Originally posted by RobtardStill getting over that tbh. Anyway... what the **** is going on today with the younger posters?
TBF, that's practically nothing compared to when Kurk outright told you that you give him daddy issues.
Darth Skywalker is going to come in in a minute tell us he has read a book on women and understands perfectly how their minds work. He is then going to say he has read the Kama Sutra and knows how to make a girl squirt every time just by touching a chakra.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I mean I'm only gonna speak for myself... and not attempt to speak for or parrot the guy talking about mindwiping chicks for sex and having concubines while married and shit and shit...But no my stance is not based on some pent-up sexual frustration or resentful attitude towards women, but rather upon my respect for emotional intimacy and the institution of marriage, the values I have given a lot of thought to, an observance in the societal ramifications for the shifting cultural attitude towards sex, as well as the notion that a phenomenon as powerful, deeply psychologically ingrained, complicated, and consequential as sex is not something optimally pursued between two strangers.
I don't think this is a particularly extreme position for a person to hold, and in fact I know plenty of happily married people who hold roughly the same stance as myself, and is in fact mainstream in the domain of Christian thought (which is the umbrella I would say my own philosophical worldview falls under).
And if I were truly sexually frustrated, would it not be more in keeping with that motivation for me to adopt and promote a moral framework that makes sexual satisfaction cheaper and more readily available as opposed to one that would hold me to more rigorous and selective standards from the person I'm seeking a sexual relationship with?
I appreciate you taking the time to answer me seriously instead pretending it's bait.
Originally posted by RobtardYeah and whilst DMB's reply is a trolls wet dream, I guess he did do an O.K. job of that and was honest. But **** it, at his age you should be making shit loads of mistakes because of your dick. Seriously, his hero Trump still does.
Wasn't bait if the person replying was capable of navigating through it intelligently.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
But no my stance is not based on some pent-up sexual frustration or resentful attitude towards women, but rather upon my respect for emotional intimacy and the institution of marriage, the values I have given a lot of thought to, an observance in the societal ramifications for the shifting cultural attitude towards sex, as well as the notion that a phenomenon as powerful, deeply psychologically ingrained, complicated, and consequential as sex is not something optimally pursued between two strangers.
Sounds like something a virgin would say.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't think this is a particularly extreme position for a person to hold, and in fact I know plenty of happily married people who hold roughly the same stance as myself, and is in fact mainstream in the domain of Christian thought (which is the umbrella I would say my own philosophical worldview falls under).
It is hypothesized that this position is the reason Christians have higher rates of divorce than other groups. It also explains why Christians marry younger than other groups as well: to have socially-sanctioned sex. The desire to have sex leads them to marry at a young age, and because they did not explore sex with other people beforehand, they do not realize until some time later that they are not sexually compatible. This leads them to divorce, so they can pursue sex with other people. It is a position that, while laudable, works much better in theory than it does in practice.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
And if I were truly sexually frustrated, would it not be more in keeping with that motivation for me to adopt and promote a moral framework that makes sexual satisfaction cheaper and more readily available as opposed to one that would hold me to more rigorous and selective standards from the person I'm seeking a sexual relationship with?
Not when your existing framework allows you the illusion of choice, i.e. it is not that you have deficits that makes you sexually unappealing to others, it is your choice to not have sex.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yeah and whilst DMB's reply is a trolls wet dream, I guess he did do an O.K. job of that and was honest. But **** it, at his age you should be making shit loads of mistakes because of your dick. Seriously, his hero Trump still does.
I definitely strongly morally disagree with his sexual attitudes or sexual conduct, but I don't think a president cheating on their wife is a serious political concern.
Originally posted by RobtardNo, I take that on board and to be fair when he is not being e-Hitler, he sometimes has a point or two.
In DMB's defense, despite being a virgin(correct me if I'm wrong here), his posts have not come off dripping with scorn and venom towards women like Surt's and Kurk's do, at least not recently.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sounds like something a virgin would say.Not when your existing framework allows you the illusion of choice, i.e. it is not that you have deficits that makes you sexually unappealing to others, it is your choice to not have sex.
I am a virgin, but no I did not adopt my stance to maintain some illusion of choice after a repeated series of sexual rejections.
My time going through puberty aside, I have not really been interested in pursuing sexual relationships with women I did not feel anything for emotionally, and in my adult life I have only pursued two women due to my sexual attraction and emotional interest in them, I got rejected by the first, moved on within a week and am still friends with her, and I have not yet asked out the second.
I don't have a particularly detailed or lengthy history of rejection, and my approach to sex is one that I've had since before being rejected and is not something I've simply contrived to shield my self-image from shame.
That is the honest truth, please if you can restrain yourself from doing your usual mindreading shtick to try and presume an understanding of my motives or character that you simply do not have.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is hypothesized that this position is the reason Christians have higher rates of divorce than other groups. It also explains why Christians marry younger than other groups as well: to have socially-sanctioned sex. The desire to have sex leads them to marry at a young age, and because they did not explore sex with other people beforehand, they do not realize until some time later that they are not sexually compatible. This leads them to divorce, so they can pursue sex with other people. It is a position that, while laudable, works much better in theory than it does in practice.
Also I have said before that I disapprove of the bitter "It's not me it's those bitches man, **** them and what a terrible world this is that they exist" attitude, in fact I find that attitude even more antithetical than the casual sex one to my values as an individualist who doesn't believe collective guilt should be ascribed to demographics and someone who places a lot of value and respect upon genuine romantic relationships.
I've also directly said I find the MGTOW shit really cringey.