Reality of sex
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:05 am
- Contact:
Reality of sex
Sex is manipulated, marketed and distorted by all societies world-wide. Girls are sexualized, despite that being psychologically damaging to them. Society fascistly dictates that you must "have sex" in a very specific way/ways and that sex is related to love, other people and partners. This is not the case at all!
A world-leading philosopher reveals the basics on sex :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05aGWfURXk - featuring real-life prostitutes!
A world-leading philosopher reveals the basics on sex :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05aGWfURXk - featuring real-life prostitutes!
- Bill Wiltrack
- Posts: 5468
- Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Contact:
Re: Reality of sex
.
Why would you go there?
WHY WOULD YOU create a thread Reality of Sex, use that muted voice, interview a prostitute while wearing that mask?
Do you wonder why your video has no point?
Do you understand that you have a god complex-or a superiority complex?
Do you realize how close you are coming to putting yourself in a really bad reality?
Truman, don't ever go near a prostitute. Do you see where this is taking you?
Do yourself a favor. Seriously, get help.
Get professional help before something REALLY BAD happens to someone.
.
Why would you go there?
WHY WOULD YOU create a thread Reality of Sex, use that muted voice, interview a prostitute while wearing that mask?
Do you wonder why your video has no point?
Do you understand that you have a god complex-or a superiority complex?
Do you realize how close you are coming to putting yourself in a really bad reality?
Truman, don't ever go near a prostitute. Do you see where this is taking you?
Do yourself a favor. Seriously, get help.
Get professional help before something REALLY BAD happens to someone.
.
-
- Posts: 4365
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Reality of sex
god complexes are only suitable for union bosses...Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
Why would you go there?
WHY WOULD YOU create a thread Reality of Sex, use that muted voice, interview a prostitute while wearing that mask?
Do you wonder why your video has no point?
Do you understand that you have a god complex-or a superiority complex?
Do you realize how close you are coming to putting yourself in a really bad reality?
Truman, don't ever go near a prostitute. Do you see where this is taking you?
Do yourself a favor. Seriously, get help.
Get professional help before something REALLY BAD happens to someone.
.
besides, the prostitutes' union dues go far too often to their pimps...
-Imp
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Reality of sex
Don't forget bankers, bosses and PMs.Impenitent wrote:...god complexes are only suitable for union bosses... ...
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Reality of sex
Is this a spoof?
You area taking the piss ain't ya?
Love is a powerful emotion that is best directed inwards??
Yeah - its called masturbation - and you do it verbally, metaphorically and probably literally too.
You bloody wanker!!
You area taking the piss ain't ya?
Love is a powerful emotion that is best directed inwards??
Yeah - its called masturbation - and you do it verbally, metaphorically and probably literally too.
You bloody wanker!!
Seer Travis Truman wrote:Sex is manipulated, marketed and distorted by all societies world-wide. Girls are sexualized, despite that being psychologically damaging to them. Society fascistly dictates that you must "have sex" in a very specific way/ways and that sex is related to love, other people and partners. This is not the case at all!
A world-leading philosopher reveals the basics on sex :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05aGWfURXk - featuring real-life prostitutes!
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:05 am
- Contact:
Re: Reality of sex
I reveal Forbidden Truth. And yes, I am proudly a wanker. Wanking is the Superior form of sex.chaz wyman wrote:Is this a spoof? You area taking the piss ain't ya?
Love is a powerful emotion that is best directed inwards??[/quote[
Yes, Love is best selfishly spent on oneself. This is not limited to masturbation. It also involves the giving of the feeling of Love and respecting oneself rather than relying on others. More info here : http://www.Truthmedia.8k.com/marriage.html.
Yeah - its called masturbation - and you do it verbally, metaphorically and probably literally too.
You bloody wanker!!
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Reality of sex
Wanking isn't sex, sad boy.Seer Travis Truman wrote:I reveal Forbidden Truth. And yes, I am proudly a wanker. Wanking is the Superior form of sex.chaz wyman wrote:Is this a spoof? You area taking the piss ain't ya?
Love is a powerful emotion that is best directed inwards??[/quote[
Yes, Love is best selfishly spent on oneself. This is not limited to masturbation. It also involves the giving of the feeling of Love and respecting oneself rather than relying on others. More info here : http://www.Truthmedia.8k.com/marriage.html.
Yeah - its called masturbation - and you do it verbally, metaphorically and probably literally too.
You bloody wanker!!
-
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 4:05 am
- Contact:
Re: Reality of sex
This answer is simply ridiculous! Masturbation is a form of sex.chaz wyman wrote: Wanking isn't sex, sad boy.
It involves the stimulation of the genital organs to achieve pleasure and or climax.
It is a form of sex. I.e. Having sex by yourself.
Wrong again, inferior.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Reality of sex
No, its just playing with yourself, sado!Seer Travis Truman wrote:This answer is simply ridiculous! Masturbation is a form of sex.chaz wyman wrote: Wanking isn't sex, sad boy.
It involves the stimulation of the genital organs to achieve pleasure and or climax.
It is a form of sex. I.e. Having sex by yourself.
Wrong again, inferior.
It will stunt your growth, give you hairy palms and give you spots on your face.
Re: Reality of sex
I think you've uncovered the real reason for the mask.chaz wyman wrote:No, its just playing with yourself, sado!Seer Travis Truman wrote:This answer is simply ridiculous! Masturbation is a form of sex.chaz wyman wrote: Wanking isn't sex, sad boy.
It involves the stimulation of the genital organs to achieve pleasure and or climax.
It is a form of sex. I.e. Having sex by yourself.
Wrong again, inferior.
It will stunt your growth, give you hairy palms and give you spots on your face.
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Reality of sex
TADA!!!!!!!!John wrote:
I think you've uncovered the real reason for the mask.
Re: Reality of sex
you are so not a world-leading philosopher.Seer Travis Truman wrote:A world-leading philosopher
-
- Posts: 5304
- Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm
Re: Reality of sex
He's a real nut-job. But please don't shout, you might make him come back to the Forum.doolhoofd wrote:you are so not a world-leading philosopher.Seer Travis Truman wrote:A world-leading philosopher
It's been nice without his malevolent presence
- The Voice of Time
- Posts: 2234
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:18 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Reality of sex
I think the reality of sex has never been an ethical topic, but more of an ontological one. I mean, it's not difficult to recognize sex, so the question "what is sex?" is not what I'm looking for, neither its definition. I'm maybe looking more for a phenomenological analysis of sex (although I must confess I've always had problems understanding what-the-heck phenomenology is all about, and few other people seem to agree fully on it, so I'll just make my silly own definition here: the study of raw experience and its structure as opposed to experience heavily influenced by past decisions, understandings, etc.)
I think that from a phenomenological analysis you could talk about quite a different reality of sex than the one you usually prefer to use. Things become less structured because you discover that the structure of sex, its hidden or consciously known rules, norms, appearances and technicalizations, are formed by pieces which themselves can be used in exactly whatever way you'd like. I think there is a problem of sex as looking upon it as solely consisting of "wholes" and not enough consisting of parts that can be rearranged rather freely, and that from person to person you can't look at what "wholes" the person "fits" with, but that you have to reconstruct a unique sexual identity with every person you meet based upon the purely phenomenological pieces available to their situations. Like, going deeply down to the bottom of things simplicity, to the point you only have hands, skin and genitals to talk about and no predefined usages of them. From this point you could say ANYTHING to be possible, and you take it step by step learning not what "wholes" you fit unto, like, you do not make the decision like "that asshole is too fuckings large for my penis", and in the doing also denouncing the entire "whole" of anal penetration, instead you try changing things randomly, focusing on those things you are doing. Like, instead of focusing on the asshole as a whole, you try asking yourself: "does X-female's presence and my penis's contact with her inside a sealed place with loads of restraints upon my penis escaping her and thereby my feeling of her make me feel good?". Here you never referred to any "whole" in the regular sense of the word, it was a neutral phenomenological analysis of the sexual act normally given name as "anal penetration", but each anal penetration is not equal, and a phenomenologist would know that, and he would know how to maximize individual parts of the act as with accordance to his feel, instead of being "told" what feels great he would know it by direct contact with the phenomena, that is, with experience of the properties of the individual parts of an instance of the whole called "anal penetration".
I think that from a phenomenological analysis you could talk about quite a different reality of sex than the one you usually prefer to use. Things become less structured because you discover that the structure of sex, its hidden or consciously known rules, norms, appearances and technicalizations, are formed by pieces which themselves can be used in exactly whatever way you'd like. I think there is a problem of sex as looking upon it as solely consisting of "wholes" and not enough consisting of parts that can be rearranged rather freely, and that from person to person you can't look at what "wholes" the person "fits" with, but that you have to reconstruct a unique sexual identity with every person you meet based upon the purely phenomenological pieces available to their situations. Like, going deeply down to the bottom of things simplicity, to the point you only have hands, skin and genitals to talk about and no predefined usages of them. From this point you could say ANYTHING to be possible, and you take it step by step learning not what "wholes" you fit unto, like, you do not make the decision like "that asshole is too fuckings large for my penis", and in the doing also denouncing the entire "whole" of anal penetration, instead you try changing things randomly, focusing on those things you are doing. Like, instead of focusing on the asshole as a whole, you try asking yourself: "does X-female's presence and my penis's contact with her inside a sealed place with loads of restraints upon my penis escaping her and thereby my feeling of her make me feel good?". Here you never referred to any "whole" in the regular sense of the word, it was a neutral phenomenological analysis of the sexual act normally given name as "anal penetration", but each anal penetration is not equal, and a phenomenologist would know that, and he would know how to maximize individual parts of the act as with accordance to his feel, instead of being "told" what feels great he would know it by direct contact with the phenomena, that is, with experience of the properties of the individual parts of an instance of the whole called "anal penetration".