Feminist type.

[Tlaceceyaya]

2. I want society to externalize reproduction through technology so that sex is no longer necessary.

What do you see in sex that makes you want to put an end to it?

[Seperates]

Well if that is your view then it would be the height of hypocrisy to spread your genetic material.

1. I don't plan on doing so.

2. I want society to externalize reproduction through technology so that sex is no longer necessary.

Ummmm... Yeah... Ok... That is disturbing. No offense. We have EVOLVED for sex. Any biologist, male or female, will happily tell you that it is primarily a social behavior, a relationship strengthening, bond forming, social manuever. Reproduction is secondary and more of a by-product. Saying to get rid of sex is well... inhuman. Even if you do "externalize reproduction" sex is STILL necessary.

[Volozogul]

Well if that is your view then it would be the height of hypocrisy to spread your genetic material.

1. I don't plan on doing so.

2. I want society to externalize reproduction through technology so that sex is no longer necessary.

What is the point?

[Natapoc]

Exactly. Which means that the statement: Men and women are equal Is valid because the statement is a particular type of equivalence relation.

How is the equivalence relation defined? X and Y are equal iff ___.

Okay. Well there is more then one equivalence relation that holds but for example

X and Y are equal if and only if X and Y are people. Lets call this the personhood identity function

Other, perhaps more interesting, identities hold.

[Four-sided Triangles]

What do you see in sex that makes you want to put an end to it?

It's complicated.

1. I feel guilty for having any sexual thoughts at all. I'm fine with sex as an abstract thing to discuss, but sex involving myself or anyone I know makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Realizing that I wouldn't want to view any woman I know in a sexual manner, I extrapolate to all females.

2. When it comes to sex, women really drew the biological short stick. PMS, periods, pregnancy, higher susceptibility to STD's, cervical cancer, etc.. Why should anyone be put through that for my sake or for the sake of any other man?

3. In a more general sense than 1, sex requires the objectification of other human beings, which is objectionable.

4. I view penetrative intercourse as an invasion, violation, and domination of the female body. I view it this way even if it's consensual, and even if the female is "on top."

5. Sex is a surrender of the mind's reason to base instincts and desires.

I have others, but that's enough for now.

[Magnificent Angkar]

2. I want society to externalize reproduction through technology so that sex is no longer necessary.

I think pregnancy creates empathy between mother and child or something, so I'm not sure that's a good idea.

[Tlaceceyaya]

What do you see in sex that makes you want to put an end to it?

It's complicated.

1. I feel guilty for having any sexual thoughts at all. I'm fine with sex as an abstract thing to discuss, but sex involving myself or anyone I know makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Realizing that I wouldn't want to view any woman I know in a sexual manner, I extrapolate to all females.

2. When it comes to sex, women really drew the biological short stick. PMS, periods, pregnancy, higher susceptibility to STD's, cervical cancer, etc.. Why should anyone be put through that for my sake or for the sake of any other man?

3. In a more general sense than 1, sex requires the objectification of other human beings, which is objectionable.

4. I view penetrative intercourse as an invasion, violation, and domination of the female body. I view it this way even if it's consensual, and even if the female is "on top."

5. Sex is a surrender of the mind's reason to base instincts and desires.

I have others, but that's enough for now.

1: Why not? It's natural.
2: So you would just genetically engineer all babies to be male?
3: No it doesn't. For bonobos, it's mostly used for social bonding.
4: Why?
5: Yes, but so is eating, or socializing.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Ummmm... Yeah... Ok... That is disturbing. No offense. We have EVOLVED for sex. Any biologist, male or female, will happily tell you that it is primarily a social behavior, a relationship strengthening, bond forming, social manuever. Reproduction is secondary and more of a by-product. Saying to get rid of sex is well... inhuman. Even if you do "externalize reproduction" sex is STILL necessary.

No, pair bonding is secondary. The reproduction part came first in evolutionary terms. I don't think the sex is necessary. I prefer a doctrine of universal compassion. Romantic love gets in the way. It's too selfish.

[Four-sided Triangles]

What is the point?

To phase out sex.

[Magnificent Angkar]

5. Sex is a surrender of the mind's reason to base instincts and desires.

To continue living is a "base instinct and desire".

[Volozogul]

What do you see in sex that makes you want to put an end to it?

It's complicated.

1. I feel guilty for having any sexual thoughts at all. I'm fine with sex as an abstract thing to discuss, but sex involving myself or anyone I know makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Realizing that I wouldn't want to view any woman I know in a sexual manner, I extrapolate to all females.

2. When it comes to sex, women really drew the biological short stick. PMS, periods, pregnancy, higher susceptibility to STD's, cervical cancer, etc.. Why should anyone be put through that for my sake or for the sake of any other man?

3. In a more general sense than 1, sex requires the objectification of other human beings, which is objectionable.

4. I view penetrative intercourse as an invasion, violation, and domination of the female body. I view it this way even if it's consensual, and even if the female is "on top."

5. Sex is a surrender of the mind's reason to base instincts and desires.

I have others, but that's enough for now.

1. So you have issues. "Surrender of mind's reason to base instincts and desires" much?

2.They would still get periods and pms if everyone practiced abstinence.
STDs should be erradicated whether males or females are more susceptible.
Perhaps one day surgery might make male pregnancy possible for those who are into that.
etc.

3. I would disagree with this.

4. So you would practice your non-domination by having females not be able to consent to sex even completely voluntarily?

5. Why is that necessarily bad? What about the beauty of love and romance and sensuality?

[Four-sided Triangles]

1: Why not? It's natural.
2: So you would just genetically engineer all babies to be male?
3: No it doesn't. For bonobos, it's mostly used for social bonding.
4: Why?
5: Yes, but so is eating, or socializing.

1. So is cancer.

2. If genetic engineering reaches that point, the decision belongs to the parent(s).

3. And that means that it doesn't require one to view others as a sex object? Besides, we're not bonobos. They're cousins.

4. I don't know, it's just hard not to. The penis is forced in. Look, this is a bit too graphic for NSG.

5. Not really. Socialization is a higher-order function, and eating is unavoidable.

[Natapoc]

That's sad. A lot of women really like sex. Including (especially!) penetration and have the desire and expectation of this.

It's not necessary to objectify someone to have sex with them. Actually I can't see how sex could possibly be any fun while objectifying a person.

That would be like having sex with a machine or something so why not just stick to a machine?

Where did you get the idea that you have to objectify someone to have sex? Do you have to objectify someone to hold their hand? To cuddle? To kiss? How about to feed each other?

[Volozogul]

Hehe I think triangles is here for some free therapy.

[Voltronica]

I hope this topic doesn't degenerate into arguments about my view of sex.

Okay, I hold to feminism, but a very unconventional form of it. I have three positions were are all considered controversial in feminism, but none of them are universally rejected.

1. I do not think that sex is a good thing, and I do not think that women "empower" themselves through promiscuity. Women empower themselves through self-respect and through earning the respect of others.

2. I think that some degree of biological essentialism HAS TO BE true. It's absurd to suggest that there are no statistical psychological differences between the genders, given that sexual dimorphism is universal in mammals. Most men are better than most women at spatial reasoning, probably for fundamentally biological reasons. Most women are better at multitasking and verbal communication, also likely for biological reasons. Of course, these differences are STATISTICAL which means that we still have to evaluate people as individuals.

3. I don't like the language of "equality." I don't think we're all equal. We're not equal in ability. We're not equal in moral character. We're not equal in importance. I think the real way to oppose racism, sexism, and homophobia is not with the idea that we're all equal, because we're not. The real way to oppose prejudice is to hold that we should judge people as individuals, rather than according to the arbitrary demographics they happen to belong to.

What kind of feminist would you say that I am?

And no, I'm not female. I'm a heterosexual male. If that means I can't be a feminist, then what kind of feminist would I be if I held these views and was a woman?

perhaps a you are truly a Masculist attempting to justify your reasoning through what you call feminism?

[Seperates]

What do you see in sex that makes you want to put an end to it?

It's complicated.

1. I feel guilty for having any sexual thoughts at all. I'm fine with sex as an abstract thing to discuss, but sex involving myself or anyone I know makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Realizing that I wouldn't want to view any woman I know in a sexual manner, I extrapolate to all females.

2. When it comes to sex, women really drew the biological short stick. PMS, periods, pregnancy, higher susceptibility to STD's, cervical cancer, etc.. Why should anyone be put through that for my sake or for the sake of any other man?

3. In a more general sense than 1, sex requires the objectification of other human beings, which is objectionable.

4. I view penetrative intercourse as an invasion, violation, and domination of the female body. I view it this way even if it's consensual, and even if the female is "on top."

5. Sex is a surrender of the mind's reason to base instincts and desires.

I have others, but that's enough for now.

1. Illogical. Just because I view my (theoretical) girlfriend in a sexual manner does not mean I view my mother in the same manner. I view women on an individual basis, because they are JUST people. Viewing them with one single straw is just as sexist as if you were demeening them.

2. You're right. But these are the cards we are dealt with.

3.Absolutly. Objectification of any human being is absoultly deplorable.

4. You've obviously never been "dominated" by a woman before... it can be scary as well. If you view "penetrative intercourse" so badly, just have her wear a strap-on and have surprise butt-sects with you (jk bro, jk).

5. Food, thirst, and sleep are surrender the mind's reason to base instincts and desires. See what I did there?

[Seperates]

Ummmm... Yeah... Ok... That is disturbing. No offense. We have EVOLVED for sex. Any biologist, male or female, will happily tell you that it is primarily a social behavior, a relationship strengthening, bond forming, social manuever. Reproduction is secondary and more of a by-product. Saying to get rid of sex is well... inhuman. Even if you do "externalize reproduction" sex is STILL necessary.

No, pair bonding is secondary. The reproduction part came first in evolutionary terms. I don't think the sex is necessary. I prefer a doctrine of universal compassion. Romantic love gets in the way. It's too selfish.

Humans are selfish beings. And sure, reproduction came in first, but for most animals, it is more of a social bonding. I don't mean "pair bonding" I mean, monkeys having purposeless wild and crazy butt-sects.

[Natapoc]

perhaps a you are truly a Masculist attempting to justify your reasoning through what you call feminism?

Sadly it's starting to sound like that's the case but I'm still open to him actually being a feminist. His statement that females drew "the short end of the stick" biologically in terms of sexual relations makes me concerned. He also seems to place his own opinions of females as being more truthful then what females think of themselves.

Which is classic.

[Four-sided Triangles]

[quote="Volozogul";p="7823880"]1. How do I have issues? Is anyone comfortable hearing about friends or family members having sex? The Westermarck effect really fucks things up.

2. With externalized reproduction, women would be free to get hysterectomies if they so wanted. Besides, PMS and periods CAN be eliminated with medicine. Since reproduction is externalized, women don't have to worry about the sterilization effects of such medicines.

3. How does non-objectifying sex work?

4. I practice non-domination by permanent celibacy. I pledge to die as a virgin.

5. I prefer universal compassion. Romance is selfish.

[Magnificent Angkar]

3.Absolutly. Objectification of any human being is absoultly deplorable.

I disagree, I can enjoy a certain amount of objectification in the right circumstance.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Where did you get the idea that you have to objectify someone to have sex? Do you have to objectify someone to hold their hand? To cuddle? To kiss? How about to feed each other?

I'll try to find it later, but there's an fMRI study showing that men looking at porn don't view the women on it as people.

[Four-sided Triangles]

1. How do I have issues? Is anyone comfortable hearing about friends or family members having sex? The Westermarck effect really fucks things up.

2. With externalized reproduction, women would be free to get hysterectomies if they so wanted. Besides, PMS and periods CAN be eliminated with medicine. Since reproduction is externalized, women don't have to worry about the sterilization effects of such medicines.

3. How does non-objectifying sex work?

4. I practice non-domination by permanent celibacy. I pledge to die as a virgin.

5. I prefer universal compassion. Romance is selfish.

[Seperates]

perhaps a you are truly a Masculist attempting to justify your reasoning through what you call feminism?

Sadly it's starting to sound like that's the case but I'm still open to him actually being a feminist. His statement that females drew "the short end of the stick" biologically in terms of sexual relations makes me concerned. He also seems to place his own opinions of females as being more truthful then what females think of themselves.

Which is classic.

That's my primary problem with his opinion... It forgets a women's own wants and needs... some of which are sexual.

[Four-sided Triangles]

perhaps a you are truly a Masculist attempting to justify your reasoning through what you call feminism?

Why do you think I'm a masculist? Honestly, if anything, I think men are probably more evil than women. 20 times the level of female testosterone sees to that. Aggression, lust, greed, you name it, men are worse on average. Because of this, I often feel bad about being male. Even though I'm totally non-violent, it's just because of the way I was raised. I'd be a rapist and murderer if I was raised in different circumstances. Thus, I'm just a caged animal. But the beast is still there. I'm still a monster, just a domesticated one.

[Natapoc]

Where did you get the idea that you have to objectify someone to have sex? Do you have to objectify someone to hold their hand? To cuddle? To kiss? How about to feed each other?

I'll try to find it later, but there's an fMRI study showing that men looking at porn don't view the women on it as people.

But what men see when they look at porn is not necessary the same as when they are dealing with people. Use your identity function. I'm not disputing that many men objectify women. That's absolutely true. But what you're claiming is that sex is inherently objectifying. You have a large burden of evidence to show this. It's not sufficient to show that men think this way when looking at porn because the act of looking at porn is not the same as the act of sex

(our identity principle again)