|
On May 20 2007 06:11 Fedaykin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2007 05:57 meRz wrote:
Wtf its like the complete opposite for me -.- Almost the same here, when I'm really in love I wanna have sex with that one person all the time and really nobody else, so porn doesn't work, nor do other girls, just want 'her' all the time, sadly I'm without such a 'her' atm..
we're sailin the same boat man :/
|
On May 21 2007 09:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2007 07:10 Clutch3 wrote:On May 21 2007 01:51 MoltkeWarding wrote:
It is natural for someone preoccupied with amorous feelings to lose their lecherous habits. These habits occur most frequently among those who are bored and live in a perpectual purgatory of menial existence. When one has no higher pleasures to indulge in, one sinks to taking pleasures in the menial aspects of biological life - food, drink, sex, etc. When one is stimulated by anything else, whether intellectual curiosity, a personal labour of great importance or the excitement of amorous feelings stimulated by non-carnal pleasures, one's experiences rise above those previous aspects of life which have always bored him anyhow. I nominate this for this year's most condescending post ever. Translation: I'm better than those of you who actually enjoy sex. Moltke, do you really think that it's impossible for a person to enjoy sex and to enjoy "higher" pursuits at the same time?? Well, I mean, not actually AT the EXACT same time, but... (Hey that gives me an idea, maybe we can get FakeSteve to do a picture of Moltke and his dream girl going at it while he reads 18th-century philosophy. Or maybe that would be a bad idea?) I think it's a fairly accurate description of what goes on today, when sexuality is open, yet has "lost its laughter." The great love affairs of passion that we see in Stendhal or Flaubert are things f the 19th century, and people no longer pursue even those fleeting immoralities, which may at least be said to be heroic. The French novel of the 19th century was a study of amorous feelings, but we in 2007 are much more primitive than that. Today it does not take a great seducer to obtain that honour which we reserved for heroes of passion. Because of the openess of sexuality, because of the baseness of its contemporary representation, and because of the social isolation of the modern person, (the estrangement from others creates the strange circumstance that we frequently practise the most intimate acts while meaning nothing,) any thinking person will at one time or another become bored or even depressed with its meaninglessness. The sphere of happiness (and I do not exclude sexual activity from it, although it will always be a secondary act, a matter which is caused rather than a cause in itself) will inevitably transfer to those activities in life which still have some semblence of meaning. You say I am being condescending. I think quite the opposite. I have a propensity to assume the decency of every individual I meet, often without much justice. I cannot quite believe that I live in a neo-Babylon, and the fact that I bother to say what I say here should demonstrate that. I post without a self-conscious sense of exceptionalism, and if the singularity of my opinion makes such an impression in your mind, it is no fault of mine. I do not post to criticize others, and I speak of general, not particular evils. Is there a more delicate or, in your opinion, modest way to have one's mind out? Perhaps you would think it better of my modesty if I were to opine, in light of the lack of sympathy I receive, that my words are too stupid to post, and deprive myself of any freedom of expression. If I offend your personal habits, and you find them defensible, you ought to use your self-knowledge as a source of strength to mount a counter-opinion, and it may even be interesting. Talking about my motives isn't.
First of all, plenty of people are condescending without trying to be, and plenty are condescending without knowing it. Whether or not you condescend really depends on the opinions of the audience.
Your posts seem to have a pattern of attacking modern-day society as more primitive, base, meaningless, or immoral than (European) societies of years past. When you attack society as a whole, even though it is a general and not a specific criticism, it is still an attack. If you were to make a topic attacking all the posters on Team Liquid, you'd probably get some criticism for it, and that's not far from what you've done here. And that criticism would be justified. Your "neo-Babylon" remark shows barely veiled contempt for the whole of society in which you live, as do many, many of your other posts.
I have no problem with you freely expressing your opinion. Your posts are always thought out and seem among the best on TL.net in terms of provoking thought and discussion. I am glad that you take the time to post here, because you bring a unique viewpoint. I will just say this, in case you wonder why I so frequently choose to respond to your posts. The thing that gets me going is your tendency to criticize the entire modern world, without bothering to include the smallest detail about your own personal life. Contrary to what you have understood, if anything, I want you to be _more_ personal, not less. You go on at length about thinkers of the past, but I don't see anything in your posts that's personal just to you. It's almost as if your viewpoint is simply an amalgam of thoughts cobbled together from the writings of people long dead. In a post in the recent feminism thread, I shared some personal details in an attempt to better explain my viewpoint. You did not reciprocate, nor did you even reply to that part of my post.
You are right, though, in that it's silly for us to debate your motives. In my previous post I asked you if you feel that it is impossible for a well-rounded person, who has more "meaningful" purposes in their life, to enjoy sex. Your response is not totally clear on that point, but it seems to indicate that you feel the answer is yes, but that sex is, in the end, without meaning or substance when compared to certain "higher" pursuits.
So, back to the original issue.
Firstly, that sex, more than a lot of other things, has the potential to have profound significance and affect great changes in the relationships between people. Yes, sex is a biological act, which you can argue has no more meaning per se than does brushing one's teeth. But sex is also one of those amazing concepts which has been discussed and debated throughout history, which is the subject of countless and fascinating works of art and literature, which always figures as a key topic in the societal make-up of any civilization. It is something that all of us have strong opinions on (simply browse the reply counts of different TL threads to see this), for any number of reasons. All of these facts indicate our intellectual and emotional fascination with sex. And it is this, not the act itself, which gives the act of sex meaning. Whether it is ultimately for good or ill, it's impossible to argue that there is significance. Certain sexual experiences have played key roles in my emotional relationships with different women (while some experiences ended up playing little role). Just as with intellectual pursuits, sometimes you stumble on something with lasting value, and sometimes you end up chasing your tail (pardon the pun).
And all of this totally ignores the fact that sex is the act by which new people are conceived. This fact alone should suggest that most people will harbor strong emotions and feelings relating to sex. It's unreasonable to assume that these people are fooling themselves into caring about something that's eventually meaningless.
Without getting into too many personal details, sexual experiences are included in some of my fondest and most painful memories. And these memories also include personal memories which are related to what you consider the more important "intellectual pursuits", "personal labors", and "non-carnal amorous desires". As with all denizens of TL.net, I am realtively young, but I've experienced a great deal of things in relation to these three aforementioned topics. And I will disagree with anyone who feels that I cannot fully pursue or enjoy all of these things simultaneously, or who argues that any one of them is without substance.
|
I agree with most of what Moltke is saying in general, so long as it is only applied to the average social being. In popular culture, sex has become a novelty and less of a plateau. I don't share the same opinion of this being an intensely bad thing as I've less a mind for caring about society and more about individuals, however.
Sex is still meaningful to those who cherish it's passion, it's aspects of sharing with another. Those "higher pursuits", which are entirely subjective on an individual basis, can indeed interrupt ones passion for somebody they love and admire. If you were still to say that sex in general is something only enjoyed by those who do not truly think, I believe it would only be a reflection of a different set of morals on your part, which cannot be rightfully argued against. Merely disagreed with. I've experienced it first-hand with my fiancee and best friend, who I've been with for seven years of my life. Known for eleven years. I pursue everything with her and while other things stop passion occasionally, such as a wonderful night spent by a lakeside or merely a day spent in thoughtful contemplation together, sex brings so much more than I ever imagined it would. It intensifies love, opens you more fully to one another, allows you an outlet that is shared together for your sensuality, and kindles passion; in sexual nature as well as others, drawing you closer emotionally and thus allowing for further comfort intellectually between you.
Also, it simply feels incredible. Nothing wrong with casual sex. It damages nothing so long as it isn't rampant (which I'm aware it is in social view, but again, I've more a tendency to take it to an individual level) enough to take away from the enjoyment that person will feel having it in a more "meaningful" way, with somebody they love.
|
it's all about personal priorities.
i also put the 'higher pursuits' above sex, and that does not mean i don't/can't enjoy it.
if i would to choose beetwen some 'cosmic truths revealed to me' and fucking J.Alba, or any love/women/emotion/feeling thinggies i would choose the first
|
I am not hostile to specific people but to specific acts, and the condition that I do not single out people specifically suggests the nature of the condemnation I wish to express. Everyone, in one way or another, is hostile to certain acts if he has any opinion of what is decent (I make an exception for bine.) You yourself would probably not see many of the attitudes toward sex and women expressed often on this forum with much fondness. When I make such an opinion, I cannot be so political as to delicately balance myself in the center of the spectrum of the opinion, that the pressure of either side will cancel each other out to afford me a safe measure of security. But every time I clearly mark my position, I hope to find people whose experiences match mine. I am disappointed if I cannot find some sympathy among my generation. Therefore what I say is not hostile by design, and its purpose does not place either offense as its primary purpose.
Secondly you bring up the matter of my impersonality. Of course, I do not discuss personal matters too closely on the internet (nor do I ask them from others, do not misunderstand me,) and I have rarely used experience in direct support of my opinion. The reasons are several. First, a person\'s life is private and the internet is not a suitable forum to have them out to explicit detail. Second, the argument from experience is easily exploited to give exaggerated effect. ex. \"As a black-Canadian, I feel x about the issue of racism in Canada,\" as if that fact alone gives one authority. Thirdly, most people are unable to give you credit you with a broader-minded opinion, once you have labelled yourself in a certain category. They will reduce the value of your opinion based on who you happen to be. Fourthly, experience being unequal among people, there is no way of evenly progressing in debate. It can, on the contrary, be used to sabotage the debate thus: \"You say blacks commit more crime, but I have 3 black friends who have never committed a crime in their lives.\" What is one to say? \"Well, I know 3 black people who did\"?
I did not ask you to reveal your personal experiences. I suggested you draw strength from them. There is a difference. A person who considers his own experiences and tries to bring them to reason already has an advantage.
I took your question as an inquisitorial one when I read it. I do not know what you mean by \"well-rounded.\" I am not a well-rounded person. The noisy, faceless masses I see in bars and discos I do not consider well-rounded. I do not consider anyone who claims
btw girls love to be fucked so stop acting gay
or
you are scared, i was at the start, im assuming you\'re young. You just don\'t wanna suck, and the woman you love think you are a loser in bed.
to be holding a well-rounded opinion. The point is, that a large portion of the world, and perhaps a majority of this forum, are not "well-rounded."
The meaning of sex being of two parts- one physical and the other stimulated by the imagination, it's proper to distinguish them. The physical part means nothing. Humans, who think in verbal meanings, have, in that regard, no greater honour, than animals, who do not. The other part, the imagination, is able to increase pleasure by its own power. The imagination is able to take pleasure in certain symbols, that is, meanings. After marriage, sex might be a ceremony of consummation, and therefore play a decisive role in the mind of the individual, of cementing the bond between two people. In the raring of a family, the sexual act may take on the symbolisms of genesis in one's mind. The catelogue of what men of imagination may take meaning in the sexual act is more vast than my own imagination. At the same time there are those things stimulated by sins- pride, the pride in possessing a woman one regards as superior to oneself, or vanity- the ability to boast about sleeping with x, or wrath, the revenge one takes on someone by sleeping with his wife, etc. These all pass through the minds of different kinds of people, with different moral, social or cultural backgrounds. My original post was merely indicating something I often see at the bottom of modern lechery, that is, a void of meaning in the lives of many people, which they attempt to fill either by sensual pleasures, effectively blotting out their hopeless aspirations for higher things, or, the slightly more sophisticated responder, those who indulge in those symbolic acts they attempt to thrust upon themselves, but willed meaning being entirely artificial, find themselves in the end denying that a more meaningful activity exists and persuades himself to live in that purgatory because he no longer believes in heaven.
With this insight in mind, I sought to explain that what the OP experienced could be explained on the following grounds. The animation of love may pull one out of that purgatory and give promise to higher things, and drawn by that promise, one abandons those meaningless things which one used to take for pleasures. It is possible that in the development of this interest, sexuality may come into play again, but with a different significance, and its consummation will essentially be a different act.
And that is what I meant by the OP, if you really think it ought to be clarified.
|
funny that you see this kind of threads and also you hear constant bitching about "why girls end up always with bad boys".
Grow some balls, queer.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On May 20 2007 05:32 Rekrul wrote:
you're not supposed to have sex with your family, don't worry it's normal
i have to admit i loled when i read this
|
Osaka27113 Posts
Moltke, while I generally agree with your assessment of modern attitudes towards sex by much of the unwashed masses of today, I disagree that this is a devolution of past societies. The world of 19th century French movies and novels is a very narrow window into a very narrow world. I would argue that the underachieving have always sought to drown their sorrows in drink and strive for the quick lay over everlasting love. Menial existence has been the reality for the vast majority of history's subjects, not just those depressed by society today. The difference today would be the much greater accessibility of those baser influences, and the earlier age in which people are spoiled to their ease.
In addition, you call the pursuit of sex "meaningless" compared to the pursuit of love, but for many people that is the height of their ambitions. They would consider promiscuity as a much higher achievement than honourable, romantic, and monogamous love. Call it the instinct to "sow wild oats", or call it the age-old pride of sexual conquest, I don't think you can just dismiss it as the lowest form of pleasure.
From my own personal experience, the physical aspect of the relationship walked in lockstep with the growth of emotional intensity in the relationship. In my previous encounters, the growth of a relationship which lacks that parallel physical development destines the connection to remain at a friends only level (not that this is always undesirable).
|
United States20661 Posts
See, this is why we need Chibi
a) both to post something entertaining about his concepts of "sexual desire"
and
b) own Moltke with another " I don't knwo what the fksc you're talking about bur adio umbrallsles are better", or whatever that was.
|
sex does not consist of a physical and imaginative component that is wrong thinking.
sex consists of 14 components: physical, psychological, spiritual, financial, retroactive, aerobic, occult, biological, sociological, emotional, marital, martial, chronological, and tetrakaidecessential. these components are paradoxically arranged as both a hierarchy and a continuum. this hierarchy situates the components biological, martial, and aerobic in a trinity niether confounding the persons nor separating the substance as the apex stone of a pyramid of inferior (spatially and evaluatively) virtues, which are by row: (1) emotional (2) occult, chronological, and tetrakaidecessential (3) retroactive, financial, marital, and spiritual and (4) sociological. the continuum in contradistinction organizes all 14 components (including financial and sociological) between two points: financial and sociological. the components exist gradientially, transmuting into one another by infinitesimal increments and then undoing their transmutations as one progresses from one end of the circle to the other.
further inquiries into the nature of sex, here I reference Phineas Drummond Chapman and his Amor et Carbediensis: Summa Prognosticalia, have suggested 15th and 16th components, sexual and technological respectively, but attempts to replicate his famous experiments have ended inconclusively and his most detailed journals presumably lie with his remains in the arctic.
|
On May 21 2007 21:07 tinman wrote:
sex does not consist of a physical and imaginative component that is wrong thinking.
sex consists of 14 components: physical, psychological, spiritual, financial, retroactive, aerobic, occult, biological, sociological, emotional, marital, martial, chronological, and tetrakaidecessential. these components are paradoxically arranged as both a hierarchy and a continuum. this hierarchy situates the components biological, martial, and aerobic in a trinity niether confounding the persons nor separating the substance as the apex stone of a pyramid of inferior (spatially and evaluatively) virtues, which are by row: (1) emotional (2) occult, chronological, and tetrakaidecessential (3) retroactive, financial, marital, and spiritual and (4) sociological. the continuum in contradistinction organizes all 14 components (including financial and sociological) between two points: financial and sociological. the components exist gradientially, transmuting into one another by infinitesimal increments and then undoing their transmutations as one progresses from one end of the circle to the other.
further inquiries into the nature of sex, here I reference Phineas Drummond Chapman and his Amor et Carbediensis: Summa Prognosticalia, have suggested 15th and 16th components, sexual and technological respectively, but attempts to replicate his famous experiments have ended inconclusively and his most detailed journals presumably lie with his remains in the arctic.
jesus christ, what does tetrakaidecessential even mean?
|
Osaka27113 Posts
copy paste doesn't add anything to the conversation.
|
The only reason that you cannot conduct sexual activities with somebody is due to the fact that you do not find that person sexually attracted to you (This statement excludes the assumption that you being gay or sexually impotent). And if that person is not sexually attractive to you, tell me how the fuck you call her your true love ???! (she's more likely your idol then, but hell I wanna fuck Jenifer Hawkin all the time  ) ).
|
The only reason that you cannot conduct sexual activities with somebody is due to the fact that you do not find that person sexually attracted to you
If that were true most of the world must be quite unreasonable or quite ugly.
sex consists of 14 components: physical, psychological, spiritual, financial, retroactive, aerobic, occult, biological, sociological, emotional, marital, martial, chronological, and tetrakaidecessential.
I would like to request an explication of these 14 components and then perhaps I can justify them as belonging to a reasonable hierarchy of thought. Although I suppose I might be repaid for the crime of having bothered to categorize anything in the first place. Such is the inadequacy of human thought that we need categories to shortcut our reasonings 
The world of 19th century French movies and novels is a very narrow window into a very narrow world. I would argue that the underachieving have always sought to drown their sorrows in drink and strive for the quick lay over everlasting love. Menial existence has been the reality for the vast majority of history\'s subjects, not just those depressed by society today. The difference today would be the much greater accessibility of those baser influences, and the earlier age in which people are spoiled to their ease.
Depends on when and where you are speaking of. In antiquity, even sophisticated people saw sex as an indulgent and shameless affair. In the middle ages, the dogmas of Christianity I can well imagine (for I do not know anything of the matter directly) gave sexuality a transcendential meaning. Of course, you will find variable meanings of sex (or non-meanings) for Stendhal, Jane Austen, Milton and Oscar Wilde, dependent on time, space, religion, or character.
But on the subject of menial existence, what I suggest is not the object state of affairs, but the mental state of affairs which is more real. This is a long argument which should not be explicated here, but in short: The democratic society which we live in today gives to every individual a sense of self-importance independent from any reference to higher authorities. At the same time, this independence uproots him from the clearly defined avenues of moral, intellectual or social standards of excellence which guided the aristocratic society. A servant in the aristocratic society did not aspire to be an aristocrat, but to excell in his occupation and earn honours worthy of his occupation from his patron. The democratic man, who is taught that he \"can be anything he wants to be as long as he puts his mind to it\" attempts through intellect, bureaucracy, wealth, political power or even sexual prowess to obtain a kind of ascendant social status for himself which would place him above the other democratic men into a sort of modern aristocracy. However, the appeal of this kind of self-indulgence is diminishing. Because a uniform system of honour, virtue, vice and dishonour no longer exists among our uprooted \"aristocrats\" and opinion-makers, this prospect of excellence, without the reinforcement of society, becomes less appealing to the modern mind. The medieval peasant could not understand the Latin which in which monastics conversed, but they did not resent it, mock it, nor were they envious (that most modern of sins.) Furthermore they were proud if they could speak some bad Latin, but they were not proud to be able to indulge in vulgar pleasures. Therefore although similar acts perpetrate themselves through human history, their meanings, and it\'s meaning which largely influences the aspiration of people, are different.
On a personal level I subscribe to the ideal of what may be called the bourgeois interlude in the history of democratic nations. That is, a specimen of middle-classed citizenry which admires aristocratic values, but applied in a broad-minded sense. Is it narrow? Even if I were uncritical of any given epoch, it would be no narrower than people who do not consider epochs other than their own.
My stark opposite I suppose, would be cpt_obvious.
|
On May 22 2007 05:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +sex consists of 14 components: physical, psychological, spiritual, financial, retroactive, aerobic, occult, biological, sociological, emotional, marital, martial, chronological, and tetrakaidecessential. I would like to request an explication of these 14 components and then perhaps I can justify them as belonging to a reasonable hierarchy of thought. Although I suppose I might be repaid for the crime of having bothered to categorize anything in the first place. Such is the inadequacy of human thought that we need categories to shortcut our reasonings
well you can't deny that sex has an aerobic component i don't think, unless you have sex at a very controlled pace and even then the aerobic component does not cease to exist it simply operates at a level beneath the radar. and maybe sex has an anaerobic component too because I should take this up with Drummond Chapman but, depending on whether you like french maids who act as yoru secretary or librarian and like it rough, you definitely might expend enegery in the manner of a sprinter or wrestler or even discuss thrower. so maybe that component should be expanded based on different metabolic pathways and we could have a glycolysis and an oxidative phosphorylization and pentane magnificilliary et. al. component etc. etc. so you are right that aerobic does not work equal to the multiplicity of experience you are right.
but aerobic must differ from hormonal (which in my explication gets subsumed under the physical and the psychological) because i don't know what dehydroepiandrosterone has to do with a bracing little romp for the cardiovascular system or how either play into vasocongestion but I dunno maybe they are all the same thing. And anyway hormones almost certainly effect imaginations so somehow and i don't know if it has ever happened before but the portal between physical and imaginative (here subsumed under pyschological, occult, and spiritual) has been crossed and i dont know what to do about it because it fucks with my categories.
and we all know that categories are useful to think with. like i like the word green because i know what that word means and i can use it to describe things like lights and certain plants and envy or growth on easter and snot. and so if it describes certain things even if it doesn't really describe them all the way or even in a way that is very much useful for doing anything but distinguishing them from something which is obviously a different place in the spectrum from it, it still has to be a thing. and other things are either in that thing or out of it. or they either have it in them or they don't. and so it is a category and it is useful. and it is not a description which is just stopgap. and cant be really serious.
and this one guy i know he is in true love with this other guy but their dog is in sexual desire because all it does is hump legs. but every once in a while the guys stop true loving and they hump but then they get back to true loving. and they also want to reinvent the vocabulary of metaphor for use in lyric poetry and they want to make a meter which is at once normative and true to the rhythm of contemporary english but every once in a while they abandon human pursuits and eat like animals because hey everyone has got to eat and they vacillate between human and animal kingdoms because hey everyone has got to eat.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On May 21 2007 16:04 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2007 05:32 Rekrul wrote:
you're not supposed to have sex with your family, don't worry it's normal i laughed so hard at this i spilled my cherios and milk all overmyself.
fuck you
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 21 2007 21:07 tinman wrote:
sex does not consist of a physical and imaginative component that is wrong thinking.
sex consists of 14 components: physical, psychological, spiritual, financial, retroactive, aerobic, occult, biological, sociological, emotional, marital, martial, chronological, and tetrakaidecessential. these components are paradoxically arranged as both a hierarchy and a continuum. this hierarchy situates the components biological, martial, and aerobic in a trinity niether confounding the persons nor separating the substance as the apex stone of a pyramid of inferior (spatially and evaluatively) virtues, which are by row: (1) emotional (2) occult, chronological, and tetrakaidecessential (3) retroactive, financial, marital, and spiritual and (4) sociological. the continuum in contradistinction organizes all 14 components (including financial and sociological) between two points: financial and sociological. the components exist gradientially, transmuting into one another by infinitesimal increments and then undoing their transmutations as one progresses from one end of the circle to the other.
further inquiries into the nature of sex, here I reference Phineas Drummond Chapman and his Amor et Carbediensis: Summa Prognosticalia, have suggested 15th and 16th components, sexual and technological respectively, but attempts to replicate his famous experiments have ended inconclusively and his most detailed journals presumably lie with his remains in the arctic. ROFLMAO
moar!
on second thought, no moar
|
I fap a lot less when I'm in love. When I was younger (16) I went from everyday to nothing for 2-3 weeks once. And when I do, i don't think about that girl (well, not about having sex with her).
I guess it's not abnormal. Just like the way you eat less when you're in love.
Oh and moltke, you're a great guy, but sometimes i get tired of your predictable opinions. It's almost as if you're trying to be like that more than you really are.
|
I always cringe at threads like these; oh well, at least it's not like a philosophical thread ^_^
|
and this one time this girl and i took off our clothes (or most of them i think i still had my socks on and she had jewelry which may not count as clothes but it was pretty thick and also a skirt) but i dunno if we had sex per se because of considerations of instrumentation. so i dunno why she was pissed at me maybe we did have sex. and sometimes its hard to tell what you mean when you say that you have sex and that there are different components to it because what counts as sex which is composed of 14 components and an apocryphal 15th and 16th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
