Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,052
No, I'm perfectly calm, actually. But I think those emotions are definitely seeping out - at a target not nearly as worthy as a great many - from someone in present company...
[RD] What does free speech mean?
- Thread starter aimeeandbeatles
- Start date
- Status
No, I'm perfectly calm, actually. But I think those emotions are definitely seeping out - at a target not nearly as worthy as a great many - from someone in present company...
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
LOL...so you are playing the outrage game. If you can absolutely infuriate someone, or at least convince yourself that you have, do you orgasm?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Which is? The need to believe someone has been infuriated?
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
He's not the only offender on that score.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I wonder how you can only now realize the extremism of some members here, considering the amount of threads you've read in which they displayed it.
But hey, better late than never.
He certainly isn't the only one thriving on such behaviour.
Last edited:
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Except "free expression" is already hindered off and online.
I don't like bigots being able to spread their bile nor do I like them being able to recruit.
It might be a gray area, but it doesn't just have to be incitement; if someone brings up how evil/destructive to society [insert minority here] supposedly is its close enough to actively advocating for their persecution.
You see it with racists and their claims about African Americans, conservatives and their claims about LGBTQ people, anti semites and their views on Jews being the ultimate evil, etc.
Since I assume this is a potshot at me, I'm responding. Look mate, I can tell you don't know much about this topic. How? Because you're under the impression research into this area stopped in 70s when social constructionism in psychology reached its high water mark. Although those ideas have migrated into the cultural water supply, dominating our culture's pop psychology for decades now, quite a lot has changed in terms of the actual research in the past 50 years. I wasn't kidding when I said thousands of studies. We're talking veritable mountains of evidence and theory in genetics, comparative biology, zoology, experimental psychology, cross-cultural psychology, evolutionary theory, neuroscience, endocrinology, and on and on. For God's sake, they barely even knew what hormones were back then. They were working with the tools they had available: cultural theory. But the field has moved and you should too.
Let me leave you with a bit of intuition: of course human sexuality is heavily, heavily shaped by biology and evolution. Sexuality is the freakin mechanism by which we, a species that reproduces sexually, spread our damn genes. Yes, culture plays a role, but not as strong of a role as you seem to think. So you might think evolution would just leave basic issues like whether men are highly susceptible to visual cues up to the vicissitudes of culture. But there you'd be wrong. So I repeat: it is natural and innate for straight/bi men to want to look at women. Shaming it away absolutely will never work. And pathologizing it is outdated pop psychology.
And for all this bluster that I'm just being a selfish man: no. You guys are off your rockers if you think having a realistic, evidence-based, shame-free understanding of human sexuality is a bad thing. It could not be closer to the opposite. Just a few reasons. One, sexuality issues are biggest cause of relationship problems. It is essential for a heterosexual couple to understand there are differences they will have to work with. Not only is it common sense, but any marriage counselor will tell you that, too. Two, and I know you guys aren't going to easily countenance this, but sexual shaming issues really do effect many men. That is a known fact among psychologists and a common thing in clinical practice.
Last edited:
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
It's nice to see a damn well-made post with some reality to dissipate the mental laughing gas around here.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
That seems a pretty flimsy justification for responding, since I see absolutely no way to support that assumption. Not saying that you are wrong, just wondering if perhaps you latched onto an offense that wasn't present. Also not saying that what you went on to say is any less valid.
Said someone passing gas that isn't even funny.
Last edited by a moderator:
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
The very same can be said for your output. Move on.
No, I don't think so. He and I got in a tussle upthread about biology and male sexuality. I'm pretty sure this is him obliquely making fun of what I told him upthread.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
"Move on." Is that an order? What's your authority here? Perhaps you have the chain of command wrong, and it is actually I who have the rank to give you an order to move on? Of course I'd opt for one that ends in "off," myself.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Timmy, nothing you say has any import to me. Kindly reel back your ego, and concentrate on the topic.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Then why do you feel compelled to respond? Pro tip: if you are gonna post lies, at least make them not obviously implausible.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Who is honestly arguing against this?
Berzerker
Deity
People saying men shouldn't want to look at pictures of women in bathing suits. Plus people thinking sexuality is mostly social constructs and culture.
- Status
Similar threads
