Cougars vs sugar daddies - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-20-2010, 10:41 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
No, no, that's not what I meant. I'm still thinking about the point I was trying to make, but still haven't come up with a good way to put it. But I wasn't saying your personal choices were judgemental.
What if I thought it was a better choice for everyone--not just me? Say in the way that I think that exercise or a healthy diet is a better choice for anyone.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 10:43 PM   #62
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Well, when you say that, then what are you saying about people who disagree with you? "My way is better, your way is wrong?"
__________________

__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 10:48 PM   #63
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
In fact, you've put your finger, whether intentionally or not, on what I find slightly unappealing about the direction of this thread at times, this idea that seems to be in the air that merely holding as a belief in one's value system that sex before marriage is wrong nails somehow someone as a RW religious bigot. To put it another way, that if you don't agree that sex is always and everywhere 'a good thing' there must be something wrong with you.


let me expound further.

as someone who is pro-sex, and thinks that sex is usually a good thing, and who thinks that sex can serve a variety of purposes for a variety of people, i also strongly, strongly believe that we make our own rules for sex and those are rules that we must be able to live with. so, if one's religion were the sole reason why one would avoid sex before marriage -- assuming, of course, that marriage is an option for you -- and this eats you up at night, and you hold on and hold on and then you do get married and it's a massive disappointment, or you're with the wrong person, well, then i'd argue that you really should have been having sex before you were married.

however, if one has strong convictions as has been alluded to here that are influenced by, but not solely dictated by, one's moral upbringing and arrives at the conclusion that they shouldn't have sex before marriage for rationally thought out reasons x, y, and z, then i'm all for that. and that's a pro-sex stance, because the definition of actually being pro-sex is that you believe that sex is a good thing in life, that sex is something that people should enjoy and that will bring you joy, but only YOU know best how it can function in your life as a good thing and only YOU know how you will enjoy it and how it will bring you joy. one can be pro-sex and yet believe in abstinence.

i did beg an answer from nathan because i felt like he was being coy, almost as if he was trying to talk to the kids in their own language and construct a pro-abstinence message out of a position of assumed sexual experience, but which to me rang fairly phony because it assumed that one -- or, really, women (who need our protection) -- is always and only driven to fuck by the worst of motivations, and be left with the worst of consequences. i just don't think that human beings are that simple, and i don't believe that women who are out to have a quick fuck one night are driven to do so out of some twisted notion of feminism and then walk home trying to feel empowered but their essential virtuous womanhood conscience keeps telling them that they really wanted that man to love them and they're looking for something that they won't ever find and what they did was wrong. nor do i think that most men thump their chests after a one-night stand, trying to push aware their essential virtuous manhood conscious that keeps telling them to "do right by your woman."

some of this thread -- like some of the sex addiction thread -- felt analogous to intelligent design, whereby a specific set of moral values takes extreme examples and represents them as typical experiences in order to justify and thusly "prove" said moral values (i.e., "studies show that the best place for a child is with a mother and a father"). does that make sense?

and i'll also admit to being a bit leery of this stuff here based upon a show i recently filmed where it very, very much felt like clinical psychology had been perverted to fit a specific agenda, and fairly natural behaviors and impulses were quickly and forcefully pathologized because they didn't adhere to this unspoken but understood belief system and this was presented using (deceptively) clinical language and the patient was taught to suppress and control his behavior rather than try to understand what was driving him to do things in the first place.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 10:53 PM   #64
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Well, when you say that, then what are you saying about people who disagree with you? "My way is better, your way is wrong?"
Well, no. I think that is far too harsh a distinction. It's more like there are costs and benefits to the choice I made (and believe in. . .there's the rub. It's not just a choice I happened to make, its one that I also believe in), and IMVHO, the benefits outweigh what I lose out on (and I do feel that I've "missed out" on some things). Course being married now, I think most all of you would I suggest I stick with my choice!

This is where things get sticky. It's very difficult anymore to say "I think you are mistaken, or God forbid, wrong" without it being considered an offense. I don't have an issue with anyone thinking that I'm mistaken or wrong. Most of us believe our views are right and that those who disagree with us are wrong but we don't want to cop to it. I think as long as we all remain aware that we might indeed be wrong there's nothing wrong with saying I think you're wrong.

Hmmm. . .did that make any sense?
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:00 PM   #65
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
It's very difficult anymore to say "I think you are mistaken, or God forbid, wrong" without it being considered an offense.
Agreed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I don't have an issue with anyone thinking that I'm mistaken or wrong. Most of us believe our views are right and that those who disagree with us are wrong but we don't want to cop to it. I think as long as we all remain aware that we might indeed be wrong there's nothing wrong with saying I think you're wrong.
I agree with that as well for the most part, although part of the stickiness for me in this thread is that I'm more speaking/thinking in generalities about women's sexuality and that role in society in general, not necessarily talking about my personal choices when it comes to sex.

So if someone's saying "I don't think it's right for women to think about sex this way," I'm not taking personal offense and getting all knee-jerky defensive, it reads more to me like "women should keep behaving in the traditional way when it comes to sex." Which, of course, is taking what you said to an extreme assumption, but that's more where I'm coming from in this thread, and kind of come back to what I was trying to say on the last page.

.... does THAT make sense? Because if it does, then thank you very much for helping me say what I was trying to say!
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:04 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
let me expound further.

as someone who is pro-sex, and thinks that sex is usually a good thing, and who thinks that sex can serve a variety of purposes for a variety of people, i also strongly, strongly believe that we make our own rules for sex and those are rules that we must be able to live with. so, if one's religion were the sole reason why one would avoid sex before marriage -- assuming, of course, that marriage is an option for you -- and this eats you up at night, and you hold on and hold on and then you do get married and it's a massive disappointment, or you're with the wrong person, well, then i'd argue that you really should have been having sex before you were married.

however, if one has strong convictions as has been alluded to here that are influenced by, but not solely dictated by, one's moral upbringing and arrives at the conclusion that they shouldn't have sex before marriage for rationally thought out reasons x, y, and z, then i'm all for that. and that's a pro-sex stance, because the definition of actually being pro-sex is that you believe that sex is a good thing in life, that sex is something that people should enjoy and that will bring you joy, but only YOU know best how it can function in your life as a good thing and only YOU know how you will enjoy it and how it will bring you joy. one can be pro-sex and yet believe in abstinence.

i did beg an answer from nathan because i felt like he was being coy, almost as if he was trying to talk to the kids in their own language and construct a pro-abstinence message out of a position of assumed sexual experience, but which to me rang fairly phony because it assumed that one -- or, really, women (who need our protection) -- is always and only driven to fuck by the worst of motivations, and be left with the worst of consequences. i just don't think that human beings are that simple, and i don't believe that women who are out to have a quick fuck one night are driven to do so out of some twisted notion of feminism and then walk home trying to feel empowered but their essential virtuous womanhood conscience keeps telling them that they really wanted that man to love them and they're looking for something that they won't ever find and what they did was wrong. nor do i think that most men thump their chests after a one-night stand, trying to push aware their essential virtuous manhood conscious that keeps telling them to "do right by your woman."

some of this thread -- like some of the sex addiction thread -- felt analogous to intelligent design, whereby a specific set of moral values takes extreme examples and represents them as typical experiences in order to justify and thusly "prove" said moral values (i.e., "studies show that the best place for a child is with a mother and a father"). does that make sense?

and i'll also admit to being a bit leery of this stuff here based upon a show i recently filmed where it very, very much felt like clinical psychology had been perverted to fit a specific agenda, and fairly natural behaviors and impulses were quickly and forcefully pathologized because they didn't adhere to this unspoken but understood belief system and this was presented using (deceptively) clinical language and the patient was taught to suppress and control his behavior rather than try to understand what was driving him to do things in the first place.
I like to think I'm pro-sex.

I see what you're getting at though. I felt too that Nathan was being coy--but I'm not convinced that he's subscribing to the views you suggested though, but I can't speak for him. I can say for myself that what you described with womanhood conscience and chest thumping does NOT reflect what I believe at all.

My views really aren't tied to these kinds of traditional gender role stereotypes. I really don't have a big horrific response to a woman (or a man) who wants to have a quick fuck. I get it. I've wanted to do the same thing from time to time--I think we all have, and lot of people do go with that feeling. I just happen to believe that following through on that desire isn't in a person's best interests. Still, I'm not saying it's the end of the world if they do or anything--at least if they are not married.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:05 PM   #67
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
So if someone's saying "I don't think it's right for women to think about sex this way," I'm not taking personal offense and getting all knee-jerky defensive, it reads more to me like "women should keep behaving in the traditional way when it comes to sex."

or ... or ... saying, "all women who do think/act that way about sex are doing so because of the following warped motivations ..." the assumption that women only act contrary to their assumed gender roles because of some warped understanding of feminism.

because that's what i was getting.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:09 PM   #68
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Yeah, that too, I can see what you mean.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:09 PM   #69
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Agreed!



I agree with that as well for the most part, although part of the stickiness for me in this thread is that I'm more speaking/thinking in generalities about women's sexuality and that role in society in general, not necessarily talking about my personal choices when it comes to sex.

So if someone's saying "I don't think it's right for women to think about sex this way," I'm not taking personal offense and getting all knee-jerky defensive, it reads more to me like "women should keep behaving in the traditional way when it comes to sex." Which, of course, is taking what you said to an extreme assumption, but that's more where I'm coming from in this thread, and kind of come back to what I was trying to say on the last page.

.... does THAT make sense? Because if it does, then thank you very much for helping me say what I was trying to say!
Yes, I think so. I think.

To be fair, I actually agree that a lot of the traditional views about sexuality really are about the control of women, and I do disagree strongly with that viewpoint. I might get crazy and even call it "wrong." I don't think men (or other women) have any business telling women how they "should think about sex."

Of course I seem to have no probem holding gender-neutral opinions about what both genders should be doing in regards to sex, so that probably makes me a hypocrite. . .
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:11 PM   #70
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Nah.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:11 PM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
or ... or ... saying, "all women who do think/act that way about sex are doing so because of the following warped motivations ..." the assumption that women only act contrary to their assumed gender roles because of some warped understanding of feminism.

because that's what i was getting.
On this issue I think we're in agreement.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:12 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Nah.
But at least I'm not a sexist hypocrite!
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:14 PM   #73
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,730
Local Time: 06:19 AM
Not that I've seen yet. But I've got my eye on you!

__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2010, 11:15 PM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corianderstem View Post
Not that I've seen yet. But I've got my eye on you!



I'm out for the evening everyone. Good to be back!
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2010, 12:21 AM   #75
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Good to have you back, Sean.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com