US Senate Repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

[Dre89]

I answered all these questions in the PG thread.

I don't have an issue with infertile couples having sex as long as they're doing the natural act. If they're having sex with someone they're willing to have kids with (as in they are happy for kids to result from that specific sex), I don't have an issue. It's not as if I'm saying you need to have kids everytime you get it on, I'm saying you just need to do it the natural way.

The reason I don't believe in polygamy is because a single male is not capable of sustaining multiple women and children unless he is wealthy, which is not the standard, especially when you're referring to the first humans (for what I consider natural must apply to the first humans). Also, again referring to the first humans, if one man had multiple women, then assuming the male to female ratio is relatively even, you would have a large number of males left over with no partners.

I have already addressed the "multiple benefits of sex" argument. But let me ask you, how many of these benefits are achieved by prolonged sexual stimulation, but no ejaculation? I'm guessing next to none. All the benefits likely result from the ejaculation. In fact, not ejaculating causes pain in the male and has health risks.

Seeing as I've gone in this deep, I might as well just go all the way with this debate until it gets locked because people can't remove their emotions and perosnal convictions from the debate, or some mod infracts me for having a different opinion to them.

 

[Mini Mic]

I'm saying you just need to do it the natural way.

Whose job was it to tell people how to have sex before you were born?

The reason I don't believe in polygamy is because a single male is not capable of sustaining multiple women and children unless he is wealthy

I guess it's a good thing women can work too.

how many of these benefits are achieved by prolonged sexual stimulation, but no ejaculation? I'm guessing next to none

It's fun, it's good exercise and it can increase the feeling of orgasm. So there's 3 right off the top of my head.

The thing is, the pleasure is designed to entice you into the act, that's why the pleasure peaks with ejaculation

No it's not, the feeling of pleasure is the feeling of muscle contractions that occur when stimulated. Chances are if you're feeling 'pleasure' you're already acting, not the other way around.

 

[Dre89]

Whose job was it to tell people how to have sex before you were born?

If you're going to play the "who are to say" card, well then who are you to say my opinion is wrong? Or that your specific moral belief is correct? At least I attempt to reason mine out in a civil manner. Also, what separates my theory from others is that it's not purely intellectual, it's based on observation of nature. For example my claim that pleasure is meant to entice you into the act is based on analysing the biology of the act.

Besides, the ultimate goal of what I'm aiming at with my theory was around long before Social Contract Theory and consequentialism were.

I guess it's a good thing women can work too.

Again, this is assuming a modern, urbanised, western, individualised society. I'm referring to the first humans.

It's fun, it's good exercise and it can increase the feeling of orgasm. So there's 3 right off the top of my head.

An orgasm which isn't going to come (mind the pun) unless you ejaculate. All the benefits of sex come from the ejaculation specifically. Look at wet dreams, they are supposedly beneificial, and in most cases it is an ejaculation without the stimulation. Besides, most of these benefits are alleviating problems that wouldn't exist had we not had sexual organs in the first place. Things such as prostate cancer, pain from prolonged stimulation without ejaculation, and negative mental impacts of sexual frustrations that are prevented by sex wouldn't exist if we didn't have sexual organs in the first place. So these benefits you speak of don't make sex a healer of the body, what it heals are those problems which only initially arose from misuse of the sexual organs to begin with. Even with exercise, apart from the fact that sex is not the exclusive way to exercise, drugs make people lose weight, yet they are still aren't good for you, and weight loss is certainly not what hardcore drugs are deisgned for.

No it's not, the feeling of pleasure is the feeling of muscle contractions that occur when stimulated. Chances are if you're feeling 'pleasure' you're already acting, not the other way around.

Firstly, people are aroused before they engage in the act, that's why you can have an erection outside of sex. Secondly, knowing the pleasure one will receive from the act also entices people.

If pleasure was supposed to be an alternate end, rather than a means to ejaculation, the act would be different. You wouldn't need an artificial agent to have casual sex, you would be able to consciously choose when to ejaculate, whether to shoot blanks or not, ejaculation probably would not be the most intense pleasure, and there would be no prolonged pain or health risks from prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Again, this is assuming a modern, urbanised, western, individualised society. I'm referring to the first humans.

Okay. Now explain to me why we should live our lives the same way they do? We might as well be an entirely different species in comparison to them. This theory might work for them, then. But it doesn't work for us. We are at the point where not only can women work and take care of their own offspring, not only are many people rich enough to support polygamous families, but there's also a net society puts up to help those who need it!

An orgasm which isn't going to come (mind the pun) unless you ejaculate. All the benefits of sex come from the ejaculation specifically.

Tantric sex, and to a lesser degree erotic hypnosis. I have personally had non-ejaculatory orgasms. There goes that theory. And look, it's not just my personal thing, it's a fairly well-known phenomenon. Wanna drop the whole "reproduction is the only goal" schtick now or later?

If pleasure was supposed to be an alternate end, rather than a means to ejaculation, the act would be different. You wouldn't need an artificial agent to have casual sex, you would be able to consciously choose when to ejaculate, whether to shoot blanks or not, ejaculation probably would not be the most intense pleasure, and there would be no prolonged pain or health risks from prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation.

Oh and each orgasm would lead to a pure and simple enlightenment of the species. And each time you have an orgasm, you would become more muscular. And each time you have an organism, your body's self-defense mechanisms would become more powerful. But nope. Because sex obviously isn't a complete and utter godsend at anything other than reproduction, reproduction is the only "natural" goal. Still makes very little sense to me. And you still haven't presented why this is necessary/good.

 

[SuperBowser]

Dre., it's so painfully obvious you choose a conclusion first and interpret everything you see in the world towards that conclusion that it hurts. All of your posts are just a giant correlation =/= causality.

It's sad you cannot read your own posts with any objectivity.

 

[Teran]

Honestly I don't think there should be openly gay people in the military.

I mean it's for their own safety really, most cannon fodder infantry are uneducated dopes in uniform (yeah no offence but they are), so being openly gay where there's a high chance of machismo and ignorance is just not going to turn out well.

Although tbh, all infantry in the military end up doing gay stuff anyway because they're all so desperate.

Well, actually just the American military.

 

[Pluvia]

Just to mention before someone replies, Teran's gay and likes to troll.

 

[Teran]

Dude I'm being serious about the DADT being probably for the better in these times. Rules should suit the times.

If I were to enlist, I would NEVER tell anyone I'm gay, it's just not productive. I need to trust my comrades, and considering there's a high chance a good number would be homophobic, it's just better for overall teamwork if they didn't know. Dissent is something the military doesn't want.

Society hasn't reached a point yet where the majority of people are comfortable with the idea of homosexuality, our parents were young adults when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. There hasn't been enough time for mentalities to change, these things take time.

 

[Shadic]

And people were holding protests at schools when the order to desegregate the schools was made in 1954. Look at what happened in Little Rock in 1957. Just because a change isn't going to be easy doesn't mean that it shouldn't be made.

 

[deepseadiva]

If I were to enlist, I would NEVER tell anyone I'm gay, it's just not productive. I need to trust my comrades, and considering there's a high chance a good number would be homophobic, it's just better for overall teamwork if they didn't know. Dissent is something the military doesn't want.

I don't think once the repeal is in full effect we're gonna hear a wave of closet doors bursting open. I think it just allows some of the guys to share a little of themselves with some of the closer people they've met.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Society hasn't reached a point yet where the majority of people are comfortable with the idea of homosexuality, our parents were young adults when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. There hasn't been enough time for mentalities to change, these things take time.

Yeah, but if people don't fight to change things on a legislative level, they will take even more time. I don't think sexuality should be brought up because you're right, it can hinder productivity. That said, I don't believe it should be illegal to be able to do so.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Dude I'm being serious about the DADT being probably for the better in these times. Rules should suit the times.

If I were to enlist, I would NEVER tell anyone I'm gay, it's just not productive. I need to trust my comrades, and considering there's a high chance a good number would be homophobic, it's just better for overall teamwork if they didn't know. Dissent is something the military doesn't want.

Society hasn't reached a point yet where the majority of people are comfortable with the idea of homosexuality, our parents were young adults when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. There hasn't been enough time for mentalities to change, these things take time.

Give people the CHOICE.

 

[Pluvia]

I see your point Teran but you live over here, you know there's no problems with gays in the military, you're just trying to stir up a reaction in the Americans.

 

[Teran]

Yeah, but if people don't fight to change things on a legislative level, they will take even more time. I don't think sexuality should be brought up because you're right, it can hinder productivity. That said, I don't believe it should be illegal to be able to do so.

Yeah, but imo I think making progress in general education of the population in such matters is necessary before decisions like this can be made easy. Of course, I'm not exactly saying DADT was some amazing bit of legislation, but honestly, I do believe it probably made things easier on certain fronts. I dunno, taking away the ruling still won't change the fact that a lot of people are homophobic.

I see your point Teran but you live over here, you know there's no problems with gays in the military, you're just trying to stir up a reaction in the Americans.

What do you mean there's no problem? Just because it's not overt in legislation doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. Think about it, homosexuals can get married but doesn't mean that society in general really accepts them here. Not to mention the British Army is pretty much just chavs in khaki, not the brightest lights of our society.

 

[Pluvia]

By society you mean individuals. The media, laws and government all accept it, our society is different from the US, they're still held down by religion.

So yeah you mean individuals.

 

[Teran]

Individuals make up true society, not the government and media.

After all, it's how the general population acts that truly defines a country.

 

[CAOTIC]

^ Pragmatic approach, I applaud thee. People need to change before the government does -- after all, the government should represent the views of the public. Transformative politics does have its value though (I typically prefer the latter from an ideological perspective).

Australia took this type of debate further by expanding into the field of sport, where a football player recently encouraged other sports stars to stay in the closet because it might distract other players on the field, especially when football (especially Australian Rules football) can end looking pretty, well... gay. He was widely condemned by just about everyone, even most other football players because of a perhaps unfounded fear that other players may not be ready to deal with it, on the field or in the locker rooms. Players/role models like him need to accept that homosexuality is a reality in every realm, even in the most masculine of cultures, like contact sport.

Again, it takes time, but also a bit of leadership and strength to be willing to confront sensitive issues without having to tell people to lie and pretend it doesn't exist. From the top, leaders can wield influence on the issue as much as the bottom-up, grassroots approach, which would be the pragmatic reaction. I believe you need both to get somewhere...

... otherwise you could end up with a stubborn government response, that is out of touch, like Singapore.

 

[Dre89]

BPC- What I found interesting about that article is that it says you teach yourself to do it. It's a learned skill, not the universally biological default position. I'm guessing people have done it by accident or without training, but that still strikes me as an exception to the rule. People shooting blanks seems like it's in a similar category, it's a malfunction, it doesn't prove anything about sex, except that it is prone to malfunction.

Superbowser- Of course, because any non-modern, conservative view that doesn't conform to mainstream ideas of today must have its conclusions before its premises. I'm amazed at narrow minded some of these supposed liberated people are.

I've defended my claim that pelasure is meant to entice you into the act, which is for procreation just fine. Again, someone tell me if I'm wrong, why do-

We need an artificial agent to have casual sex?
We can't consciously choose to ejaculate?
Not have the option of firing blanks, unless we have a malfunction, or train ourselves, (in other words it's not the default universal biological position)?
The ejaculations provide the most intense pleasure?
We experience pain and health risks if we endure prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation?

How am I making conclusions before my premises? In fact, if anyone is doing that, it's most likely people on your side, because they just assume Social Contract Theory and consequentialism because their society embraces it, without initially justifying it.

Someone tell me how all those factors mentioned above don't indicate that sex is structured for procreation. I mean, if that's not evident enough, what would the act have to be like for you to accept that is meant exclusively for procreation?

 

[El Nino]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17WGTvPHGg&feature=player_embedded

REPENT. The end days are here.

 

[TigerWoods]

"accroding to biblical principles....you should be in the kitchen making me a sandwich"

-doitMAGGOT 20 minutes ago


Bahahahaha.

 

[SuperBowser]

Superbowser- Of course, because any non-modern, conservative view that doesn't conform to mainstream ideas of today must have its conclusions before its premises.

No, just yours.

You interpret everything you see with a set conclusion in mind. It is not scientific thinking and it is plain to see. Pretending your interpretation of human biology is correct and, furthermore, the only correct interpretation is a joke. The function of sex is a social construct. Children, pleasure, physical health, mental health and forming a close relationship are all individually important. Take away any single factor and people will still have sex because it has so many functions. This includes old people, gay people, young people and infertile people. That is the greatest evidence I can offer.

It's kind of like when people ask, "What's more important; your brain or your lungs?". There isn't an answer because you need both to function.

Of course, you are welcome to your own interpretation. But I'd hardly call your "proof" adequate or self-evident or common sense.

 

[Pluvia]

Individuals make up true society, not the government and media.

After all, it's how the general population acts that truly defines a country.

The general population accepts homosexuality Teran.

Unless you consider gay jokes to mean that they're not accepted. By that logic you better hope that you're a white male, but not a ginger, a toff, fat or a chavy one, otherwise society deems you to be a sub-human.

I'd love you to find articles to back your claims.

 

[Dre89]

I think what Teran is saying is not a individuals collectively endorsing slavery makes it acceptable, it shows that the society is immoral.

Superbowser- Again I get the "what makes your interpretation right" card played at me, well then makes yours better?

You criticise my individual interpretation, then go on to make one of your own.

I don't understand what your argument about sex's purposes served. You still haven't addresses the factors I states in my last post, instead you just played the individual interpretation card.

Also, how is it that I had a narrow mind, if I always accepted homosexuality until I was 18? Wouldn't that mean I would never change my mind from that?

Who's more likely to have committed the conclusion fallacy- the one who used to be pro, then reasoned it out and turned anti, or the people who have been pro the whole time and never reasoned out their moral assumptions, because it's the mainstream view.

 

[El Nino]

Honestly I don't think there should be openly gay people in the military.

I already talked about it, but gay people served in the military before DADT and they were able to keep themselves in check. I don't see why DADT is necessary. It only ends up as a legal hurdle that has to be overcome in the process of getting benefits for a spouse or partner of the same gender.

Although tbh, all infantry in the military end up doing gay stuff anyway because they're all so desperate.

Well, actually just the American military.

The military is pretty homo on its own, and in that respect DADT works as a psychological defense mechanism. It lets straight people act homo as a joke without feeling threatened by it.

Also, how is it that I had a narrow mind, if I always accepted homosexuality until I was 18? Wouldn't that mean I would never change my mind from that?

Who's more likely to have committed the conclusion fallacy- the one who used to be pro, then reasoned it out and turned anti, or the people who have been pro the whole time and never reasoned out their moral assumptions, because it's the mainstream view.

Well, Dre., it's you against the gay-loving world right now. Let me cheer the underdog. *waves pom-poms*

Just so you know, a viewpoint can be narrow minded regardless of the path the individual took to get there.

But seriously, I don't know how you end up stealing the spotlight every time. I'm a little jealous.

 

[Namaste]

Honestly I don't think there should be openly gay people in the military.

I mean it's for their own safety really, most cannon fodder infantry are uneducated dopes in uniform (yeah no offence but they are), so being openly gay where there's a high chance of machismo and ignorance is just not going to turn out well.

Although tbh, all infantry in the military end up doing gay stuff anyway because they're all so desperate.

Well, actually just the American military.

Please explain to me your vast knowledge or experience of the American military that you can say this.

 

[SuperBowser]

I think what Teran is saying is not a individuals collectively endorsing slavery makes it acceptable, it shows that the society is immoral.

Superbowser- Again I get the "what makes your interpretation right" card played at me, well then makes yours better?

We understand sex has phsyical health benefits such as reducing rates of prostate cancer. Concluding this shows sex should only take place for procreation is not logical; there is no scientific thinking to reach such a conclusion. I could repeat this for all the examples you have countered in the past.

If making babies is all that sex means to you, then maybe that's all it does mean to you. That does not make your understanding of sex universally generalisable to the population at large.

 

[Dre89]

I have already addressed the example of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is only an issue because of the existence of the sexual organs in the first place. Increased chance of PC occurs when you misuse the sexual organs, such as prolonged stimulation without ejaculation, it's not healing the body. PC wouldn't be an issue if we weren't sexual creatures to begin with.

 

[El Nino]

But we are sexual creatures.

An organ can have multiple functions. And actually, in nature, an organ has a function whenever it is being used for something. There are even some parts of the human body that don't have functions (the appendix, the tail bone). You could say that the sex organs in a heterosexual can be used for procreation; in a homosexual, they aren't used for procreation, but they are used for other things. Proving that an organ has one particular function does not rule out other functions.

 

[DoH]

Dre's argument's remind me of the scrub who complains that I use Fox's reflector to shine spike rather than only reflect projectiles. They ignore the complex multi-functionality of both the shine and human sex organs. That somehow he has authority to tell me what is the correct way to use something when he has no experience in it is absolutely preposterous.

EDIT: Omg, this metaphor is perfect. Dre thinks that we should only play Melee/life with it's default, out of the box settings. Any alterations is not 'natural' and against the intent of the designers. This argument is cute, but it ignores a) the customability of life/Melee, b) the needs of competitive smashers/other human beings who share different views, c) is naive, self-vested, and boorish with pretense of authority.

Dre, what exactly changed at 18? What was your belief system before? And how old are you now?

And you did not just compare society's acceptance of homosexuality with the permitting of slavery

And dre, you can have casual sex without an artificial agent. I do it a lot and I ain't birthing no babies. Also, in addition to anal sex, there's fellatio, rimming, frottage, edging, mutual masturbation, masturbation, cunnilingus, auto-fellatio, rimming, and many others. Men who ejaculate frequently - whether it be from full on penetrative sex or just masturbation - have a decreased risk of prostate cancer. Human sexuality isn't as limited as you decree it; maybe if you had a shard of experience you would understand. The fact you can have an orgasm outside of unprotected heterosexual intercourse pretty much puts the kibosh on your theory that the euphoria of an orgasm is solely to entice us to banging womens.

The reason social contract/utilitarianism is assumed as the dominant philosophical framework is because it works. It's best for balancing freedom and structure. Your framework is oppressive, heteronormative, backwwards, and frankly basic.

Teran, your opinions do a great disservice not only to gay people, but also to the military, in underestimating the professionalism of our armed forces. Countries far more conservative than America have integrated militaries. We have the greatest fighting force in the world, to assume they wouldn't follow orders is disrespectful; while I'm sure that it wouldn't all be roses and sunshine, those who let their personal animus get in the way of their job are no the kind of people that we want serving our nation.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC- What I found interesting about that article is that it says you teach yourself to do it. It's a learned skill, not the universally biological default position. I'm guessing people have done it by accident or without training, but that still strikes me as an exception to the rule. People shooting blanks seems like it's in a similar category, it's a malfunction, it doesn't prove anything about sex, except that it is prone to malfunction.

Superbowser- Of course, because any non-modern, conservative view that doesn't conform to mainstream ideas of today must have its conclusions before its premises. I'm amazed at narrow minded some of these supposed liberated people are.

I've defended my claim that pelasure is meant to entice you into the act, which is for procreation just fine. Again, someone tell me if I'm wrong, why do-

We need an artificial agent to have casual sex?
We can't consciously choose to ejaculate?
Not have the option of firing blanks, unless we have a malfunction, or train ourselves, (in other words it's not the default universal biological position)?
The ejaculations provide the most intense pleasure?
We experience pain and health risks if we endure prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation?

How am I making conclusions before my premises? In fact, if anyone is doing that, it's most likely people on your side, because they just assume Social Contract Theory and consequentialism because their society embraces it, without initially justifying it.

Someone tell me how all those factors mentioned above don't indicate that sex is structured for procreation. I mean, if that's not evident enough, what would the act have to be like for you to accept that is meant exclusively for procreation?

Let's assume for a moment that you are right, and that sex for other means is unnatural. Am I correct in thinking that you are saying that, therefore, sex for other means (including gay sex, casual sex without the intent or will for offspring, and similar things) is morally wrong/ought to be morally prohibited? What's your run of logic from "sex for other means is unnatural" to "homosexuality is morally wrong"?

 

[Dre89]

BPC- I don't have anything against homosexuality specifically, to me it's just as morally wrong as other sex outside the natural way. The move from unnatural to morally wrong is another debate in itself, because it gets quite complex. It warrants it's own thread.

Doh- Consequentialism isn't more effective, it just achieves the goals set by it's own consequentialist framework. I understand how the act works, I haven't experienced exactly how intense the pleasure is, but that's not important.

Before my change I wad exactly like you guys, I just assumed modern view, and if I was ever in this debate, I would probably used the same arguments as you guys (minus the insults, although I may have stereotyped in my ignorance).

What changed is that I began to reason out things for myself, dettaching myself from environment influences.

The thing is, no one has answered my list of factors.

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer on this question- if sex is meant for pleasure too, then why is prolonging it painful, and actually detrimental healthwise? Why does the ejaculation provide the most pleasure, giving us the greatest reward?

If you guys continue to ignore the list I made in an earlier post, as well as these questions, then that shows a serious dent in your argument.

 

[SuperBowser]

Nobody says making babies is not a function of sex. It's not the only function of sex.

You haven't addressed anything about prostate cancer. Other than displaying an abysmal understanding of the aetiology of prostate cancer, you used your tunnel-visioned perspective to form a conclusion that suits your needs. Again. Prostate cancer is commoner in men who do not masturbate/have regular intercourse. Relating this to making babies is dumb.

 

[Teran]

Please explain to me your vast knowledge or experience of the American military that you can say this.

They lost to Vietnam.

Case closed.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

BPC- I don't have anything against homosexuality specifically, to me it's just as morally wrong as other sex outside the natural way. The move from unnatural to morally wrong is another debate in itself, because it gets quite complex. It warrants it's own thread.

It's also known as a Naturalistic Fallacy.

@Teran: the USA is incredibly good at losing wars to 3rd-world countries.

 

[Pluvia]

Unsurprisingly you ignored my post Teran.

 

[Namaste]

They lost to Vietnam.

Case closed.

No we didn't. IT WAS A TIE

We need an artificial agent to have casual sex?
We can't consciously choose to ejaculate?
Not have the option of firing blanks, unless we have a malfunction, or train ourselves, (in other words it's not the default universal biological position)?
The ejaculations provide the most intense pleasure?
We experience pain and health risks if we endure prolonged sexual stimulation without ejaculation?

1. No we don't. I'm sure I'm not the only person here dumb enough to have failed that, and I don't have kids. It's called pulling out, and if you do it correctly (aka actually pull out in time) it's actually increadibly effective. But besides that, condoms are tools. We use tools for everything, from making fires to clothes to houses. If we didn't use artificial agents then you and me would both be long long dead.

2. Yes we can. It's called masturbation.

3. True, but sex drives don't disappear when you're pregnant (and therefore can't have more kids), or when you have menopause, and since the beginning of time people have engaged in anal and oral sex. If your point was valid, that biologically we're not suppose to be doing anything with our orgasms but use them for procreation, then those would not exist or belong. Along with this is the female orgasms, which serves no reproductive purpose.

4. I'm afraid I don't get this point. I don't see how the fact that the orgasm is the most enjoyable action means that the rest is inconsequential.

5. Eh? Explain "prolong". Cause again if your argument was right there'd be no reason for us to last anything longer then five seconds, and anything after that would be prolonged.

Again, you say that it's "meant for procreation". Yeah, it is. I don't think anyone is really saying "sex is primarily designed to have kids". But as intelligent beings, we found it to be enjoyable and so use our intelligence to find ways to do it without having kids. In the same way we found ways to not freeze to death or how to use the remains of dead animals to supplement our own thin skin.

Really, you seem to be comparing sex to one of those aerosal cans that say "DANGER: NOT INTENDED FOR ANY USE OTHER THEN STATED".

 

[Pikaville]

So many posts going back and forth on this topic.

Seeing as I have little to no debate skills, I will give my 3 step solution to this debate.

Step 1. Stop caring about what gays do because 99% of it doesn't affect you and the people you care about.

Step 2. Prepare yourself for the worst, you might get hit on by a gay person or maybe even see gay people sharing affection in public

Luckily, gays are generally bound by the same laws as straight people so you can in fact report them for say "indecent exposure" or "sexual assault/harassment" if such a thing were to happen.

Step 3. Profit.

 

[deepseadiva]

Really, you seem to be comparing sex to one of those aerosal cans that say "DANGER: NOT INTENDED FOR ANY USE OTHER THEN STATED".

Bwahhahahahahaha

 

[Dre89]

Having multiple motivations for sex doesn't mean it has multiple purposes. Pleasure is there to provide am enticing motivation.

Again someone is still yet to explain to me that if pleasure is an alternate end, why it's actually bad for you to prolong pleasure.

I know prostate cancer chance is increased by not nasturbating, it's a health issue of the sexual organs, which wouldn't exist if the sexual organs didn't exist. It's not as if the chances are lowered if you masterbate, it's that they increase if you don't. That's why you don't see asexual creatures getting prostate cancer, because they don't have sexual organs which create that problem in the first place.

BPC- As I said before, the NF is when you derive ought from is, my belief derives is from ought. Understanding what that means is quite complex and warrants it's own thread, but it ties in with why what is unnatural should not be practiced.

 

[Namaste]

Having multiple motivations for sex doesn't mean it has multiple purposes. Pleasure is there to provide am enticing motivation.

Prove it

Again someone is still yet to explain to me that if pleasure is an alternate end, why it's actually bad for you to prolong pleasure.

You still did not explain what you meant by "prolong". Explain that in detail (five hours? two? five minutes?) or drop the point because it means nothing. Prolonging pleasure is not bad for you. It's called being good at sex. It's what people do when they ****, and if they don't then they're generally left embarrassed because they failed.

It's not as if the chances are lowered if you masterbate, it's that they increase if you don't.

That's dumb. Is your idea of the "default" chance a person who what, has no prostate? It's either "masturbate" or "don't masturbate". One has a lower chance of cancer, one has a higher rate. As we are not born masturbating. If there was going to be a default "rate", it'd be to not masturbate.

BPC- As I said before, the NF is when you derive ought from is, my belief derives is from ought. Understanding what that means is quite complex and warrants it's own thread, but it ties in with why what is unnatural should not be practiced.

Translation: "I'm too smart for you"