It's almost like human beings use sex as a tool in socializing themselves (like all primates), and modifiers like straight and gay are ad hoc simplifications of reality. Hint: sexuality doesn't exist (or it does, but not like these people conceive it), there is only sex.
Not if you believe in Jesus Christ. Then your life is elevated as an effort towards holiness, ending in being welcomed into the embraced of your Eternal Father.
So because I said people are like primates in one aspect, I must hold that they are like primates in all aspects? Tell me, who read my comments to you?
Might be the dumbest post I have ever seen, if you have a friend that is gay, why would you think less of your "straight" friend for getting a BJ from said friend? You would just assume he is also gay, which you are clearly fine with since you are friends with a gay guy in the first place.
He might think the gay dude is manipulative and predatory though.
In what ways do humans use sex as a tool for socializing? As far as I can tell people do it for pleasure and validation, the abillity to attract another human being is proof you are not unfuckable, which means you must be somewhat attractive which is an ego boost.
But people do not fuck as a means to create social relations, nor as a way to internalize norms or ideologies, so what DO you mean?
Validation is important for socialization. This doesn't mean that you need to have sex to feel validated as a person, but sex is an important activity for society as a whole, and individuals who don't see themselves as sexually valid have real social problems. Browse r/braincels for proof of this.
So maybe socialization is the wrong word. The message I was trying to get across is that sex acts are not some deep expression of who you are as a person. It's just a normal thing that people do, like eating or going to work. I believe there is real opposition to this position, because if it is true, then I can make reasonable judgments on the ethics of certain sex acts.
To start from the beginning, the person asking about the blowjob seems convinced that the fact that he received a bj from another dude says something about his identity. I think people say this because sex has been put in a pedestal as a way to express something deep and personal that people call sexuality, but is only described as sexual preference (this extends to preference for partners of a certain sex, certain sexual acts such as fetishes, even preferences of appearances). If this sexual preference comes from some deeply ingrained part of your identity, then it is impossible to judge, therefore the morality of any sex act is impossible to judge, because to judge the act is to dehumanize the person's identity.
Obviously, these people are hypocrites, because they do judge sex acts. You're hard pressed to find anyone out there describing rape as a moral sexual choice.
I think the solution is to take sex off its pedestal and judge sex acts objectively, just as we might judge earing habits or work ethic.
Doesn't that put you in the same spot eventually? What's the difference between a bisexual man and a man who likes blowjobs from either gender? Effectively the perception is going to be the same. The identity is still there, just rephrased. If I judge a person on their habits the description of those habits becomes the identity.
And who's to say eating habits and work ethic aren't reflective of one's identity?
A good starting question might be "What is a bisexual man?" If that only describes his sexual habits, then I don't see that is indicative of anything about him as a person. He likes to have sex with certain people, the same way he probably likes certain foods.
Habits are just repeated actions. Often times they change over tiime. Many habits can be dropped by choice. It would seem odd to me to attach something so transitory as habit to a person's identity.
If I judge a person on their habits the description of those habits becomes the identity.
I am not interested in judging people, since individuals are mysterious to people who are not them. I am interested in judging actions, of which habits are composed, because they are out in the open and can be dealt with abstractly without including judgment on any individual. A person cannot be entirely described by their habits, since there is a deeply interior part of every person.
You are what you constantly do ain't it? What is a person if not the sum of their actions? Judging actions is by proxy judging the individual. Hate the sin not the sinner is a nice thought but since people generate the sin the sinner will be judged. Every action is reflective of a person's identity whether they like it or not. Everything else "deep inside" is just justification and adaption to their own actions.
Let's say you are right. If there is nothing interior to the person, and their identity can be fully described by their actions, by what basis are we judging any action to be right or wrong? If you are a murderer, and I say murder is wrong, have I made a judgment about your entire identity?
It's not that there's nothing interior to the person, it's that the interior is less reflective of who a person is compared to their exterior actions.
If you are a murderer, and I say murder is wrong, have I made a judgment about your entire identity?
It is a judgement about the person's identity, and it is a correct one. Take a soldier who ends up shooting a civilian in cold blood. The soldier might go home and tell himself a bunch of things like how is actually a good person and that he was a nice guy who was in a bad situation. But this is a deflection, since the circumstances in wartime let him express who he was, as opposed to forcing him to act in a certain way. His identity should determined on what he did, not what he thought about it afterwards. His construction of his inner self, his "interior", is not reflective of who he really is. Just a way to deal with the realities of his actions.
I think we may be talking about something different when we say "interior". I am not talking about a person's thoughts about their own actions. That's actually rather exterior, since thoughts are also subject to habit. In fact, thoughts are actions as well. When I am talking about the interior, I am talking about the person qua person, as he experiences himself before taking any action.
I am talking about the person qua person, as he experiences himself before taking any action
Actions and inner experience are not separate. There is no inner person who is some separate thing from his thoughts/actions. How one experiences oneself is directly tied to actions of the past present and future.
I agree, but I will assert that a person's experience of himself cannot be judged like his actions. To experience yourself is entirely subjective, it cannot be right or wrong, since that experience is totally apparent to you and you alone. I cannot know in the abstract what it is like to be you, so I cannot reasonably judge that experience of being you.
I cannot know in the abstract what it is like to be you
True, but the abstract is not what matters here is what I'm saying. The abstract cannot be labeled or identified. Therefore identities do not describe the abstract.
Maybe we are talking past each other again. The abstract is the only context in which you can judge any action. I can only say all murder is wrong if I have an abstract standard of what murder is. Without that abstraction, I have to treat each murder as if there was nothing uniting them as similar actions.
Is a male mouth noticeably different from a female mouth? If you close your eyes and pretend it's actually a woman's mouth, you are still literally engaging in a sex act with a man, but it doesn't demonstrate any degree of sexual attraction to men.
42 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-11
I can take a 9-inch dildo up my butt, because I'm an adult and I solve my own problems
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 Jimbo_B_Beterson 2018-06-11
you can't tell me this is just a simple python script
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
It's almost like human beings use sex as a tool in socializing themselves (like all primates), and modifiers like straight and gay are ad hoc simplifications of reality. Hint: sexuality doesn't exist (or it does, but not like these people conceive it), there is only sex.
1 better_bot 2018-06-11
But if I don't have a box to put myself and others in there's no narrative and life is reduced to seeking pleasure and avoiding pain :(
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
Not if you believe in Jesus Christ. Then your life is elevated as an effort towards holiness, ending in being welcomed into the embraced of your Eternal Father.
1 Nopepole 2018-06-11
You low key advocating pedophilia & and Zoophilia m8? 🤔
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
From another comment I made in this thread...
Bestiality and pedophilia are definitely unethical.
1 Nopepole 2018-06-11
But other primates do both of those things, sex is just after all right?
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
Have you ever thought about anything in your entire life?
1 Nopepole 2018-06-11
Oodles, like how you're dodging the question.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
Ask an intelligent question then.
1 Nopepole 2018-06-11
Being bussy blasted because your pseudo-intellectualism can't answer big boy questions is not a good look 😥
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
I literally said they were unethical. You then asked the same question as if I didn't answer it.
1 Nopepole 2018-06-11
I asked you to elaborate, which ya' didn't.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
I don't understand, do you want to hear the reasonable arguments against pedophilia and bestiality? Because they're pretty basic.
1 Nopepole 2018-06-11
And kinda throws a fat wrench in your previous statement.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
So because I said people are like primates in one aspect, I must hold that they are like primates in all aspects? Tell me, who read my comments to you?
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-06-11
No
1 braaaph 2018-06-11
Might be the dumbest post I have ever seen, if you have a friend that is gay, why would you think less of your "straight" friend for getting a BJ from said friend? You would just assume he is also gay, which you are clearly fine with since you are friends with a gay guy in the first place.
He might think the gay dude is manipulative and predatory though.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
prove me wrong bitch.
1 braaaph 2018-06-11
In what ways do humans use sex as a tool for socializing? As far as I can tell people do it for pleasure and validation, the abillity to attract another human being is proof you are not unfuckable, which means you must be somewhat attractive which is an ego boost.
But people do not fuck as a means to create social relations, nor as a way to internalize norms or ideologies, so what DO you mean?
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
Validation is important for socialization. This doesn't mean that you need to have sex to feel validated as a person, but sex is an important activity for society as a whole, and individuals who don't see themselves as sexually valid have real social problems. Browse r/braincels for proof of this.
So maybe socialization is the wrong word. The message I was trying to get across is that sex acts are not some deep expression of who you are as a person. It's just a normal thing that people do, like eating or going to work. I believe there is real opposition to this position, because if it is true, then I can make reasonable judgments on the ethics of certain sex acts.
1 siskonaut 2018-06-11
Can you elaborate on what you mean here fren?
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
To start from the beginning, the person asking about the blowjob seems convinced that the fact that he received a bj from another dude says something about his identity. I think people say this because sex has been put in a pedestal as a way to express something deep and personal that people call sexuality, but is only described as sexual preference (this extends to preference for partners of a certain sex, certain sexual acts such as fetishes, even preferences of appearances). If this sexual preference comes from some deeply ingrained part of your identity, then it is impossible to judge, therefore the morality of any sex act is impossible to judge, because to judge the act is to dehumanize the person's identity.
Obviously, these people are hypocrites, because they do judge sex acts. You're hard pressed to find anyone out there describing rape as a moral sexual choice.
I think the solution is to take sex off its pedestal and judge sex acts objectively, just as we might judge earing habits or work ethic.
1 siskonaut 2018-06-11
Doesn't that put you in the same spot eventually? What's the difference between a bisexual man and a man who likes blowjobs from either gender? Effectively the perception is going to be the same. The identity is still there, just rephrased. If I judge a person on their habits the description of those habits becomes the identity.
And who's to say eating habits and work ethic aren't reflective of one's identity?
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
A good starting question might be "What is a bisexual man?" If that only describes his sexual habits, then I don't see that is indicative of anything about him as a person. He likes to have sex with certain people, the same way he probably likes certain foods.
Habits are just repeated actions. Often times they change over tiime. Many habits can be dropped by choice. It would seem odd to me to attach something so transitory as habit to a person's identity.
I am not interested in judging people, since individuals are mysterious to people who are not them. I am interested in judging actions, of which habits are composed, because they are out in the open and can be dealt with abstractly without including judgment on any individual. A person cannot be entirely described by their habits, since there is a deeply interior part of every person.
1 siskonaut 2018-06-11
You are what you constantly do ain't it? What is a person if not the sum of their actions? Judging actions is by proxy judging the individual. Hate the sin not the sinner is a nice thought but since people generate the sin the sinner will be judged. Every action is reflective of a person's identity whether they like it or not. Everything else "deep inside" is just justification and adaption to their own actions.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
Let's say you are right. If there is nothing interior to the person, and their identity can be fully described by their actions, by what basis are we judging any action to be right or wrong? If you are a murderer, and I say murder is wrong, have I made a judgment about your entire identity?
1 siskonaut 2018-06-11
It's not that there's nothing interior to the person, it's that the interior is less reflective of who a person is compared to their exterior actions.
It is a judgement about the person's identity, and it is a correct one. Take a soldier who ends up shooting a civilian in cold blood. The soldier might go home and tell himself a bunch of things like how is actually a good person and that he was a nice guy who was in a bad situation. But this is a deflection, since the circumstances in wartime let him express who he was, as opposed to forcing him to act in a certain way. His identity should determined on what he did, not what he thought about it afterwards. His construction of his inner self, his "interior", is not reflective of who he really is. Just a way to deal with the realities of his actions.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
I think we may be talking about something different when we say "interior". I am not talking about a person's thoughts about their own actions. That's actually rather exterior, since thoughts are also subject to habit. In fact, thoughts are actions as well. When I am talking about the interior, I am talking about the person qua person, as he experiences himself before taking any action.
1 siskonaut 2018-06-11
Actions and inner experience are not separate. There is no inner person who is some separate thing from his thoughts/actions. How one experiences oneself is directly tied to actions of the past present and future.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
I agree, but I will assert that a person's experience of himself cannot be judged like his actions. To experience yourself is entirely subjective, it cannot be right or wrong, since that experience is totally apparent to you and you alone. I cannot know in the abstract what it is like to be you, so I cannot reasonably judge that experience of being you.
1 siskonaut 2018-06-11
True, but the abstract is not what matters here is what I'm saying. The abstract cannot be labeled or identified. Therefore identities do not describe the abstract.
1 HungerArtistatlunch 2018-06-11
Maybe we are talking past each other again. The abstract is the only context in which you can judge any action. I can only say all murder is wrong if I have an abstract standard of what murder is. Without that abstraction, I have to treat each murder as if there was nothing uniting them as similar actions.
1 IINateII 2018-06-11
/u/IAgreeJustLetMeIn it's okay to be gay/bi, fam. No one's gonna judge you for liking dick in 2018.
1 Awayfone 2018-06-11
Bro job are just helping a friend out
1 bareballzthebitch 2018-06-11
Fake and gay.
1 vir_pedohebephile 2018-06-11
Is a male mouth noticeably different from a female mouth? If you close your eyes and pretend it's actually a woman's mouth, you are still literally engaging in a sex act with a man, but it doesn't demonstrate any degree of sexual attraction to men.
1 TheVeryNicestPerson 2018-06-11
Apparently you've never felt the pure power of the male tongue.
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-06-11
Confirmed faggot
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-06-11
Did the dude nut? If so then definitely gayo, if not then just probably gayo.
1 normie_girl 2018-06-11
Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my dick?