Two Things

You’re contradicting yourself. You’re stating that you agree, and then claim that eating food is “other than having sex”. Yes, that’s true, but not in the sense of pleasure. The capacity for pleasure is still rooted in the sex drive. You keep skipping-over the fact to make an obscure point, that pleasures are different. They aren’t, at least, not like you describe.

Why do people eat food? So we don’t starve…so we can fuck.
Why do people drink water? So we don’t dehydrate…so we can fuck.
Why do people exercise? So we remain healthy…so we can fuck.

The only true contrary position toward this rule, this fact of life, is once people already do have children. But, once copulation is successful, males often feel more suicidal than beforehand. Males have a different relationship with purpose than females do. A female is biologically attached to her child, as she births him/her, while the male does not.

Yet none of this discounts or counter-argues the assertion: sex is the primary concern.

Why do you think, when you go to ‘party’, that people drink alcohol or abuse other drugs??? It is mental inebriation, a return to the (innate) “animal state”. All life is, is about fucking, nothing more or less. Even your and my participation, here, on this forum, signifies the same truth. If you are sexually attractive to me, and I to you, then this can become implied (and even signified) by ‘philosophical’ perspectives.

And once a male successfully copulates, his “job”, his “purpose”, his “life” is ended. He need not live further. He is already “successful” in life. He can die, thereafter. He has ‘insurance’ on genetic propagation. Women on the other hand, have a different (passive) perspective about sex.

So are you saying that only true pleasure can be derived from the sex act, and that everything else is meaningless beyond that… save for survival’s sake?

…which is all still part of life, no? We still derive pleasure from those activities, and more, even if the end result is or isn’t sex, as the act of turning down sexual offers refutes your point entirely.

…but it is not the only concern… there are many other concerns to be considered before acting on our main drive, unless one is under the influence of something or other and hence uninhibited [-X

…as would happen in any arena if there is mutual attraction at play :wink:

Perhaps his search for a female to bear his child is over, but men are walking sperm banks so their life is far from over as they can inseminate ad infinitum.

Survival’s sake???

People die for sex. People murder for it. Ever caught the lover of your life in bed with another woman???

Wouldn’t that inspire the homicidal tendencies inside you? If it doesn’t then there maybe something very ‘wrong’ (defective) with you.

Does it???

No, it does not. Turning down sex is very important in life, if not, the most important decision of life, to control who you fuck, or who fucks you. Without that ability to decide, to determine, your own genetic ascendancy, then you essentially are a “slave” to your “desire”. Why do people choose to have sex with powerful men/women and not weak men/women?

Why do people prefer their spouse to have $10000000 bank account rather than $0?

Why do people prefer their spouse beautiful rather than ugly??

No no no, the “choice” to choose who you fuck is the epitome of your life; it is your “moral conscience”. It defines who you are as it defines who your progeny will become. It is in the nature of women to want to become fucked by the most dominant males (plural) and it is in the nature of men to want to fuck as many females as possible without becoming “tied down” to raising his own children.

The sex drives are very basic; I shouldn’t have to explain them to a fully grown woman Magsj. You should know this by now.

Who you have sex with is the CRITICAL POINT OF YOUR VERY LIFETIME, THE DEFINING MOMENT/EXPERIENCE OF ALL YOUR EXPERIENCES.

People die to have sex, all the time.

People murder for sex; the name for this is “warfare”. Men want women. Women do not necessarily want men.

Men are unnecessary. Man, however, is very necessary. There only needs to exist ONE male on a planet of 7bil females.

One man alone can fertilize them all. Men breed competition (war) for sexual rites. Males become (more) suicidal and homicidal after breeding.

Indeed. :romance-lovebluered:

…then maybe I am… defective :confusion-shrug:

Indeed, for all that we do in life culminates to that crucial point of who we choose to get intimate with :wink:

I am intrigued as to why you think that?

So… you come here often? :smiley:

It is in our nature to check each other out, if one sees the qualities that one is looking for in a potential… conquest, and initial flirting is the first step on that path, but about 95% of males don’t even register on my radar, so a lot of the points you raised above have never really applied to me :confusion-shrug:

Huh?

Check-out my full reply below…

About which point? Men being unnecessary or suicidal? Males are suicidal because we are unnecessary (as a group, but not as an individual).

nytimes.com/1984/12/04/scien … sec=health

I was having a very deep conversation with a very famous American guy a few weeks back, and he told me that women like me confuse men because we don’t want anything from them, but I think that wanting nothing from them but them themselves shows that one likes them for who they are not for what they can give a person :confusion-shrug:

I think I am in a very minute minority with this train of thought/of being, but he did say not to change a thing/to stay just as I am :wink: he was beginning to make me think that there was something wrong with me lol, but I wouldn’t have changed regardless - I don’t see human affection as something to be bought and sold, but rather as a given.

Of course most men are confused. We don’t care about personality; we just want sex.

And you’re mentioning a psychological difference between men and women. We (men) presume that all things, and people, have necessary uses. But this does not apply to women. You (females) have passive psychologies. You don’t need sex. Rather, you do sex. Men seduce and entice. It almost seems impossible to me that women are capable of seduction, as your seduction is (again) passive.

A woman does not need to DO anything in order for men to want to fuck her, if she is beautiful. If a woman is beautiful, then all she really “needs” to do is show a little skin or undress. That’s it. That nakedness inspires the male’s sex drive; it “unlocks” it.

Like you, I myself have heard this before. A German scientist I once knew and worked with, claimed that there was something “mysterious” and “secretive” about this co-worker (girl) he wanted to fuck. What he failed to realize was that there was no ‘mystery’ or ‘secret’ to it. He presumed she was seducing him, when, that was/is the wrong way to think about it.

Men do the seducing, for the most part. The only time a man does not need to seduce is when he is alpha status, the #1 king/president/emperor/leader/tyrant of a society. When this occurs, males want to kill and replace him, while all females feel an innate, deep urge, to throw themselves upon him. They cannot explain it, just like men/males cannot explain wanting to kill/murder him. Males are filled with hatred toward God, for example. This emotion can become confused with love (wanting to become fucked by God for example).

Back to the point, yes, you’re right.

Women do not “need” or even “want” sex. It’s mostly unnecessary for females. However, that does not prevent your (women’s) becoming seduced, by a bullfighter, by a dancer, by an artist, by a orator, by a leader, by a fighter. Women feel seduced by the actions in men which symbolize dominance (to you).

If a man continues, endlessly, to humiliate and humiliate and humiliate other males around him, then his competitors (other men) will want to kill him for this constance humiliation. The females, on the other hand, will bask within and fight for His attention.

So sex is meaningless, for women, except for what sex produces (children).

You are uninspired by “95%” of men, because, you see that 95% for what it is: meaningless sex.

It is the “meaningful sex” that you seek-out, desire, long for, and create your ideal around.

Not only do you want the “best” male to father your children (and pleasure you in the process), but also a male who is loyal to death for you ON TOP OF his unbridled masculinity. It’s no secret to me.

MAGSJ------Are we talking about platonic love? Would you like for someone to want nothing but you yourself? Might you slip at times and want more? Actually the more important question is not TWO THINGS but ONE-------------Does an individual like themselves for who they are?

This is a good, healthy attitude. Many men confuse sex with affection and closeness, and they think that they can only get this from a woman that they have sex with. There’s considerable homophobia involved in this dynamic as well. Thus, I think it always comes as a great relief to a man to learn that he can get close and intimate with someone without having to be sexual. Sure, sex has its place, but fundamentally it is not a substitute for the closeness and connectedness we like to share with all kinds of humans in many ways.

I think women are more likely to confuse sex with affection and closeness, jon. It’s more likely that it’s a relief to a man to learn that he can have sex with a woman without becoming close and intimate, when he happens to stumble across those of us females who approach it with a stereotypically masculine attitude, i.e. “I can fuck someone and walk away and not have to have a follow-up date or phone call.”

And no, sex is not a “substitute for the closeness and connectedness we like to share”, we’re agreed on that, but IMO there is some value in sex just for sex’s sake, with no emotional strings attached. I’ve found that when I’m going through a particularly difficult period of time, sex can be an excellent stress-reliever and I can walk away from it feeling clear-headed and relaxed.

Fuck you’re dumb. Opium, which is a pleasure greater than sex, is the opposite of libidinal release. Opium, to which I am addicted, is contrary in every way to sex. It over-stimulates certain natural opiod receptors in the body, not some part of the brain responsible for the pleasure of sex. You equate the sex drive with the Will to Power and use that as a justification for the idea that all pleasure is rooted in sex? Holy fucking shit, you’re a retard.

Eating opium is like being dead for a few hours. Thanatos. People can take pleasure in death, in dying, in being dead. How do you explain that?

In opium (and in several things, perhaps philosophy) one takes pleasure in extinguishing his own life, his own will: one takes pleasure in death, in oblivion. For such a person that has endured this conversion of the pleasure principle, food, sex, etc. can no longer provide any pleasure. Eros is subjugated by Thanatos, the psychic being is completely rearranged.

I used to ball up opium and put it on my stove, then wait till it caught fire then blow out the flame and smoke ti through a straw.

Wonderful times.

I prefer to do things in this order, eat, smoke opium, then have sex.

I take sex when I can get it, but it isn’t that great of a pleasure anymore. Heroin, vicodin, oxycodone… I would rather have that. Smoked opium is shit.

Please refrain from blatant ad hom attacks, if you persist with ad hom attacks, you will receive your second Warning.

I thought the rules in Mundane Babble might be a bit more relaxed. You should have a council meeting with the rest of the elders about the idea that Ad Hominem attacks are the very spice of life.