C CJan 14, 2017 08:02 PM (This post was last modified: Jan 14, 2017 08:04 PM by C C.)
(Jan 14, 2017 07:25 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jan 14, 2017 06:32 PM)C C Wrote: It's a relict of those times when people believed they would receive all that is essential through revelation from the Gods.[/b]"[/color]
Oh, yeah, you’re right, C C. So, in other words, it’s just basically a necessity for decision making, the ole pleasure principle, right?
Additional items / causes tossed in to avoid such a fits-all "blame" of chalking authority / truth / certainty / conformity needs entirely up to a history of theological thought-orientations and tendencies.
SyneJan 14, 2017 10:37 PM (This post was last modified: Jan 14, 2017 10:39 PM by Syne.)
(Jan 14, 2017 03:41 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
(Jan 9, 2017 08:01 PM)Syne Wrote: How do you think the left/right priorities of his six moral foundations* plays a role?
It’s a little uncomfortable explaining what I thought was obvious. Like he said, liberals value change and reject three of the foundations. Instead of in-group loyalty, they celebrate diversity, question authority, and dismiss sexual purity. On the other hand, conservative value authority, tradition, order, stability, and certainty.
I thought a little more about it, though, and maybe Camille Paglia does have a point about sexual fluidity.
Nobody seems to have a problem with surgically or hormonally altering intersexed individuals to fit socially acceptable sex characteristics. Why is that?
Probably because all evidence shows that conforming to norms gives the best chance to lead to a better and happier life. Most people want the best for others. So when certain choices positively correlate to suicidality, drug use, depression, etc., we instinctively try to dissuade those choices...in a healthy culture (else we politically entrench a no-go zone in science and society).
“Every single gay person I know has some sort of drama going on, back in childhood. Something was happening that we’re not allowed to ask about anymore . . . I can see patterns that are similar in my background to that of other women I know who are lesbians, but the biggest patterns are in gay men. Every single gay man I know had a particular pattern where for whatever reason, he was closer to his mother than to his father, and there was some sort of distance between the mother and the father, so that she looked to her son as her real equal or friend, as the real companion of her soul. Sometimes these women were discreet and dignified. Other times, they were very theatrical and in a sense they drafted their son into their own drama. But now, you are not allowed to ask any questions about the childhood of gay people anymore. It’s called ‘homophobic’. The entire psychology establishment has shut itself down, politically . . . and also, Freud was kicked out by early feminism in the late 60s and early 70s. So all the sophistication of analysis that I knew in my college years when I went to the state university of New York – there were a group of radical young Jewish students from the New York area – they were so psychologically sophisticated in being able to analyze the family background. It’s all gone, that entire discourse is gone. Everything is political now. Families are bankrupting themselves, sending their kids to the elite schools to learn a political style of analysis (that says) ‘every single thing in the human person has been formed by some external force upon us, we are oppressed, it’s being inscribed on us’. It’s really sick. It’s a sick and stupid way of looking at human psychology . . . we are in a period now of psychological stupidity.”
- Camille Paglia, Dennis Prager show
So she seems to realize that there was an external cause, as opposed to native identity, even behind her own lesbianism...just by recognizing patterns. And it makes sense that people who may be avoiding their childhood trauma would likely have the poor coping skills that tend to lead to drug use and depression.
It's sad that people talk about how gays and transgenders don't have access to good mental health care, but then even if they get it, the source of their problems may be deemed taboo.
Quote:And even though liberals may be more comfortable with having a sexual continuum, almost everyone seems to be uncomfortable with sexual fluidity. Why is that?
Does knowing thyself yield a better understanding of others? Like Socrates sort of implied, it seems ridiculous to investigate others when self-knowledge is sealed in comparative terms to others.
How should we investigate? What should we look to, maladaptation or some physiological defect? Both resort to a form of physiological or sociological determinism.
Why? I think it’s because we all want certainty. It’s sort of strange because we don’t want anyone else to label us, but we all seem to search for a label. We seem to want a fixed position, a sexual identity somewhere along the spectrum in an attempt to control what in fact is never within our control. Perhaps, she right. Maybe we’re provisional/circumstantial, instead of either/or.
Know thyself-know thy place?
"Hard is it to be good."—Socrates
I think you'd have to restrict "comfortable with sexual fluidity" mostly to that of women, who have always been seen as more sexually flexible due to their more affectionate nature.
Since epigenetics has been shown to be more at play and social behavior can alter epigenetic expression, I think we'd have to focus on things like maladaptive coping skills.
It's odd that people seem to think labels in general are bad. Labels are just a shorthand for categorizing life. Perhaps the malevolent use of labels to demonize people has just made them gun shy.
(Jan 14, 2017 10:37 PM)Syne Wrote: I think you'd have to restrict "comfortable with sexual fluidity" mostly to that of women, who have always been seen as more sexually flexible due to their more affectionate nature.
If they’re right, and women are more religious than men, and more susceptible to cultural influence because acceptance is more detrimental to our survival, could that account for our sexuality being more fluid? I don't think so.
There is more societal tolerance for lesbians than gay men, but less so for masculine looking females. Nevertheless, masculine females still have an edge over gay men.
I love the male figure and I’m attracted to it. I can understand why men would want to watch two hot lesbians, but I can’t understand why I wouldn’t want to watch two hot gay men. There is a certain ick factor that remains even though I’m attracted to men. I think that the violation of masculine norms bothers me more than the violation of feminine norms because it is more acceptable for females to take on masculine traits than it is for males to take on feminine traits. What do you think?
Man on man sex is more acceptable in prison.
"Straight men in prison, view their homosexual acts as being "situation specific" and do not consider themselves bisexual. These men describe how they imagine being with a woman while taking part in sexual activity with a male inmate. They take part in homosexual activity due to having no heterosexual outlets." [1]
The same excuse is used to justify bacha bazi. The males view their homosexual behavior as "situation specific". So, like I said earlier, maybe we are provisional/circumstantial rather than either/or.
Tiassa did a little piece that I found interesting titled "It’s Not Gay if…"
"It's not gay if he's disposable. Which is, of course, a rough way of putting it, but it's not gay if it's merely getting off.
And this is the heart of objectivization: It's gay if you're having sex with another man. It's not gay if you're using a sex toy to get off. And if that seems a problematic summary for treating men as if they are disposable, the problem isn't necessarily the summary itself."
With their more affectionate and tender nature, I just don't think lesbianism (or at least female bisexuality) really violates feminine norms. General societal norms, maybe, but not feminine norms specifically. Gay men seem to violate both societal and masculine norms though. While there's always been tom-boys and fops, sex for men is typically rather crude and ruttish. Perhaps not unlike two dogs humping each others legs. It may be funny, but definitely icky. Whereas two females grooming each other seems completely natural, and just mutual nurturing.
While I have been known to have non-sexual man-crushes, and even admire a guys looks, I can't say I personally understand the gay sex but not gay justification...in any circumstance. Maybe sex for some men is just so much more compulsory that it breeds indiscriminate behavior. While women may not even feel the need for such justification, do you think they would ever be as indiscriminate? Since studies show that lesbians remain as monogamous as straight women, I would doubt it.
Overall, I'd have to say that "heterosexual gay sex" is just people fooling themselves. Afterall, not everyone in prison has prison sex.
Syne Wrote:Sex for men is typically rather crude and ruttish.
That’s it! That’s the ick factor for me at least. Come to think of it, that’s probably why most women don’t like porn. It’s designed for men. The top two search terms for women seem to be 'threesome' and 'lesbian'. I don’t think women are searching for romantic porn, though, just something that’s geared towards their gratification. I have a girlfriend, who says that she fantasizes about being with two men, but in reality, it’s probably not all it’s cracked up to be. Women may use the search term, but I bet they’re highly disappointed when they watch it.
Syne Wrote:While women may not even feel the need for such justification, do you think they would ever be as indiscriminate?
Normally, no, but we all know a few histrionic types.
However, there are gay men that want more than just sex and quite a few of them are monogamous.
Syne Wrote:Overall, I'd have to say that "heterosexual gay sex" is just people fooling themselves. After all, not everyone in prison has prison sex.
Yeah, most of the men that I asked said pretty much the same thing, but there’s probably a lot of objectification when you consider the antisocial behavior of inmates.
The difference between you and I, though, is that I can understand their attraction. Maybe that’s why women are more supportive within the gay rights movement. Maybe that’s why you think it’s wrong because you can’t understand it or relate to it.
Syne Wrote:Maybe sex for some men is just so much more compulsory that it breeds indiscriminate behavior.
Could be. Speaking of compulsion, you’re always open and honest, so let me ask you something. You know how Ostronomos (Spellbound) posted a song of redemption for a girl? He must have misinterpreted it because the song is about a man who kills a young girl in a car crash in Southern Mexico. Well, his apparent misinterpretation reminded me of something that I read in one of Allen Wheelis' books about redemption for a man. Do you think this is accurate? I thought it was.
There’s something really crazy about men.
There’s something really crazy about men. I mean about sex. They lose all sense of proportion. Can’t see it simply as a good thing. They bring it up close, put it right in front of their noses…then they can’t see anything else, it blots out the world. Women aren’t like that. I’m not like that. If he’s tired for a few nights, preoccupied, or worried, whatever, it’s no matter to me. What’s important is whether he’s nice to me. If he notices me, if he talks to me, if he cares—then it doesn’t matter if we don’t make love for a while. But with him…it’s—how do you say it?—a federal case. If I’m tired or preoccupied—just let that go on for a few nights—then …no matter how nice I am to him in every other way, it’s a no go. He gets cold, distant, and gloomy. Lets me know in every possible way he’s hurting. You’d think I’d betrayed him with his best friend. And nothing will help. Nothing but one thing. It makes me so mad. Being nice to him in bed. That’s all it takes. Like water on a dying flower. His folded-in petals open up. Right away. The sun comes out. The sky turns blue, meaning comes back into life, his nihilism disappears, he gets ideas for new work, and his world view turns around.
You know what it is? He’d never admit. May not know it. His desire is a sin. That’s what it is. Not sex in general, not desire in other people. His. But he endows me with the authority to absolve him. If I, independently, want him to do to me what he already has in mind to do to me—if I crave it—he regains innocence. In my depravity! Then for a while he is at peace with himself, on good terms with God. That’s why the gratitude after an orgasm. I have restored him to grace. And that’s what makes his desire so driven and compulsive. If it were just glands and hormones, it’d be simple. Like in animals. Would come and go. Would be simply one part of life. It’s not like that for him. The other way around. Glands and hormones have been drafted by his scheme for salvation. They work overtime. Day and night. It’s not carnal at all but metaphysical. Salvation for a sinner like him is a never-ending task.
SyneJan 16, 2017 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: Jan 16, 2017 08:40 PM by Syne.)
(Jan 16, 2017 04:15 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:
Syne Wrote:Sex for men is typically rather crude and ruttish.
That’s it! That’s the ick factor for me at least. Come to think of it, that’s probably why most women don’t like porn. It’s designed for men. The top two search terms for women seem to be 'threesome' and 'lesbian'. I don’t think women are searching for romantic porn, though, just something that’s geared towards their gratification. I have a girlfriend, who says that she fantasizes about being with two men, but in reality, it’s probably not all it’s cracked up to be. Women may use the search term, but I bet they’re highly disappointed when they watch it.
Yeah, "romantic" is just more about the setting, and women prefer the gestalt, with closeups on things like kissing, rather than a lot of crude genital close ups.
Quote:
Syne Wrote:Overall, I'd have to say that "heterosexual gay sex" is just people fooling themselves. After all, not everyone in prison has prison sex.
Yeah, most of the men that I asked said pretty much the same thing, but there’s probably a lot of objectification when you consider the antisocial behavior of inmates.
The difference between you and I, though, is that I can understand their attraction. Maybe that’s why women are more supportive within the gay rights movement. Maybe that’s why you think it’s wrong because you can’t understand it or relate to it.
I don't thinking understanding the attraction is all that's involved. Most of the women I've known who had close gay friends, at least, had some kind of sexual abuse in their past. One of the more intelligent ones was able to see how her past made her more accepting and even forgiving of the somewhat usury behavior of a gay friend. Traumas seem to be just as mutually binding as shared pleasures. The recognition of one's neuroses in another.
Quote:Well, his apparent misinterpretation reminded me of something that I read in one of Allen Wheelis' books about redemption for a man. Do you think this is accurate? I thought it was.
There’s something really crazy about men.
There’s something really crazy about men. I mean about sex. They lose all sense of proportion. Can’t see it simply as a good thing. They bring it up close, put it right in front of their noses…then they can’t see anything else, it blots out the world. Women aren’t like that. I’m not like that. If he’s tired for a few nights, preoccupied, or worried, whatever, it’s no matter to me. What’s important is whether he’s nice to me. If he notices me, if he talks to me, if he cares—then it doesn’t matter if we don’t make love for a while. But with him…it’s—how do you say it?—a federal case. If I’m tired or preoccupied—just let that go on for a few nights—then …no matter how nice I am to him in every other way, it’s a no go. He gets cold, distant, and gloomy. Lets me know in every possible way he’s hurting. You’d think I’d betrayed him with his best friend. And nothing will help. Nothing but one thing. It makes me so mad. Being nice to him in bed. That’s all it takes. Like water on a dying flower. His folded-in petals open up. Right away. The sun comes out. The sky turns blue, meaning comes back into life, his nihilism disappears, he gets ideas for new work, and his world view turns around.
You know what it is? He’d never admit. May not know it. His desire is a sin. That’s what it is. Not sex in general, not desire in other people. His. But he endows me with the authority to absolve him. If I, independently, want him to do to me what he already has in mind to do to me—if I crave it—he regains innocence. In my depravity! Then for a while he is at peace with himself, on good terms with God. That’s why the gratitude after an orgasm. I have restored him to grace. And that’s what makes his desire so driven and compulsive. If it were just glands and hormones, it’d be simple. Like in animals. Would come and go. Would be simply one part of life. It’s not like that for him. The other way around. Glands and hormones have been drafted by his scheme for salvation. They work overtime. Day and night. It’s not carnal at all but metaphysical. Salvation for a sinner like him is a never-ending task.
Both accurate and inaccurate. Yes, many (most?) men are overwhelmingly preoccupied with sex, often to the exclusion of much else. But from personal experience, women are not completely oblivious to a lack of sex either. Perhaps that's because I tend to date a fair bit younger than myself (and younger women are just more needy), or perhaps most women equate sex to love (even just as a response to the behavior of most men). I've had girlfriends who couldn't initiate sex, out of completely irrational fears of rejection, who would then sulk or even cry when they waited too long for me to have time for sex (and yes, some people require an hour or two, minimum). Or maybe it was just a shit test, seeing if they could manipulate me into getting what they wanted, regardless of my need for sleep. I don't know, but it sure seemed like all the women I've dated certainly noticed the least little variance from whatever sex frequency we had. At least two of them even seemed to get more distant over it, eventually leading to the end of those relationships.
(Jan 16, 2017 05:58 PM)Syne Wrote: I don't thinking understanding the attraction is all that's involved. Most of the women I've known who had close gay friends, at least, had some kind of sexual abuse in their past. One of the more intelligent ones was able to see how her past made her more accepting and even forgiving of the somewhat usury behavior of a gay friend. Traumas seem to be just as mutually binding as shared pleasures. The recognition of one's neuroses in another.
That’s an odd thing to say. They might be more vulnerable to abuse due to isolation or insecurities, but being abused does not cause homosexuality.
I’m friends with a gay guy. I’ve known him since childhood. Every Halloween he dressed like a girl. There’s lots of advantages. Protection for one. He also gives great advice. He doesn’t want in my pants. He doesn’t compete with me. He doesn’t have any ulterior motives. He’s just a really nice guy.
How can I say this without making you overly defensive?
Were you picked on as kid? Called a faggot, perhaps? I think you’re homophobic, Syne.
You go out of your way to stress your heterosexuality and to distant yourself from homosexuals.
(Dec 9, 2016 12:23 AM)Syne Wrote: I've dated several women who erroneously thought they could "get it" any time they wanted.
Syne Wrote:Perhaps that's because I tend to date a fair bit younger than myself (and younger women are just more needy), or perhaps most women equate sex to love (even just as a response to the behavior of most men). I've had girlfriends who couldn't initiate sex, out of completely irrational fears of rejection, who would then sulk or even cry when they waited too long for me to have time for sex (and yes, some people require an hour or two, minimum). Or maybe it was just a shit test, seeing if they could manipulate me into getting what they wanted, regardless of my need for sleep. I don't know, but it sure seemed like all the women I've dated certainly noticed the least little variance from whatever sex frequency we had. At least two of them even seemed to get more distant over it, eventually leading to the end of those relationships.
Maybe you’re afraid of being identified as one. You know as well as I do that it is correlated with an insecurity in masculinity.
(Oct 11, 2016 04:49 AM)Syne Wrote: I debate to be challenged and sharpen my own thinking.
(Oct 2, 2016 08:22 PM)Syne Wrote: I debate with others to hone my own thinking. I'm not seeking validation, as many on these sorts of forums seem to desire. I'm disappointed when I can't find challenging arguments, and I'm disappointed when I find inconsistent reasoning on a "science" forum.
And I'm not the one who constantly resorts to her feelings as justification in lieu of reason...so it follows that those who can't engage with reason can't be reasoned with. If your primary interest is to "gain confidence in your own views" then you really have no interest in debate from the onset. Ignoring those who disagree with you and seeking to affirm your own views is the definition of confirming your own cognitive biases.
I don’t think that you’re studying to overcome your own cognitive biases. I think you’re searching for weapons.
Like I said, male traits are highly valued. It is more socially acceptable to take on male characteristics than it is to take on female characteristics.
Apparently I touched a nerve. Not only are you soooo defensive you have to imply that I was picked on and a homophobe, you have to completely make up quotes, e.g. "I've dated several women who erroneously thought they could "get it" any time they wanted." And apparently confirmation bias made you completely miss, "While I have been known to have non-sexual man-crushes, and even admire a guys looks..." But sure, if you want to believe a guy who can admit to admiring another guy's looks is insecure about his masculinity, go right ahead. Whatever makes you feel better and lets you continue to avoid whatever trauma set this off.
Jan 14, 2017 08:02 PM
(This post was last modified: Jan 14, 2017 08:04 PM by C C.)
