Thank You

[Lina]

Originally posted by Satori
Something else, for the sake of discussion: From my experience, many many girls are emotionally straight but sexually bi. Why do you think that is?

thank you for at least clarifying that they are only sexually bi. i hate on all the talk shows where people claim to be gay just because they had one alcohol-inspired orgy.

and i think the reason girls do this and guys don't is fairly obvious -- society is built around the idea that the woman's body is more sensual and sexual. just look to porn. lesbian sex is mainstream, whereas male gay sex is taboo. on every sitcom and at every frat party, guys are guaranteed to mention how turned on they get by lesbians. so obviously women hear this over and over and over. and eventually, surprise surprise, the same sluts who usually make unwise sexual decisions will widen that sphere to include "experimenting" with women.

now, obviously my last sentence applies to women who carry on this behavior into their late teens and older. but one thing that does appear to be very different between males and females is that most girls i know "explored" other girls as children. i don't think guys do that as much. right? i think the reason for this is that girls are more mature and sexually aware at an earlier age than guys, so they have to channel all that energy somewhere. my female friend and i started in on each other (and ourselves) when we were 4. people flip when i say that. and we didn't even know what we were doing...it just felt good. i even demonstrated my new talents to my parents...try living that down.

 

[TyrantOfFlames]

Originally posted by Lina
my female friend and i started in on each other (and ourselves) when we were 4. people flip when i say that. and we didn't even know what we were doing...it just felt good. i even demonstrated my new talents to my parents...try living that down.

Ho-ly Shit! I have never heard of that! I have a friend who first had sex at 10 with a 13 year old, (true story...he's not a liar), but that's as kinky as it gets. Four years old... people are able to be sexually stimulated at four? I always thought it started at like 9 or 10.

Anyway. As you said, the reason people act like this, (I use that term to generalize everything we have, so far, mentioned), is because of the differences between male and female that are inherent in society. The differences inherent in males and females genetically, are small, but are magnified ten times by society. In many cases, I find that sickenning. Stereotype "Men" make me want to puke.

 

[HoserHellspawn]

Wow. And I thought this was interesting before. Anyways, for starters...

Originally posted by Satori
Anyway, interesting stuff. Do you think you'll ever be whipped like your friends Hoser? If so, how does that make you feel?

I almost got the chance to find out, but the relationship didn't last long enough to draw conclusions (the age-old "rebound" story... I've found it's actually quite textbook, people seem to know the events and details before I mention them). It's actually something I thought oddly much about. I was very determined at the beginning, adamant, even, that I would not intentionally change the person that I am for the acceptance of ANYBODY for WHATEVER reason (no matter how cute she is, heh), but at the same time hold the belief that I'm to a certain degree a different person around any specific person, environment, or group of people thay I know, and that with every significant relationship of any nature I forge, that it affects who I am. I think on the superficial level, yes, it could seem that way, as part of the comprimise necessary for a relationship of that magnitude. Would I actually be in a truly submissive relationship? No - I'm a fiercely independant individual.

I like the language used to pose the question, though. "How does that make you feel?" ...it sounds like we're slipping into some twisted online therapy session here.

Originally posted by Lina
people flip when i say that.

Add me to that list. 4?! Holy shit is right... I can't even remember being 4. The idea of sexual stimulation probably didn't occur to me until 10 or 11, as is the norm, I'd imagine.

Originally posted by TyrantOfFlames
That is what makes a female desirable to me. I require a certain degree of "cuteness", and so does almost ever person. Females included. They all talk about how "hot" certain guys are, maybe as much as males do. But looks mean so little to me that my standards in that department are negligible.

Cuteness isn't as simple as general physical attractiveness, though, it's a specific type of appeal. Women can be cute without being sexy, and overtly sexy and not at all cute. There are beautiful, statuesque women I'd never call either "cute" or "sexy". Grace Kelly was beautiful. Angelina Jolie is sexy. Katie Holmes is cute (and occaisionally sexy). Not that any of this matters, they're just thoughts that have occured to me before, which I apparently felt like blathering. (small bow)

Originally posted by Lina
and i think the reason girls do this and guys don't is fairly obvious -- society is built around the idea that the woman's body is more sensual and sexual.

Can't say I can argue with this. Lesbians are brilliant. Not only do they get to be women, they get to HAVE women. Sounds like a pretty sweet arrangement to me.

 

[Lina]

Originally posted by HoserHellspawn
Add me to that list. 4?! Holy shit is right... I can't even remember being 4. The idea of sexual stimulation probably didn't occur to me until 10 or 11, as is the norm, I'd imagine.

As a result of listening to Loveline (shut up! it's good!), i've learned that the friend that i "played" with was probably inappropriately sexualized at a very early age. which makes perfect sense because her mother was a complete whore, bringing guy after guy home. and now this girl claims she was even molested by one of them (which is plausibly true and not true at the same time -- one, i wouldn't put it past those guys, but two, the girl's a bit fucked up herself and might be lying). but i digress. little boys aren't able to get sexual pleasure at that age, as far as i know, but apparently girls can. (i told my mom it "tickled at the end." lovely) around probably age 6 i knew it was taboo, but it still wasn't always overtly sexual. like, we'd get off on pretending to breast feed our dolls. i'm gonna need years of therapy, i can see it now.

 

[S4R]

Originally posted by Lina
As a result of listening to Loveline (shut up! it's good!), i've learned that the friend that i "played" with was probably inappropriately sexualized at a very early age. which makes perfect sense because her mother was a complete whore, bringing guy after guy home. and now this girl claims she was even molested by one of them (which is plausibly true and not true at the same time -- one, i wouldn't put it past those guys, but two, the girl's a bit fucked up herself and might be lying). but i digress. little boys aren't able to get sexual pleasure at that age, as far as i know, but apparently girls can. (i told my mom it "tickled at the end." lovely) around probably age 6 i knew it was taboo, but it still wasn't always overtly sexual. like, we'd get off on pretending to breast feed our dolls. i'm gonna need years of therapy, i can see it now. [/QUOT

My friend Katie and I "played" when we were little, just one of many things I have discussed in therapy.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by TyrantOfFlames
There is no proof of evolution. Period. Any so-called proof is just as baseless as whatever proof creationalism can supply. Believing in either one is a matter of faith, since both require alot of it to swallow their stories. I don't see how evolution is any more practical than creationalism. The numbers for the chances are so insanely miniscual that a God just may have to be present to bring them about, correct? Heh, a fusion of the two is an interesting idea, I think. Seriously, though, don't call someone an idiot based upon speculation. There are no strong facts either way. Hell there are almost no facts either way.
P.S. (carbon dating is also glorified bullshit)

Wow, I can see how deeply mislead you've been if you can seriously spout this crap and take yourself seriously.

You have fallen prey to the propoganda, it's obvious when say things that equate evolution to creationism, that's completely absurd and quite laughable. You sound like someone from the southern US. Creationism is PURE speculation, evolution is pure SCIENCE (which require NO faith whatsoever, contrary to what you've been fed by your society). Also, the thing about carbon dating being bullshit also shows how you've been mislead, this is a common claim of the religous right to undermine the efforts of those who study such things, they couldn't dispute the overwhelming amount of evidence so they dispute the means by which the dates were acquired (what a cop-out). If carbon dating was at all inaccurate, I think we'd know about it by now, but if anything, the accuracy of carbon dating has only been more proven and improved over the last 20 years. If you truly believe the earth is only 6000 years old.. well, no comment. This isn't even worth discussing. All I can say is that all the info is there, if only you are open minded to consider it, and it won't take any faith either, just plain old logic and intelligence, preferably not completely blinded by that 6-day creation nonsense.

I think of all those brilliant and hardworking individuals using logic and scientific inquiry to study the origins and adaptations of life on this planet, and then I think of you suggesting that their efforts are as lowly, misguided, and pathetic as that of creationists. Wow. That's fucked up.

You have my deepest sympathies.

Satori

 

[S4R]

I am going to try and end this argument once and for all. Creationism IS NOT SCIENTIFIC for one simple reason, Creationism is not a testable hypothesis, Creationism is purely based upon one's faith.

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by Soul4Raziel
I am going to try and end this argument once and for all. Creationism IS NOT SCIENTIFIC for one simple reason, Creationism is not a testable hypothesis, Creationism is purely based upon one's faith.

Please allow me to expand upon your definition.

Creationism is a half-witted attempt by the faithful to
1) justify their faith to themselves and others
2) pass their beliefs off as logical/scientific


Creationism is not a science for this simple reason: Science creates theories and then attempts to prove or disprove these theories in a way that is repeatable by anyone. Creationism starts with knowing the answer already and then it scrambles to find evidence to support it while neglecting the overwhelming evidence which does not. Creationism is nonsense.

Creation Science: an oxy-moron

Satori

 

[Russell]

2 things, how the hell did u get onto creationism from S4R's bday? And don't you get tired of holding the same debate over and over again? I've been avoiding this one cos I usually find you end up going round in circles, and this has been argued so many times (on this board alone).

I always end up with the feeling it has been no use, people go in with their stronly held opinions (in general, again especially on this board), you argue, and no1's opinions have changed at the end? Don't you all feel this, and doesn't it strike you as slightly pointless?

 

[S4R]

Ok, let us get back to why we all came to this thread, HAPPY BIRTHDAY ME!!! ......

 

[Russell]

Whadja get S4R???? Lotsa pressies Me, act like a 3 year old??????

 

[E V I L]

Originally posted by godisanathiest


I always end up with the feeling it has been no use, people go in with their stronly held opinions (in general, again especially on this board), you argue, and no1's opinions have changed at the end? Don't you all feel this, and doesn't it strike you as slightly pointless?

If beliefs cannot be changed, the most one can hope to do is shatter the other's ego. Now if I can't enlighten some dude, the least I can do is break his pride. Both activities are equally precious to me and I treasure every second

 

[E V I L]

For the intellectually curious and rigorous: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14581 .. a well written and informative article on the topic of evolution vs. creationism (lately known as the intelligent design theory).

 

[S4R]

I do not think seaming science and religion together will work by in large, simply because most people are devoted to one or the other.

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by E V I L
If beliefs cannot be changed, the most one can hope to do is shatter the other's ego. Now if I can't enlighten some dude, the least I can do is break his pride. Both activities are equally precious to me and I treasure every second

I never said they can't Its just the people that usually enter such debates are the onbes with very strongly held opinions neway, so ur far less likely 2 convert them. Now...... the breaking pride thing is funy

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by godisanathiest
you argue, and no1's opinions have changed at the end? Don't you all feel this, and doesn't it strike you as slightly pointless?

Don't be so sure that no one's opinion has changed. There are a lot of people out there who are clueless about such things and they are better for hearing about it. Does this strike me as slightly pointless? Not in the least.

Satori

 

[Satori]

Originally posted by godisanathiest
I never said they can't Its just the people that usually enter such debates are the onbes with very strongly held opinions neway, so ur far less likely 2 convert them. Now...... the breaking pride thing is funy

For me personally, it's not about converting anyone or breaking anyone's pride, or "enlightening" (I would never use such a heavily weighted word even though it is heavily employed by the philosophy which I hold dear), for me it's simply about getting people to actually THINK instead of allowing others to think on their behalf (lest we have another sept. 11 on our hands). It's a personal freedom issue, the right to be yourself without fear or regret, and it's a right I think everyone should have (contrary to what religions dictate).

Also, as someone who has "converted" (ie. de-brainwashed) quite a few people, I know it is totally possible, and I feel that it's my duty to others to at least present them with an alternative to the path which was set for them by their elders. Of course, most religious fanatics are too paralysed by their own fears to be anything other than good little drones to the system, but sometimes people are sucked into it who simply aren't cut out for that limited mindset and it's these people who benefit most from hearing alternative points of view. Therefore, I think we should do everything we can at every opportunity to help them out of the trap of organized religion, cuz who else will? No one will. Also, by helping them, we prevent their future children from being trapped by it as well (I know of a child who was born a few years ago who will be raised without the fear/guilt of religion imposed on him directly due to my influence on his mother), and there is really (IMO) no greater gift I could've given this kid. So you see, it's not just a matter of arguing, the effects of this kind of discussion can last for a lifetime and span generations (as I'm seeing first hand).

Satori

 

[Opet]

Holy shit! This thread took off!

Valentines Day – Problem? Go directly to the source - your partner. Talk it over. I’d hope you would get more respect for your honesty, but if she/he doesn’t understand or like your views, the next step is yours, but at least it’s in the open. People in relationships should be able to humor each other once and while, but out of love and not so much because of a holiday. I guess it depends on the person. REGARDLESS: You should be able to communicate with one another about your feelings. If you can’t, then I’d say gift giving is the least of your problems.

Shopping – Ugh. Who *needs* collectables! I’m not one for browsing unless it’s on the Internet. I won’t buy things I have at home. I’m not a shopper. If it were up to me, I’d dress like Homer. Every day with the same blue pants on...only, I do like changing my shirt once and while. I only shop when I have to. I’d like to live outdoors someday and actually hunt for my own food. Humans are SO able to do it, yet we’ve forgotten. It’s been so long! The next time I go camping, I’m going to start my own fire the old fashion way. After the 4th time of Castaway, I have to.

Yes. Full-nudity male strips clubs DO exist here.

Satori - ”A word of advice I can give to all guys confidently is this: if you start dating a girl and she starts dictating what you do in your free time, what you wear, how you do your hair, what you eat, etc, then do the right thing and end it.” Of course, attempt to talk this out first, right? I mean, maybe this women is so used to previous relationships that it seems natural to do this. Maybe your view on how you feel would “enlighten” her...even make the bond between the two of your stronger. Maybe she’d respect you more. Maybe she’s so used to doing it and doesn’t know how else to be. Some men LET women do it and they LIKE it. They feel cared for. I think any new relationship will always be tainted with how each person treated previous relationships. Trying the same things that “worked” as before.

Damn, I see now that many MANY topics have been brought up here. From birthdays to holidays to shopping a little strip club talk then to whipping and finally now to evolution. That’s pretty damn cool.

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by Satori
For me personally, it's not about converting anyone or breaking anyone's pride, or "enlightening" (I would never use such a heavily weighted word even though it is heavily employed by the philosophy which I hold dear), for me it's simply about getting people to actually THINK instead of allowing others to think on their behalf (lest we have another sept. 11 on our hands). It's a personal freedom issue, the right to be yourself without fear or regret, and it's a right I think everyone should have (contrary to what religions dictate)

But I feel, usually, the ones debating are the ones who've bothered to think, as they're the ones with strongly held opinions (as they've formed them themselves). Its goo dto make people think if you can, but in most debates the brainwashed people aren't the ones debating,, as to truly argue over points of views you either have to know how u feel about what ur talking bout, or be incredibly stupid (which I admit some people are)

 

[Russell]

Who will reply 1st, Satori or TyrantOfFlames?