First  Prev  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  Next  Last
Sex before Marriage?
3470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/25/11
Really? Is that really necessary? To call me immature because my opinions differs from yours? I don't even know why you're sending me that link, because I am nothing like what's described in that video.

And yet again you go ahead and just assume things. Now you go and assume that I think I am more mature just because I had sex at a young age. Where do you get this? I never said that. I just said that I'm aware that kids can handle that, because I have experienced it myself.
And yes. I am aware that they offer free abortion in Norway. Just like all health care is free. And that's good. Because I support a woman's right to choose abortion.

And of course, women choose what they want to do with their body. Thus, you must also remember that a lot of them choose to have random sex with lots of different people. And if you've been taking a few shots, it's pretty easy to forget the condom.
Posted 3/25/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:

Really? Is that really necessary? To call me immature because my opinions differs from yours? I don't even know why you're sending me that link, because I am nothing like what's described in that video.

And yet again you go ahead and just assume things. Now you go and assume that I think I am more mature just because I had sex at a young age. Where do you get this? I never said that. I just said that I'm aware that kids can handle that, because I have experienced it myself.
And yes. I am aware that they offer free abortion in Norway. Just like all health care is free. And that's good. Because I support a woman's right to choose abortion.

And of course, women choose what they want to do with their body. Thus, you must also remember that a lot of them choose to have random sex with lots of different people. And if you've been taking a few shots, it's pretty easy to forget the condom.
So impaired judgment due to alcohol consumption, no wonder you "scored" at such an early age without properly consenting your own action through informed choice. It sure was your opinion alright, even though it wasn't well thought-out and probably poorly executed.
3470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/25/11
You know, you complain about me a lot, but still you just keep making assumptions.
Do you really think my sexual encounters were related to alcohol when I was under ten years old?
Is it so hard to concider the possibility that I might actually be a likable guy to those who get to know me, and doesn't keep making stupid, uninformed assumptions about me, while on top of that making childish comments like that I was probably bad?

And yes. It probably was poorly excecuted. You know why? BECAUSE I WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD! I hadn't even had "the talk" yet. It came impulsive on both me and my partner.

And I'm sure you were the love-master when you did it the first time. Right?
Posted 3/25/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:

You know, you complain about me a lot, but still you just keep making assumptions.
Do you really think my sexual encounters were related to alcohol when I was under ten years old?
Is it so hard to concider the possibility that I might actually be a likable guy to those who get to know me, and doesn't keep making stupid, uninformed assumptions about me, while on top of that making childish comments like that I was probably bad?

And yes. It probably was poorly excecuted. You know why? BECAUSE I WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD! I hadn't even had "the talk" yet. It came impulsive on both me and my partner.

And I'm sure you were the love-master when you did it the first time. Right?
Again, I find it offensive and dehumanizing of you to confine the concept of romantic love to simple sexual activity, you pleasure hog.
3470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/25/11 , edited 3/25/11

DomFortress Again, I find it offensive and dehumanizing of you to confine the concept of romantic love to simple sexual activity, you pleasure hog.


When did I do that?
Posted 3/25/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress Again, I find it offensive and dehumanizing of you to confine the concept of romantic love to simple sexual activity, you pleasure hog.


When did I do that?
Not by yourself in particular, but certainly by your own kind. When all you ever managed to do insofar was taking the mainstream culture for granted. Or have you forget?

Syndicaidramon wrote:

.

And I'm sure you were the love-master when you did it the first time. Right?
You synonymously linked sex with love-making. Without yourself consider the possibility that I could have a Zen perspective about romantic love, without the conjugal element and sexual objectification that's being overly sensationalized by mainstream.
Posted 3/25/11 , edited 3/25/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:


PsyonicBIt's animal-like for a person to have sex before marriage.


So is having sex in general.
It's a consequence of our natural urges.

I don't have any strong opinion on this, to be honest.
I think it's quite natural. Some people become sexually active when they are still children even. It's a natural urge people have and it's natural to have sex.

On the other hand, there's no denying that pre-marital sex is risky. For reasons I don't even have to explain.
In the end, you'll have to choose for yourself anyway.


I believe you're forgeting that people want things greater than bodily desires. There are people who serve themselves for thier own plesure, and there are less selfish people who aren't mastubating apes hanging from tree-tops. People who roam freely having sex, "free-love", are repulsive, they are people who are led by their bodily desires. Following natural urges, ridiculus. People have a cerebral cortex for a reason you know. We also have souls (No one needs to debate the existance of the soul, none of us would have probably changed our minds anyway, since there practically isn't really any way to scientifically prove that it exist.)

People make should make smart choices. Getting married is like a contract, you are stuck with that one person until one of you or both of you die. It's called honoring a contract, and honor is something non-humans lack.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 3/25/11 , edited 3/25/11

PsyonicB wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


PsyonicBIt's animal-like for a person to have sex before marriage.


So is having sex in general.
It's a consequence of our natural urges.

I don't have any strong opinion on this, to be honest.
I think it's quite natural. Some people become sexually active when they are still children even. It's a natural urge people have and it's natural to have sex.

On the other hand, there's no denying that pre-marital sex is risky. For reasons I don't even have to explain.
In the end, you'll have to choose for yourself anyway.


I believe you're forgeting that people want things greater than bodily desires. There are people who serve themselves for thier own plesure, and there are less selfish people who aren't mastubating apes hanging from tree-tops. People who roam freely having sex, "free-love", are repulsive, they are people who are led by their bodily desires. Following natural urges, ridiculus. People have a cerebral cortex for a reason you know. We also have souls (No one needs to debate the existance of the soul, none of us would have probably changed our minds anyway, since there practically isn't really any way to scientifically prove that it exist.)


As extreme as it may sound, I am with you here. We are slowly evolving to a state both biologically and in terms of science where we can, perhaps, shake off the shackles of our own genes. While sexual stimulation of all sorts can be greatly pleasant, ultimately, it is a method devised by our own genes to force us into slavery, to force us to replicate them. I believe we should support the thought that genes are to be made a tool of reproduction for us, should we decide, consciously and rationally, to create new members of our species, as opposed to allowing them to perpetuate themselves through the use of, well, us.

But there are those who would have us believe that anything that isn't natural in their views is an abomination. Try convincing the brainless masses that there can be an alternative to 9 months of discomfort, hormonal imbalance and hours of physical pain and mental trauma at the end of this delightful 9 month period. Hell, you probably couldn't even convince the women of your ideas thanks to how people are governed by the instincts fostered by our genes. I say it is time for radical genetic engineering. It is time for our pressure groups, if we have any, to stand up and invite those that oppose transhumanism to line up for the purpose of providing fellatio services. In the political sphere and elsewhere.

That said, I still maintain that there is nothing wrong, from a moral perspective, with sexual intercourse before, during or after marriage. There is, indeed, no moral perspective, there are interests.

I disagree on the soul bit, though. I believe that we are matter, nothing more or less than that.
Posted 3/25/11
I think its okay because if you really love someone and your not married and you're boht committed to hvaing sexual intercourse well then there should be nothing holding you back~
Posted 3/25/11 , edited 3/25/11

PsyonicB wrote:



I believe you're forgeting that people want things greater than bodily desires. There are people who serve themselves for thier own plesure, and there are less selfish people who aren't mastubating apes hanging from tree-tops. People who roam freely having sex, "free-love", are repulsive, they are people who are led by their bodily desires. Following natural urges, ridiculus. People have a cerebral cortex for a reason you know. We also have souls (No one needs to debate the existance of the soul, none of us would have probably changed our minds anyway, since there practically isn't really any way to scientifically prove that it exist.)

People make should make smart choices. Getting married is like a contract, you are stuck with that one person until one of you or both of you die. It's called honoring a contract, and honor is something non-humans lack.
Your hypothesis about an "honor system" doesn't float, when it comes to the biology of romantic love. Furthermore, as long as humans are social animals who require a great deals of personal socialization, your hypothesis of a soul is also moot. When human nature is nurture within the context of sociology.


DerfelCadarn wrote:



As extreme as it may sound, I am with you here. We are slowly evolving to a state both biologically and in terms of science where we can, perhaps, shake off the shackles of our own genes. While sexual stimulation of all sorts can be greatly pleasant, ultimately, it is a method devised by our own genes to force us into slavery, to force us to replicate them. I believe we should support the thought that genes are to be made a tool of reproduction for us, should we decide, consciously and rationally, to create new members of our species, as opposed to allowing them to perpetuate themselves through the use of, well, us.

But there are those who would have us believe that anything that isn't natural in their views is an abomination. Try convincing the brainless masses that there can be an alternative to 9 months of discomfort, hormonal imbalance and hours of physical pain and mental trauma at the end of this delightful 9 month period. Hell, you probably couldn't even convince the women of your ideas thanks to how people are governed by the instincts fostered by our genes. I say it is time for radical genetic engineering. It is time for our pressure groups, if we have any, to stand up and invite those that oppose transhumanism to line up for the purpose of providing fellatio services. In the political sphere and elsewhere.

That said, I still maintain that there is nothing wrong, from a moral perspective, with sexual intercourse before, during or after marriage. There is, indeed, no moral perspective, there are interests.

I disagree on the soul bit, though. I believe that we are matter, nothing more or less than that.
Then you still have to face the limitation of human neurophysiology. Case to point, have you ever wonder why does it take relatively far longer time for the human babies to start moving on their own power? Simple, it's the very openness and elasticity, yet critical process of human brain development caused by socialization.

Not only that, you overlooked the fact that mother-baby attachment can go in both ways. In other words, the mothers require socialization to build attachment with their babies, which is why they need more social support during pregnancy. Furthermore, when a pregnant woman was constantly confronted by antisocial, even hostile social scene. Both herself and the fetus will develop a greater probability towards violence tendency later on in their lives, due to the fact of psychosocial inequality. AKA socioeconomic status(SES) health gradient due to porverty.


dirtymexican97 wrote:

I think its okay because if you really love someone and your not married and you're boht committed to hvaing sexual intercourse well then there should be nothing holding you back~
Yet another superficial and stereotypical rhetoric of "love" and "commitment." Do you have any idea how to build trust and commitment within a close relationship? When the reality is that your superficial and stereotypical expectation of romance in mainstream is unrealistically dramatized.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 3/25/11

DomFortress wrote:
Then you still have to face the limitation of human neurophysiology. Case to point, have you ever wonder why does it take relatively far longer time for the human babies to start moving on their own power? Simple, it's the very openness and elasticity, yet critical process of human brain development caused by socialization.

Not only that, you overlooked the fact that mother-baby attachment can go in both ways. In other words, the mothers require socialization to build attachment with their babies, which is why they need more social support during pregnancy. Furthermore, when a pregnant woman was constantly confronted by antisocial, even hostile social scene. Both herself and the fetus will develop a greater probability towards violence tendency later on in their lives, due to the fact of psychosocial inequality. AKA socioeconomic status(SES) health gradient due to porverty.


I didn't overlook any of that, I chose to ignore it. Genes are what define who we are. If we define our genes then naturally we define ourselves. Most people view humans in a holistic light, but I think that is unlikely to yield useful results. I am a sum of my parts and should a part be added, an existing one altered or discarded I will change in light of and to the extent of the changes made. A need for socialisation can, conceptually, be eliminated, for instance. Of course, the technology and knowledge required will not descend from above upon us and complacency and conservatism don't help either.
Posted 3/25/11

DerfelCadarn wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Then you still have to face the limitation of human neurophysiology. Case to point, have you ever wonder why does it take relatively far longer time for the human babies to start moving on their own power? Simple, it's the very openness and elasticity, yet critical process of human brain development caused by socialization.

Not only that, you overlooked the fact that mother-baby attachment can go in both ways. In other words, the mothers require socialization to build attachment with their babies, which is why they need more social support during pregnancy. Furthermore, when a pregnant woman was constantly confronted by antisocial, even hostile social scene. Both herself and the fetus will develop a greater probability towards violence tendency later on in their lives, due to the fact of psychosocial inequality. AKA socioeconomic status(SES) health gradient due to porverty.


I didn't overlook any of that, I chose to ignore it. Genes are what define who we are. If we define our genes then naturally we define ourselves. Most people view humans in a holistic light, but I think that is unlikely to yield useful results. I am a sum of my parts and should a part be added, an existing one altered or discarded I will change in light of and to the extent of the changes made. A need for socialisation can, conceptually, be eliminated, for instance. Of course, the technology and knowledge required will not descend from above upon us and complacency and conservatism don't help either.
You really have no idea what socialization is, and how little you are has to do with the result of your genes alone, do you? Your genes don't carry culture, your socialization does. You are not by nature a blank slate, nor were your genes is making you into a selfish slave of your pain and pleasure.
3470 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/25/11

DomFortress Not by yourself in particular, but certainly by your own kind.


I was gonna ask what you mean with "your own kind" but like most of your assumptions and attempts at grouping me together with a certain tye of people, it is most likely wrong. So I choose not to.


DomFortress You synonymously linked sex with love-making. Without yourself consider the possibility that I could have a Zen perspective about romantic love, without the conjugal element and sexual objectification that's being overly sensationalized by mainstream.


So you think that I synonymously linked sex with love-making, just because I used the term "love-master"?
Are you really that stupid? Not only does it show that you actually think you know how things happened, but you're also unable to understand why I chose those words.

Let me clarify on that. I chose to call it the love-master, simply because it sounds more decent. I could've used terms like "sex-master" or "fuck-master", but those terms are so juvenile. So I didn't. For the sake of decendy.
Posted 3/25/11 , edited 3/25/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress Not by yourself in particular, but certainly by your own kind.


I was gonna ask what you mean with "your own kind" but like most of your assumptions and attempts at grouping me together with a certain tye of people, it is most likely wrong. So I choose not to.


DomFortress You synonymously linked sex with love-making. Without yourself consider the possibility that I could have a Zen perspective about romantic love, without the conjugal element and sexual objectification that's being overly sensationalized by mainstream.


So you think that I synonymously linked sex with love-making, just because I used the term "love-master"?
Are you really that stupid? Not only does it show that you actually think you know how things happened, but you're also unable to understand why I chose those words.

Let me clarify on that. I chose to call it the love-master, simply because it sounds more decent. I could've used terms like "sex-master" or "fuck-master", but those terms are so juvenile. So I didn't. For the sake of decendy.
Immaturity? From someone who didn't had "the talk" before himself engaging in sexual activity, you have no idea what sex will do to the level of serotonin in your brain, which consequently effect your emotion towards your partner.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 3/26/11

DomFortress wrote:
You really have no idea what socialization is, and how little you are has to do with the result of your genes alone, do you? Your genes don't carry culture, your socialization does. You are not by nature a blank slate, nor were your genes is making you into a selfish slave of your pain and pleasure.


Genes alone define who we are. All your experiences will alter you in accordance with what your genes provide. You might wish to talk to a lion, but it will react to a deep and touching speech unlike a human because it has different genes, ie it is a fundamentally different creature. If your genes do not determine your reactions to external stimuli then what does? If you wish to succeed in your claim, you would do well to identify an alternative.
First  Prev  94  95  96  97  98  99  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.