Sexual liberation or sexual slavery

[sofiana]

I suggest you to read Woman's Mysteries by Mary Esther Harding.

[kontinual]

The last comment was unnecessary, as it creates an all-purpose defense mechanism. All of a sudden any desire to cull side-tracking commentary becomes the censorship of pretentious moderators who feel that they are elite simply because they associate themselves with the word tradition, and you by definition, the censored, must be some sort of heroic martyr who by nature of being opposed to pretension is a humble god whom everyone should praise for your down-to-earthiness.

This board does not, and never has deleted posts for moral reasons or due to some moral agenda.  Please get real.

[Cargést]

This board does not, and never has deleted posts for moral reasons or due to some moral agenda.  Please get real.

Off topic, but am I right in believing that the usual reason for my posts being deleted is that they're fucking retarded?

Case in point:

Off topic, but am I right in believing that the usual reason for my posts being deleted is that they're fucking retarded?

[Athanasius contra mundum]

The last comment was unnecessary, as it creates an all-purpose defense mechanism. All of a sudden any desire to cull side-tracking commentary becomes the censorship of pretentious moderators who feel that they are elite simply because they associate themselves with the word tradition, and you by definition, the censored, must be some sort of heroic martyr who by nature of being opposed to pretension is a humble god whom everyone should praise for your down-to-earthiness.

This board does not, and never has deleted posts for moral reasons or due to some moral agenda.  Please get real.

I think you misread my comment. I was actually pointing out exactly what you said to the person I was replying to, whom I felt was implying that posts were removed simply to satisfy the moral agenda, as you put it, of the moderators. I don't feel this way at all, and I get a little tired of seeing people at this forum suggest that just because they're a little upset that their posts were removed. Anyway, I apologize, and I'll be sure to just let you guys do the job in the future.

[Prospero]

The thread has shifted away from its initial subject. Can't a bunch of men on a metal music forum properly argue?

The point is: Women are more intelligent.

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/05/the-decline-in-male-achievement/

Is it perhaps another result of the sexual revolution? More sexual openness weakening men and feminists advocating that female aren't "sexual". Women are becoming the creators men used to be and men the pro-creators women were. There is a saying in art which suggests that women were less present (or rather absent) in pre-20th century art because they did not have the urge to create men had for they could themselves give life (childbirth).

Thanks to however brought up this blog in the first place.

[nous]

That woman were more intelligent was never the point until you made it so.

What is more interesting, I hope, is the question: How are we to court in a world that does not see the value in this process anymore? Or does it? If, maybe, intelligent human beings still want to court, there is only the problem that the knowledge/belief of how to do it is hidden under a pile of misinformation.

"Courting for intelligent human beings"; has this book already been written?

[AnHero]

My point is that monogamy is unnatural. Look back through time, it was used as a tool of oppression. We humans are not happily monogamous creatures. We must use this knowledge in our quest to build a greater society.

The problem with sexual liberation as a form of progressivism is that it no longer focuses on questions like "How to best organize society" or "How to best organize one's life" but instead it becomes "What do I want." Living the ideal monogamous life would be difficult for many people. It's about making a long term investment, not just in oneself, but in their posterity. My personal opinions and preferences on the matter are determined by my desire for order in my life and in society, not releases of chemicals, as it apparently is with others. I can grow to accept whichever arrangements make the most sense, but you're not offering any information that we haven't had for thousands of years.

In some ways, the modern view of sexuality (unrestrained) is more natural since individuals are being driven by their instincts. On the other hand, it's remarkably unnatural to copulate so variously and without intended to impregnate. What's the point? Human nature pulls us in both ways - we don't want to have to be exclusive, but we also don't want to share. So saying promiscuity or "open" arrangements are more natural is not true. They conflict with the nature of mating.

As does monogamy, so which resolution is most useful?

Not which do I feel like now.

It is found in all cultures that a small proportion of men are disproportionately laying all of the women; the alpha males, of which studies suggest have a stronger sexual drive due to theory of natural selection.

And in doing this, we encourage selfish behavior in future generations. We need to evolve in more ways than amounts of testosterone. And we're never going to evolve to be more apt at civilization if we focus on developing our latent sociopathy.

And the betas in this scenario aren't very happy; is happiness a relevant decision making factor for you or not?

I feel that human beings are unhappy when monogamous because of our purely functional contemplation of such acts. The idea associated with whether we are happy or not with our sexual practices is not inherent, and thus when we attempt to attribute an absolute meaning to it, whether based in ideal (as in marriage), or function (as in open sexuality with anyone one wishes and can attract), we destroy a sense of accomplishment associated with basing our value of the act within our goals for society.

Overthinking romance steals the magic of it, I know. But I don't believe happiness is found by chasing feelings. Most of our emotions come and go, so basing one's life on chasing them - he will never be satisfied. Look at the ancients, they'll tell you the same thing.

It's value can be very practical, and by filling a practical role, make one happy. Much like having consistent access to food and shelter, having a good spouse gives one consistent access to affection, support and sexual release. If the marriage is done right, which I guess no one knows how to do anymore.

One of the goals of almost every society has been to prosper and have relative peace to raise families. Marriage clearly helps reach those goals. No extra time spent seeking a mate. Family. No conflict over who gets what mate after it's been decided.

Perhaps if we saw the rise of two cultures, one that celebrates marriage simply as a joyous virtue for the sake of it, and one that viewed open sexuality the same way, we could truly see which idea was naturally superior.

I've thought about this experiment in other contexts, and I realize - the second culture did exist, it just died out because it wasn't as organized.

This is where I am left with no solution except maybe establishing some kind totalitarian government that could control people, mass execution for the weak minded or religion.

This always in favor of a solution that vaguely resembles this one. I don't care what the problem is.

[scourge]

"Courting for intelligent human beings"; has this book already been written?

No book is needed. People do it all the time like eating, sleeping and so forth. Men take the lead in courting but ultimately the woman gives the yes or no. Try it and lose all doubt.

What's confusing everyone is that we need a new term: Nu-courting. It's streamlined and dumbed down to get to the point because like snared monkeys, people today have allowed their modern lives to get painted into a pressed-for-time corner. Nu-courting is soulless and shallow. It doesn't lead to kids raised right by stable parents. It leads to a ruined population.

[Prospero]

"Courting for intelligent human beings"; has this book already been written?

No book is needed. People do it all the time like eating, sleeping and so forth. Men take the lead in courting but ultimately the woman gives the yes or no. Try it and lose all doubt.

What's confusing everyone is that we need a new term: Nu-courting. It's streamlined and dumbed down to get to the point because like snared monkeys, people today have allowed their modern lives to get painted into a pressed-for-time corner. Nu-courting is soulless and shallow. It doesn't lead to kids raised right by stable parents. It leads to a ruined population.

I agree that courting is now soulless and shallow. When your education has been fulfilling however, the opposite happens. When confronted with nu-courting, you are somewhat disoriented and unresponsive. A longer chase and more difficult seduction gives you the necessary time to get to know your target before you actually try to "catch" it. The reward is then more substantial and worth preserving. Nobody however will let you court for too long. First thing you know, if the physical attractiveness of both subjects matches, according to generally acknowledged beauty standards, the two parties soon get down to it. Sex has been liberated, sex is liberating. Yet nothing will develop one's wits more than a lengthened seduction.


Si nihil temptes, raro cades.

[Conservationist]

I like complementary roles: men do some things, women others. It's like leadership in the military and it makes everything work the first time, not be neurotic and "negotiation based" like our modern schizoid society.

I think if you read history you'll find that great men, on the whole, tended to respect and adore their wives and idealize them. Far from "oppression" as we were taught in our inch-deep history classes, eh?

[scourge]

Inch deep indeed. How often has Godwin's Law been invoked in a given eugenics conversation when historic acumen would eliminate this error? It was America that had some of the earliest sterilization laws on the books.

[istaros]

I have to posit in this discussion the suggestion that marriage is the exemplar which defies man's primordial instincts... My point is that monogamy is unnatural. Look back through time, it was used as a tool of oppression. We humans are not happily monogamous creatures. We must use this knowledge in our quest to build a greater society.

Why do people so love sounding like victims? Tell us, what part of a greater society is "natural?" Does Mongolian herding of prisoners in front of their troops to soak up the enemy's initial arrow barrages sound natural to you? Does it sound oppressive? How about the Egyptian pyramids? Do they look like a part of nature? Does carrying huge blocks of stone for some ego-inflated maniac sound oppressive? What made greater societies great is the fact they were able to surpass primal instinct - not that they wallowed in their own primal shit.

[AnHero]

I agree that courting is now soulless and shallow. When your education has been fulfilling however, the opposite happens. When confronted with nu-courting, you are somewhat disoriented and unresponsive. A longer chase and more difficult seduction gives you the necessary time to get to know your target before you actually try to "catch" it. The reward is then more substantial and worth preserving.

Is the behavior you support really that different from that of the people you look down on?

Nobody however will let you court for too long. First thing you know, if the physical attractiveness of both subjects matches, according to generally acknowledged beauty standards, the two parties soon get down to it.

Instead of doing this in one night and then breaking up, you do it over a longer period and break up with similar results. How is your method more constructive or fulfilling? Have you found that which each conquest, the next one is that much less valuable - that much less significant?

And what is the motivation? Is the shallow, short-term "love" you feel much better than the shallow, short-term attraction of the Nu-courters?

Sex has been liberated, sex is liberating. Yet nothing will develop one's wits more than a lengthened seduction.

But liberating you to do what?

I think your wits may actually be dulled as it doesn't seem you think about the longer implications of this behavior, just that it feels good to indulge one's feelings, both sexual and emotional.

Were you not the one who a few years ago said you'd given up on love? That would mean your personal experience with it is rather limited, even though things have apparently changed. Especially as a young person, you can't take your feelings too seriously.

[Mithrandir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRdJ49ItMnc

15 year old has sex over 300 times. There's some liberation for you.

[Prospero]

I agree that courting is now soulless and shallow. When your education has been fulfilling however, the opposite happens. When confronted with nu-courting, you are somewhat disoriented and unresponsive. A longer chase and more difficult seduction gives you the necessary time to get to know your target before you actually try to "catch" it. The reward is then more substantial and worth preserving.

Is the behavior you support really that different from that of the people you look down on?

Nobody however will let you court for too long. First thing you know, if the physical attractiveness of both subjects matches, according to generally acknowledged beauty standards, the two parties soon get down to it.

Instead of doing this in one night and then breaking up, you do it over a longer period and break up with similar results. How is your method more constructive or fulfilling? Have you found that which each conquest, the next one is that much less valuable - that much less significant?

And what is the motivation? Is the shallow, short-term "love" you feel much better than the shallow, short-term attraction of the Nu-courters?

Sex has been liberated, sex is liberating. Yet nothing will develop one's wits more than a lengthened seduction.

But liberating you to do what?

I think your wits may actually be dulled as it doesn't seem you think about the longer implications of this behavior, just that it feels good to indulge one's feelings, both sexual and emotional.

Were you not the one who a few years ago said you'd given up on love? That would mean your personal experience with it is rather limited, even though things have apparently changed. Especially as a young person, you can't take your feelings too seriously.

I should have made myself more clear. I am actually laughing at the acknowledged idea that sex provides liberation. It's a temporary satisfaction. Behavior shows. I understand that building a relationship is important. I do not accumulate conquests (far from it + i wouldn't praise myself here either), I do not see how you could think that. I did not really comment on me actually, more on what I understand of what is going on with other young people.

Anyhow, I find this thread and ongoing discussion interesting. It has enlightened me.