| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
I'm no Picasso
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
The short-term sexual gratification usually benefits that man's need for physical pleasure. How does it benefit the woman? |
Um. Because women don't have a need for physical pleasure?
I feel sorry for everyone you've ever slept with if that's really how you think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Confirming that the DSM is not a manual of disorder but of deviance. |
The DSM-IV-TR is a manual for mental disorders. |
Are you familiar with the criticisms of it? Specifically, The Selling of the DSM and The Myth of Mental Illness.
The DSM is the product of an industry (not college, but industry) of charlatans misusing science. |
What mises is trying to say in his ever so diplomatic way is emotional disorders are a symptom of people reacting to society, not an illness curable all by itself. He's leaning towards the structural-functionalist side of social analysis, and asserting when individuals don't jive with the well oiled machine that is society, they express it in deviant behavior like promiscuity or dealing drugs or foul language.
I agree a large part of psychiatry is bunk and 'psychiatric problems' are in fact individual responses to larger social problems. I don't think psychiatrists mean any more harm when they come up with their tools of analysis than structural functionalists do. They think society is running just fine with a few kinks here and there to be fixed with some meds and chitchat.
I think a lot of emotional psychiatric problems are due to moral problems we have with the ideological framework of our society. Society is not a well oiled machine with people filtering down to where they belong in the apparatus through merit- it's hierarchal, coercive, and some people respond badly to the methods that keep them in their place in the hierarchy. Drugs fix that. For things like depression or ocd or borderline personality disorder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
The short-term sexual gratification usually benefits that man's need for physical pleasure. How does it benefit the woman? |
Same. Even if a lady can't get off as easily, the desire to try is just as strong and nagging. Why wouldn't you automatically assume it was the same? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I feel sorry for everyone you've ever slept with if that's really how you think. |
No need to- but thanks anyway 
The thing about promiscuity is that entails a continuous cycle of sex with mutliple partners with no concern of pleasure except for the physical aspect of it. Sociologically speaking, it is said that men derive more pleasure from sex than women, who believe more in the emotional aspect of the relationship. True, they could temporarily be attached to that person 'for the moment'. But once the moment is over, they move on to the next person.
Which is why I advised the person to look into becoming a porn star if they love sex so much.
I think the best term to use is not promiscuity, but philandering- the act of having sex without the stipulation of marriage.
It is also less self-destructive  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
aspect of it. Sociologically speaking, it is said that men derive more pleasure from sex than women, who believe more in the emotional aspect of the relationship. True, they could temporarily be attached to that person 'for the moment'. But once the moment is over, they move on to the next person.
|
Hold on there, I know sociology, and while some sociologists say this, they are the stodgy old loveless sociologists who talk about sex they will never have (structural functionalists mostly). No one listens to them unless they are talking about prostitution and dominatrixes (dominatrii?). If you're going to listen to sociologists, listen to conflict theorists. They get laid all the time. Or listen to post-modernists, just cause it's a trip. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not for me, but I don't see anything wrong with it, so long as it doesn't involve lying and hurting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I'm no Picasso
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I feel sorry for everyone you've ever slept with if that's really how you think. |
No need to- but thanks anyway
The thing about promiscuity is that entails a continuous cycle of sex with mutliple partners with no concern of pleasure except for the physical aspect of it. Sociologically speaking, it is said that men derive more pleasure from sex than women, who believe more in the emotional aspect of the relationship. True, they could temporarily be attached to that person 'for the moment'. But once the moment is over, they move on to the next person.
Which is why I advised the person to look into becoming a porn star if they love sex so much.
I think the best term to use is not promiscuity, but philandering- the act of having sex without the stipulation of marriage.
It is also less self-destructive |
Bollocks. Women like to get off just as much as men, and it can mean just as little.
And what does becoming a porn star have to do with anything? I'm not sure if this is the point you're making, because it's not really clear, but are you basically saying that a promiscuous man is normal, but a promiscuous woman has a personality disorder/is a nymphomaniac? Or are you saying men who sleep around are normal, whereas women who sleep around are "promiscuous"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok- when you talk of structural-functionalism, you in fact hold true that the norms of social order are in fact the relevant functions of how society should work and that society functions as a "well-oiled mechanism" when everyone knows it doesn't and won't.
But you say that people should go around having sex with multiple partners because it is fun, especially to be with a multitude of people, regardless of their sexual history.
I am all for spreading the seed and having as much fun as one possibly can, but I also know their is a limitation and that such a lifestyle would not last forever.
I find it funny how people feel the need to "rebel" against social norms while living/working overseas- it makes them look like hippies (such a perma-vacationer). God forbid they get a real job in the real world.
| Quote: |
Bollocks. Women like to get off just as much as men, and it can mean just as little...but are you basically saying that a promiscuous man is normal, but a promiscuous woman has a personality disorder/is a nymphomaniac?...Or are you saying men who sleep around are normal, whereas women who sleep around are "promiscuous"?
|
I am not saying any of that stuff- you are.
I walked into the conversation stating that anyone committing promiscuity could be afflicted with a Borderline Personality Disorder. Where in any of my posts did I mention anything about gender?
I think you are right in that women could encounter sexual encounters feeling sexually gratified, but it is more or less men who feel it more.
However, women do tend to see sex as a way of gaining attention to themselves from men and it is just that men tend to oblige the women who follow such destructive behavior.
People need to take the "I" out of the conversation when talking about such things because I am not talking about "you" per se, but the situation.
Not all discussions have to be individualistic.
Last edited by mc_jc on Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Ok- when you talk of structural-functionalism... |
Sir, I am not a structural-functionalist and when I get to reading the rest of your post it better be about how I am not a structural functionalist or I will get huffy!
| mc_jc wrote: |
people should go around having sex with multiple partners because it is fun, especially to be with a multitude of people, regardless of their sexual history.
|
Sexual history always needs regard, I went to health class and saw the pictures like everyone else....
| mc_jc wrote: |
their is a limitation and that such a lifestyle would not last forever.
|
Couldn't agree more.
| mc_jc wrote: |
I find it funny how people feel the need to "rebel" against social norms while living/working overseas- it makes them look like hippies (such a perma-vacationer). God forbid they get a real job in the real world. |
I chose not to read the sarcasm and agree heartily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know what- I'm tired of playing devil's advocate- it really sux.
And to tell you the truth, I'm a guy and I do the same thing as other guys do.
I am going to end my discussion like this- those who hate, can hate the game, just don't hate the player!
Also, when keeping score, it is better to keep video footage for points than notches on a bedpost.
Have an awesome afternoon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
You know what- I'm tired of playing devil's advocate- it really sux.
And to tell you the truth, I'm a guy and I do the same thing as other guys do.
I am going to end my discussion like this- those who hate, can hate the game, just don't hate the player!
Also, when keeping score, it is better to keep video footage for points than notches on a bedpost.
Have an awesome afternoon |
 I tried helping out the christians on a "christians are dummies for their silly faith" thread once. It's fun for a while, but it's hard to get behind a cause you have no interest in. I hear your plight, and thanks for the business advice. I just cringe at the thought of my uncle one day- ACK- I will NEVER think that though again. Besides, with all the teens and their cell phone cameras how's a 29 year old supposed to break in the biz? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I'm no Picasso
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
Where in any of my posts did I mention anything about gender? |
| Quote: |
However, women do tend to see sex as a way of gaining attention to themselves from men and it is just that men tend to oblige the women who follow such destructive behavior.
|
... What? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
The short-term sexual gratification usually benefits that man's need for physical pleasure. How does it benefit the woman? |
Women like to bang.
aboxofchocolates, no. There is a spectrum of normal human behaviour. A Gaussian function. Some people are more sad than the median, some people are more slutty than the median. Some people like to bang same-sex (which the DSM once said was a mental disorder) and some people like to dress up like the opposite sex. Some people are weird. But none of them have a disorder.
All of the fake disorders can be easily treated with a life time subscription to some horrible pill and weekly meet-n-greets with a charlatan! Profits will be used to find other deviance from the median that can be fixed with more pills.
So the lesson is this. Some people like to bang lots of people. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. Looking for some stupid pop-psyc reason is silly. It is what it is. Sex feels good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oldenew
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who cares what broads think. Bang 'em if they're pretty and have a decent body. Write 'em off if they're fat and ugly.
God! You kids make something as simple as humping into a discussion on the theory of quantum physics.
It's sex! Get all you can and say good bye.
EMO: When being gay just isn't enough.
Women have vagina's for a reason you limp wristed losers! Unless of course you all insist on the wrist at home...........  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| mc_jc wrote: |
The short-term sexual gratification usually benefits that man's need for physical pleasure. How does it benefit the woman? |
Women like to bang.
aboxofchocolates, no. There is a spectrum of normal human behaviour. A Gaussian function. Some people are more sad than the median, some people are more slutty than the median. Some people like to bang same-sex (which the DSM once said was a mental disorder) and some people like to dress up like the opposite sex. Some people are weird. But none of them have a disorder.
All of the fake disorders can be easily treated with a life time subscription to some horrible pill and weekly meet-n-greets with a charlatan! Profits will be used to find other deviance from the median that can be fixed with more pills.
So the lesson is this. Some people like to bang lots of people. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. Looking for some stupid pop-psyc reason is silly. It is what it is. Sex feels good. |
What did I do? I didn't pop-psych anybody! Besides of which, though I approve of you branching out and citing a few critiques of mainstream medicine, mises (my how you've grown!), it hardly qualifies you to be delivering lessons. Make it into a graph or something, exercise your strengths.
I don't believe this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function
Math guy- yes, you can graph it- it doesn't mean you've found the cause! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
