Actually I do still occasionally masturbate. I just use photos of nude stills.
I always feel guilty when I masturbate for two reasons.
1.) they could be in a very abusive exploitive life
2.) I think of all the men who would like the luxury of masturbation but don’t
Another reason I masturbate is that I don’t have wet dreams when I masturbate
Oh yeah…. Masturbation releases oxytocin and I have a pain disorder…. Fiber myalgia.
*fibro
I still remember the first time I was corrected on my spelling…
I said “mute point” instead of “moot point”
I’ll add to my last post. Sometimes masturbating to women bores me…
So I masturbate to walls or trees.
I don’t like where the Japanese are cornered, masturbating to cartoons. I think it’s called hentai.
I literally just type in my search…
“Most beautiful nude women on earth”
It just brings up a bunch of photographs that are artistic in nature.
When I was into porn, there’s not one narrative I enjoyed. Contrary to mags opinion of me.
Contrary to popular opinion (or just yours)… this thread is not about that kind of “know”…
…But it may as well be, since it takes two to tango.
Unless you’re dancing alone. But even then… what came first? The music or the dancing?
MagsJ & I dedicate this song to our favorite solo artist:
spotify.link/5gJklEiM0Db
Just to clarify and stave off any possible confusion, MagsJ and I are two different people.
Really.
How embarrassing, for them…
Love is (truth/light/digital) not love (music/consent/faith/life/actual) without demonstration (dancing/works/confession/way/analog).
Anosagnosia:
Displaying the symptoms of knowing X, without the insight that one knows X.
We all have tells.
Art imitates.
All camouflage is art.
Be careful what you imitate.
You’re implying it’s actually a thing that can be imitated.
Plus, if you keep making that face, it’ll stay that way.
You seem to sense essentialism is the real answer, that things have a nature and so will act according to that. Cats don’t bury bones and dogs don’t like cat food. But seeing a law and denying a lawgiver does seem okay to you. Maybe if we ourselves weren’t free and rational , we could be puzzled but even being puzzled points to a real answer , a rational answer.
Why do you say that?
Does the law you speak of describe (substantial is), prescribe (existential ought), or subscribe (essential value)?
A law that fails to correspond to reality, is false.
So it is a law that a law that fails to correspond…
Don’t you feel silly saying that 
Wull when you put it like that, yeah.
While the practice of science is neutral, individual scientists often bring different perspectives to their work.
For some, exploring science is a way of understanding God’s creation. They might distinguish between scientific mechanisms and theological purpose. Others adhere to methodological naturalism. For them, science demonstrates that a creator is not necessary to explain existence.
However, the instrument being utilized to do science is the brain (mind would be politically incorrect), which functions basically the same way in all of us. If the brain is the end product of a mindless unguided process, can it be trusted? (Knowing that a computer is the product of a mindless unguided process, can IT be trusted?) If the answer is no, there’s a problem. Because scientists believe that the internal mind has access to the external natural world, a materialist stance undermines the trust in the rationality needed to do science.
Some modern pioneering scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries were believers in God . Most were Christians. Their belief in God didn’t hinder their science, it was the motor that drove it.
off topic & a zillion rabbit holes
