Sexuality

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

2. Lack of experience doesn't mean shit. I don't have that much experience in programming. Does that mean I don't know how to make a program?

Just because you have read "Flying Planes for Dummies" doesn't qualify you to Pilot a 747 either.

Having a modicum of Knowledge about any given subject does not majickally turn you into you into a learned expert, capable of making the kind of absolute observations you consistently make throughout this forum.

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

So, before you tell me to stfu, just think about this: You say that I can't say sex is useless because I haven't had any. Look at the next crack-addict you see. I'd bet they'd say crack is good. So it must be good.

What exactly does that mean?

You do realize that analogy did nothing to support your argument?

"You say I can't say sex is useless because I haven't had any." "Look at the next Crack Addict you see. I bet they would say Crack is Good."

Read that outloud a few times, in case the subtlety escapes you.

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

I conclude that sex, is really just some form of irrelevant, useless, and know-a-day outdated means for people to associate with.

Again, you offer no evidence to support your argument.

If Sex is so outdated, why do you exist? Were you hatched?

Sex serves many purposes, one of which is to create a Biological environment that gives Armchair Quarterbacks like you, a chance at life.

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

Well Dr. Phil,

Emotions are simply a primal means of communication. They are rather useless, and things that really, only your mother, and much less your father, give a shit about.

Relationships are also pretty much useless, when there are so many better ways of going about it. Even the term relationship has been corroded to the point where it's value as art is useless.

Any other questions Oprah?

If you assert that emotions are a "primal means of communication", and communication is vital to all species, then how do you make the ludicrous leap to emotions being useless?

I could waste my time explaining how vital relationships are to every species on the face of this planet, but I get the feeling that would be akin to explaining coding in C++ to a Spider Monkey.

Pointless..

It would behoove you on many different personal and social levels, to try and avoid absolutes with no basis in fact or function.

Until then, you are losing valuable IQ points with every uniformed post you make here.

[angel011]

I've just checked out Icarian Decoding's intro thread. The kid is still in highschool. I hope we were not telling a minor to get laid.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by angel011

I've just checked out Icarian Decoding's intro thread. The kid is still in highschool. I hope we were not telling a minor to get laid.

I never said 'go have sex'. I said, "Don't make comments about emotional acts if said act and/or emotions are beyond your ken."

I actually kind of know where Icarion is coming from, because back in junior high and high school I was of the opinion that, rather than being as focused on sex as my peers were, I wanted to take the 'high' road of intellectualism and rational inquiry. Enter eight years of emotional subjugation, maladjustment, poor relationship and coping skills, and an all around shitty life.

Disengagement from the world because of a sense that the mind is superior to the feel-goods and feel-bads is one of the worst mistakes a human being can make, and I would simply hate to see it happen to someone else, as I'd not wish the past I've experienced on even the worst of enemies.

To me, this isn't about sex at all, it's about the lack of healthy emotional expression that the phrase 'sex is useless' entails. And I know of what I speak.

---

And welcome back, E_P_S. I've missed yas.

[Queenofdarkness57]

...And she's back! *waves to E_P_S*

[angel011]

Sobeh, I never said you said it, I just remembered someone said it. And I hoped nobody told a child to go and have sex.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by angel011

Sobeh, I never said you said it, I just remembered someone said it. And I hoped nobody told a child to go and have sex.

No, I wasn't thinking you were making that claim, I just chose to use that as an opportunity to further clarify my intentions, in case I could have been clearer. =)

[Icarian Decoding]

If Sex : Orgasms = Lamps : Electrocutions, and we accept your statement that Sex only results in Orgasms and Children, then Lamps must result in Electrocutions and, say, Light. Lamps are for Light. Electrocutions bad. Sex is for Children. Orgasms bad. <-- This last is false. The Lamps analogy is a false syllogism.

A Lamp is intended for Light by its designer. Sex is intended for.. oh yeah, that's right; no real way to talk to the entity responsible for Sex, if there was one. Biological Process =/= Home Electronics.

You see, this is where logic pretty much fails. It's an arguement based on not Biological Process being equal to Home Electronics, but a derivative of beneficial versus negative. While sex can be positive, you must admit that sex cannot always be good. The point, without any analogy, is this: While sex can be good in producing and orgasm, and bearing children, the arguement that it has more than that at a beneficial level, is false, because I have yet to see any other benefit besides orgasm or bearing children. Prove me wrong by showing how random screwing can be good, and I will surrender at this point.



Fallacy of non sequiter. Lack =/= "not that much".
It's a simple misarrangement of words. The English language has a problem with this.
Lack, by definition means "miss: be without;", and therefore a synonym would be "Not having". Therefore, not having experience in programming, does not mean that you can't.


You aren't arguing the validity of sex, you're arguing the meaning of sex. If the meaning of sex was accurately represented in the sources you cite, you would have an argument. Your sources have agendas, so they fail as objective sources.

So does Encyclopedia Britannica. Your point being?

Bad baseline fallacy. Crack = medically addictive synthetic material. Sex = medically non-addictive natural act.

Fine. Marijuana if you will. That's not synthetic, it's still part of nature. Also, keep in mind that sex is addictive.
http://www.peele.net/lib/sex.html

Just because you have read "Flying Planes for Dummies" doesn't qualify you to Pilot a 747 either.

Having a modicum of Knowledge about any given subject does not majickally turn you into you into a learned expert, capable of making the kind of absolute observations you consistently make throughout this forum.

No, I agree with you that a modicum amount of knowledge will not bring about an absolute knowledge, nor would it endow someone with the magical ability to define every aspect of given activity. The unfortunate flaw in this arguement is that enough knowledge, combined with logic and reasoning, can allow for absolute observations. Given those observations I have seen in my enviroment, along with the factual information I can derive from encyclopedias, the internet, and the unreliable amounts of information from word of mouth, I can paint a pretty accurate picture.


What exactly does that mean?

You do realize that analogy did nothing to support your argument?

"You say I can't say sex is useless because I haven't had any." "Look at the next Crack Addict you see. I bet they would say Crack is Good."

Read that outloud a few times, in case the subtlety escapes you.

I keep on seeing people telling me I have no right to judge because I haven't had it. The problem I see with this is that I have never done crack either, yet I can tell you that it has negative and positive consequences.


Again, you offer no evidence to support your argument.

If Sex is so outdated, why do you exist? Were you hatched?

Sex serves many purposes, one of which is to create a Biological environment that gives Armchair Quarterbacks like you, a chance at life.

The question "Why do you exist", has been asked for over several thousand years. I'm pretty sure no one has an answer yet.

If you assert that emotions are a "primal means of communication", and communication is vital to all species, then how do you make the ludicrous leap to emotions being useless?

I could waste my time explaining how vital relationships are to every species on the face of this planet, but I get the feeling that would be akin to explaining coding in C++ to a Spider Monkey.

Pointless..

It would behoove you on many different personal and social levels, to try and avoid absolutes with no basis in fact or function.

Until then, you are losing valuable IQ points with every uniformed post you make here.

For the first statement, Primal means basic, yes. But it is also most commonly associated with barbaric. Therefore, while it is a basic means of communication, it is also very unstable, and easily misunderstood.

For the last statement, I seriously wonder why you think I am losing IQ points. I don't see how this makes me stupid in any sense.

[Panic]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

I really don't have a problem with the Gay/Lesbian/Bi scene, it's just that it never made sense to me. I mean, what good is sex, if it's not for procreation? I have a hard time believing it can be THAT good, that you'd do it, just because.

So, you create a child EVERY time you have sex? That can't possibly be true unless you just don't have sex very often.

Kind of like "Monty Python's: The Meaning of Life" (forgive the very long quote, it's just that I find it hilarious)...

"Harry Blackitt: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.
Mrs. Blackitt: What are we dear?
Harry Blackitt: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
Mrs. Blackitt: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
Harry Blackitt: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
Mrs. Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.
Harry Blackitt: What do you mean?
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.
Harry Blackitt: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.
Mrs. Blackitt: Really?
Harry Blackitt: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.
Mrs. Blackitt: What, you mean... lock the door?
Harry Blackitt: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.
Mrs. Blackitt: What d'you mean?
Harry Blackitt: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you...
Mrs. Blackitt: Oh, yes, Harry.
Harry Blackitt: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.
Mrs. Blackitt: Ooh.
Harry Blackitt: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas...
[sniff]
Harry Blackitt: ... and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom. Oh, no. I can wear French Ticklers if I want.
Mrs. Blackitt: You what?
Harry Blackitt: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.
Mrs. Blackitt: Have you got one?
Harry Blackitt: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'
Mrs. Blackitt: Well, why don't you?
Harry Blackitt: But they - Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien Episcopal supremacy."

[TwistedKitsune]

Y'know, I'm not even gonna bother to tear into that, as I'm sure other people can do it far more eloquently than I can. However, I will bring up one point you made.

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

Fine. Marijuana if you will. That's not synthetic, it's still part of nature. Also, keep in mind that sex is addictive.
http://www.peele.net/lib/sex.html

It's (in my understanding of the topic) not the act of sex itself that you become addicted to, it's the chemicals produced in your brain and body that you become addicted to. The same goes for marijuana, it may be a naturally occurring chemical, but it's still a bloody chemical. Practically everything we, as humans, become addicted to have a base in the chemicals they are made with, or the chemicals our bodies produce in reaction to them. So while, perhaps, compairing them on the subject of holding the potential for chemical addiction is valid, you are very off on the topic of attempting to compair a physical act with a chemical substance.

That is all.

[Niels]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

While sex can be good in producing and orgasm, and bearing children, the arguement that it has more than that at a beneficial level, is false, because I have yet to see any other benefit besides orgasm or bearing children. Prove me wrong by showing how random screwing can be good, and I will surrender at this point

Well dispite of the fact that reproducing is more then 'a beneficial factor', because it is the very core of the fact that you even exist in the first place, there is a 'beneficial' reason that goes beyond logics and reasoning, it is one that can ONLY be understand by experience, and that is what The Mister Saint-Fond explained so well at the first page:

Originally Posted by The Minister Saint-Fond

Sex is a beautiful union of two people who love each other very much. Or know each other's first names after a conversation that starts out to be about politics and slowly disintegrates into a discussion of local squirrel migrations over a half-dozen long island iced teas.

But!

What makes sex truely beautiful in my eyes is that it brings people closer. When you've been with someone, you know them like no one else. When you see someone racked with pleasure, you see into their very soul (and of course you then show them your's assuming s/he doesn't pass out afterwards).

To me, the image of sex is like two people, huddling together in the darkness of an uncertain world and uncertain existance. In their embrace, they share what is perhaps the only true pleasure that exists in the universe. Two bodies alone are shivering and lonely, but together, darkness cannot touch them. There may be only suffering and oblivion awaiting us in the long term, but for now, we can share a moment that could make it all worth while. It's a very cosmic and compassionate thing, sexuality. It destroys barriers.

So lack of experience DOES make you have lack of knowledge.
__________________________________________________

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

I keep on seeing people telling me I have no right to judge because I haven't had it. The problem I see with this is that I have never done crack either, yet I can tell you that it has negative and positive consequences.

And now read what The Minister said and compare sex and doing crack again. Do I really have to say that on that level the crack-comparison is false?

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

For the first statement, Primal means basic, yes. But it is also most commonly associated with barbaric. Therefore, while it is a basic means of communication, it is also very unstable, and easily misunderstood.

Dispite the fact that emotions may be unstable and easily misunderstood, they are still VITAL for our survival, since it is VITAL for communication, so useless? I wouldn't call our existence useless...

Have you read 'Uptopia' by Sir Thomas More? Do you really think that the world he describes is the world you think as being perfect? From what I've read from your posts, you do. Please prove me wrong...

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

The point, without any analogy, is this: While sex can be good in producing and orgasm, and bearing children, the arguement that it has more than that at a beneficial level, is false, because I have yet to see any other benefit...

You claim that the general argument is false because you personally can't see a benefit. What kind of reasoning is that?

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

...not having experience in programming, does not mean that you can't.

By not having experience in programming, you can't program. When you learn how to program, then you can. Learning = experience. Tell me how one can program without first learning how?

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

So does Encyclopedia Britannica. Your point being?

That the sources you've cited for determining whether sex has any meaning beyond kids and orgasms are not the final authority on the matter. That you felt claiming them as being on your side, and thus closing the argument, was incorrect.

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

keep in mind that sex is addictive.http://www.peele.net/lib/sex.html

Sex is addictive, you say? The first sentence of that article is "Sex can be addictive." Can be addictive. Not 'is'. Can. Is =/= Can. Did you even read that article? Anything 'can' be addictive. Base jumping 'can' be addictive. So can World of Warcraft.

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

...enough knowledge, combined with logic and reasoning, can allow for absolute observations. Given those observations I have seen in my enviroment, along with the factual information I can derive from encyclopedias, the internet, and the unreliable amounts of information from word of mouth, I can paint a pretty accurate picture.

(1) Enough knowledge can, indeed, lead to absolute observations. (a) How do you know you have 'enough' knowledge? (b) Are absolute observations the same as observing absolutes? In other words, you may absolutely observe something, but can you make absolute conclusions based on that absolute observation? Not even science pretends to make absolute statements. Philosophers try, but their 'absolutes' are the subject of much debate... not really absolute in a Truth sense.

(2) 'Absolute observations' =/= 'a pretty accurate picture'. Also, you say "Given those observations I have seen in my enviroment..." So your temporally and geographically limited experiences allow you to make absolute statements that apply to others? I call hubris.

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

I keep on seeing people telling me I have no right to judge because I haven't had it. The problem I see with this is that I have never done crack either, yet I can tell you that it has negative and positive consequences.

Dude, I already proved to you that crack =/= sex. Don't beat that horse.

Gah!

[delusional_fairy_goddess4]

i've never really thought about my own sexuality.
but, thinking back, i've always become really horny whenever i look at(or even think about) both men and women. i guess that could mean that i'm bi, but, like i said, i've never really thought about it.

[Icarian Decoding]

You claim that the general argument is false because you personally can't see a benefit. What kind of reasoning is that?
Mine.

By not having experience in programming, you can't program. When you learn how to program, then you can. Learning = experience. Tell me how one can program without first learning how?
Copy + Paste, rip off others works, study what "programming", is.


Sex is addictive, you say? The first sentence of that article is "Sex can be addictive." Can be addictive. Not 'is'. Can. Is =/= Can. Did you even read that article? Anything 'can' be addictive. Base jumping 'can' be addictive. So can World of Warcraft.
Exactly.


(1) Enough knowledge can, indeed, lead to absolute observations. (a) How do you know you have 'enough' knowledge? (b) Are absolute observations the same as observing absolutes? In other words, you may absolutely observe something, but can you make absolute conclusions based on that absolute observation? Not even science pretends to make absolute statements. Philosophers try, but their 'absolutes' are the subject of much debate... not really absolute in a Truth sense.

(2) 'Absolute observations' =/= 'a pretty accurate picture'. Also, you say "Given those observations I have seen in my enviroment..." So your temporally and geographically limited experiences allow you to make absolute statements that apply to others? I call hubris.

With your arguements, therefore you cannot prove your arguement is 100% bulletproof either. Therefore, your point would be null, along with mine. I make absolutes based on the information I am given. The Absolute Observation and "A Pretty Accurate Picture" can be summed up mathematically, = 1 = .999~, which has been proven to be true.

Dude, I already proved to you that crack =/= sex. Don't beat that horse.
And I went to disprove it, and gave you another analogy.

And now read what The Minister said and compare sex and doing crack again. Do I really have to say that on that level the crack-comparison is false?

A crack addict alone in a dark hole, high to no-end, doesn't feel darkness, pain, or suffering. The Minister simply glorified it.

Dispite the fact that emotions may be unstable and easily misunderstood, they are still VITAL for our survival, since it is VITAL for communication, so useless? I wouldn't call our existence useless...
Would you say our heart is vital? Not the metaphorical heart. I mean the beating heart. It is vital for living, yet we can do without one. The same is with communication.

P.s. I would call our existence useless.

Have you read 'Uptopia' by Sir Thomas More? Do you really think that the world he describes is the world you think as being perfect? From what I've read from your posts, you do. Please prove me wrong...

I haven't read it. So I'll put it on queue and read it.

[Sobeh]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

Mine.

With your arguements, therefore you cannot prove your arguement is 100% bulletproof either. Therefore, your point would be null, along with mine.

And I went to disprove it, and gave you another analogy.

In the first part - That fantastic reasoning is hubris. How is it that you can claim your opinion is universal fact and expect to taken seriously?

In the second part - my argumentation was for methodology, designed to make clear the criteria for making absolutist claims. Its form is logically valid. Your argumentation was that your personal views are true universally, which is not logically valid.

In the third part - my statement about the analogy was in response to your reliance on it in refuting a statement E_P_S made. I have shown that the analogy of sex : crack is not valid. Further use of that analogy is useless. You chose to use it anyway, hence, 'beating a dead horse' - the analogy will not function the way you want it to. Devise a new one, or concede the point.

[Icarian Decoding]

In the first part - That fantastic reasoning is hubris. How is it that you can claim your opinion is universal fact and expect to taken seriously?
I claimed it was my reasoning. I didn't claim it was universal fact.

In the second part - my argumentation was for methodology, designed to make clear the criteria for making absolutist claims. Its form is logically valid. Your argumentation was that your personal views are true universally, which is not logically valid.

Which, as I explained, would say that while my personal views, to any extent, would not be true, neither would yours.

In the third part - my statement about the analogy was in response to your reliance on it in refuting a statement E_P_S made. I have shown that the analogy of sex : crack is not valid. Further use of that analogy is useless. You chose to use it anyway, hence, 'beating a dead horse' - the analogy will not function the way you want it to. Devise a new one, or concede the point.

So, you've supposedly "beaten" it, and I can't defend my position? Explain to me how using an analogy and justifying it in the face of a rebuttle, is "beating a dead horse".

[TwistedKitsune]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

So, you've supposedly "beaten" it, and I can't defend my position? Explain to me how using an analogy and justifying it in the face of a rebuttle, is "beating a dead horse".

At the risk of having an illogical argument thrown at me in response:

When you say the same goddamned thing, over and over, using a new, but no less logical analogy, or try to reuse the same anaolgy, whether you are defending it or not, it's generally referred to as beating a dead horse. Also known as no one is buying this line of logic so pick a newer, better one, or GIVE UP THE ARGUMENT

_____

Now guys....about them boobies...?

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Xnguela

Question for all you boob-lovers out there:

Does the context in which you're seeing the boobage matter? Let's say that all boobage is of the same quality (I know it's not, but just for the sake of this argument...), are the boobs you see on the internet more or less hot than the boobs of a drunken girl at a party? And how do those compare to the boobs of a talented stripper, or a live in-the-flesh woman who will allow you to touch them?

Okany, Xng, I'll take up the gauntlet you're thrown down here. This is simple.

Given your condition that all boobage is the same quality then the following tiers of hotness apply:

Seeing live boobs is always better that any recording or picture or digital medium.

(If we throw out your condition, this could change ... for instance, a vid of Pamela Anderson flashing her boobs might trump a drunk girl across the bar flashing her A cup boobies)

Touching live boobies is always better than seeing boobs in any format.

(Again, this changes if we throw out your condition. It also changes if we are talking about touching the boobs of a woman we have some history with, and maybe some relationship problems. I'm not laying blame, but just saying it can impact how hot touching those boobs might seem.)

There, I've tried to keep you abreast of my opinion. If you disagree with me, I'll bust you one good! Tit's okay, though, if we have a little debate. A little nipple and tuck never hurt anyone.

[WolfMoon]

Would you say our heart is vital? Not the metaphorical heart. I mean the beating heart. It is vital for living, yet we can do without one. The same is with communication.

And how many times did you flunk that anatomy class? You need a beating heart to live, in case you never learned that in elementary school.

ID, you're completely talking out of your ass in this case. There's just no nice way to say it. You have no first hand knowledge and there fore your 'observations' have no validity. You're an outsider looking in with no real idea about what's really going on. Just your own faulty logic.

[WolfMoon]

Oh, and Xng, I'd take real boobies any day, any size. Although I do likes the videos and pix!

[Icarian Decoding]

It's an incomplete sentence. We can survive without our own natural heart.
I know I'm completely talking out of my ass, I know I've lost, but I don't give up.

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

It's an incomplete sentence. We can survive without our own natural heart.
I know I'm completely talking out of my ass, I know I've lost, but I don't give up.

We can't live without something functioning like a heart, be it artificial or otherwise. It is still a heart and we can't live without one.

[tenet_2012]

This girl I know calls masterbating "Jilling-Off".

That is so wierd!

[Icarian Decoding]

Originally Posted by GeishaGirl

What I wish is that this idiot fellow would stop using all this "useless communication" and stfu.

You're being an ass just to be an ass.

Everyone here is being so nice in talking 'round and 'round with you about this shit.

The long and short of it is that you're a sad, lonely, pathetic excuse for human matter that's come along in a while. And although you claim to be intellectual superior to things like pleasure, emotion, and love, you OBVIOUSLY arn't smart enough to know when to give it up.

There is NO WAY you can win this argument. You're simply too pathetic in your assumptions and your life.

I pity your stance to want to never have to bother with emotions and pleasure but I applaude you as well. I hope against hope that your stance will continue until you fucking die so that YOU WILL NOT HAVE SEX AND PROCREATE.

Having little rats running around with your demented logic implanted in their heads is decidely a cruel and unusual punishment for all of us.

The world has enough ignorance in it. We don't need you spreading any more.

So piss off, jack off and kiss my delectible ass. It's the closest you'll ever come to sex with that attitude.

Hokai.
Now what?

[Icarian Decoding]

I've had one to many purple nurples to have any feeling in my chest area.

[Icarian Decoding]

No, because when I did recieve purple nurples, I was in the 2-5 grade, so I was more, "He he he, you touched my nipples", then anything.