|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted March 12, 2010 05:00 PM |
|
|
Let me put this differently. Why would I take your definition of "losing yourself" over a drug addict's one? Suppose that one is even a member on this forum. What would that result in? Pointless flaming, if you go by that route, instead of using reasonable arguments.
According to you, the purpose of sex is to "lose yourself", not reproduction. Well, the purpose of drugs is, also, to "lose yourself", so what makes them so different?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 05:40 PM |
|
Edited by Celfious at 17:41, 12 Mar 2010.
|
|
if sex had only one purpose, to reproduce, i wonder why many people get horny almost on a daily basis.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 05:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
if sex had only one purpose, to reproduce, i wonder why people get horny many times on a daily basis
because evolution wants you to reproduce? 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 05:41 PM |
|
|
um, evolution is stupid then if it thinks we should reproduce everytime we get in the mood.
____________
What are you up to
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 05:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me put this differently. Why would I take your definition of "losing yourself" over a drug addict's one? Suppose that one is even a member on this forum. What would that result in? Pointless flaming, if you go by that route, instead of using reasonable arguments.
According to you, the purpose of sex is to "lose yourself", not reproduction. Well, the purpose of drugs is, also, to "lose yourself", so what makes them so different?
For correctness' sake let's get the quote straight, first.
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...
So I have to poin to the fact here that you misquoted me.
Second, the purpose of drugs isn't to lose yourself, at least not of drugs in general.
Third, "losing oneself" involves being absorbed, obviously. You can lose yourself in music, in a game, in a puzzle, in the observation of a picture, in thought, and so on. And you can lose your SELF which is a bit different.
Losing yourself in sex is involving (at least) TWO persons - while you can have sex alone, trust me, that it's quite difficult to lose yourself in it.
Instead of "losing yourself" you could just as well say that the mind is stepping back - letting go - and completely "loses itself" - becoming sbsorbed - in the workings of the body, more than one body, in fact.
Lots of people who jog, doing sports, run, and so on, lose themselves fine when they do it. They kind of "let go" becoming absorbed in bodily activities.
In sex as well, the mind becomes an observatoional role only - to share this intimately with someone else is a really, really great and astonishing thing - don't forget, that this is linked with creating new life; the fact that you may have taken precautions against it, doesn't change anything in that regard.
Drugs work completely different. The main thing is that drugs are either isolating or you don't lose yourself in any way but get cranked up. Mind-altering drugs are just changing the way you perceive things and while you can lose yourself in the novelty of that, it has a very differentr meaning.
The numbing drugs are probably what you mean when talking about "losing yourself". Numbing drugs, however, if addicted to them have the purpose to shut things out - to "delete" part of your mind for some time.
Losing yourself in sex is different. You voluntarily give up "command" so-to-speak to your bodily instincts, to NATURE, you might say, retaining just enough to completely enjoy the shared experience. That is, it's nothing deleted.
So we are talking about two completely different things with two completely different purposes, and only someone who has no idea about any of these things could start arguing the way you do, Death.
As a PS:
This is the reason why you so often read or hear, that sex GETS BETTER over time (when having it with the same person). People get to know better and to trust each other, so they will "let themselves go" more and more.
Corribus is right, that alcohol is often used for "loosening up"; alcohol helps letting go (being a substitute for trust).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I still think, you deserve a -qp, Death. This would have been a chance for you, to just ASK FOR CLARIFICATION, instead of coming up with a completely stupid wise-ass remark.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 06:13 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:14, 12 Mar 2010.
|
Quote:
The numbing drugs are probably what you mean when talking about "losing yourself". Numbing drugs, however, if addicted to them have the purpose to shut things out - to "delete" part of your mind for some time.
Losing yourself in sex is different. You voluntarily give up "command" so-to-speak to your bodily instincts, to NATURE, you might say, retaining just enough to completely enjoy the shared experience. That is, it's nothing deleted.
I don't see the difference: you voluntarily give up "command" in drugs too, and let them "delete" part of your thinking process. It's not really deleted though, since you can get treated out of it. Giving up command is temporary deletion too -- voluntarily or not, both are the same. You don't get drugs non-voluntarily, the same way as with sex. (of course, unless you're abused, but then again, you can be raped too, so let's skip that part)
Also, I wasn't talking about the intensity of the "losing yourself" factor -- obviously the powerful drugs are way better for that purpose than sex. It's also why you get addicted faster. That wasn't the point -- I ignored the intensity, and only said that the they fall into the same category, except for intensity. Different "classes" if you will.
Sex doesn't get better with time at all. True in that the first few times it does -- just like drug behavior. Drugs do feel better the second time, and third, but there's a diminishing returns point over which it becomes the addiction.
The only difference between them and sex in THIS aspect, is that SOME drugs are more powerful.
And for alcohol, I never said it's different. It still surprises me that people, especially americans (not you btw ) find alcohol and sex very much ok while they blatantly refuse out drugs.
Also you don't "need" someone else with drugs because you can just imagine an illusion anyway -- easy as pie when you are high
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 06:20 PM |
|
|
Oops just realized this is the love thread, not feedback. My mistake. 
Sorry phoenix, I won't derail it anymore. 
...not that I would even consider continuing this anyway, too much drama and waste of time (typing) I don't need at this point.
____________
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 08:06 PM |
|
|
Let's see.
Quote:
Giving up command is temporary deletion too -- voluntarily or not, both are the same.
Wrong.
Quote:
Also, I wasn't talking about the intensity of the "losing yourself" factor -- obviously the powerful drugs are way better for that purpose than sex.
Wrong.
Quote:
It's also why you get addicted faster.
Wrong.
Quote:
I ignored the intensity, and only said that the they fall into the same category, except for intensity. Different "classes" if you will.
Wrong.
Quote:
Sex doesn't get better with time at all.
Wrong.
Quote:
True in that the first few times it does -- just like drug behavior.
Wrong.
Quote:
Drugs do feel better the second time, and third, but there's a diminishing returns point over which it becomes the addiction.
Wrong.
Quote:
The only difference between them and sex in THIS aspect, is that SOME drugs are more powerful.
Wrong and wrong.
Quote:
And for alcohol, I never said it's different. It still surprises me that people, especially americans (not you btw ) find alcohol and sex very much ok while they blatantly refuse out drugs.
What?
Quote:
Also you don't "need" someone else with drugs because you can just imagine an illusion anyway -- easy as pie when you are high
What?
I wonder where you KNOW all this nonsense from. It's like you were following a strange religion, actually. Because you vomit this nonsense like a prayer someone taught you.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 08:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let's see.
Quote:
Giving up command is temporary deletion too -- voluntarily or not, both are the same.
Wrong.
Actually, this is quite right.
Quote:
Quote:
And for alcohol, I never said it's different. It still surprises me that people, especially americans (not you btw ) find alcohol and sex very much ok while they blatantly refuse out drugs.
What?
It's because of a stupid "legal = safe" mentality.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 08:29 PM |
|
|
Alcohol is a drug. A depressant. No sense in dividing drugs into "drugs" category and "alcohol" category. All are drugs. When someone says "no to drugs" while drinking a beer, it makes me laugh. 
Sex... well it's not exactly a chemical substance, and it doesn't affect the nerve-centre, so nope, it's not a drug ;D
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Let's see.
Quote:
Giving up command is temporary deletion too -- voluntarily or not, both are the same.
Wrong.
Actually, this is quite right.
I didn't know that if you let your [fill in a person you like] decide about the TV program you suddenly didn't see what's on the screen anymore.
Apart from that I'd really appreciate EVIDENCE the next toime you make a claim.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 09:07 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 21:18, 12 Mar 2010.
|
@Doomforge
Actually, sexual activity can stimulate the release neurochemicals (dopamine, endorphins, etc.) that act on the nervous system in the same way that many drugs do; these chemicals can also lead to the same sort of addictive behavior because sex and drug use are both associated with pleasure and reward.
Seriously:
Drugs are just chemicals, and drug-use is driven by chemicals. Sex, like any other kind of reward-seeking behavior, is also driven by chemicals. The only difference between drug use and sex use is that drugs are exogenous chemicals and sex-chemicals are endogenous. There's nothing pejorative about drawing parallels between sexual behavior and drug use. One could make a similar analogy between, say, eating chocolate and drug use. Or eating chocolate and sex. In the case of drugs, like heroin, there are of course two effects: the effect of the drug itself and the natural chemicals released by the body related to the pleasurable response (why drugs are addictive). So, the body's response to "drugs" is much stronger than its response to sex, and the addictive power of the former can be much greater. Plus the body is well-tuned over eons to respond in just the appropriate fashion to the drugs released in the body during sexual behavior. The human body is not evolve to appropriately handle the effects of cocaine.
Still, I don't see why people get so angry when sex is compared to drug-use. Humans evolved to find certain things pleasureable. Pleasure is a biochemical response to something that is beneficial to the organism, and feeling pleasure offers a selective advantage over organisms that are pleasure-impaired. It should be clear that genes belonging to organisms that find sex pleasurable have a reproductive advantage over genes belonging to organisms that don't find sex pleasurable. The same can be said for food and exercise. "Unnatural drugs" hijack this capacity for the human nervous system to want to engage in repetitive behavior for things that it finds "pleasurable". Drug use does not, clearly, offer a selective advantage for an organism; it's, as evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins calls it, a misfire of a biological process that in most other cases serves a useful purpose. Dawkins gives another example of such a misfire: a mosquito flying into a bug-zapper.*
In any case, I find it interesting that people have a distaste for the idea that sex is "merely" chemical. As if sex is something more sacred or "more special" than that. Why should it be? Because it's connected to human emotion? Hmm, well who's to say that human emotion isn't merely chemical as well? In any case, I challenge you or anyone else to show convincingly that sexual pleasure is anything BUT chemical and is somehow fundamentally different than the pleasure-response of certain controlled substances.
Notes:
* Actually, he gives two. The other one is religion.
____________
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
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 09:42 PM |
|
|
Seriously:
There are only two options:
1) Sex is just like any drug; in this case sex is simply tbe best, otherwise we'd not be existing.
2) Sex is more than "just" a drug. In this case we may find a better drug, but sex has something else going for it than just the chemicals, so it doesn't matter.
The 3rd option isn't really one: it might be 1) and we still may find a better drug. In this case it's an artificial drug, and until then we may have invented the artificial human as well or be able to genetically change us and so on.
So, no option.
For me, I son't care whether it's 1 or 2. However my personal favorite is 2 - drugs sont need others, sex does, at least sex like nature wants it, which is a pretty relevant and decisive difference.
Even that might be "copyable". The question is: why bother?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted March 12, 2010 11:41 PM |
|
|
Small update
My current situation has changed.
The fates saw fit to infuse me with hope and silliness and happiness and all that noise.
I feel like sharing this for a moment, not that it's important.
Recently, I have had more contact with her.
I am taking her to see a musical we're both very fond of.
She told me she doesn't like her prince charming anymore.
I am taking her to the prom.
All of these things sort of make me light-headed at this moment.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted March 13, 2010 01:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I am taking her to the prom.
 Nice one. That's got to be positive.
Way to kill the thread Dagoth. We can't have happy people here.
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 12:56 AM |
|
|
the way to love? :
http://www.matthieuricard.org/index.php/blog/in_praise_of_simplicity/
I've already said that many problems come from our tendancy to overcomplicate everything.
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 01:02 AM |
|
|
I always like that joke,
Thoreau: Simplify, simplify, simplify
Joker: Why did he say it three times? Wouldn't it be simpler to say it once?
__
These love situations can be complex especially if they involve multiple people like MM's. Emotions are complicated. So while it is nice in theory to talk about simplicity maybe it doesn't work in practice.
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 01:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Emotions are complicated.
Emotions shouldn't matter. What should matter is what you want. Yeah I know it is easy to say and hard to do, I am not saying I am doing it, but from a logical point of view, emotions are not you, following it blindly is the same as following blindly anything, person or object, that in return will reward you. That is behaviour of conditioning. Not that it has to be bad, if you are the one who decided upon it, but if that was the case, then you'd not need emotions in this case in the first place.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
phoenixreborn
Promising
Legendary Hero
Unicorn
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 01:29 AM |
|
|
You shouldn't resist or reject emotions. That is no way to live. You must feel things deeply. What do you think an emotion is? I think you must have a strange definition of the word.
____________
Bask in the light of my glorious shining unicorn.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted March 16, 2010 10:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What do you think an emotion is?
I think emotions are nothing more than a genetic incoded response on environmental stimulus. That is, you get a gradient towards certain actions via a reward mechanism, eventhough these actions may not be something you want, had it not been for these mechanisms.
I often try to compare emotions, to people telling you what to do, if you in turn get a reward out of it. It is your choice, but I honestly would prefer doing what I want, and not do something I may not want just to get a reward in return. Like people telling you what to do, emotions, doesn't have to be bad, because you can use it for inspiration as well. I have got many ideas I'd not have thought up if it weren't for some emotional interaction, however the gradient of that emotion, and the action I decided upon, may not have had much to with eachother, the emotion was the inspiration, but I did not become a slave of it.
As you probably agree on, whatever happens in the brain is physical, or like some writes, just chemicals. You can however on the macroscopic level observe the world, and as I observe, thereby I am, as there must be someone an observation have to interact to, or there would be no observation, it should be clear that one exists (though it is something only oneself can find out). With that in mind, one can divide our activities into stuff we do due to a reward mechanism, that's influence that's not dependent on what we want, that's the environmental interaction with our body (which is written in the genes), that's what I call lust.
Then there's what I call wants, that's what one consciously decide, that's what you'd do had you have nothing to tell you what to do, that's what you find logical/rational, I believe.
Emotions go in on the lust department, the department that is not you, and giving into emotions / being dependent on emotions for things to work out, is to me selling yourself to a kind of slavery.
Though please notice, I am not saying the boost the emotions give are a bad thing, what I say is the bad thing, is that you don't control this boost, thereby making you dependent on doing certain actions for this boost, whereby in stead of the boost being for you, the boost is the way of emotion to control you.
So I am not saying people should feel guilty if they feel pleasure or hatred or anything, actually I am not saying people should feel guilty at all, whatever people want is up to themselves.
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
