|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
posted March 10, 2010 03:07 PM |
|
|
Guys! You are arguing about sex with dying people!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 03:13 PM |
|
|
No.
They are arguing about sex with possibly dying people.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Warmonger
Promising
Legendary Hero
fallen artist
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 03:32 PM |
|
|
In necrophilia it's not the most important whether someone is dead or not, but the attraction to not responding partners. In such sense (from the perspective of necrophiliac), all states like death and coma are similiar.
Quote:
someone didn't agree that sex and love are totally independant things.
Insisting on threating love and sex as two separate things leads to moral difficulties, depression and total personality disorder. If you need to have sex with someone you don't care about, you're getting close to animal. On the other hand, if you are attracted to someone you can't have sex with, you're screwed. I don't see a purpose to artificially sustain either of these states.
____________
The future of Heroes 3 is here!
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 07:50 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:54, 10 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
Insisting on threating love and sex as two separate things leads to moral difficulties, depression and total personality disorder.
Huh?!? What?!? 
being attached to misconceptions is a proof (the main one I think) of mental illness (buddhist theory)
note : what buddhists call a mental illness is different from our definition. for us, it is someone who isn't normal. for buddhist it is someone who hasn't reached buddheity (that is to say, almost everyone is mentally ill, even the dalai lama would say of himself that he is mentally ill)
if sex and love aren't 2 separate and independant things what do they have in common?
Quote:
On the other hand, if you are attracted to someone you can't have sex with, you're screwed.
your mother? btw, you said attracted, which implies desire, not love 
Quote:
If you need to have sex with someone you don't care about, you're getting close to animal.
but we are animals. and we don't need love to have sex. the primary purpose of sex is only reproduction, it has nothing to do with love.
of course, you could argue that we choose partners with specific qualities in order to have children with similar qualities, but again, it has nothing to do with love, since you are only interested in the qualities your children may inherit.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 08:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
To me, love does not require emotion
do you mean, to experience love you don't need to experience a specific emotion first? that makes sense imo.
some people say they don't experience love, but the truth may be that they do, but don't recognise it, or they are afraid of it and refuse it.
Pretty much, yes. I don't think you need to experience a specific emotion first, nor does the entire relationship depend on certain emotions.
Though I am young and some older may say I am completely wrong. I would think however they rather have lived their life in an unfortunate way.
I believe the power of emotion can really be useful for the relationship, but the power should not come in return for giving up control. That is, if one doesn't feel anything anymore, then maybe it was the body and not the person that one to begin with was interested in. Likewise if one starts to be irritated by certain acts, it is important to often ask, whose responsibility is it, maybe the irritation is unrational, and not the act itself. All in all, stuff like this are examples of people follow the way their emotions tells them to, no matter how random it may seen.
All to often I have seen family of friends splitting up, because they just over a period of time felt differently. Assuming that how it was today, it would always be, then later on regretting what they did to themselves and to their children by divorce, etc.
I think I'm just babbling now.
Shortly: My viewpoint is that the power of emotions are good, however when you don't control this power, and you follow whatever gets you off, then it is bad, because it is trading off free will for pleasure.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
but we are animals. and we don't need love to have sex. the primary purpose of sex is only reproduction, it has nothing to do with love.
of course, you could argue that we choose partners with specific qualities in order to have children with similar qualities, but again, it has nothing to do with love, since you are only interested in the qualities your children may inherit.
Umm, Fauch, IF the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, then the primary purpose of "love" is to make sure that reproductors stay together to make sure the product of sex is raised in a protective environment to maximize survival chances.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 08:25 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 20:30, 10 Mar 2010.
|
older doesn't mean wiser
Quote:
Likewise if one starts to be irritated by certain acts, it is important to often ask, whose responsibility is it
the one experiencing irritation is responsible for it, but it could be very hard for him to understand and accept it, after all, no one is coming in his brain and choosing what he should feel.
the other one may be responsible if he knows that what he does make the other one irritated and does it on purpose.
objectively, you can't say the act is irritating, because it may irritate one person, and another one won't care at all.
Quote:
Umm, Fauch, IF the primary purpose of sex is reproduction, then the primary purpose of "love" is to make sure that reproductors stay together to make sure the product of sex is raised in a protective environment to maximize survival chances.
I'm not sure about that. a lots of people live together, have sex together and stay together and there is no love, it is only a relation to fulfil their personnal interests (possibly most of the people)
and do animals (other than humans) feel love for their sexual partners?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I believe the power of emotion can really be useful for the relationship, but the power should not come in return for giving up control. That is, if one doesn't feel anything anymore, then maybe it was the body and not the person that one to begin with was interested in. Likewise if one starts to be irritated by certain acts, it is important to often ask, whose responsibility is it, maybe the irritation is unrational, and not the act itself. All in all, stuff like this are examples of people follow the way their emotions tells them to, no matter how random it may seen.
The whole purpose of having sex - emotionally - is to lose yourself (and any kind of control), in a positive way. For many that involves some kind of mutual trust...
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 11:06 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 23:07, 10 Mar 2010.
|
|
love, apparently something when fades would make some become spiteful and disrespectful towards the lost ones
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 10, 2010 11:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The whole purpose of having sex - emotionally - is to lose yourself (and any kind of control), in a positive way. For many that involves some kind of mutual trust...
Or some kind of alcoholic beverage.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 07:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The whole purpose of having sex - emotionally - is to lose yourself (and any kind of control), in a positive way. For many that involves some kind of mutual trust...
I disagree.
It is not about losing yourself. It's about pleasure(possibly pain too but that's not the topic) and I wouldn't say one night-stands involve much trust would you?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 07:53 AM |
|
|
@ Corribus
True. 
@Joonas
I don't think that you are contradicting me. Pleasure isn't just pleasure, there are different qualities of it.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 02:14 PM |
|
|
|
well, I read a point of view similar to JollyJoker's one. it is said one goal with sex is to let yourself go. abandon yourself totally to your partner.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 03:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think that you are contradicting me. Pleasure isn't just pleasure, there are different qualities of it.
You mean different values of it. But if you are on that path why not use strong drugs, if that's the purpose of it?
You'll lose yourself even more completely than with sex.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 03:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Likewise if one starts to be irritated by certain acts, it is important to often ask, whose responsibility is it
the one experiencing irritation is responsible for it
From the impression I have of the modern world, I'd say that statement holds true most often. In some cases however, I don't think it does.
I think in principle it is highly a matter of choice. If you don't have the freedom to choose one could say you're being oppresed. The opresser however does not necessarily have to be anything human, or consciouss, though.
The difference in a) someone irritating you, and b) someone both irritating you and forces you to keep being irritated, is where in my opinion the line goes.
That is, in case a) it is clearly ones own responsibility, whereas in case b) it can be the other persons responsibility, if they're limiting your freedom, or it might be because of lack of free will, which you cannot control. Giving responsibility, logically, I believe, is most often because you want the one responsible to learn something, so a similar case won't happen with that person involved. However if there's no control, that is the lack of free will part, then it does not make much sense to set responsibility to that person, but rather help said person learn to be in control.
It is like that you don't place mental people in jail, but at hospitals, because they don't have the choice, so giving them responsibility for their actions won't help in future events.
That being said, it is of course ones own responsibility to learn to control oneself, so that you do the actions you want.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 03:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it can be the other persons responsibility, if they're limiting your freedom, or it might be because of lack of free will
Dude please, so if free will doesn't exist, then people don't hold responsibility for their actions? Let's release all criminals then.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 05:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think that you are contradicting me. Pleasure isn't just pleasure, there are different qualities of it.
You mean different values of it. But if you are on that path why not use strong drugs, if that's the purpose of it?
You'll lose yourself even more completely than with sex.
Look at my answer in the feedback thread.
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 11, 2010 06:19 PM |
|
|
maybe it depends on your definition of losing yourself.
we aren't saying sex makes you crazy
and I don't think people usually completely lose themselves while using drugs.
probably they will not accept everything, they will somewhat try to resist.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 03:45 PM |
|
|
There's no special definition of losing yourself. Drug addicts say they lose themselves. That's all there is to it. The fact that he even avoided this simple question raises concern about his stable arguments for it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 04:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There's no special definition of losing yourself. Drug addicts say they lose themselves. That's all there is to it. The fact that he even avoided this simple question raises concern about his stable arguments for it.
You really mean, you want an answer why the suggestion to become a drug addict instead of having sex with your partner seems a bit off? Seriously?
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
