Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
scaredyclassic
Participant[quote=yamashi][quote=scaredyclassic]one a week sex partner change would be ok though? once a month? is it just the multiple dailies thats a problem? given our sexually licentious society, that seems to be splitting hairs. once a day, once a month…no real moral difference.
really…our particular flavor of morality fights disease and led to all our current advances?
much of our current technology is built on the past where morality was quite different.[/quote]
Our mores are what binds us as a civilization. It’s what allows us to step in at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy instead of having to spend our time at the bottom worried about survival and whether or not someone is going to rape your wife or take out your kids on the way to school.[/quote]
right. but im talking about consensual acts. surely trump having sex with thousands of aspiring women doesnt endanger your family?
Participant[quote=all][quote=scaredyclassic]
1 of 200 men are descendants of ghenghis khan, i read somewhere. insensitive brute.
[/quote]Please do not call our common grand-grand-grand-grand-daddy a brute.[/quote]
we owe him our very existence. i wss once just a gleam in ghenghis’eye…
Participantit sounds like its not the act itself, but the hypocrosy that is troubling u
Participantone a week sex partner change would be ok though? once a month? is it just the multiple dailies thats a problem? given our sexually licentious society, that seems to be splitting hairs. once a day, once a month…no real moral difference.
really…our particular flavor of morality fights disease and led to all our current advances?
much of our current technology is built on the past where morality was quite different.
Participantxxxx
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=scaredyclassic]if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.
if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?[/quote]
Also, if people could steal the money of others without repercussions, many would do it. If people could hit or otherwise harm people they didn’t like without repercussions, they would also do it. The only way we get our children to stop acting like chimps is . . . doling out repercussions. I would find repugnant someone who said – “that person is so stupid I can steal their money and they don’t even try to stop me.” I would find someone who never learned to close their mouth while chewing, chose to bathe only when it suited them and god knows what all repugnant.
Morals are like (among other things) the room mate agreement in The Big Bang Theory. An attempt to avoid problems before they start. BTW – son went to look at a college on Saturday and lo and behold, they make them sign room mate agreements. Overall it was depressing – it was a big school and it was as if someone set off a neutron bomb – no (well, actually, very few) people anywhere. Nothing like my college experience – not sure if it’s the difference between the midwest and here. It’s like they’ve sapped all the fun out of it.[/quote]
stealing and hitting are nonconsensual. assume consent with all of the rich powerful guys partners..like say for instance loads of women will fuck trump just to get close to power, and he only grabs the pussies of those powerseekers. why is that morally wrong of him to do?
is ot “unnatural”?
Participantisnt acting civilized just what people do to get what they need or want? we call ourselves civilized, but we play by the rules of the day, just like every other poor slob for 1000s of years. our nature is no different or better. society may be more or less efficient, or violent, but we, we are the same, playing the game to live and breed.
i can imagine a distant relative of mine from a.d. 700, living in some shitty town g-d knows where, just trying to make it in society, same as me.
im no better or worse than he is, in my nature.
so, if the rules allowed a particlar man many sex partners, i would say his nature would likely be in accord with that. now, in ad 700, and forever into the past and future
Participantif morality is continually developping, growing, getting better, enlarging like the supply of dollars, then it shall not be long before society looks back on us as absurd crazed barbarians, right?
perhaps we are just a bunch of barbarians, right now, a few millimeters off from ghenghis…
or have we reached the near apex of moral development? how coincidental and lucky for us.
what makes a society more “moral”?
Participantmorally developped? you mean like dropping bombs via drones on families instead of pillaging by horseback…. frankly, ghenghis sounds way more…. human.
our individual natures havent changed in the last 1000 years, just the setting, the rules we play by, its always a continuous struggle for power respurces and the best mates.
all seems a bizarre morality charade, unrelated to real representive democracy, in which we get to pick between abillionaire who is only out for himself, and a relatively less wealthy bank and wall street representative. ill take…vermin supreme…
Participant[quote=yamashi][quote=scaredyclassic]if most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.
if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?[/quote]
Just because it is our nature doesn’t make it right. Most civilized men with a conscience would not have sex with multiple women on a daily basis. If Trump is attacking Hillary for tolerating Bill’s behavior. It doesn’t really make Trump much better when he’s associating himself with locker room behavior.[/quote]
absolutely they would, if no repercussions, if they were king like, and if they did not, they would be lame genetically.
there would be a few uxorious lads, but in general, the king would have his way. by civilized, i think what you mean, is that society restrains them, and or nature, such that they cannot.
1 of 200 men are descendants of ghenghis khan, i read somewhere. insensitive brute.
wall street and the banks dont play by the rules the rest of civilized working society men with “consciences” do. this is the same issue transplanted sexually. if they can take they will take. the strong ones, anyway…
Participantif most men could have sex with any woman at any time, they likely would have sex several times per day with different women.
if this is our nature, why is his expression of it so repugnant?
Participantit seems ridiculous to elect a president based on “who would u rather have a beer with”.
is it oerhaps just as ridiculous to elect based on issues of morality, sexual aggressiveness, or obnoxiousness? why does morality enter into it? theoretically, at least youd simply want the most effective, however u defined it.
Participanti suppose.
but is it creepier than just thinking it and not saying it.
im more conforted by transparency, frankly.
i know a dude who is unusually attractive and personable, like, off the charts movie star attractive and magnetic . women actually do let him do stuff to them very quickly. he doesnt brag about it, but its just kind of known. women on average make rhemselves quickly available for perceivedly powerful or superior men. im not sure if it matters if that reality is remarked upon.
part of trumps charm, if you can call it that, is that he says things that people dont say out loud that many believe are true. this statement is just a shade off, and if it had been a bit more open ended on the consent isdue, couldve bern spun as just more truth telling
Participant[quote=harvey][quote=no_such_reality]
I suggest you tape and take a good long look at all three hours of “Today”.Seriously, that last hour with Hoda and Kathy Lee, not as vulgar, but just as crass, IMO.
It’s like watching a couple 50 year old high school girls talking smack.[/quote]
All of these false equivalence arguments show that some just don’t get it.
It’s not the potty mouth that’s the issue.
The issue is the claim that power/wealth/influence supersedes the rules of law and common decency.
He was boasting that he can do whatever he wants to your daughter because he’s got influence. This is the guy that’s asking us to give him even far more power.
What kind of insecurity does a person have, that they need to brag about this stuff?[/quote]
on the other hand, theres some truth to it. people love to suck up to power. if he had said, women drop their panties when they see a billionaire coming, it wouldnt have been offensive. or they let me do anything to them. if thats what he actually intended to convey, well, that just sort of true.
-
AuthorPosts
