PaulS Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 6 hours ago, Burl said: I remember when Paul posted often about being involved with the Methodist church with his wife and believing in Jesus as a spiritual teacher. It’s been a long time and I don’t hear that anymore. What are you doing for Christmas, Paul? Your memory might be failing you a little Burl - I have never posted anything about going to church with my wife (I know this because she's never been to church) and I have never posted that I was involved with the Methodist church (but maybe you are confused because the Church of Christ I was involved with has a similar history to Methodism - both having come from the same Protestant Christianity backgrounds). I have moved somewhat from believing in Jesus as a spiritual teacher - I still think he has something to offer but where I sit currently, I'm not convinced there is anything 'spiritual' at all, other than the sense of community many (i.e. a lot of) of us exist in. Christmas for me is a time to catch up with family and friends, exchange gifts, eat well, socialise, relax and have some fun. It's a time to suspend the normal way of life for a few days and reconnect with my closest 'community'. I think they used to call it Saturnalia until Christianity rose to dominance and claimed that date for its own celebration. Either way, the cultural drive to have a time out for reconnecting is still there for all - christian or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 10 hours ago, thormas said: Paul, You have been asked questions in this and other threads and you avoid them. And this after repeated attempts to get answers. You take a stance and won't answer questions that have to do with that stance thus you are not being an honest or forthright broker or, perhaps, you have not fully though out your positions or perhaps you know they are inconsistent and you don't want to get trapped in an absurdity. Simply answer the questions. Thormas, we both haven't answered some of the others questions along the way. You have done the same many times and as you have done as recently as this very post, ignoring the questions I last asked you: - Do you really think you know me that well to call me dishonest? (No answer) - Do you perhaps have your own biased picture of me in mind that you are reading into my words? (No answer) - So you really believe that unwed couples having a night of consensual sex with no strings attached (strings being a symbol of discardment apparently, according to you), are committing dysfunctional behaviors? They are users? (No answer) - What about masturbation? (No answer) - Can we class that as a functional activity toward self-actualization or is it dysfunctional? (No answer) - If I start out thinking I really, really like a girl, but then by the end of the sex I don't like her (maybe she smells really, really bad or is just really bad at sex) have I harmed my self-actualization or benefited it? (No answer) My point is, questions don't always get answered due to the extensive nature of some of the posts. In your critical question case here, it was a couple of lines within 30+ lines of text. Sorry I didn't take it serious enough. It clearly is an important one to you which I will answer below. Quote You have just summed up your position: a business transaction. Now, once again, do you want your kids or those you love to have such business transactions? I'm just commenting on the nature of such an encounter, such a decision to mutually 'use' another human being. I simply take a different position which I actually do recommend. No I haven't "summed up" anything. I have 'suggested' you see it more like a business transaction - an exchange of services that are mutually agreeable to both and benefit both. Of course there is much more to it than simply that. That's why I disagree with you framing it so negatively with your focus on people being 'used' in a way that sounds like it's bad. I think using another for sex, with their consent, with their mutual desire, is a good and normal thing. And YES - I would be happy for my children, as young adults, to enjoy such experiences. I would encourage them to ignore people like you that want to condemn them for enjoying such. I would also recommend marriage IF that is what they wanted to do. If they didn't want to get married, I wouldn't be recommending it. Marriage is great for me, but like sex, I think it's an individual's personal business what they want to do in this regard. Quote We know how you understand the word 'use' but the question is "we still don't know if it is a convenient good just for you or a good you recommend, even highly recommend, to others - including those you love." So, envelope please - will there be an answer to the question? Highly recommended. There's nothing like a good shag with somebody equally interested in a good shag, with mutual consent and respect between the two parties, knowing full well that when it is over, it is over. No strings attached. I would also recommend that one hold off until one is mature enough to understand that. Quote Using is using Paul and you have been clear on that - what you have not been clear about, what you have avoided is do you recommend, even encourage your kids (if you have kids) or those you truly cherish to 'use' people and enter into similar 'business transactions?' Don't avoid Paul, just answer the question I would recommend mutually agreeable sex just for the sake of sex, if asked about it, the same as I would about marriage. I'm not out there promoting marriage or waving a flag saying "go get married", similarly I am not out there promoting or waving a flag for mutually agreeable sex just for the sake of sex. But yes, I would recommend it if my children asked me about it, when they are mature enough to understand it. Have you ever experienced mutually agreed sex with another (not your wife) just for the sake of sex? I'm only interested to better understand if you are coming at this from an actual experience point of view or are you limited to an intellectual/academic discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, thormas said: Of course relationship are different but your life experience is telling you that using people as things is good - yet we still don't know if it is a convenient good just for you or a good you recommend, even highly recommend, to others - including those you love. Thomas, In all fairness, that seemed like a loaded statement more than a question to me. Paul was just indicating he saw nothing wrong with two people not married having consensual sex for their enjoyment. He was not advocating using another person without reciprocity (mutual benefit). They both benefit, therefor using people as you ask in your question without a question mark could be taken as rhetorical or even divisive and not requiring an answer. All occurrences of your quote above use a period and are a misstatement of what he really said even though you continued to demand an answer to what he didn't say. Is mutual consenting sex using people? If they are of age and it is private, it is at least legal in the US. In his defense, Paul wasn't recommending it for you or others, he was merely indicating he saw nothing wrong with it and yes if asked he would tell another he saw nothing wrong with it.. Joseph Edited December 13, 2019 by JosephM corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, PaulS said: I have 'suggested' you see it more like a business transaction - an exchange of services that are mutually agreeable to both and benefit both. Of course there is much more to it than simply that. That's why I disagree with you framing it so negatively with your focus on people being 'used' in a way that sounds like it's bad. I think using another for sex, with their consent, with their mutual desire, is a good and normal thing. And YES - I would be happy for my children, as young adults, to enjoy such experiences. I would encourage them to ignore people like you that want to condemn them for enjoying such.I would also recommend marriage IF that is what they wanted to do. If they didn't want to get married, I wouldn't be recommending it. Actually business transaction, an exchange of services, does sum up your position rather nicely. So, you look at sex, in these circumstances, as a business transaction, an exchange of service, sexual services, agreeable to both, to the benefit of both and consensual - with no string attached. What is the "much more to it?" But we do have an answer ladies and gentlemen.........finally. That's all I wanted, to see how committed you were to the position. And you are. You would encourage your kids to ignore people who place a higher value on human beings and who believe we should not use one another and having them enter into such business transactions/exchanges of sexual services, would make you happy. Well, okay :+} Just as a side note, I disagree with the action and the accompanying attitude that you are supporting, I don't condemn the individuals since there can be all sorts of reasons for why one would engage is such an exchange of services and, as has been said, we cannot judge. 1 hour ago, PaulS said: Highly recommended. There's nothing like a good shag with somebody equally interested in a good shag, with mutual consent and respect between the two parties, knowing full well that when it is over, it is over. No strings attached. Okay, I had to stop laughing. But just as an aside, is respect required? If there is consent, if there is mutual benefit, if it's just a shag, if it's over when it's over - respect is unnecessary. Also, leaving the legalities aside, does this carry over to a exchange of services with a prostitute or, to be more upscale, an escort? There is sharing, there is consent, there is mutual benefit, there is interest, there are no strings, when it's over it's over., hell, there might even be respect. Is there a difference, if so , what is it? So now I can answer the question about your honesty: you finally were but I do question how you could miss the question when it was in the very post to which you were responding. So, you are either not a careful reader or you prevaricate (and make up excuses about noise) for reasons of your own. I though you also pulled the same bit of nonsense in the discussion on reliability/verifiability. But the good news, is it took forever but when pressed and pressed and did I say pressed - you actually gave an answer. Edited December 13, 2019 by thormas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 17 minutes ago, JosephM said: Thomas, In all fairness, that seemed like a loaded statement more than a question to me. Paul was just indicating he saw nothing wrong with two people not married having consensual sex for their enjoyment. He was not advocating using another person without reciprocity (mutual benefit). They both benefit, therefor using people as you ask in your question without a question mark could be taken as rhetorical or even divisive and not requiring an answer. All occurrences of your quote above use a period and are a misstatement of what he really said even though you continued to demand an answer to what he didn't say. Is mutual consenting sex using people? If they are of age and it is private, it is at least legal in the US. In his defense, Paul wasn't recommending it for you or others, he was merely indicating he saw nothing wrong with it and yes if asked he would tell another he saw nothing wrong with it.. Joseph Joseph, it was a statement to set up a question, nothing unusual about that approach. I know that Paul was talking about mutual benefit and consent but it was not just 'two people not married' it was two people, not in any kind of relationship ("no strings attached, just a shag, when it is over, it is over") and the mutual benefit he was advocating was a mutual use of a (or between) human being. As mentioned, 'two people not married' is far broader than the situation that Paul supports and I have no issue with such 'other' situations because there is a relationship in which one knows and values the other as person and this can encompass the Kurt Russells/Goldies of the world, the engaged couple, the college couple 'in love' and other 'love' relationships. Paul is clearly saying that such shagging, no string attached sexual exchanges are good: "more power to them," nothing like a good shag," "I would be happy for (others)," "highly recommend." And question mark not withstanding, it was a question seeking an answer. I disagree that they are a misstatement: Paul made statements and I wanted to know if he truly stood behind those statements: if they were good, if they were good for him, did he believe they were good for all people, including his loved ones. If not, why not? Joseph, no one is talking legalities. "Mutual consenting sex" is a broad and it captures, as indicated, love relationships. The exchange of sexual services discussed by Paul is mutual consenting sex that does indeed use another as thing, object; it is different in kind than engaging the other as person in relationship. Therefore, some mutual consenting sex is using people, other mutual consenting sex is not. I know Paul wasn't recommending it for me or you but if one believes something is right then the question is, is it right, is it acceptable, is it good for all? Are you sure of your position, sure enough that you would recommend it, even encourage others. And Paul's answer was a resounding yes! I still disagree and believe he is wrong but I at least now know he is all in and although he won't take an AD out, he still highly recommends it to all who hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, PaulS said: Thormas, we both haven't answered some of the others questions along the way. You have done the same many times and as you have done as recently as this very post, ignoring the questions I last asked you: - Do you really think you know me that well to call me dishonest? (No answer) - Do you perhaps have your own biased picture of me in mind that you are reading into my words? (No answer) - So you really believe that unwed couples having a night of consensual sex with no strings attached (strings being a symbol of discardment apparently, according to you), are committing dysfunctional behaviors? They are users? (No answer) - What about masturbation? (No answer) - Can we class that as a functional activity toward self-actualization or is it dysfunctional? (No answer) - If I start out thinking I really, really like a girl, but then by the end of the sex I don't like her (maybe she smells really, really bad or is just really bad at sex) have I harmed my self-actualization or benefited it? (No answer) My point is, questions don't always get answered due to the extensive nature of some of the posts. In your critical question case here, it was a couple of lines within 30+ lines of text. Sorry I didn't take it serious enough. It clearly is an important one to you which I will answer below. Now that my question has been answered, I will look to yours (I didn't previously answer them because simply I asked first and I was waiting on you). - I only know what you write and I have mentioned the mixed message you present on this (see last sentence below). - I have a partial picture based on the presentation in your posts but I also know we typically never present our full selves in such a forum. I am sometimes surprised, other times not at all. - again, the issue has nothing to do with wed or unwed, it has to do with relationship, specifically a love relationship of mutual compassion, care and passion. Such relationships involve a human being who is person (not a thing) and there are strings, it is not over when it's over .........but there is shagging galore plus many other shared activities ;+}. One is not using the other in such relationships (of course this remains that possibility since we sometime fail in our relationships). I just checked to be sure and no strings attached means just sex and no further relationship so detachment and as you have indicated, probable discardment: "it's over." It is obvious they are using one another ......for sex and, as you have said, "that's it." Substitute the blonde for a redhead, go for a brunette, this time small build, then a little bustier, perhaps a bit older, perhaps a lawyer, then a bartender, next a milf, and on and on. Is it dysfunctional? Yes, I think it is a misunderstanding of the human being, an objectification of or a projection of thingness on a person. I am a Christian and I accept a view of man/woman and what you recommend is a deviation from what is the ideal, what is real - the way to be in oneself and for another; the other is always and everywhere person (actually that's what I thought your point was in the discussion of charity: regardless of the reason, should the Christian be like Jesus, would Jesus ever not see the other, those in need, those who hunger, those who suffer, as person, should then we ever allow ourselves to ever see the other as less than person). Although I speak out of a Christian backdrop, I think Christianity (and not just Christianity) is onto something and it says something about what it means to human and how we should be/act as humans. To treat another as a thing, as an object is simply wrong, it is less than who we are, who we can/should be. - masturbation is natural and part of human growth and with a sexual awakening, a self discovery and self knowledge. It has been shown to be helpful in preparation for or even during love making as one is able to know their body and what 'works' for them. As in most thing, excess or exclusivity can lead to problems. If you're only dating your hand or dating it 20 X a day, it's time to get out in the world and get a no string attached hook up. Kidding. - masturbation certainly fulfills a need on the hierarchy and so can be a 'lower' stepping stone to the higher levels but, as said, it can become dysfunctional. -. I remember girls I dated before my wife and including my wife and I was so taken with them, I wanted to spent time with them, to see them, to talk, to walk, to have a beer, to just 'get to know' the person who fascinated and captivated me. So, I actually knew who smelled good or not :+} Good god have some class :+} someone smells bad and you dump them? How is that not seeing the other as an object: is the smell pleasing, is the skin clear, do they have only a minimal number of zits, is the butt small (or large depending on preference), are the boobs just right, will she notice how small you (not me) are, if she wears her glasses during sex - it sounds like a display case or someone shopping on Amazon, selecting one object that glitters from the other objects available for one's pleasure (and I suspect you have tumbled down the hierarchy pyramid). Whereas when one finally does make love to the one who has captivated him, she is already known and the knowing is enhanced. Am I the only one who knows this? Come on guys, some of you are married, simply remember and compare. BTW, I always found that a discussion about Maslow was a great way to start the conversation and really captivate a woman :+} Btw, thanks for the explanation about my question. I take you at your word and appreciate the consideration. Edited December 13, 2019 by thormas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) . Edited December 13, 2019 by thormas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, PaulS said: Have you ever experienced mutually agreed sex with another (not your wife) just for the sake of sex? I'm only interested to better understand if you are coming at this from an actual experience point of view or are you limited to an intellectual/academic discussion? First, this is information I was saving for my best selling autobiography ;+}..........however, I had already written out a response on the site - but then I looked at your full question again. You want to know if I speak from the experience you endorse or if this is just an academic argument but that suggests if it is the latter then it might not be considered as worthy or insightful as one who has such experience – even if that very experience is questionable. However, if one has had only true, personal relationships with another or other human beings, that too is experience and one can speak from that reality. As an aside, most of us haven’t murdered but, given our experience of not murdering, we can make a value judgment on murder – actually many/most human being make such value judgments in their lives. So, I disagree with this premise and therefore I have decided to not answer as you would have me. I will simply say I have experience and leave it at that without further characterization. I will say, and I ‘blame’ this on my Irish heritage, that unlike many of my best friends who married in their early 20s soon after graduating from college, I didn't marry until I was in my 30s. Therefore, I continued to ‘date’ a good deal in the ensuing decade. What I will say is what I said in response to another questions: the experience is that ‘this’ particular woman captivated me and I wanted to spend time with her. I assumed, as with friendship, that there would be strings, I didn’t want it to be over – rather I wanted to know ‘her’- this particular woman, first and foremost, as person (which seemed to be the natural, almost the built-in response) not as an object to be used and forgotten. Hell, why would I want that when I was captivated and fascinated by her? Obviously, the relationships didn't always work out, although most lasted a couple/few years and I remain great friends with most of these girls today - all except the one I left to date my wife – but I did first break up with her. And I knew whether or not they smelled well before sex – if you spend the time you get to know this kind of stuff :+} Maybe it was because I was one of 3 boys in my family but when I ‘discovered’ girls, that was it: who wanted just a taste (no pun intended) when you could be with her day after day, week after week, for months, for years. I liked the strings, I wanted to pull them (no pun intended) and see who this person was, I liked the mystery and the discovery of the other, I wanted time with her, I wanted her in my life. I guess I just actually dated more than you :+} because I didn't have time for one night stands, I already had more than that offered. Actually, now that I think of it, what were you doing that you had or needed all these 'no strings attached, its's over' experiences? Some of us were busy with girls that we actually knew and cared about in real relationships :+} My hope - what I recommend for my kid, for all people, male and female, gay and straight, young and old - is that they will be captivated by the person, that they will value the other enough to want the strings because we all come with them and it makes us who we are. (No strings suggest you simply don’t want to or care enough for the other to truly engage.) And I don't want this just at the end of the journey when it is time to 'settle down' I want this to be the journey, I want the individual's journey to be engagements of persons fully as a person. And finally as a parting note and speaking as a guy to other guys (and perhaps lesbians): my god guys, we're talking about a woman - who has not been captivated, who would not opt for being captivated, who would not take the time to pull the strings to know the person who captivates you, who doesn't want this for themselves, who doesn't want this for others, who doesn't care enough to actually and really engage who that person, that woman is? This is the demand and the offer inherent in person and it is to be met as person. There is not, should not be thingness in person, unless we allow it in the other and in ourselves. There are business transactions, there are exchanges of services in life - but I never thought of my friends in those terms, I never thought of and still refuse to think of a woman in those terms and I try to be on guard that I never think of any others in those terms. Even when I was in business and there were actual transactions, I still approached the other as person. Even in actual business tranactions there are strings as there are with friends, parents, kids and the little redheaded girl when she is all grown up - but strings are the price of admission to friendship, to love and in human interaction that sees the other as person, perhaps even (including the ones who smell) as a kid of God. Edited December 13, 2019 by thormas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burl Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 19 hours ago, PaulS said: Your memory might be failing you a little Burl - I have never posted anything about going to church with my wife (I know this because she's never been to church) and I have never posted that I was involved with the Methodist church (but maybe you are confused because the Church of Christ I was involved with has a similar history to Methodism - both having come from the same Protestant Christianity backgrounds). I have moved somewhat from believing in Jesus as a spiritual teacher - I still think he has something to offer but where I sit currently, I'm not convinced there is anything 'spiritual' at all, other than the sense of community many (i.e. a lot of) of us exist in. Christmas for me is a time to catch up with family and friends, exchange gifts, eat well, socialise, relax and have some fun. It's a time to suspend the normal way of life for a few days and reconnect with my closest 'community'. I think they used to call it Saturnalia until Christianity rose to dominance and claimed that date for its own celebration. Either way, the cultural drive to have a time out for reconnecting is still there for all - christian or not. It’s been a while. Guess I misremembered. Merry Christmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burl Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 4 hours ago, thormas said: First, this is information I was saving for my best selling autobiography ;+}..........however, I had already written out a response on the site - but then I looked at your full question again. You want to know if I speak from the experience you endorse or if this is just an academic argument but that suggests if it is the latter then it might not be considered as worthy or insightful as one who has such experience – even if that very experience is questionable. However, if one has had only true, personal relationships with another or other human beings, that too is experience and one can speak from that reality. As an aside, most of us haven’t murdered but, given our experience of not murdering, we can make a value judgment on murder – actually many/most human being make such value judgments in their lives. So, I disagree with this premise and therefore I have decided to not answer as you would have me. I will simply say I have experience and leave it at that without further characterization. I will say, and I ‘blame’ this on my Irish heritage, that unlike many of my best friends who married in their early 20s soon after graduating from college, I didn't marry until I was in my 30s. Therefore, I continued to ‘date’ a good deal in the ensuing decade. What I will say is what I said in response to another questions: the experience is that ‘this’ particular woman captivated me and I wanted to spend time with her. I assumed, as with friendship, that there would be strings, I didn’t want it to be over – rather I wanted to know ‘her’- this particular woman, first and foremost, as person (which seemed to be the natural, almost the built-in response) not as an object to be used and forgotten. Hell, why would I want that when I was captivated and fascinated by her? Obviously, the relationships didn't always work out, although most lasted a couple/few years and I remain great friends with most of these girls today - all except the one I left to date my wife – but I did first break up with her. And I knew whether or not they smelled well before sex – if you spend the time you get to know this kind of stuff :+} Maybe it was because I was one of 3 boys in my family but when I ‘discovered’ girls, that was it: who wanted just a taste (no pun intended) when you could be with her day after day, week after week, for months, for years. I liked the strings, I wanted to pull them (no pun intended) and see who this person was, I liked the mystery and the discovery of the other, I wanted time with her, I wanted her in my life. I guess I just actually dated more than you :+} because I didn't have time for one night stands, I already had more than that offered. Actually, now that I think of it, what were you doing that you had or needed all these 'no strings attached, its's over' experiences? Some of us were busy with girls that we actually knew and cared about in real relationships :+} My hope - what I recommend for my kid, for all people, male and female, gay and straight, young and old - is that they will be captivated by the person, that they will value the other enough to want the strings because we all come with them and it makes us who we are. (No strings suggest you simply don’t want to or care enough for the other to truly engage.) And I don't want this just at the end of the journey when it is time to 'settle down' I want this to be the journey, I want the individual's journey to be engagements of persons fully as a person. And finally as a parting note and speaking as a guy to other guys (and perhaps lesbians): my god guys, we're talking about a woman - who has not been captivated, who would not opt for being captivated, who would not take the time to pull the strings to know the person who captivates you, who doesn't want this for themselves, who doesn't want this for others, who doesn't care enough to actually and really engage who that person, that woman is? This is the demand and the offer inherent in person and it is to be met as person. There is not, should not be thingness in person, unless we allow it in the other and in ourselves. There are business transactions, there are exchanges of services in life - but I never thought of my friends in those terms, I never thought of and still refuse to think of a woman in those terms and I try to be on guard that I never think of any others in those terms. Even when I was in business and there were actual transactions, I still approached the other as person. Even in actual business tranactions there are strings as there are with friends, parents, kids and the little redheaded girl when she is all grown up - but strings are the price of admission to friendship, to love and in human interaction that sees the other as person, perhaps even (including the ones who smell) as a kid of God. Best thing I have read all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 21 hours ago, thormas said: What is the "much more to it?" Why I say "business transaction" doesn't sum up the situation fully and only suggest the term to help you along a little, is because some of the 'more to it' can include things like getting to know the other (just because it's a mutual sex session doesn't necessarily mean the person is a stranger), the respect for another person that runs a little deeper than a simply hello/goodbye that is more common in a simple business transaction, boundaries may need to be set and understood before going ahead, and really a whole bunch of other human emotions and thoughts which one doesn't usually experience in a simple business transaction. Quote But just as an aside, is respect required? If there is consent, if there is mutual benefit, if it's just a shag, if it's over when it's over - respect is unnecessary. Also, leaving the legalities aside, does this carry over to a exchange of services with a prostitute or, to be more upscale, an escort? There is sharing, there is consent, there is mutual benefit, there is interest, there are no strings, when it's over it's over., hell, there might even be respect. Is there a difference, if so , what is it? In what I am explaining to you, yes, respect is required. You respect what the other person wants, you respect their consent by understanding what that consent entails. You respect their wishes if whilst you are making love they ask you to do or not do something, and you oblige. So yes, I think respect is an integral part. I think the prostitute question is really self explanatory - would he or she really want to sleep with you if you weren't paying for it? I don't think it's a genuine mutually beneficial arrangement when it comes to the act of sex (and not the money side of it). This is why I say thinking of it more like a business transaction doesn't sum it up entirely, but only partially lends itself to understanding the exchange of mutually agreed sex without any strings attached. That said, I think prostitution has its place and can be useful, but I think there's a lot more to it though. Whilst many (i.e. a lot of) prostitutes may genuinely work on their own terms and motivation, some also are forced to by poverty or drugs or abuse by others, etc. So I think there can be a nasty side to prostitution and a good side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 22 hours ago, thormas said: - again, the issue has nothing to do with wed or unwed, it has to do with relationship, specifically a love relationship of mutual compassion, care and passion. Such relationships involve a human being who is person (not a thing) and there are strings, it is not over when it's over .........but there is shagging galore plus many other shared activities ;+}. One is not using the other in such relationships (of course this remains that possibility since we sometime fail in our relationships). I have had mutual compassion, care and passion in my relationships that have been 'just for sex'. I can only tell you that from my experience. If you don't believe these things are possible in such a relationship, I think that is your loss. Quote - I just checked to be sure and no strings attached means just sex and no further relationship so detachment and as you have indicated, probable discardment: "it's over." It is obvious they are using one another ......for sex and, as you have said, "that's it." Substitute the blonde for a redhead, go for a brunette, this time small build, then a little bustier, perhaps a bit older, perhaps a lawyer, then a bartender, next a milf, and on and on. I think you use discardment as an emotion-laden term, probably deliberately, because you have a negative view of no strings attached. Typically 'discardment' means to 'get rid of' something. I don't think that's an appropriate way to define the human relationship I have been discussing. Yes it is over and both parties mutually agree to go their own ways - but neither really discards or gets rid of the other. The point has simply come, as agreed, where each goes their own way. Quote I am a Christian and I accept a view of man/woman and what you recommend is a deviation from what is the ideal, what is real - the way to be in oneself and for another; the other is always and everywhere person (actually that's what I thought your point was in the discussion of charity: regardless of the reason, should the Christian be like Jesus, would Jesus ever not see the other, those in need, those who hunger, those who suffer, as person, should then we ever allow ourselves to ever see the other as less than person). Although I speak out of a Christian backdrop, I think Christianity (and not just Christianity) is onto something and it says something about what it means to human and how we should be/act as humans. To treat another as a thing, as an object is simply wrong, it is less than who we are, who we can/should be. Indeed you do. Is it the only way a Christian can view them - I'd say not. In your judgement you see a certain kind of relationship as 'ideal'. I am simply saying that many (i.e. a lot of) different kinds of relationships are 'ideal' for their circumstances and what they have to offer those involved. There can be harmful relationships too which may diminish another - I'm not advocating those. If you have the view of another as an object only - that's you're hangup not mine. There is still sharing, passion, compassion, even love in a mutually-agreeable, sex-only, relationship. That's where speaking from experience does have some benefits. Quote - masturbation certainly fulfills a need on the hierarchy and so can be a 'lower' stepping stone to the higher levels but, as said, it can become dysfunctional. You might want to revisit Maslow - there is a quite an argument for his 'hierarchy' not being valid. Needs can be met in a variety of orders outside of the hierarchy Maslow developed. Burl seemed to disregard Maslow completely, but unfortunately didn't elaborate and you don't seem interested in picking up on that, so I have let it be too. Quote -. I remember girls I dated before my wife and including my wife and I was so taken with them, I wanted to spent time with them, to see them, to talk, to walk, to have a beer, to just 'get to know' the person who fascinated and captivated me. So, I actually knew who smelled good or not :+} Good god have some class :+} someone smells bad and you dump them? How is that not seeing the other as an object: is the smell pleasing, is the skin clear, do they have only a minimal number of zits, is the butt small (or large depending on preference), are the boobs just right, will she notice how small you (not me) are, if she wears her glasses during sex - it sounds like a display case or someone shopping on Amazon, selecting one object that glitters from the other objects available for one's pleasure (and I suspect you have tumbled down the hierarchy pyramid). Whereas when one finally does make love to the one who has captivated him, she is already known and the knowing is enhanced. Am I the only one who knows this? Come on guys, some of you are married, simply remember and compare. BTW, I always found that a discussion about Maslow was a great way to start the conversation and really captivate a woman :+} I have made love to women I am full captivated with, and I have made love with women who I am less than captivated with. Both had their place and both were wonderful. The smell thing might be hard for you to understand, but on one occasion a woman who I was very much attracted to and who in many ways seemed to meet my expectations, turned out to have disgusting personal hygiene vaginally and anally, which I only found out during our first session of lovemaking. Up until that point I had no way of knowing about this. She did have mild body odour initially but I just put that down to the weather and ignored it (not a major issue). Unfortunately for me, this new found undesirable trait of hers was a real turn off and I struggled to get past it. It seems you've been quick to make another assumption about what I say without seeking a better understanding. Personally, I think I dealt with it with a lot of class - trying to let her know about her issue without trying to offend or humiliate her, but it was still a turnoff and I didn't go forward with the relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 11 hours ago, thormas said: As an aside, most of us haven’t murdered but, given our experience of not murdering, we can make a value judgment on murder – actually many/most human being make such value judgments in their lives. So, I disagree with this premise and therefore I have decided to not answer as you would have me. I will simply say I have experience and leave it at that without further characterization. Yes we can make a value judgement (judging is the easy bit) but what I am saying is that unless you have been there and done that, you don't know what it feels like, what the emotions involved are, whether the experience is life affirming or harmful to self-actualization. I don't know what it feels like to commit murder - do you? But I am sure a murderer does. Do you know what it feels like after a mutually-consenting, mutually beneficial love-making session with no strings attached? - I do. It seems you can't or won't say, so I don't know what to presume you understand from actual experience vs an intellectual/academic approach. Whilst we may not need actual experience to make a judgement, I would have thought there was extra value in the experience plus the intellectual/academic approach. I have both and you aren't prepared to say if you have the experience or not. So my premise is that you should hold off on judging others as being 'users' whose actions hamper their self-actualization potential when it seems you don't really know what they think, do, say or how they may approach this whole issue of simple sex without strings attached. I think that if you had benefited from the positive experiences of this type of sex, which I believe I have, you wouldn't be so quick to judge such behavior as harmful. Quote I will say, and I ‘blame’ this on my Irish heritage, that unlike many of my best friends who married in their early 20s soon after graduating from college, I didn't marry until I was in my 30s. Therefore, I continued to ‘date’ a good deal in the ensuing decade. What I will say is what I said in response to another questions: the experience is that ‘this’ particular woman captivated me and I wanted to spend time with her. I assumed, as with friendship, that there would be strings, I didn’t want it to be over – rather I wanted to know ‘her’- this particular woman, first and foremost, as person (which seemed to be the natural, almost the built-in response) not as an object to be used and forgotten. Hell, why would I want that when I was captivated and fascinated by her? Obviously, the relationships didn't always work out, although most lasted a couple/few years and I remain great friends with most of these girls today - all except the one I left to date my wife – but I did first break up with her. And I knew whether or not they smelled well before sex – if you spend the time you get to know this kind of stuff :+} Maybe it was because I was one of 3 boys in my family but when I ‘discovered’ girls, that was it: who wanted just a taste (no pun intended) when you could be with her day after day, week after week, for months, for years. I liked the strings, I wanted to pull them (no pun intended) and see who this person was, I liked the mystery and the discovery of the other, I wanted time with her, I wanted her in my life. I guess I just actually dated more than you :+} because I didn't have time for one night stands, I already had more than that offered. Actually, now that I think of it, what were you doing that you had or needed all these 'no strings attached, its's over' experiences? Some of us were busy with girls that we actually knew and cared about in real relationships :+} Yeah, I did all that too, and it was wonderful. As were the occasions where I and another girl used each other for a night of passion - with mutual consent, mutual benefit, respect for one another, desire and attraction to one another, yet happy to go our own ways afterwards. Quote My hope - what I recommend for my kid, for all people, male and female, gay and straight, young and old - is that they will be captivated by the person, that they will value the other enough to want the strings because we all come with them and it makes us who we are. (No strings suggest you simply don’t want to or care enough for the other to truly engage.) And I don't want this just at the end of the journey when it is time to 'settle down' I want this to be the journey, I want the individual's journey to be engagements of persons fully as a person. And finally as a parting note and speaking as a guy to other guys (and perhaps lesbians): my god guys, we're talking about a woman - who has not been captivated, who would not opt for being captivated, who would not take the time to pull the strings to know the person who captivates you, who doesn't want this for themselves, who doesn't want this for others, who doesn't care enough to actually and really engage who that person, that woman is? This is the demand and the offer inherent in person and it is to be met as person. There is not, should not be thingness in person, unless we allow it in the other and in ourselves. Yeah, I'd like my kids to enjoy that too like I did and still do with my wife. But it's not one or the other in my opinion, and depending on where they're at in their life, they may choose and experience other models. Quote There are business transactions, there are exchanges of services in life - but I never thought of my friends in those terms, I never thought of and still refuse to think of a woman in those terms and I try to be on guard that I never think of any others in those terms. Even when I was in business and there were actual transactions, I still approached the other as person. Even in actual business tranactions there are strings as there are with friends, parents, kids and the little redheaded girl when she is all grown up - but strings are the price of admission to friendship, to love and in human interaction that sees the other as person, perhaps even (including the ones who smell) as a kid of God. Honestly Thormas, you take stuff so literally sometimes. Because I use the phrase 'business transaction' in a way to help you better understand the point I am making, you then seize on it and decide that phrase sums up everything I'm trying to convey. You are wrong. I am not describing this type of sex activity as a till at the hardware store or something. If I have to say it again - it is like a business transaction in some ways because two mature people make an agreement to proceed on the basis that they will both gain something from the activity and are happy with the circumstances. As I have explained above, there's a lot more to it than just a simple 'transaction' which you are now seizing on. I'm not talking about women as pieces of meat like at a butcher. I am talking about appreciating their sexiness, their kindness, their voice, their demeanor and many (i.e. a lot of) of other things - all of these things go into deciding if one wants to sleep with another or not. Like your friends, they probably didn't start out as friends and you probably cut strings with people before a friendship developed. But once you're in that friendship role I am sure there is a strong element of mutual respect and understanding. So if I had a friend that wanted sex with me and we respected one another's understanding of what we wanted out of it and what the other expected or not, then maybe we would proceed with sex. Who knows. But my point is that you seem fixated on some sort of uncaring, nasty, debased, abuse of another - that is not what I am advocating at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 4 hours ago, Burl said: It’s been a while. Guess I misremembered. Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas Burl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 4 hours ago, PaulS said: Yes we can make a value judgement (judging is the easy bit) but what I am saying is that unless you have been there and done that, you don't know what it feels like. I don't know what it feels like to commit murder - do you? But I am sure a murderer does. Do you know what it feels like after a mutually consenting, mutually benefical love-making session with no strings attached? - I do. So my premise is that you should hold off on judging others as being 'users' when you don't really know what they think, do, say or how they may approach this whole issue. You may think you have a grip on this matter and are all over it - but I suspect you're not because you haven't experienced it. That may not stop you from judging others on this matter, but I'm just saying there is a positive side to this type of experience which you, it seems from what you have said, have never experienced. The point stands Paul as one can make a judgment about murder never having murdered, so too your 'mutually consenting, mutually benefical love-making session with no strings attached' - one can judge from the other side. However, you make an assumption about me that I will not confirm as I don't believe one has to experience X to make a value judgment on X. Your argument about the inability to make value judgments (actually not always that easy bit for a thoughtful person) unless one has the experience of the topic under discussion brings us to the point of absurdity as, for example no one who has never been raped cannot say that rape is wrong, or that no one who has never been physically or sexually or emotionally abused cannot make the judgment that those are wrong. That is precisely why I decided to answer your question as I did - it does not make a difference. In addition, even though I said it previously, the judgment is on the action, not the actor as one cannot know all that goes into a decision. In this case, my take is based on your description of the encounter as a service exchange, of there being no strings, as it being over after the act, etc. You are simply describing an exchange in which each uses the other - as a sexual object - and it has, as you have indicated, nothing to do with love-making. I remind you of your comment about the person smelling bad (kidding or not), if the object of your service exchange is not to your liking, if there is something off with the product as presented you bail or if the exchange was not to your liking, you never try that particular product again. Ever try that with a woman, i.e. a person you actually love when making love? That is rhetorical, so no answer is expected as that is none of our business. I can say that, as you describe it, this 'exchange of sexual services, is a choice and a decision to use another human being and to be used as an object or thing in return. I can say this is wrong since its primary goal and modus operandi (so to speak) is using another human being, objectifying (as thing) another human being - but I have no idea if or the degree to which one is blameworthy for what is a wrong act. This is the case even with murder: I can say the act is wrong (or bad) but I cannot judge if the murderer is culpable or blameworthy or, in religious terms, if the person is a sinner. Can't do it...........although society has a say in murder and will/must make such a determination. So Paul, there are two separate issues which you say I am combining but I am not: a value judgment is made on the action but there is no judgment on the individual or individuals. As a side note, I allow that there can be a positive note from the experience as there might be with a good number of other actions we can list that are 'wrong' - but that doesn't, in this case, make the decision to use another human being, right. 4 hours ago, PaulS said: Yeah, I did all that too, and it was wonderful. As were the occasions where I and another girl used each other for a night of passion - with mutual consent, mutual benefit, respect for one another, desire and attraction to one another, yet happy to go our own ways afterwards. Good on you for the former but the latter is different in kind from the former and that difference is the crux of this discussion. 4 hours ago, PaulS said: Yeah, I'd like my kids to enjoy that too like I did and still do with my wife. But it's not one or the other in my opinion, and depending on where they're at in their life, they may choose and experience other models. Again, here we differ but as long as 'other models' don't involve the use of another human being, I agree :+} 4 hours ago, PaulS said: Honestly Thormas, you take stuff so literally some times. Because I say 'business transaction' as a guide to a slightly better understanding for you, you now think of sex as a till at the hardware store or something. I'm not talking about women as pieces of meat like at a butcher. I am talking about appreciating their sexiness, there kindness, their voice, their demeanor - all of these things go into deciding if one wants to sleep with another or not. Like your friends, they probably didn't start out as friends and you probably cut strings with people before a friendship developed. But once you're in that friendship role I am sure there is a strong element of mutual respect and understanding. So if I had a friend that wanted sex with me and we respected one another's understanding of what we wanted out of it and what the other expected or not, then maybe we would proceed with sex. Who knows. But my point is that you seem fixated on some sort of uncaring, nasty, debased, abuse of another - that is not what I am advocating at all. Well, it does involve the use of 'tools' - at least as temporary loaners but there is no rental fee - so in that it is not a business transaction. I get your point but business transaction or, my favorite euphemism, exchange of services, sort of nails it (no pun intended). Paul, you're really fleshing it out now: "appreciating their sexiness, there kindness, their voice, their demeanor" so as a savvy consumer (sans any rental fees) you are attracted to a certain product line. I get it, I'm an Apple products guy: I like Apple's sleek lines, their whimsical, playful apps, I really like Siri's voice and I like that many Apple products can go on the road with me and, best of all, there are no strings attached - literally, it's wifi. Actually as with love, so with friends, there is 'something there in the beginning' with some people and not with others and if one is lucky there is genuine friendship. Certainly all relationships with women or all possible friendships don't work out and they end but the real comparison to what you're advocating is if a guy wasn't my friend we would still come to an arrangement, a transaction that benefits us both, that we would exchange friend services perhaps once or even a number of times - but there would be no strings, no friendship - we're not really friends. By your own admission and descriptions, you have not been talking about dating, you have been talking about 'hook-ups.' That is different than dating or friendship. However, you just changed the equation as you are now talking about a woman who is a friend - if she is a friend, there are strings, it is not over, there is more going on than a service exchange. It's at least dating lite :+} and it might not go anywhere but it is not the same service exchange described earlier. But the bigger issue is that you had a female friend that wanted sex with you? Please let's try to be realistic ;+} I actually never thought that the previous explanation of the sexual service exchange was uncaring, nasty, debased, abusive. Certainly not abusive given that you said it was mutually beneficial (and to abuse another doesn't seem too beneficial to the recipient), certainly not debased as it was consensual, certainly not nasty as depending on one's outlook nasty can be good as long as it is a 'good' nasty and, finally, certainly respectful in regard to understanding what you're in it for and each other's limits. The issue all along was, and still is, that even with all of this, it is still an agreement to merely exchange 'services,' it is still looking and acting upon the other as a thing to 'use' for a limited time and discard (it's over, no strings"). This you must realize is different in kind from your relationships in which you were (are) actually in love, including your relationship with your wife (again rhetorical and none of our business). This can be the same 'benefits' but the difference is that you are fully meeting and engaging these women as 'person' with whom you not only make love (given all that means) but whom you love as a subject to be cherished not an object with whom to exchange services and be done with. I've gotta tell you even the idea of "understanding of what we want out of it and what the other expects' is like reviewing vacation rental accommodations and checking off your must haves, your nice to haves and your can't live withouts. Many people have limits but in an intimate love relationship these are discovered, understood and the priority is still her, still the person who is 'cherished.' As opposed to 'I want one of these, I'll take some of that, I won't do that, I want that twice, etc. Come on Paul, this is a shopping list, a tranaction not a relationship. As a closing note: when you mention a particular woman's sexiness, her kindness, her voice, her demeanor - she has all that going for her (and I assume much more) and considering all of those things, your only thought is do you want to sleep with her? Hell, that sounds like a woman you want to share more than a service exchange! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 3 hours ago, thormas said: The point stands Paul as one can make a judgment about murder never having murdered, so too your 'mutually consenting, mutually benefical love-making session with no strings attached' - one can judge from the other side. However, you make an assumption about me that I will not confirm as I don't believe one has to experience X to make a value judgment on X. Your argument about the inability to make value judgments (actually not always that easy bit for a thoughtful person) unless one has the experience of the topic under discussion brings us to the point of absurdity as, for example no one who has never been raped cannot say that rape is wrong, or that no one who has never been physically or sexually or emotionally abused cannot make the judgment that those are wrong. There are limitations in our judgement concerning murder and its impact on the one who carries it out, because neither of us have committed murder (I am making an assumption about you here). That doesn't mean we can't have a crack at making some judgments about it but irrespective, our judgement by nature of the fact that we haven't participated in such an act, is undoubtedly somewhat limited when it comes to understanding the perpetrators actions (their drivers, what they get out of it, how they feel after the event, etc). So you can 'judge from the side' but I would suggest you're not getting the full picture that experience could add for you. I would have thought it was plain to see that experience of the subject could only add to its understanding, not take away from it. You may not think you need experience in this matter to make a judgement, but that's your judgement. I think the absurdity is your preparedness to dismiss another's experience because it doesn't align with your judgement of a situation that you have not experienced. Clearly you have not had the positive experience of mutually-agreed sex with another with no strings attached and walked away from it thinking it beneficial - otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to argue against it. I have experienced that wonderful experience so can tell you for a fact that it did not detract from my 'self-actualization'. If you don't believe me, so be it. Quote That is precisely why I decided to answer your question as I did - it does not make a difference. In addition, even though I said it previously, the judgment is on the action, not the actor as one cannot know all that goes into a decision. In this case, my take is based on your description of the encounter as a service exchange, of there being no strings, as it being over after the act, etc. You are simply describing an exchange in which each uses the other - as a sexual object - and it has, as you have indicated, nothing to do with love-making. I remind you of your comment about the person smelling bad (kidding or not), if the object of your service exchange is not to your liking, if there is something off with the product as presented you bail or if the exchange was not to your liking, you never try that particular product again. Ever try that with a woman, i.e. a person you actually love when making love? That is rhetorical, so no answer is expected as that is none of our business. Experience in the matter does make a difference, as I point out above. That doesn't mean it makes a difference for you of course - you seem to have made up your mind. As for for what I am describing as having nothing to do with love-making, that's where your limited understanding and failure to read what I am writing betrays itself. I have talked about mutual attraction, mutual agreement, desire, passion, pleasure, respect and more. You continue to want to focus on sexual objectivity and 'transactions'. To say all those things I have raised has nothing to do with love-making demonstrates your misunderstanding (wilful or other) of what I am saying. You continue to want to use the word 'use' in a negative light - I think a consenting couple can use one another for an overall sublime experience and be happy with no strings attached. I've experienced it. What you're actually saying is that I don't know squat about love-making because I can't possibly know what I am talking about, even though I am telling you I have experienced it. Another judgement. I'm a fairly open book when discussing this sort of stuff with you, anybody else, even my kids, but am mindful of other people's right to privacy so would never compromise them in any way. So I can say that I have experienced and moved forward on a number of difficult issues that arise in the bed. Unfortunately for the instance I mentioned, there was no moving past it for me - the damage was done and I couldn't see her in the same light again. I'm sure you've experienced seeing one of your ex-girlfriends a different way when you have fallen out of love with one perhaps? Rhetorical for you. Quote I can say that, as you describe it, this 'exchange of sexual services, is a choice and a decision to use another human being and to be used as an object or thing in return. I can say this is wrong since its primary goal and modus operandi (so to speak) is using another human being, objectifying (as thing) another human being - but I have no idea if or the degree to which one is blameworthy for what is a wrong act. This is the case even with murder: I can say the act is wrong (or bad) but I cannot judge if the murderer is culpable or blameworthy or, in religious terms, if the person is a sinner. Can't do it...........although society has a say in murder and will/must make such a determination. 'Using' another human being with their full knowledge, consent, appreciation and needs met also. It's a win-win for both. If you think that's objectifying another and treating them wrongly, there's really not much more to discuss then. Quote So Paul, there are two separate issues which you say I am combining but I am not: a value judgment is made on the action but there is no judgment on the individual or individuals. No, you are mistaken. I am not saying you are judging the individual or individuals themselves at all. I am saying you are making judgments about their actions when I think you don't fully understand the motivation or situation involving their actions, expressed by your focus to keep saying they are 'users', in a negative light. Quote As a side note, I allow that there can be a positive note from the experience as there might be with a good number of other actions we can list that are 'wrong' - but that doesn't, in this case, make the decision to use another human being, right.Good on you for the former but the latter is different in kind from the former and that difference is the crux of this discussion. You stick to your nasty understanding of the word 'use' - I am using it in a positive context. To share your body with another whilst enjoying theirs, for no other reason than the pure experience of sex and love-making, with their total consent and understanding, is not a 'bad' thing. It does not harm one's 'self-actualization'. In fact I'd even say it's beneficial to their development - if it suits them. It's not for everyone (e.g. it seems it wouldn't suit you). Quote However, you just changed the equation as you are now talking about a woman who is a friend - if she is a friend, there are strings, it is not over, there is more going on than a service exchange. It's at least dating lite :+} and it might not go anywhere but it is not the same service exchange described earlier. But the bigger issue is that you had a female friend that wanted sex with you? Please let's try to be realistic ;+} I haven't 'changed the equation' I am now talking about 'friends' because you introduced them. From personal experience, from one who has had a one night stand with a friend and moved on, there were no strings attached and we still see each other today, in company of our respective partners who know we once had a dalliance, and both of us are just fine with 'the strings' being cut after what we knew was just a one-off mutual enjoyment of one another. If your friendships aren't up to that then I wouldn't expect you to do that. Ours was, is and we were mature enough to recognize the night for what it was, the time and the circumstances in which it occurred. It was right, for then. Quote I actually never thought that the previous explanation of the sexual service exchange was uncaring, nasty, debased, abusive. Certainly not abusive given that you said it was mutually beneficial (and to abuse another doesn't seem too beneficial to the recipient), certainly not debased as it was consensual, certainly not nasty as depending on one's outlook nasty can be good as long as it is a 'good' nasty and, finally, certainly respectful in regard to understanding what you're in it for and each other's limits. The issue all along was, and still is, that even with all of this, it is still an agreement to merely exchange 'services,' it is still looking and acting upon the other as a thing to 'use' for a limited time and discard (it's over, no strings"). This you must realize is different in kind from your relationships in which you were (are) actually in love, including your relationship with your wife (again rhetorical and none of our business). This can be the same 'benefits' but the difference is that you are fully meeting and engaging these women as 'person' with whom you not only make love (given all that means) but whom you love as a subject to be cherished not an object with whom to exchange services and be done with. Of course it is a different relationship with the one I have with my wife (as I have pointed out in previous posts). But it is just 'different' not 'lesser'. That was then, this is now. I have no need to consider a past relationship because I am in this one. I can distinguish between the two. One is not 'better' than the other for the time and place I was in my life. Back then I was happy with my relationships, and now I am also happy with my married one. The sex is really good too, particularly as over the years you get to experience and try a lot more than in any short term relationship. But that doesn't detract from my experience of the other relationships - one nighters included. They were great, for what they were, at that time in my life. I'd like to think they even made me a better lover for my wife when we finally met. Quote I've gotta tell you even the idea of "understanding of what we want out of it and what the other expects' is like reviewing vacation rental accommodations and checking off your must haves, your nice to haves and your can't live withouts. Many people have limits but in an intimate love relationship these are discovered, understood and the priority is still her, still the person who is 'cherished.' As opposed to 'I want one of these, I'll take some of that, I won't do that, I want that twice, etc. Come on Paul, this is a shopping list, a tranaction not a relationship. If that's how you look at it Thormas - I genuinely feel sorry for you. Not that you should care of course, but I really think you are looking at this experience and the people involved in such in such a narrow-minded way. I have told you it's a two way street, with both parties seeking satisfaction and getting enjoyment from one another, both consenting and understanding the situation for what it is. But still you persist with seeing it as objectivity. Maybe it's you that has the issue and not them. Quote As a closing note: when you mention a particular woman's sexiness, her kindness, her voice, her demeanor - she has all that going for her (and I assume much more) and considering all of those things, your only thought is do you want to sleep with her? Hell, that sounds like a woman you want to share more than a service exchange! And if you had had that experience like I had, perhaps you wouldn't be so negative about this sort of relationship. No, they were great, but not as great as my wife. I knew the difference when I met my future wife. But I couldn't turn around and say they were wrong, because they weren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 14, 2019 Share Posted December 14, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, PaulS said: Quote As a closing note: when you mention a particular woman's sexiness, her kindness, her voice, her demeanor - she has all that going for her (and I assume much more) and considering all of those things, your only thought is do you want to sleep with her? Hell, that sounds like a woman you want to share more than a service exchange! And if you had had that experience like I had, perhaps you wouldn't be so negative about this sort of relationship. Paul, Perhaps you're just not doing a great job of explaining this stuff as you are all over the map and you keep adding things that, to me, change what exactly you're talking about. Then there was the description of a "a particular woman's sexiness, her kindness, her voice, her demeanor" and I said given all that (and I assume more) I was surprised your only thought was to sleep with her since she sounded like a woman you would want to share more than a service exchange. Yet rather than consider or explain, you simply pushed for such a limited encounter. This sounds, generally speaking, like a woman to be captivated and fascinated by, to actually 'go out with,' to develop a relationship with, to want to have some strings and share life - and indeed I have had such relationships: I am not negative about this kind of relationship. The added detail, this fuller description, makes a difference and that detail should make a difference - it did for me. Yet you still put one such as this in the 'hook-up' category. Rather than know her, in depth and over time, as the full person she is and is becoming, you opt instead for an exchange of sexual services. To opt not to know her fully, to not share her life, is to opt to purposely limit the encounter and be done with it. Any negativity is directed at the fact that another human being, every human being, deserves that full encounter (if there is that necessary first 'attraction'); we all deserve to be met fully as the person we are and are becoming. Even, for whatever reason, another person says s/he is okay with, even wants a limited, mutual exchange of sexual services - is that all the other should give her, is it that how the other should approach her and see her, is that all she has to offer? Wouldn't it be amazing if the guy said, "No, not now, not like this - you deserve more, you have more to offer, you are more." A new heaven and a new earth Paul and a world a bit less out for self and concerned, actually, really concerned for another - to offer what she deserves, to offer the fullness of (a possible) relationship, simply because she is a human being. You met and shared in the life of the person your wife was and was becoming, she got the full encounter, the making of life/love, the full engagement as person - and perhaps (as I) you did this for/with other girls/women (before the girl that would become your wife) in your life that you were captured by. Don't all women, all human beings deserve this consideration, this effort, this love? I say they do and anything less is less than they deserve, less than they are and does not fully recognize who they truly are at their core: a person. Edited December 14, 2019 by thormas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 6 hours ago, thormas said: Perhaps you're just not doing a great job of explaining this stuff as you are all over the map and you keep adding things that, to me, change what exactly you're talking about. Then there was the description of a "a particular woman's sexiness, her kindness, her voice, her demeanor" and I said given all that (and I assume more) I was surprised your only thought was to sleep with her since she sounded like a woman you would want to share more than a service exchange. Yet rather than consider or explain, you simply pushed for such a limited encounter. I think I'm explaining it pretty well - maybe the issue is with you not being able to appreciate it because you've never experienced it (i.e. the positive experience of mutually-agreed sex with another, with no strings attached, and walking away from it afterwards appreciating it for what it was). Things have been added along the way by nature of conversation - like how you introduced 'friends' etc. I have no issue with a conversation evolving - perhaps next time if you require me to outline absolutely everything we are possibly going to discuss in advance, it might make it easier for you. Or perhaps next time you can iterate every single possibly detail around a word you use, so that we don't have to discuss it in trying to understand the other. Your surprise at my decisions is only based on your ignorance about what went into that decision. If you judge the situation you don't even really know about, as something more than what I would want, then that is your judgement, not mine. Who even said I pushed for such a limited encounter? You alone! Really Thormas, you do have a very judgmental mind on this issue and how you think I have or did behave and make my decisions. If you re-read you own words on this matter - you weren't exactly asking me a question - you had already decided that my only thought was do I want to sleep with her. I never said that. What if there were other thoughts but for that point in time both were simply happy to sleep together? I've met hundreds of women who I think are sexy, kind, have a lovely voice, demeanor and other stuff - it doesn't mean I want to court and marry every single one of them! And nor does it mean that I want to have sex with every single one of them. Quote This sounds, generally speaking, like a woman to be captivated and fascinated by, to actually 'go out with,' to develop a relationship with, to want to have some strings and share life - and indeed I have had such relationships: I am not negative about this kind of relationship. The added detail, this fuller description, makes a difference and that detail should make a difference - it did for me. Yet you still put one such as this in the 'hook-up' category. Rather than know her, in depth and over time, as the full person she is and is becoming, you opt instead for an exchange of sexual services. To opt not to know her fully, to not share her life, is to opt to purposely limit the encounter and be done with it. I get that you can't understand why somebody would be happy with just a sexual encounter rather than a full blown romance, when they find a nice woman. But that's you - not me and not many (i.e. a lot of) others.You are imposing on me how you think and feel. That's fine for you. Knock yourself out. The fact that's not what I wanted in my life at that point is not an issue for me, although it seems a big one for you. The added detail, fuller description makes no difference to me, only to you because you didn't even want to try and understand - you have made it clear from the get go that you don't approve of using another just for sex. This fuller detail takes nothing away from the desire and preparedness to simply use another for love-making and then move on. I have been trying to explain to you all along that having an experience where one uses another only for sex, in a mutually agreeable and beneficial situation, is a good thing. You have maintained it is a negative thing, or harms self-actualization, or is a sin maybe (I'm not sure where you stand on that because apparently we weren't comparing Maslow's self-actualizing theories with sin). Do you think that the situation I have described is a sin or is sin? Perhaps you didn't fully understand what you were saying when you said it was wrong for people to use another for sex. I have only been trying to explain to you that using another for sex can be a great thing and I think people like you who judge other's actions and say that what they are doing is wrong, is what's really harmful. "To opt not to know her fully, to not share her life, is to opt to purposely limit the encounter and be done with it." - yes, and there's nothing wrong with that! That's my point. Maybe you feel the need whenever you meet such a woman - I didn't. She didn't. We were both happy and enjoyed the moment. Quote Any negativity is directed at the fact that another human being, every human being, deserves that full encounter (if there is that necessary first 'attraction'); we all deserve to be met fully as the person we are and are becoming. Even, for whatever reason, another person says s/he is okay with, even wants a limited, mutual exchange of sexual services - is that all the other should give her, is it that how the other should approach her and see her, is that all she has to offer? Wouldn't it be amazing if the guy said, "No, not now, not like this - you deserve more, you have more to offer, you are more." A new heaven and a new earth Paul and a world a bit less out for self and concerned, actually, really concerned for another - to offer what she deserves, to offer the fullness of (a possible) relationship, simply because she is a human being. That's your judgment showing through of how you think people should act. Not mine - two consenting adults, enjoying their moment, no strings attached, at a certain point in there lives where they don't want to take things further - how anybody would feel the need to debase that and criticize is beyond me. But you do try hard. You may feel that you have to give your heart a soul to a cute girl you meet before you can entertain the idea of sex with her - I don't. And the women I shared these exquisite moments with, didn't either. They were all able to think for themselves (none were forced) and none of the women in the instances I am referring to felt that they deserved something different, none wanted 'the fullness' of a different kind of relationship, none thought they weren't being treated like a human being. All were women who equally wanted to use another just for sex, enjoy it, and move on with life. Not everyone judges relationships the same way as you. Quote You met and shared in the life of the person your wife was and was becoming, she got the full encounter, the making of life/love, the full engagement as person - and perhaps (as I) you did this for/with other girls/women (before the girl that would become your wife) in your life that you were captured by. Don't all women, all human beings deserve this consideration, this effort, this love? I say they do and anything less is less than they deserve, less than they are and does not fully recognize who they truly are at their core: a person. It's not a case of 'deserving' more, it's a case of both parties agreeing they don't want more at that time. Can't you respect the other person's decision also, the woman that is happy just to have a sexual encounter with me and then go her own way. She also makes a choice to use me in that situation for the fun and enjoyment that it was, without strings attached. Mutual consent, mutual preparedness just to enjoy the sex for sex's sake. Neither party wanting to get involved in a 'full encounter'. Why are you so against people making this choice? Thanks for the judgmental lecture about how you think I should act toward women, but like I said, I was there , I experienced it, and I know it was a lovely, beneficial experience in my life. The fact that you can't understand that and think one should only behave in certain other way, is just ignorant judgment. So I won't quit from here, because I really wouldn't like you to feel that I am quitting again, but I do think this has reached a point where there isn't much value in discussing further. You are firm in your opinion that anything other than treating a woman the way you believe she should be treated, is harmful to one's self-actualization. You don't care for my experience and seem dug in that what I did can only be 'less'. Clearly I don't feel that way, as I have demonstrated. This whole conversation sums up my problem with people calling behavior/thoughts/actions as sin or trying to use secular understandings of behavior such as 'self-actualization' - all it does is create this environment of judgment and criticism of others who are on the wrong side of whoever's opinion about how they think people should behave. We are already fully human and our experiences contribute to that state of being. Anything of particular relevance that you feel still needs addressing/answering? If not, I am happy to finish this discussion. Your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 19 hours ago, PaulS said: There are limitations in our judgement concerning murder and its impact on the one who carries it out, because neither of us have committed murder .............our judgement by nature of the fact that we haven't participated in such an act, is undoubtedly somewhat limited when it comes to understanding the perpetrators actions (their drivers, what they get out of it, how they feel after the event, etc). ............ I would have thought it was plain to see that experience of the subject could only add to its understanding, not take away from it. You may not think you need experience in this matter to make a judgement, but that's your judgement. I think the absurdity is your preparedness to dismiss another's experience because it doesn't align with your judgement of a situation that you have not experienced. Clearly you have not had the positive experience of mutually-agreed sex with another with no strings attached and walked away from it thinking it beneficial - otherwise you wouldn't feel the need to argue against it. I have experienced that wonderful experience so can tell you for a fact that it did not detract from my 'self-actualization'. If you don't believe me, so be it. Paul , there are two distinct parts in your comment: a judgment on the action and a judgment on the person. People who have never murdered can (and do) make a judgment that murder is wrong (bad), so too one who has not indulged can make a judgment that 'mutually consenting sexual service exchange' is wrong. Your argument about the inability to make value judgments unless one has experienced the topic under discussion brings us to the point of absurdity: no one who has never been raped cannot say that rape is wrong; no one who has never been physically or sexually or emotionally abused cannot make the judgment that each of these is wrong; or, no one who has never abused their spouse or kid or been so abused can make a value judgment that such abuse is wrong. The argument is absurd. I have said previously and reiterated that the judgment is on the action, not the actor: I agree that we cannot know all or perhaps even any of reasons , drivers, take aways, etc. that go into a decision. However, this does not mean that the action then becomes right or neutral. We can say the same thing about the one who murders, rapes, lies, cheats, abuses, mocks, and on and on. Culpability does not change the wrongness of the act. In this case (that we have been discussing), my value judgment, based on your description of the encounter as a service exchange, without strings, being over after the act, etc. is that it is wrong. You describe an exchange in which each uses the other and it has nothing to do with (real) love-making - in other words it may be called this but it is different than what you have with your wife or had in a previous love relationship with someone you did love. I remind you of your comment about the person smelling bad, if your service exchange partner is not to your liking, if there is something off with the presentation, you bail or if the exchange was not to your liking, you never try that particular psrtner again. Try that with a woman, i.e. a person, you actually love when making love. I can say that it is wrong and it followers that I believe the one who engages in such an exchange is (doing) wrong but I have no idea if or the degree to which one is blameworthy for what is a wrong act. This is the case even with murder, rape, abuse, etc.: the act is wrong but I cannot judge if the murderer is culpable or blameworthy or, in religious terms, if the person is a sinner. So there are two separate issues that you say I am combining but I am not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 1 hour ago, thormas said: Paul , there are two distinct parts in your comment: a judgment on the action and a judgment on the person. People who have never murdered can (and do) make a judgment that murder is wrong (bad), so too one who has not indulged can make a judgment that 'mutually consenting sexual service exchange' is wrong. Your argument about the inability to make value judgments unless one has experienced the topic under discussion brings us to the point of absurdity: no one who has never been raped cannot say that rape is wrong; no one who has never been physically or sexually or emotionally abused cannot make the judgment that each of these is wrong; or, no one who has never abused their spouse or kid or been so abused can make a value judgment that such abuse is wrong. The argument is absurd. I have said previously and reiterated that the judgment is on the action, not the actor: I agree that we cannot know all or perhaps even any of reasons , drivers, take aways, etc. that go into a decision. However, this does not mean that the action then becomes right or neutral. We can say the same thing about the one who murders, rapes, lies, cheats, abuses, mocks, and on and on. Culpability does not change the wrongness of the act. In this case (that we have been discussing), my value judgment, based on your description of the encounter as a service exchange, without strings, being over after the act, etc. is that it is wrong. You describe an exchange in which each uses the other and it has nothing to do with (real) love-making - in other words it may be called this but it is different than what you have with your wife or had in a previous love relationship with someone you did love. I remind you of your comment about the person smelling bad, if your service exchange partner is not to your liking, if there is something off with the presentation, you bail or if the exchange was not to your liking, you never try that particular psrtner again. Try that with a woman, i.e. a person, you actually love when making love. I can say that it is wrong and it followers that I believe the one who engages in such an exchange is (doing) wrong but I have no idea if or the degree to which one is blameworthy for what is a wrong act. This is the case even with murder, rape, abuse, etc.: the act is wrong but I cannot judge if the murderer is culpable or blameworthy or, in religious terms, if the person is a sinner. So there are two separate issues that you say I am combining but I am not. You can make a judgment about people's actions - I just think it is ignorant to do so because you are not fully across the issue, particularly when you liken rape & murder to something that is fully consensual, mutually beneficial, and both parties are happy to go their own way afterwards without any reference to police. Incredible that they are the examples you would use to compare a consenting sexual relationship, albeit a brief one. It is convenient to use examples like murder and rape, but you are comparing apples with oranges. Clearly these acts do NOT involve consent or mutual benefit and clearly they have negative consequences for the community. I think your judgment is what's absurd here. It doesn't all fit neatly into a box that says 'good stuff' vs 'bad stuff', 'right' vs 'wrong'. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That's why determining certain behaviors as 'sin' or 'self-actualization' is nonsense. Nobody who has been raped has said 'thank you' (I imagine) and nobody who has been murdered has wanted to be murdered (I assume). Unlike the scenarios about sex I have been explaining to you - where mutual agreement has resulted in mutual benefit with both parties happy they experienced it and both parties then happy to move on. If you think those actions can be judged like murder and rape, then I think that's what is absurd. You talk about the 'wrongness' of the act. Clearly in rape and murder - wrong is done to a non-consenting party. So from that you extrapolate that because you don't think people should have mutually-agreed one night stands, that those actions are also wrong. But here we go down the slippery slope of determining what is right and wrong, don't we. Enter calling certain behaviors sin and others not, depending on who's making the determination. You have made no case whatsoever for any universal truth or community harm that mutually-agreed sex for sex's sake is 'wrong', other than because you think so. In fact, you refuse to even believe one who has had the experiences and says that it has done no harm and is in fact beneficial! You have an opinion so its only natural that your opinion supports your judgement of people's actions. Again your judgments about what is 'real lovemaking' is just your personal judgments - which you are entitled to but which you are wrong about. Where do I find the bullet points for what is actual lovemaking and what is not? Is oral or anal sex love-making? Is a mutual threesome lovemaking? Is a married relationship between two men having sex lovemaking? Or what if they are only engaged? Or what if they are only together a week before having sex? Do both parties have to orgasm to officially be love-making or if just the man cums (in a male/female relationship) does it fall short of lovemaking? Or is it only actually lovemaking if I am married after having gotten to know the person over a certain period of time - what period of time is the minimum required to ensure I know the person well enough before proceeding to 'love-making' versus only sex? What if a husband simply has a 'quickie' with is wife, albeit with her consent, but only the man orgasms - has he just 'used' his wife for sex? Or to qualify as love-making do we need certain duration and certain things achieved for both parties? Don't worry about answering - it just rhetorical statements to make clear that your understanding of love-making is YOUR understanding of love-making. I don't think you should be telling others when they are making love or not. Especially when you haven't experienced what they say IS love-making and which they have found a wonderful experience (for both). My point being is that you judge my experience as not love-making, which I find incredible because I'm pretty sure you weren't there. Clearly though, that is how you need to understand it to fit your logic in this discussion. I can only say you are wrong, which you will of course ignore. Love comes in all shapes and sizes Thormas. Love ranges from love for a stranger, love for a friend, love for a spouse, love for a child and a zillion grades in between. Appreciating somebody for who they are, at that particular time in your life, respecting them for what they want too, understanding what they hope for out of a night of sex as well as what you hope for, and knowing that it is only a one-off that both will be happy about experiencing, is just a different kind of love that you have never experienced. That in itself leads to love-making, although I doubt you can understand that. Just leave love and love-making up to the individuals - don't tell them what it is and isn't. You can only speak from your personal perspective. And all of our perspectives are limited, including yours. You are not THE authority on what is love-making and what isn't. To define every degree of love and then assess whether a particularity action fits on that scale at a certain point is the problem with religion, sin and thinking that actions help or hinder us in 'self-actualization'. I would suggest being a little more open-minded about how others may experience love and love-making, but you will be what you will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 1 hour ago, PaulS said: Things have been added along the way by nature of conversation - like how you introduced 'friends' etc. I have no issue with a conversation evolving - perhaps next time if you require me to outline absolutely everything we are possibly going to discuss in advance, it might make it easier for you. Just a quick note: I have no problem with evolving conversation as is evidenced throughout this site, but your changes or additions have moved us substantially from the quick shag, no strings, it's over, to the woman friend (you mentioned) who wanted to have sex. Could be similar but it is or appears to be different. 1 hour ago, PaulS said: Who even said I pushed for such a limited encounter? You did: Paul you actually wrote, describing the encounter, "no strings, it's over" as a general characteristic. That is very limited, extremely limited. If you now are saying some were long term, or some were with a friend then it seems you have moved beyond the no string, it's over. See the nature of a conversation is to clarify these little changes as that conversation evolves :+} Paul I have said repeatedly that one can't judge the actor and that would include you. I do not know, nor is it anyone's business, your reasons, drivers or your motivations. I am simply talking about the act not the actor. So, not judgmental and I'm probably on the hierarchy of extremely liberal, however I, like many people, can, especially in a conversation like this, examine an action and make a ...........decision or judgment as to its rightness or wrongness. Your judgment is that it is right, my judgment - at least pertaining to the original description you gave - is that it is wrong. You are just as judgmental (i.e. you are making a judgment that it is right or fine or no problem or a non-issue) as you accuse me of being, you just don't like my judgment that disagrees with yours. Paul, the only way I can know something as it pertains to you on this subject is what you write and that is what I have responded to - including the evolutions :+} As for you just wanting to sleep with someone that is how it was portrayed by you.........originally... and when you introduced new information I the referred to it as dating lite, I acknowledge what seem to be a change. Check it out. 2 hours ago, PaulS said: I get that you can't understand why somebody would be happy with just a sexual encounter rather than a full blown romance, when they find a nice woman. But that's you - not me and not many (i.e. a lot of) others.You are imposing on me how you think and feel. That's fine for you. Knock yourself out. The fact that's not what I wanted in my life at that point is not an issue for me, although it seems a big one for you. That someone is happy is not the issue. Hell, people who actually did some great wrongs such as rapist. serial murderers, terrorists, the kid that bullies others, etc (and no, I'm not comparing them to you) report they're happy. Ones driver.reasons for an action and their take away (ex. happiness) from that action do not determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. Paul, that is basic stuff. I'm not imposing anything on you as I actually don't care what you did or do - I'm having a discussion covering a bunch of items in this thread and we're now onto 'hook-ups.' It's really a simple discussion. I don't care whether or not it was an issue for you, then or now - again, it's a discussion, we disagree and we are both presenting our positions (you not so well but that's ok :+}. I don't even know you so it is not a big or small issue for me, what is it?............a discussion! 2 hours ago, PaulS said: The added detail, fuller description makes no difference to me, only to you because you didn't even want to try and understand - you have made it clear from the get go that you don't approve of using another just for sex. Well, of course I disapprove or more importantly think it is wrong (thus the discussion) - but the fuller description does make or can make a difference because it introduces some nuance and provides a different insight into 'alleged' hook-up. And actually I do want to understand and I have made comments about the differences and suggested 'dating lite' but you seem unable to actually discuss it and provide greater insight - after all it is you who have said I don't have the experience so you should be willing to educate me :+} 2 hours ago, PaulS said: You have maintained it is a negative thing, or harms self-actualization, or is a sin maybe (I'm not sure where you stand on that because apparently we weren't comparing Maslow's self-actualizing theories with sin). Do you think that the situation I have described is a sin or is sin? My position is that it is negative. I'm really not focused on self-actualization much anymore but I notice you bring it up in every other post. As for sin, I typically don't use that terminology out of a religious context or with someone who doesn't accept it (you) and have refrained from its use (for the most part) in this discussion. So self-actualization and sin are unimportant for me in this discussion but you do mention them both?? Do you really want to get into sin when you think it is nonsense? I don't want to torture you. 2 hours ago, PaulS said: Perhaps you didn't fully understand what you were saying when you said it was wrong for people to use another for sex. I have only been trying to explain to you that using another for sex can be a great thing and I think people like you who judge other's actions and say that what they are doing is wrong, is what's really harmful. No I understand perfectly - that you think it is acceptable to use people in any capacity is the surprise. Again, merely because one who uses others for sex thinks it's great (or they get pleasure or it makes them happy) does not make the act right or good - it remains wrong. Again, not comparing, but guys who use hookers or are sugar daddies think those lifestyle choices are great also, many are probably very happy, yada, yada , yada..........Then again, Ted Bundy (again not comparing) was very happy and thought what he did was great and it certainly gave him pleasure - then again Ted was a bit of a hedonist. But I guess it is harmful when other suggest that Ted was wrong, or that using other human being is wrong. Is abuse at least wrong? If you haven't ever been the abuser, is it wrong, can you make that judgment, or when you "judge (the abuser's) actions and say that what they are doing is wrong, is (that) what's really harmful?" Are you just not trying to understand and harming the abusers - after all they think it's great, they're happy, even if the other is not giving their agreement, it gives the abuser great happiness and some people actually do give their consent to be abused. Is mutual consent that which make an action right or ok? What is the value judgment that makes mutual consent necessary to make an action right? How does one know if someone they hook up with is giving their consent freely? What if they are a sex addict, what if they're on drugs, what if they are feeling worthless at that time in their life and think the hook up will be good for their self esteem, what if their boyfriend has a specific kink and wants her to hook up with other guys, what if, what if, what if? I do love the concept that making a judgment that X Y or Z is wrong is harmful to the actors who do X,Y or Z and therefore we shouldn't make such judgments. Oh well, enough fun for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 3 hours ago, thormas said: Just a quick note: I have no problem with evolving conversation as is evidenced throughout this site, but your changes or additions have moved us substantially from the quick shag, no strings, it's over, to the woman friend (you mentioned) who wanted to have sex. Could be similar but it is or appears to be different. There is no change. The woman which was a friend was one instance, after I had mentioned sex without strings in other contexts, and you introduced sex with friends. The fact of friendship did not add or take away from the mutual use, acceptance, expectation, and outcome of the no strings attached sex. But maybe what I'm sensing is that you're starting to understand your initial condemnation of the act of having sex without strings attached is perhaps a lot more complicated than you at first thought when you condemned it as 'wrong'. One can only hope. Quote You did: Paul you actually wrote, describing the encounter, "no strings, it's over" as a general characteristic. That is very limited, extremely limited. If you now are saying some were long term, or some were with a friend then it seems you have moved beyond the no string, it's over. I don't see that as 'pushing for' a limited encounter. I see it as more going with the flow and that flow went towards a sex-only, no strings attached experience. You introduced the angle of 'pushing for'. Saying I was 'pushing for' something implies you understand what was going on at that time - and clearly I gave no such detail. I never mentioned any long-term relationships except my wife. The friend example I explicitly said was a once off (read my post properly). No long-term relationships being introduced here by anyone but you. Quote Paul I have said repeatedly that one can't judge the actor and that would include you. I do not know, nor is it anyone's business, your reasons, drivers or your motivations. I am simply talking about the act not the actor. So, not judgmental and I'm probably on the hierarchy of extremely liberal, however I, like many people, can, especially in a conversation like this, examine an action and make a ...........decision or judgment as to its rightness or wrongness. Your judgment is that it is right, my judgment - at least pertaining to the original description you gave - is that it is wrong. You are just as judgmental (i.e. you are making a judgment that it is right or fine or no problem or a non-issue) as you accuse me of being, you just don't like my judgment that disagrees with yours. Do you think the actor is responsible for their actions? If an action is 'wrong' as you say, is the person 'wrong' in any way? You say you are only talking about the act, but what do you say about the actionee then who does the 'wrong' action? Should they be punished like a murderer or a rapist? I find it difficult to believe you can entirely separate an action that you are judging from the actionee. If we are using the term 'judgment' instead of the word assessment, I could agree somewhat with you. But we all know that is typically NOT what is meant when say one says "though shalt not judge". Judgement in that context is understood as making a decision about another's actions based on one's one understanding and usually has a negative connotation of blame. As you well know, Jesus is attributed as saying "Thou shalt not judge" - do you think that is meant to mean "thou shalt not consider an actions' rightness or wrongness"? Quote Paul, the only way I can know something as it pertains to you on this subject is what you write and that is what I have responded to - including the evolutions :+} As for you just wanting to sleep with someone that is how it was portrayed by you.........originally... and when you introduced new information I the referred to it as dating lite, I acknowledge what seem to be a change. Check it out. There has been no evolution - just extra detail as we have conversed. I'd like to see you write a couple of sentences that precisely explain every aspect of what you mean by 'use' and see if you find no need to elaborate further as questions are raised and elements further discussed. Not sure how you came up with 'dating-lite'. I wasn't discussing sex in any other context than brief encounters for mutually-agreed, sexual enjoyment. I did mention marriage and concerning love-making, I demonstrated all sorts of relationships where love-making could be involved but different to your narrow view of what qualifies as love-making according to your opinion. Quote That someone is happy is not the issue. Hell, people who actually did some great wrongs such as rapist. serial murderers, terrorists, the kid that bullies others, etc (and no, I'm not comparing them to you) report they're happy. Ones driver.reasons for an action and their take away (ex. happiness) from that action do not determine the rightness or wrongness of an action. Paul, that is basic stuff. Perhaps I could have used a better word than happy. Maybe exchange happy for meaningful and fulfilling. Just because something is meaningful and fulfilling doesn't necessarily mean that makes a person happy I guess, but I'm pretty sure they would be. I was happy when I felt I had had a meaningful and fulfilling experience with another in these circumstances. Quote I'm not imposing anything on you as I actually don't care what you did or do - I'm having a discussion covering a bunch of items in this thread and we're now onto 'hook-ups.' It's really a simple discussion. I don't care whether or not it was an issue for you, then or now - again, it's a discussion, we disagree and we are both presenting our positions (you not so well but that's ok :+}. I don't even know you so it is not a big or small issue for me, what is it?............a discussion! You are imposing your view of the world on me (putting your opinion on me by your judgement) ) when you say that what I am saying is love-making couldn't possibly be love-making because of how YOU define love-making. I can live with it to because I don't really know you and in the grand scheme of things, I don't really care. I'm just making the point that that is what you are doing. Quote Well, of course I disapprove or more importantly think it is wrong (thus the discussion) - but the fuller description does make or can make a difference because it introduces some nuance and provides a different insight into 'alleged' hook-up. And actually I do want to understand and I have made comments about the differences and suggested 'dating lite' but you seem unable to actually discuss it and provide greater insight - after all it is you who have said I don't have the experience so you should be willing to educate me :+} For crying out loud Thormas - "you seem unable to actually discuss it and provide greater insight" - How much insight do you need! Can I make it any clearer for you: mutually-agreeable, consent, attraction, sex, understanding, respect, enjoyment, happy to go own ways afterwards, etc". If you are unsure, hold off telling somebody something is wrong because you don't fully understand it. What is it precisely you want to be educated about - I am happy to oblige. First you have an issue with the conversation 'evolving' and now you are criticizing because I haven't explained enough to you. What is it that you are unclear about? Quote My position is that it is negative. I'm really not focused on self-actualization much anymore but I notice you bring it up in every other post. As for sin, I typically don't use that terminology out of a religious context or with someone who doesn't accept it (you) and have refrained from its use (for the most part) in this discussion. So self-actualization and sin are unimportant for me in this discussion but you do mention them both?? After introducing Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs you said things like "...the one who has reads Maslow can recognize actions on, let's say, a scale of selfishness to selflessness (Love) with the latter being more likely to result in and or be the expression of the one who is 'actualized' (or what I have termed, more fully human) and the former a hinderance to actualization or a sign of 'missing that (actualization) mark.' Some selfish actions are obvious and recognized as immoral, wrong, destructive of life, while others are obvious and recognized as the opposite. The former are called sin in religious or theological terms." Okay, so now you're not really focused on self-actualization or sin when it comes to 'missing the mark'. Okay - thanks for letting me know we can forget about that now then as they are now unimportant terms to you (but 'wrong' isn't, is it? Is 'selfishness' still on the table?). So this 'wrong' action that we are discussing (sex for sex's sake with mutual agreement and no strings attached) is selfish or is not? If it is selfish, do you think that is considered sin, or a hindrance to self-actualization, or do we forget about those two phrases entirely now because they're no longer you're focus apparently. Quote Do you really want to get into sin when you think it is nonsense? I don't want to torture you. Good. Don't. Quote No I understand perfectly - that you think it is acceptable to use people in any capacity is the surprise. Again, merely because one who uses others for sex thinks it's great (or they get pleasure or it makes them happy) does not make the act right or good - it remains wrong. Again, not comparing, but guys who use hookers or are sugar daddies think those lifestyle choices are great also, many are probably very happy, yada, yada , yada..........Then again, Ted Bundy (again not comparing) was very happy and thought what he did was great and it certainly gave him pleasure - then again Ted was a bit of a hedonist. But I guess it is harmful when other suggest that Ted was wrong, or that using other human being is wrong. Again with the negative connotation of 'use' when I have explained the relationship several times over. Continue to ignore that and frame it for your own argument ad nauseam. Usually when I do something right or good, it makes me happy. If I do something that to me feels wrong or bad, it typically doesn't make me happy. Quote Is abuse at least wrong? If you haven't ever been the abuser, is it wrong, can you make that judgment, or when you "judge (the abuser's) actions and say that what they are doing is wrong, is (that) what's really harmful?" Are you just not trying to understand and harming the abusers - after all they think it's great, they're happy, even if the other is not giving their agreement, it gives the abuser great happiness and some people actually do give their consent to be abused. Is mutual consent that which make an action right or ok? What is the value judgment that makes mutual consent necessary to make an action right? How does one know if someone they hook up with is giving their consent freely? What if they are a sex addict, what if they're on drugs, what if they are feeling worthless at that time in their life and think the hook up will be good for their self esteem, what if their boyfriend has a specific kink and wants her to hook up with other guys, what if, what if, what if? We all make judgments about what is right and wrong - clearly. We are but foolish humans who need to categorise and box things so that we can understand, communicate and get along. But we need to recognize that our judgment is limited - that's what I think Jesus may have been saying when it is attributed to him that he said one should not judge - clearly Jesus wasn't simply saying one should not assess right from wrong. So I think in any day to day context, how I use the term 'judgement' is well understood. How you are using the term, t might be appropriate if we were deciding the evidential merits of a court case. Clearly we make laws and regulations that if people in the community transgress these, we call it 'wrong'. But I also acknowledge that these laws and rules change (remember when it was encourage to stone your child to death if they disrespected their parents?). Such a situation would have been judged 'correctly' in it's day to have been wrong and the kid killed, but I can't imagine you 'judging' it the same way today. Can you? What if indeed - that's why I'm asking you to hold off on the judgment. You just don't know the situation, so don't be so quick to condemn the action just because on your limited experience, you think it can't be right. My personal experience tells me it can be right. If you genuinely do want to consider the what-ifs: What if the couple using one another give mutual consent, both desire the activity with complete free choice and no counter-factors affecting their choice, are happy and content to share a night of passion and then go their own ways with no strings attached? If they both genuinely want that experience, consent to it, benefit from it and then move on. You still think that is wrong? Because why? Quote I do love the concept that making a judgment that X Y or Z is wrong is harmful to the actors who do X,Y or Z and therefore we shouldn't make such judgments. I don't - I think it's probably one of the nastiest trademarks of Christianity to date. The fact that you can't recognize how that harm is caused is not uncommon among Christians. And for some reason, sex always seem to excite Christians so much in their condemnation and judgement about what is right or wrong. Comparing it to murder and rape often gives it away how important it is to them to 'get it right'. As an aside, have you read Bart recently who thinks that Jesus was even against marital sex outside of the need for pro-creation? That won't sit well with any Christians that uses contraception! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosephM Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 (edited) Paul and Thomas, All these words for such an uncomplicated issue! I think we need to move past the arbitrary points of right and wrong that people choose on the continuum of life. They simply are not polar opposites but rather a degree or arbitrary point along a line that represents degrees of promoting life on this planet. It is much like temperature that is a line (continuum) with no moving molecules of energy on one end and the maximum amount of molecules active on the other. It can be measured in degrees but arbitrary points of hot or cold are a matter of subjective experience and arbitrary points chosen by people rather than polar opposites. My wife and i still can't agree on whether its hot or cold in the house after 51+ years of marriage! 😊😊 But we still love each other.😍 PS Once an arbitrary point is truly chosen it is near impossible to change the others mind by reason. Edited December 16, 2019 by JosephM added PS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 On 12/15/2019 at 12:52 AM, PaulS said: The fact of friendship did not add or take away from the mutual use.......... I thought the fact that the woman you mentioned was a friend, suggested she was different than one who was a more casual acquaintance. Seemingly she was not? If you're talking sex with a friend it is, at least from my perspective, different as a friend already has strings attached, it is not going to be over and it is apparent, if she is a friend that, it is more than using another - at least it would be for me - and there are always 'possibilities' with a friend. I just thought there might have been some nuance that shed a different light on your position. There wasn't. Responsibility goes to culpability or blameworthiness - and we can't 'know' - as we have both said - the motivation, drivers, history, influences, etc. which play on the actor and influence him or her. Is the murderer responsible for the murder? Well, he did it but is he 'responsible? If murder is wrong then the one who murders has done wrong - however blameworthiness is a different matter. Furthermore, I (obviously) don't think nor have I suggested that prostitution, adultery, hook-ups or sex in public, for example, are at the same as murder, armed robbery, terrorism, rape, abuse, incest and a whole host of other bad acts. We lock people up for the latter, not so much for the former, except maybe prostitution in some countries and states and sex in public is a bit risky and if caught with your pants down, you have a lot of explaining to do. Regarding punishment, no one here has been talking about punishment for hook-ups - it's not a Scarlett Letter situation and we do both live in pluralistic, secular societies. Again, for me this is a discussion of right and wrong acts based in one's understanding of person. The phrase "thou shall not judge" goes to the sinner not the sin (i.e. the bad act): does anyone condemn her? No! She committed adultery so she did something wrong but no one throws the stone, no one can assign blame - only God. As I have said we can't even judge the murderer or rapist. I disagree with your position that hook-ups are right (or neutral) but I don't know you or the women and have no idea what was going on in any of their lives then or how culpable they were for their action. I am simply saying the action is wrong. Your 'judgment' is that it is not and it is not wrong for another to simply disagree with you. Paul, you call a hook-up lovemaking not even Hugh Hefner did that. Now sometimes people call sex that but in reality............it's sex and has nothing to do with love. Perhaps your view is so large that it includes Woody Allen's famous line about masturbation being with someone he actually knows loves him. You can call it 'love-making' but it is not making love. Next you'll tell us that sex with an escort is also love-making and I'm sure some poor (or wealthy) guy would agree with you. Additionally, I get that you can substitute happy for meaningful and fulfilling (when describing the hook-up) but Ted Bundy (serial killer) and others involved in horrible wrongdoing, would join you in saying that what they did was meaningful, fulfilling and made them happy also. So that doesn't say much. In addition, no one is imposing anything on anybody and to suggest it, is a bit dramatic. I disagree with your position on using people for sex and also for erroneously calling it lovemaking just as you disagree with me. It is a discussion and a disagreement, in a category called............. Debate & Dialogue - but you do have a tendency to complain when someone disagrees and calls you on something. Furthermore, the focus of the conversation has shifted so I'm simply not concentrating on Maslow's hierarchy since the discussion is now about a specific wrong act: using others for sex. I'd be glad to go back to it at the appropriate time though. Furthermore, since you don't believe in sin I have no problem accommodating you and not saying the act under discussion is a sin, I'm just saying it is wrong or if you prefer bad or we can also go to the old standby, immoral. And it is still okay to use the word selfishness since it is a secular term (sometimes also used in a religious context). Plus, selfishness seems to fit perfectly in the act under discussion. But be assured, I also won't characterize something as sin right now because you would only complain (again) and say you're now having sin imposed on you. As you have pointed out, the word 'use' does have a negative connotation in this particular situation and this is in reaction to you saying 'using' another is great. As indicated, just because someone says something is great or makes them happy, doesn't make the act good or right. So too just because something makes one unhappy or does not give pleasure it does not follow that an act is wrong. A hammer is something we use, it is a means to an end, so too a coffee maker, a car, a plane and on and on. But you are saying a person can also be so used, that a person can be a means to an end. However a person is not like a hammer, a coffee maker, a car, a plane or other things. Why? because a person is not a thing; a human being, 'in and of herself' is a person, not a thing, not a means to an end: s/he is an end in himself. Every time you explain the situation it's still the same: using a person as something in order to be fulfilled. Paul, you generalize a great deal about Christianity, this times it's that (causing harm) is one of "the nastiest trademarks of Christianity." And this is because you feel imposed upon and harmed because another, a Christian, disagrees with you that something is wrong, when you say it is right. Yours is just as much a judgment as mine, so don't now play the martyr who is harmed by a Christian. In Christian history, harm was caused not primarily by stating an act was wrong but by condemning the person who committed the act as evil or unforgivable or one who should burn in hell. I have condemned no one and I have been explicit in explaining that such condemnation is not possible or right. What I have done is disagree with you. Additionally, I have not likened hook-ups to murder and rape: I have clearly stated that I am not making those or similar comparisons. Given how explicit I have been on these two points, I trust that you were not including me in the ranks of your nasty Christians. Note: not sure what Bart comment you are referring to as I found nothing. Note 2: if you respond try the multiple paragraph format as it is a change and a bit more enjoyable read that the point by point rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thormas Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 1 hour ago, JosephM said: Paul and Thomas, All these words for such an uncomplicated issue! I think we need to move past the arbitrary points of right and wrong that people choose on the continuum of life. They simply are not polar opposites but rather a degree or arbitrary point along a line that represents degrees of promoting life on this planet. It is much like temperature that is a line (continuum) with no moving molecules of energy on one end and the maximum amount of molecules active on the other. It can be measured in degrees but arbitrary points of hot or cold are a matter of subjective experience and arbitrary points chosen by people rather than polar opposites. My wife and i still can't agree on whether its hot or cold in the house after 51+ years of marriage! 😊😊 But we still love each other.😍 PS Once an arbitrary point is truly chosen it is near impossible to change the others mind by reason. Joseph, I have no problem moving on to the next topic, whatever that might be. However I disagree that it (morality or ethical behavior) is an uncomplicated issue nor do I think that right and wrong are (always) arbitrary. I do agree however that, arbitrary or not, no one's mind is likely to change on this particular topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts