The purpose of all life

Now you’re just projecting onto me.

This is likethe thread where it ended because I stated:

So you really want to tell the whole world and yourself that the meaning of life is consent violation ?

Dead silence.

MagsJ: I need to be straight forward with you:

You are tolerant: that’s an admirable attribute

I’ve read you on many boards, you are nowhere even near approaching a philosopher.

You are a web of inanity and projection and defense mechanisms.

The philosophers life is MUCH harder than having a terminal illness.

Please attack the argument, and not the character of the arguee i.e. me…

I would of it was.

How very illegible of you… but I get your drift.

Did you utilise statistical research to arrive at your ‘life’s work’ or from simply your viewpoint from personal experience?

You cannot simply disregard comment because it doesn’t wholly agree with your work, and you certainly can’t ad hom over it. Tread carefully.

Ecmandu,

How old are you, this time, anyway? You haven’t struck me as all that old to have had much of a life to base work on. I believe there is perspective in the question; relatively speaking.

I’m a human I’m told. There’s far more to me then that, feels like a we. We get some sense, and extend an olive branch.

Many questions. I look forward to a lesson, teacher.

I warn you, I think slow as a sloth.

Mowk

We’ve already discussed 3 studies in this thread

This is the post that caused mr. Reasonable to stop his post modern nonsense deconstruction of a species fact that is common sense and everyone knows.

The three studies are almost jokes … it’s like you and mr reasonable arguing with me that water is not wet.

So someone goes out and does three studies to prove it.

I’m not sorry for getting agitated by you arguing the effect that water is not wet. It’s inflammatory on just about every possible level. It’s not discourse, it’s postmodern counter intelligence. That’s the polite way to say it. And then you come in and say, “well the studies still don’t prove water is wet”

I’ve been debating post modernists on the net for 25 years now… I do grow irritated by it.

viewtopic.php?p=2715594#p2715594

…and herein lies your problem… do learn not to get irritated, won’t you… it could be your undoing here.

Not both genders say yes to sex / not both genders say no to sex… why would a guy approach a strange female and ask her openly for some relations?

Homosexual don’t have sex dimorphism (although bi sexual do)

Homosexuals don’t have the same rules as heterosexuals.

Of course lesbians aren’t going to approach men and gays women.

Again, what are you trying to say here? What’s your point?

Heterosexuals are 90% of the population, and thus have the most impact on the subconscious.

Every heterosexual relationship is no means yes.

A heterosexual claiming consent is like a child playing with a toy car about an inch long and saying it’s a real car and they’re really driving it. You children throw around the term consent as if you really know what it means.

Another analogy is someone rubbing gently the genitals of a 2 month years old baby. The baby doesn’t know what this means, just like the child with the toy car.

You all think you’re adults (it’s acting) when you say “we are consensual partners”. No! You’re not! You’re play-acting consent … it’s not actual consent

Like a child, you just want to pretend like you are big men and women.

For the record, I stopped because you’re too dense to absorb anything outside your tunnel vision. When you’re citing 30 year old studies with small samples from far away places with homogeneous political beliefs…I just can’t help but to think that you’re scouring the Earth for things to confirm your biases.

Side steps and short cuts.

Tough road. You’ve got spirit. But here’s the gig. It doesn’t matter at all how right you maybe, who can tell. But are you guessing consensus is going your way?

Do you think that is going to change here? Regardless of how much of your life you pour into it?

I’d recommend giving it a rest. See if anything new comes up to discuss. Something refreshing.

Oh sure, I’m being dense.

Every evolutionary psychologist, every social scientist, and every cultural anthropologist, and every sex researcher considers it a species fact that sex dimorphism triggers aversive behavior in women relative to men:

Try these simple studies which have been shown to apply cross culturally in all human societies on earth.

Get a cute girl and a cute guy.

Have them take off their clothes in public settings such as streets, sidewalks, busses, bars, strip clubs, grocery stores, Macy’s etc… the women will be escorted out, the men will have the police called.

Try the study where a cute guy and a cute girl walk up and down streets asking “wanna fuck me now?”

Watch how quickly the police get called on the men, and how quickly men say yes to women.

What I’m stating is a species fact.

What you’re stating is that we don’t all know this, when, in fact, you and Mowk and MagsJ all three know this.

I don’t think you’re dense, I think you’re afraid to admit the necessary logical conclusion which is that you’re all shallow hearted rapists.

The men are going to face problems from other men in those situations. And any women going for the men, will face punishment, short term or long term from men and women. You can’t take a second long slice of action and draw all sociological conclusions from it.

Actually, you can draw the conclusion that nobody considers female sexual signaling as much of a threat as male sexual signaling.

Women get a slap on the wrist, men go to jail.

A man sexual signaling has until recently been considered even a postive thing. A woman sexual signaling - and I mean, suggesting that sex now would be a good idea - has been likely to be considered a whore, family destroyer and more. I don’t think any of this is simple, but I disagree with what seems like a simple take on your side.

It’s a sociological universal. There are no subtleties when it comes the the punishment for sexual signaling between the sexes.

Male sexual signaling being seen as a positive thing, relative to women has never been seen as positive.

If a woman flashed you in the 1950’s and a man did.

The man would be the one in jail. Not the woman.

Well, perhaps we should define sexual signaling, because to me this is ridiculous. A woman who went around flirting with married men in the 50s would face severe social ostracism and rape. A flirtatious man, doing this in front of the boyfriends and husbands, if done bluntly, would get in fights and worse. But if he did it when alone with the women, not much would happen. The women would be putting their futures on the line. And this is nothing compared to what happens now in the Middle east. Mens sexual signaling, even grabbing a woman simply walking alone and assaulting her, would be considered the womans fault or seen as inevitable. A woman flirting in Iran is heading for death. Boys in high school in the us flirting with girls are seen as doing what they are supposed to. Girls can flirt, but they better be careful to not seeming to suggest sex in the near future or they still face serious problems. The whole metoo thing definitely has upped the ante for men’s risks, but in general it is still seen as the norm that men can and even should be on the make and women should not be on the make, even in the US.

In thinking that you’re addressing the topic, you are actually avoiding it:

Which sex is the most uncomfortable with sexual signaling from the other sex?

If a guy whips his dick out in a train station in iran, who’s more afraid, the men or the women?

The women of course!

What if a woman strips down naked in an Iranian train station? Are the men SCARED!!

No!! Hell no!!

Their culture though states that women who signal sexually are asking for sex.

The west has the same culture in a much subtler way.
It’s still the definition of rape, just like it is in Iran.

Hell, this board even has a male flasher in prison as we speak!!

Edited above post

I hope I didn’t offend you Karpel.

It truly is the point, and I may have veered from it myself, which had you posting away from the topic of this discussion:

Men are less affected by sexual signaling from women in terms of AVERSION, than women are from men.

This has long been considered, and still is considered a universal in the social sciences.

The primary reason, and this is also considered a universal in the social sciences: sex dimorphism.

The universal is without dispute in the very broad category labeled “social science”:

Evolutionary psychologists
Cultural anthropologists
Sex researchers

All three of those fields not only consider this a fact beyond reproach, there have been numerous studies which support it.

There are depth to these studies as well.

For example: women find a stoic type expression sexier in men than smiling. Smiling can be considered the slightest sexual signaling. Men are most attracted to smiling. What this means is that even in minutae, women are more averse to sexual signaling .

Even if someone accepted all this as the honest truth, it still doesn’t mean that everyone is a rapist. When someone says, “rapist”, this isn’t what they mean. You’re trying to change the definition of a rapist to suit this weird thing you’ve concocted and in the process you’re defying common sense.