suffer fear and shame. P2. Healthy people should not suffer fear and shame. C1. Therefore, black people are not healthy. Note that even this is inadequate. When you said that relationships are unhealthy, you didn't mean that incestuous couples needed to see psychologists for marriage counseling, you meant that they are evil, not sick. You made a value judgment. So if we are to be fair to your argument, we should conclude that black people are evil. You can't reject your own logic and call it an extension of your character or something, that's just silly. Dude, my last post was 10 sentences long, with 5 examples, and a question. If that's convoluted, you have shit reading comprehension. The proof is in the pudding. This is not a defense of anything you've said, but just an appeal to definition. You've made no attempt relating this definition to your post. You implied that a person who feels fear and shame is responsible for it. In many contexts, that is precisely victim blame. I gave you 5 examples of this. https://carm.org/incest I think the core of your misunderstanding (I cannot tell whether or not it is intentional) is that you cannot make a distinction between the victim and the perpetrator. In your second syllogism you made a false premise that "Healthy people should not suffer fear and shame.", healthy people suffer fear and shame all the time, but it is not their fault or a result of their actions. This second syllogism is also a different format then the one you set up, it now reads: P1. If a has the property x P2. and b does not have the property x C1. Then, therefore a does not equal b Despite being different from the one you set up, this seems to be a logically sound format, but as I said earlier, your premise is false. Frassati said: There is no such thing as natural law. Nature exists as a series of descriptions, but never prescriptions.Incest is wrong, the Bible dictates that and it makes perfect sense and can be backed up by natural law. Frassati said: Then if the incest is mutual, are both parties evil or not evil? Since the Bible dictates that incest is always evil, the answer to the prior must be "evil". This proves that you are not truly concerned with the difference between perpetrator and victim.But incest being victims are at a receiving end, and if they are unwillingly in an incestual relationship then they are not at fault or doing evil actions. The perpetrators of incest are however doing an evil action. Any fear or shame that the victim feels is misplaced. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
DooMWhite said: That's quite an excellent way of dodging all the questions. /sarcasmkatsucats said: I watched your video. It framed the sentence against Galileo as the response to his insistence that the heliocentric model was fact and not just a theory. This doesn't vindicate the Catholic church as you or the video author think. That the Catholic church accepted the heliocentric model as a theory and not fact, regardless of its provability, showed that the church had stifled innovation to protect its authority. What's revisionist as fuck is to pretend that none of this ever happened. Not even the authors of your video or your Wikipedia article suggests this. They suggest that the nature of what happened was different. Their interpretation was gentler to the Catholic church. This is far different than you just saying "false" because you wanted to be edgy -- something none of your evidence supports. Martin Luther's attitude toward the Protestant Reformation is irrelevant to this conversation. The Catholic church considered itself the sole interpreter of the Bible, so it's a truth that Protestantism allowed people to read the Bible for themselves and come up with their own interpretations -- as referenced in your quote. I consider that a positive thing. Martin Luther clearly had different interpretations than some of the other churches, but that doesn't change why the Reformation occurred. Perhaps if you had quoted from Martin Luther directly and not a biased Catholic convert, this quote would have been more interesting -- but still irrelevant. What exactly are you contesting? That the Catholic church didn't consider itself the sole interpreter, such that it didn't allow Galileo to demand reinterpretation, according to your video? That any Catholic inquisition ever happened? What, then, is your theory for why Catholic states ended up poorer than the Protestant states? (The prevalent theory was that the Protestant states had higher rates of literacy.) I brought up heliocentrists (Galileo, etc.) being in fear and shame for believing in something different, which we now know is true. Do you deny that Catholic church adherents could do that, and on what factual basis do you deny? We know from every example in history that the prestige group, the majority, the status quo have a psychological advantage over the marginalized. We can see this in every instance of stratified cultures around the world from America to Europe to Africa to Middle East to Asia. No one was talking about Spain or the Reformation specifically until you brought up sources detailing those accounts. Are you saying that the Catholic church never had political or theological power? Or are you just trying to subtly change the subject and hope I don't realize? The only one bringing tons of content without any need here is you, lol. I made the original post to someone else, which you responded to, picking on some technicality that doesn't even relate to the point of the OP. And it turned out that by your own sources, your complaint has no ground to stand on. If you can't respond adequately, you can always apologize. DooMWhite said: Making a party due to his theory has... what to do with science? The Catholic church, according to your own video, sentenced Galileo because he called for a reinterpretation of the Bible. If you disagree with your own source, why the fuck did you cite it?" showed that the church had stifled innovation to protect its authority" After this sentence it's become clear you are just fucking around and has no idea how science works, they even made a party because of his theory. DooMWhite said: I actually used your sources. I don't care about the bias of your sources, since they do not contribute positively or negatively to our conversation. What's ridiculous is that you, yourself, do not agree with your sources. Instead, you dodge a whole post and respond to a single-sentence accusation of bias. Not only are you an intellectual coward for failing to respond to the post on purpose, but a moral coward for failing to be honest about what you're doing. Isn't that one of the Commandments? Thou shalt not lie? Christians In Name Only.You have yet to give any citation yourself. This discussion is over, too much sofism, whatever info I give you just call it "biased". Cya. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Frassati said: That is not my premise, that is your premise. You do not see this, because you are cognitively dissonant about the consequences of your own argument. I demonstrated this using this perfect grammatical analogy. If you say that incest couples are evil because they feel fear and shame, then that is equivalent (modus tollens) of saying people who do not feel fear and shame are not evil. You are blaming the victim. I don't know whether you're just trolling by ignoring the response that is to your post and pretending to take it in a separate context, but nah, no one is that dense.I think the core of your misunderstanding (I cannot tell whether or not it is intentional) is that you cannot make a distinction between the victim and the perpetrator. In your second syllogism you made a false premise that "Healthy people should not suffer fear and shame.", healthy people suffer fear and shame all the time, but it is not their fault or a result of their actions. This second syllogism is also a different format then the one you set up, it now reads: P1. If a has the property x P2. and b does not have the property x C1. Then, therefore a does not equal b Despite being different from the one you set up, this seems to be a logically sound format, but as I said earlier, your premise is false. Frassati said: There is no such thing as natural law. Nature exists as a series of descriptions, but never prescriptions.Incest is wrong, the Bible dictates that and it makes perfect sense and can be backed up by natural law. Frassati said: Then if the incest is mutual, are both parties evil or not evil? Since the Bible dictates that incest is always evil, the answer to the prior must be "evil". This proves that you are not truly concerned with the difference between perpetrator and victim.But incest being victims are at a receiving end, and if they are unwillingly in an incestual relationship then they are not at fault or doing evil actions. The perpetrators of incest are however doing an evil action. Any fear or shame that the victim feels is misplaced. I think I proved my point here. Godspeed katsucats. |
| "It’s a dangerous business, going out of your door. You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to." -J.R.R. Tolkien |
| It's sort of sad when someone believes in eternal life after death but lack the self reflection to adhere to scripture. I guess, people are hard to change, and as Protestants say, God knows who is part of the elect. It sort of begs the question why you even responded if you're not going to engage, but it seems we can just both cut our losses here. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Frassati said: Ryuk9428 said: I might have to check those out. Okay then, my question is why are nocturnal emissions less sinful? I feel like nocturnal emissions are proof that masturbation is inevitable. Back when I was 13 and 14 and still had wet dreams, they felt just as good if not better than masturbating while awake. So if the issue with masturbation is pleasure, then wet dreams still provide a lot of pleasure. To me, waiting until you have a wet dream is basically like holding in your pee until your body forces you to urinate. Its just not necessary to wait that long and then you have a mess to clean up that could've been avoided. You either have to masturbate while awake or your body will essentially force you to masturbate in your sleep so why not do it while you're awake? So it is just sex specifically? What if serially monogamous people who are dating but not married decide to make out with and intimately cuddle other people besides the person they end up marrying? Is that considered sinful by Christians too or is it just having sex specifically? I'll answer your second question first because it is easier to explain. Life isn't black and white, there are gray areas and things that lead lead into other things. It is perfectly okay for a dating couple to cuddle and kiss. However, romance and physical actions are ordered to marriage and the sexual act. So say the dating couple finds themselves cuddling and making out and they become physically aroused, they should use their judgement to prevent the temptation for premarital sex and stop. But it is important to note that they should not stop themselves from having sex because sex is bad, but because sex is a beautiful thing that is the matter that should be kept sacred for the form of marriage and the promise to love each other freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully. So your first question has an extremely complicated answer and has many different routes of conversation that result. A prerequisite for this conversation is a knowledge of Aquinas' thoughts on moral actions (Object-Intent-Circumstance). In your personal case (and I speak from experience) masturbation has become a habit and your body is addicted to the pleasure you receive from it. In this way your will is impaired, so when you try to not to masturbate your weakened will now has to fight against a body that craves the pleasure. This itself points to another way you can characterize that masturbation is evil: seeking bodily pleasure for its own sake is evil as it damages your will. This also makes you less culpable for your actions and points to the evil of the time you did it without the habituation. but that is a long and winding road. Someone who disagrees with this ascribes to the tenants of Epicureanism (pleasure is the chief good in life), so if you find yourself in that vain then it is impossible to find common ground here. You can hopefully see from this how urination and masturbation are different as masturbation is an act that you chiefly do for pleasure and your body has the necessary functions to take care of it with no physical sideffects, urination is an action done to remove waste from your body and if it is not done, you can die. Nocturnal emissions are not sinful as it is not an action that you can choose to do and therefore there is no intentionality. The object itself on nocturnal emission is also different from masturbation as it is not done chiefly for pleasure, though pleasure may ensue from it. Bodily pleasure in itself is not bad but bodily pleasure sought for the sake of bodily pleasure is bad. And lastly, life is full of messes, this is just a drop in the ocean. P.S. Their is a difference between disordered and sinful. Christians can view nocturnal emissions as a disordered result of the fall as we are meant to have control of our sexuality for the purpose of procreation and unification. They are not however sinful because their is no involvement of the will. I actually do agree with Epicureanism. On the topic of masturbation, yeah I just don't see the point in holding back. If intentionally doing things that bring pleasure to your body is sinful then by that logic, music and soda is sinful too. But we actually do have more common ground than you think. I also think sex should be considered special. I think we can agree that social regulations on sex are good to preserve its value. Pleasure is good but you can definitely go too far with single-minded pursuing of pure physical pleasure and neglecting spiritual or mental forms of pleasure. Its just that I think its okay for people to have it before marriage. But I do oppose the kind of cheapening of it that I've seen some people do. I met one guy who claimed to have fucked four different girls in a single night. That's the kind of thing I do think makes sex less special when its treated almost like a scoring system. We also have common ground in that I support traditional marriage and family. I do think sex is best in the context of love, but I don't attach moral value to sex without love you could say. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| I think it really depends... I dont watch a lot of anime where there is incest. Theres only 2 that I can think of at the top of my head. Cardcaptor Sakura and Sword Art Online. I feel like CCS did it a whole lot better. The characters had reasons for why they liked their cousins. Tomoyo knew she didnt have a chance with Sakura so it wasnt that obvious. Meilin was more obvious with her crush but it was apart of her character, plus she went through a character development dealing with jealousy and accepting Shaoran didnt like her like that. SAO was very forced. As far as I know, no one really like that part. It just left a bad taste in my mouth and was unnecessary. |
| 毎日, 日本語を勉強する |
Oh, the mods don't like it when people make controversial topics like incest and lolicon because people get SO heated about it; it normally leads to flamewars and such. Such threads normally get locked. Same goes for ones about strong political debates or religion...or racism.... That's why I'm shocked. xD Doujin most of them are fkd up anyway why use it as a reference... @Akashh: Because he's an idiot who doesn't research things properly, methinks. |
ChiibiJul 3, 2019 9:02 AM
  |
ChesCayk said: I think it really depends... I dont watch a lot of anime where there is incest. Theres only 2 that I can think of at the top of my head. Cardcaptor Sakura and Sword Art Online. I feel like CCS did it a whole lot better. The characters had reasons for why they liked their cousins. Tomoyo knew she didnt have a chance with Sakura so it wasnt that obvious. Meilin was more obvious with her crush but it was apart of her character, plus she went through a character development dealing with jealousy and accepting Shaoran didnt like her like that. SAO was very forced. As far as I know, no one really like that part. It just left a bad taste in my mouth and was unnecessary. Given that ALL the characters here are cousins; this is not by Japanese definition "incest" at all. Cousins can marry in Japan. Hell, cousins can marry in most countries. |
|
| my guess is there are a lot of sexually repressed nerds out there who just want to fuck the closest people to them who might actually tolerate them is family. plus i can see the fantasy of having a live-in sex object. also incest is gross |
| https://combosmooth.itch.io/ - I make free-to-play browser games for PC and I sell pixel art animation here |
| The answer by the way is of course "yes" — incest is delicious. |
Ryuk9428 said: Frassati said: I'll answer your second question first because it is easier to explain. Life isn't black and white, there are gray areas and things that lead lead into other things. It is perfectly okay for a dating couple to cuddle and kiss. However, romance and physical actions are ordered to marriage and the sexual act. So say the dating couple finds themselves cuddling and making out and they become physically aroused, they should use their judgement to prevent the temptation for premarital sex and stop. But it is important to note that they should not stop themselves from having sex because sex is bad, but because sex is a beautiful thing that is the matter that should be kept sacred for the form of marriage and the promise to love each other freely, totally, faithfully, and fruitfully. So your first question has an extremely complicated answer and has many different routes of conversation that result. A prerequisite for this conversation is a knowledge of Aquinas' thoughts on moral actions (Object-Intent-Circumstance). In your personal case (and I speak from experience) masturbation has become a habit and your body is addicted to the pleasure you receive from it. In this way your will is impaired, so when you try to not to masturbate your weakened will now has to fight against a body that craves the pleasure. This itself points to another way you can characterize that masturbation is evil: seeking bodily pleasure for its own sake is evil as it damages your will. This also makes you less culpable for your actions and points to the evil of the time you did it without the habituation. but that is a long and winding road. Someone who disagrees with this ascribes to the tenants of Epicureanism (pleasure is the chief good in life), so if you find yourself in that vain then it is impossible to find common ground here. You can hopefully see from this how urination and masturbation are different as masturbation is an act that you chiefly do for pleasure and your body has the necessary functions to take care of it with no physical sideffects, urination is an action done to remove waste from your body and if it is not done, you can die. Nocturnal emissions are not sinful as it is not an action that you can choose to do and therefore there is no intentionality. The object itself on nocturnal emission is also different from masturbation as it is not done chiefly for pleasure, though pleasure may ensue from it. Bodily pleasure in itself is not bad but bodily pleasure sought for the sake of bodily pleasure is bad. And lastly, life is full of messes, this is just a drop in the ocean. P.S. Their is a difference between disordered and sinful. Christians can view nocturnal emissions as a disordered result of the fall as we are meant to have control of our sexuality for the purpose of procreation and unification. They are not however sinful because their is no involvement of the will. I actually do agree with Epicureanism. On the topic of masturbation, yeah I just don't see the point in holding back. If intentionally doing things that bring pleasure to your body is sinful then by that logic, music and soda is sinful too. But we actually do have more common ground than you think. I also think sex should be considered special. I think we can agree that social regulations on sex are good to preserve its value. Pleasure is good but you can definitely go too far with single-minded pursuing of pure physical pleasure and neglecting spiritual or mental forms of pleasure. Its just that I think its okay for people to have it before marriage. But I do oppose the kind of cheapening of it that I've seen some people do. I met one guy who claimed to have fucked four different girls in a single night. That's the kind of thing I do think makes sex less special when its treated almost like a scoring system. We also have common ground in that I support traditional marriage and family. I do think sex is best in the context of love, but I don't attach moral value to sex without love you could say. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The reason the pleasure you get from masturbation is wrong is because you are merely getting pleasure from it when the purpose of that act is not only pleasure, but additionally procreation and unity. So you are taking the act and twisting it into something different, something insincere. The purpose of music is for leisure/pleasure, so their is nothing wrong with receiving pleasure from it as that is its purpose. Soda is a little bit different: the purpose of food (soda) is both pleasure and nutrition. To receive merely pleasure from ingesting food, i would argue, is sinful. An example of this would be someone who eats large quantities of food, to get the pleasure from it, and then throws it up intentionally (bulimia). And I am glad we agree in some way. I would say there is no way to know for sure that someone purely and fully loves you unless you are married; because, if you do truly love them, why wouldn't you want to demonstrate that love in the fullest way possible: through the bond and promises of marriage. So if you want to save sex for only someone that you love, save it for when you have proved your love by committing yourself fully to them. |
FrassatiJul 3, 2019 1:38 PM
| "It’s a dangerous business, going out of your door. You step into the Road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there is no telling where you might be swept off to." -J.R.R. Tolkien |
Ryuk9428 said: How does it go against your interests if others not assign the same special meaning to sex that you do?But we actually do have more common ground than you think. I also think sex should be considered special. I think we can agree that social regulations on sex are good to preserve its value. Pleasure is good but you can definitely go too far with single-minded pursuing of pure physical pleasure and neglecting spiritual or mental forms of pleasure. Its just that I think its okay for people to have it before marriage. But I do oppose the kind of cheapening of it that I've seen some people do. I met one guy who claimed to have fucked four different girls in a single night. That's the kind of thing I do think makes sex less special when its treated almost like a scoring system. We also have common ground in that I support traditional marriage and family. I do think sex is best in the context of love, but I don't attach moral value to sex without love you could say. This is æquivalent to you reserving red rice for your first menstruation and another man simply eating it all the time because he thinks it tasty and then complaining that he should — within the privacy of his own home — not do so and should consider it as special as you do. |
 It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: Ryuk9428 said: How does it go against your interests if others not assign the same special meaning to sex that you do?But we actually do have more common ground than you think. I also think sex should be considered special. I think we can agree that social regulations on sex are good to preserve its value. Pleasure is good but you can definitely go too far with single-minded pursuing of pure physical pleasure and neglecting spiritual or mental forms of pleasure. Its just that I think its okay for people to have it before marriage. But I do oppose the kind of cheapening of it that I've seen some people do. I met one guy who claimed to have fucked four different girls in a single night. That's the kind of thing I do think makes sex less special when its treated almost like a scoring system. We also have common ground in that I support traditional marriage and family. I do think sex is best in the context of love, but I don't attach moral value to sex without love you could say. This is æquivalent to you reserving red rice for your first menstruation and another man simply eating it all the time because he thinks it tasty and then complaining that he should — within the privacy of his own home — not do so and should consider it as special as you do. If most other people don't treat it as special it becomes hard to find somebody else who does. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: Well at that point you have to acknowledge that it's rational selfishness, not morality; and that as a rational, selfish agent you are willing to sacrifice the benefit of the majority to serve your own.Sphinxter said: How does it go against your interests if others not assign the same special meaning to sex that you do? This is æquivalent to you reserving red rice for your first menstruation and another man simply eating it all the time because he thinks it tasty and then complaining that he should — within the privacy of his own home — not do so and should consider it as special as you do. If most other people don't treat it as special it becomes hard to find somebody else who does. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: Seiya said: >unironically being a moralfagIncest is disturbing, regardless of what it's from. Pray tell, why is it "disturbing"? Cylcopean deisese and other gross mutations say hello. |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
hazarddex said: Incest has about as much to do with inbreeding as teenagers having sex has to do with teenage pregnancies.Sphinxter said: >unironically being a moralfag Pray tell, why is it "disturbing"? Cylcopean deisese and other gross mutations say hello. Essentially your argument is "16 year olds should not have sex because what if they become pregnant, contraception, abortion, infertility, anal sex, same-sex and all the other ways around that be damned.". Of course this argument will magically not apply to 50 year olds having sex regardless of the risk of genetic defects from 50 year olds breeding being comparable to inbreeding — 'tis indeed almost like it's searching for a reason to justify one's gut morality. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: Ryuk9428 said: Well at that point you have to acknowledge that it's rational selfishness, not morality; and that as a rational, selfish agent you are willing to sacrifice the benefit of the majority to serve your own.If most other people don't treat it as special it becomes hard to find somebody else who does. I never said it was a moral position. Yeah its rational selfishness. It would be beneficial if it was considered more special and we attached it to love again though because then we could have more of it and it would be easier for people who are not super charming or good looking to find what they are looking for. Women enjoy sex significantly more in the context of relationships. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: Well that does not reflect your original positions on this topic where you seemed to argue from a moral perspective that it was simply "wrong" to cheapen sex opposed to "it goes against my interest if others do so."Sphinxter said: Well at that point you have to acknowledge that it's rational selfishness, not morality; and that as a rational, selfish agent you are willing to sacrifice the benefit of the majority to serve your own. I never said it was a moral position. Yeah its rational selfishness. It would be beneficial if it was considered more special and we attached it to love again though because then we could have more of it and it would be easier for people who are not super charming or good looking to find what they are looking for. Women enjoy sex significantly more in the context of relationships. You will surely understand that you will not get a thousand men to surrender their own self-interest to purely to further your own without your compensating them therefore in some manner? |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: Thank you. This is probably the only time I'll agree with you. Moralists who need the law to impose their personal values on other people to feel justified to keep them are sad.Ryuk9428 said: How does it go against your interests if others not assign the same special meaning to sex that you do?But we actually do have more common ground than you think. I also think sex should be considered special. I think we can agree that social regulations on sex are good to preserve its value. Pleasure is good but you can definitely go too far with single-minded pursuing of pure physical pleasure and neglecting spiritual or mental forms of pleasure. Its just that I think its okay for people to have it before marriage. But I do oppose the kind of cheapening of it that I've seen some people do. I met one guy who claimed to have fucked four different girls in a single night. That's the kind of thing I do think makes sex less special when its treated almost like a scoring system. We also have common ground in that I support traditional marriage and family. I do think sex is best in the context of love, but I don't attach moral value to sex without love you could say. This is æquivalent to you reserving red rice for your first menstruation and another man simply eating it all the time because he thinks it tasty and then complaining that he should — within the privacy of his own home — not do so and should consider it as special as you do. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Sphinxter said: Ryuk9428 said: Well that does not reflect your original positions on this topic where you seemed to argue from a moral perspective that it was simply "wrong" to cheapen sex opposed to "it goes against my interest if others do so."I never said it was a moral position. Yeah its rational selfishness. It would be beneficial if it was considered more special and we attached it to love again though because then we could have more of it and it would be easier for people who are not super charming or good looking to find what they are looking for. Women enjoy sex significantly more in the context of relationships. You will surely understand that you will not get a thousand men to surrender their own self-interest to purely to further your own without your compensating them therefore in some manner? Its not really in people's self-interest to make sex really cheap. They're just thinking too much in the short term or living in the moment so much that they never stopped to think. Even most men don't orgasm during one night stands. Only about 30% of men orgasm during one night stands. For girls its pathetic, only 10% of girls managed to orgasm during their last one night stand. In relationships, 80% of guys and 70% of girls were able to orgasm the last time they had sex. All this talk about the "orgasm gap" and it would actually mostly be solved if people got in relationships. So from a quality perspective, both men and women across the board pretty much agree that sex in relationships is much better than casual sex is. From a quantity perspective. The ceiling for how much sex you can have in a relationship is purely based on what the two of you can handle. You can have sex two or three times a day every day in a relationship. For singles, this is practically impossible. You have to go out and find a new partner every time you want to have sex. Its not only exhausting but difficult to consistently do. My roommate last year, who looks like a fucking Greek god and belonged to the top frat on campus still only had sex like twice a week because he did it with a different girl every time. For a normal guy though, you'd be lucky to get laid more than once or twice a year. Maybe five at most. So its obvious that the quality of sex is higher in relationships and you can have much more sex with much lower effort if you stay in long term relationships rather than bounce around. So what is the problem? Why aren't people dating each other more? The way I see it, there's only two reasons. The first one is that people have become so paranoid of developing feelings and being afraid of what will happen if they develop feelings for the people they have sex with that they're willing to take a shitty or mediocre sex life over taking the risk of having their heart broken but leaving behind amazing memories. The second reason is just that our society these days makes it out to seem like the cool thing to do. We don't glorify healthy relationships or consider people in them to be "cool," we glorify the bachelors who hop from person to person. You said it'd be hard to convince people without compensation. Well the compensation is that a relationship can be the most amazing thing to ever happen to you. And yet people aren't willing to take the risk of being in one anymore because they're so worried about getting their heart broken. Its just not worth living a mediocre life in order to avoid heartbreak. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| This thread is basically why MAL forums was a malformed mistake. |
 ☆☆☆ "There's a huge difference between one and infinity. However, compared to the difference between existence and non-existence, one and infinite are nearly the same. I am the child destined to become the best witch... no... The greatest Creator in the world...!" -Maria Ushiromiya ☆☆☆ |
Ryuk9428 said: It can't be this fun making shit up. If men can orgasm during masturbation, they can orgasm in one night stands. I've orgasmed 99.9% of the times I had sex.Even most men don't orgasm during one night stands. Only about 30% of men orgasm during one night stands. Ryuk9428 said: How the fuck would they know if they've only had sex with one girl?So from a quality perspective, both men and women across the board pretty much agree that sex in relationships is much better than casual sex is. Ryuk9428 said: A smaller quantity is still a positive quantity. Saying sex is undesirable if it isn't done beyond some quantity is nonsense. It's like saying if you can't eat 5 times a day, you shouldn't eat at all.From a quantity perspective. The ceiling for how much sex you can have in a relationship is purely based on what the two of you can handle. You can have sex two or three times a day every day in a relationship. For singles, this is practically impossible. You have to go out and find a new partner every time you want to have sex. Its not only exhausting but difficult to consistently do. Ryuk9428 said: Literally no one puts that much thought into this besides maybe incel virgins. lolWhy aren't people dating each other more? The way I see it, there's only two reasons. The first one is that people have become so paranoid of developing feelings and being afraid of what will happen if they develop feelings for the people they have sex with that they're willing to take a shitty or mediocre sex life over taking the risk of having their heart broken but leaving behind amazing memories. Ryuk9428 said: This is like the SJW rape culture argument. Why don't we just dispense of the conspiracy theories and admit that sometimes people want to order some take out? This is some puritan shit. What's it to you even if it is bad? What if people just want to have bad sex? How does that hurt you? Does it just hurt your self esteem when you imagine other people having sex and having fun and you're not?The second reason is just that our society these days makes it out to seem like the cool thing to do. We don't glorify healthy relationships or consider people in them to be "cool," we glorify the bachelors who hop from person to person. Ryuk9428 said: Again, this is non-sequitur. Relationships being good does not mean non-relationships are bad. This is a veiled form of the denying the antecedent logical fallacy. You're essentially asserting:You said it'd be hard to convince people without compensation. Well the compensation is that a relationship can be the most amazing thing to ever happen to you. And yet people aren't willing to take the risk of being in one anymore because they're so worried about getting their heart broken. Its just not worth living a mediocre life in order to avoid heartbreak. P1. Relationships are good. P2. X is not a relationship. C. Therefore, X is not good. As for premise P1, relationships can be good. Not always. But literally no one said it couldn't be. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| @Katsucats No they can't, because most of the time they're having them they are drunk out of their skull or so anxious that they can't perform. I do so much internet research on various topics in my free time that I have a huge database of statistics in my head. It may look like I'm pulling it out of my ass but I'm not. Use the Google find tool and put in "first time hookups" on this article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3613286/ They haven't only had sex with one girl. People who've had both hookups and relationships across the board pretty much agree that sex feels better when you're in love. I'm saying why the fuck would you eat 3 times a week when you could eat 3 times a day? Pretending you're not an SJW yourself I see. Well the rape culture issue is actually perhaps the only issue I do sort of agree with SJWs on. Men who don't have the confidence to "make a move" on girls are called pussies. Apparently people are shocked that this attitude might lead to rampant sexual assault. However, this isn't just a "men are evil" thing. Women actually bear more responsibility for this than men do because they have unrealistic expectations of men's ability to read their unclear to largely nonexistent signals. They think its "sexy" when a guy acts assertive. Well the way the "assertive" guys act would literally be sexual assault if done by somebody else. Its the exact same behavior, so expecting guys to act that way or else it "isn't sexy" is beyond stupid but nobody is courageous enough to point that out. And nobody is courageous enough to point out that its much easier and clearer to communicate consent in long term relationships than it is when we expect people to fuck strangers they met at a bar. Because hookup culture has become so fucking big that nothing else can be had anymore. Go to college campuses nowadays and try to find couples. You can't find them anywhere they're nowhere to be seen. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: Why is sex different here than all the other binary activities?Its not really in people's self-interest to make sex really cheap. They're just thinking too much in the short term or living in the moment so much that they never stopped to think. Even most men don't orgasm during one night stands. Only about 30% of men orgasm during one night stands. For girls its pathetic, only 10% of girls managed to orgasm during their last one night stand. In relationships, 80% of guys and 70% of girls were able to orgasm the last time they had sex. Ehh, first off these statistics are obviously pulled from your behind because they contradict others I know off but let us assume they are correct and this is an argument then:
All this talk about the "orgasm gap" and it would actually mostly be solved if people got in relationships. Well I also think the "orgasm gap" is bullshit; it would also as said be solved if females simply did not have sex any more but only masturbated.So from a quality perspective, both men and women across the board pretty much agree that sex in relationships is much better than casual sex is. Only if one assume that quality and "orgasm frequency" are the same and be that so then masturbation is still better and as said I'd like a source on your statistics since they seem bollocks.From a quantity perspective. The ceiling for how much sex you can have in a relationship is purely based on what the two of you can handle. You can have sex two or three times a day every day in a relationship. For singles, this is practically impossible. You have to go out and find a new partner every time you want to have sex. Its not only exhausting but difficult to consistently do. My roommate last year, who looks like a fucking Greek god and belonged to the top frat on campus still only had sex like twice a week because he did it with a different girl every time. For a normal guy though, you'd be lucky to get laid more than once or twice a year. Maybe five at most. Your logic here assumes that a "a relationship" is super easily accessible. It stands to reason that for those for whom one night stands are inaccessible so are relationshipsFinally, you simultaneously assume that relationships have no further costs beyond all of this and that really all that is considered here is the quality and quantity of sex. I'm even willing to assume for sake of argument that sex in one night stands is completely inferior to that in relationships: it's a matter of paying more for quality and every man is of course entitled to decide for himself whether he thinks whether the price be worth it. Relationships are a considerably higher cost-investment in terms of time, money, and emotional labor. So its obvious that the quality of sex is higher in relationships and you can have much more sex with much lower effort if you stay in long term relationships rather than bounce around. So what is the problem? Why aren't people dating each other more? The way I see it, there's only two reasons. The first one is that people have become so paranoid of developing feelings and being afraid of what will happen if they develop feelings for the people they have sex with that they're willing to take a shitty or mediocre sex life over taking the risk of having their heart broken but leaving behind amazing memories. The second reason is just that our society these days makes it out to seem like the cool thing to do. We don't glorify healthy relationships or consider people in them to be "cool," we glorify the bachelors who hop from person to person. Or, as I said which seems like a far more obvious thing which you conspicuously overlook is that it simply is far more costly in terms of time, money, and emotional labor.But this is all working on your assumptions that the only thing to be considered is the quality of sex. Of course there are many other things to be considered. A friend of mine does not do relationships and only casual sex (not one night stands) for the simple reason that he does not desire monogamy but variety and feels that sex with the same man all the time would be boring. [quite]You said it'd be hard to convince people without compensation. Well the compensation is that a relationship can be the most amazing thing to ever happen to you.[/quote]That is your opinion — it stands to reason that those that like them not disagree. As I am not a labelfag, and negatively interested in monogamy from either side, not interested in permanently sharing my household with another man and certainly not interested in giving another man a degree of dictation about my life I am utterly negatively interested in relationships. And yet people aren't willing to take the risk of being in one anymore because they're so worried about getting their heart broken. Its just not worth living a mediocre life in order to avoid heartbreak. ...or they just don't like them? |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
| @Sphinxter I already gave evidence. Ryuk9428 said: @Katsucats No they can't, because most of the time they're having them they are drunk out of their skull or so anxious that they can't perform. I do so much internet research on various topics in my free time that I have a huge database of statistics in my head. It may look like I'm pulling it out of my ass but I'm not. Use the Google find tool and put in "first time hookups" on this article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3613286/ Well a lot of girls do seem to be taking your advice because there's a ridiculous amount of female-female sex going on right now in the US. On college campuses specifically, there might actually be more female-female sex going on than male-female sex going on that's how prevalent its become. The reason why I pointed out these statistics is not because the orgasm is the only part of sex you should care about. Its to indicate with actual data that people, especially women, have much better sex in relationships because if they weren't having better sex, then they wouldn't be orgasming as much during sex. Given the importance of foreplay to women's orgasms, I think its safe to say that a lot more foreplay goes on between couples than between strangers hooking up. I argue the opposite. Relationships are extremely difficult to develop these days, and the dominance of hookup culture is a big reason why. I don't think people are entitled to that decision because what's best for the majority is more important than what's best for the minority. And right now, because a minority of good looking guys have an easy time hooking up and are obsessed with "variety," we've created a culture where its obscenely easy for a minority of people to get sex, from dozens of different women, with no strings attached, and absurdly hard for the rest of guys to have any sex in any context. One of the biggest problems with hookup culture, is that it assumes anxiety doesn't exist and it assumes everyone is confident and comfortable with fucking a stranger. A few guys individual freedom to be manwhores is not more important than everybody's else's need to be able to realistically find an intimate partner. So they should stop being lazy and invest the time, money, and emotional labor to staying with one girl who will provide them better and more frequent sex anyway instead of trying to fuck all the girls because they're lazy or want "variety." |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: Nothing in this link talks about the orgasm percentages you gave.@Sphinxter I already gave evidence. Ryuk9428 said: @Katsucats No they can't, because most of the time they're having them they are drunk out of their skull or so anxious that they can't perform. I do so much internet research on various topics in my free time that I have a huge database of statistics in my head. It may look like I'm pulling it out of my ass but I'm not. Use the Google find tool and put in "first time hookups" on this article. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3613286/ Well a lot of girls do seem to be taking your advice because there's a ridiculous amount of female-female sex going on right now in the US. On college campuses specifically, there might actually be more female-female sex going on than male-female sex going on that's how prevalent its become. Acknowledging that they are doing so absolves you not from the fact that you claimed your worldview was in the interest of others rather than purely your own rational selfish interest. According to your logic it is not in their interest to have sex with males at all but with other females thus your original claim of it being in collective rather than selfish interest weakens. The reason why I pointed out these statistics is not because the orgasm is the only part of sex you should care about. Its to indicate with actual data that people, especially women, have much better sex in relationships because if they weren't having better sex, then they wouldn't be orgasming as much during sex. Given the importance of foreplay to women's orgasms, I think its safe to say that a lot more foreplay goes on between couples than between strangers hooking up. And I pointed out the absurdity of measuring sex quality by orgasm frequency: again orgasm frequency goes up with masturbation so by your logic masturbation is superior to sex.I argue the opposite. Relationships are extremely difficult to develop these days, and the dominance of hookup culture is a big reason why. I don't think people are entitled to that decision because what's best for the majority is more important than what's best for the minority. And right now, because a minority of good looking guys have an easy time hooking up and are obsessed with "variety," we've created a culture where its obscenely easy for a minority of people to get sex, from dozens of different women, with no strings attached, and absurdly hard for the rest of guys to have any sex in any context. One of the biggest problems with hookup culture, is that it assumes anxiety doesn't exist and it assumes everyone is confident and comfortable with fucking a stranger. So essentially those with the skills and capabilities to obtain what they want should set themselves back to aid those less abled is what you're saying?This is æquivalent to saying "It's harmful that the best and the brightest are stealing all the good occupations: they should instead artificially handicap themselves that these occupations may go to those less capable of obtaining them. A few guys individual freedom to be manwhores is not more important than everybody's else's need to be able to realistically find an intimate partner. So they should stop being lazy and invest the time, money, and emotional labor to staying with one girl who will provide them better and more frequent sex anyway instead of trying to fuck all the girls because they're lazy or want "variety." This is an argument that you præsent as general but I'm not convinced and feel it purely applies to the sexual domain. Be this argument taken generically it is — as implied above — an argument against competition and the idea that the best and the brightest should not use their abilities to achieve personal success.Essentially your argument is one against meritocracy: it's an argument that the best man should not get the position because it hurts those with lesser capabilities. |
It is obvious that "obscenity" is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the courts, it means "anything that shocks the magistrate". — Bertrand Russell |
Sphinxter said: Nothing in this link talks about the orgasm percentages you gave. Well a lot of girls do seem to be taking your advice because there's a ridiculous amount of female-female sex going on right now in the US. On college campuses specifically, there might actually be more female-female sex going on than male-female sex going on that's how prevalent its become. Acknowledging that they are doing so absolves you not from the fact that you claimed your worldview was in the interest of others rather than purely your own rational selfish interest. According to your logic it is not in their interest to have sex with males at all but with other females thus your original claim of it being in collective rather than selfish interest weakens. The reason why I pointed out these statistics is not because the orgasm is the only part of sex you should care about. Its to indicate with actual data that people, especially women, have much better sex in relationships because if they weren't having better sex, then they wouldn't be orgasming as much during sex. Given the importance of foreplay to women's orgasms, I think its safe to say that a lot more foreplay goes on between couples than between strangers hooking up. And I pointed out the absurdity of measuring sex quality by orgasm frequency: again orgasm frequency goes up with masturbation so by your logic masturbation is superior to sex.I argue the opposite. Relationships are extremely difficult to develop these days, and the dominance of hookup culture is a big reason why. I don't think people are entitled to that decision because what's best for the majority is more important than what's best for the minority. And right now, because a minority of good looking guys have an easy time hooking up and are obsessed with "variety," we've created a culture where its obscenely easy for a minority of people to get sex, from dozens of different women, with no strings attached, and absurdly hard for the rest of guys to have any sex in any context. One of the biggest problems with hookup culture, is that it assumes anxiety doesn't exist and it assumes everyone is confident and comfortable with fucking a stranger. So essentially those with the skills and capabilities to obtain what they want should set themselves back to aid those less abled is what you're saying?This is æquivalent to saying "It's harmful that the best and the brightest are stealing all the good occupations: they should instead artificially handicap themselves that these occupations may go to those less capable of obtaining them. A few guys individual freedom to be manwhores is not more important than everybody's else's need to be able to realistically find an intimate partner. So they should stop being lazy and invest the time, money, and emotional labor to staying with one girl who will provide them better and more frequent sex anyway instead of trying to fuck all the girls because they're lazy or want "variety." This is an argument that you præsent as general but I'm not convinced and feel it purely applies to the sexual domain. Be this argument taken generically it is — as implied above — an argument against competition and the idea that the best and the brightest should not use their abilities to achieve personal success.Essentially your argument is one against meritocracy: it's an argument that the best man should not get the position because it hurts those with lesser capabilities. Yeah it does, you're either purposely ignoring it or you don't know how to read. I even gave instructions on how to find it in the article, use them. Men can provide the same thing that other girls are currently offering them if men would change their behavior. First off, men need to focus more on foreplay. There's nothing fun about a guy who drops his pants and humps like a dog. Secondly, try and build emotional connections with girls and ditch this idea of hitting it and quitting it. If guys do these things then it will be in girls' interest to start fucking guys again. I already explained to you that its not about orgasming more often. Its because orgasm frequency is a natural consequence of better sex. The sex was better, which means that orgasms happen more frequently. People don't usually orgasm as much if the sex sucks. The percentages are just a way to show this increase in quality using measurable data. No that equivalent would be complaining that the best looking guys are taking the best looking girls. I don't care about that. The problem here is that the "best qualified people" are taking every job under the sun including the ones they are overqualified for. It would be like if the computer genius also decided he was going to be the guy who loads the packages onto the truck and the guy who drives the truck across the country instead of letting 3 different people do the jobs they are suited for. If the best looking guys would stick with one girl, then the best looking guys would get with the best looking girls and then they would be off the market so that average to above average looking guys will pair up with average to above average looking girls. But right now, the best looking guys are fucking the best looking girls, the above average looking girls, and the average looking girls and all the other guys fight over the unattractive girls leading to even unattractive girls now having massive egos due to all these guys fighting over them. So if we were to make this into a pseudo economy. The truck drivers are out of a job because the computer geniuses are taking all of them when they should just be doing computer stuff. Do you see why this is a bad system? |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| it's necessary as long as it sells, and people obviously buy into it for whatever reason morally, i don't think incest is inherently wrong, anyway |
More topics from this board
» Did you know that anime is amazing?KryzakamiHrybami - Yesterday |
20 |
by MasterTasuke
»»
39 seconds ago |
|
» Anime Misandry ( 1 2 3 )ColourWheel - Apr 21 |
115 |
by APolygons2
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Women tend to have superior anime preferences compared to men? ( 1 2 )Alpha_1_Zero - Yesterday |
73 |
by traed
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» Post the Last Anime Items you bought ( 1 2 )SpeedyAlchemist - Mar 10 |
69 |
by MasterTasuke
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» Why are most current goblins green?Absurdo_N - 7 hours ago |
16 |
by LenRea
»»
18 minutes ago |