38 male virgin - Pros and Cons of paying for ***

[user 191131]

There's a million better things a person could be doing.

Better by whose standard?

 

[ardour]

According to whom? Who instilled in you this belief, what is the reason for it?

You just made the case for a happy life without the need for others, based around introspection and inquiry. Well it's hard to square that with arguing online.

And anyway, I strongly disagree. Relationships represent a serious risk, even for those who can easily get into them. Women risk their lives, while men risk their finances and mental health. Do you think many would go through all that if were possible to be as happy in a solitary sort of way?

 

[user 191131]

... Relationships represent a serious risk, even for those who can easily get into them.

True.

Women risk their lives, while men risk their finances and mental health.

True again.

Do you think many would go through all that if were possible to be as happy in a solitary sort of way?

Happiness is like the weather or a meal. Some good, some bad .... but it doesn't last and only comes back round whenever it does. Some say that bad weather makes you appreciate good weather all that more but I'll leave that for you to decide.

 

[user 191088]

You just made the case for a happy life without the need for others, based around introspection and inquiry. Well it's hard to square that with arguing online.

This is a perfect reminder to me as to why what I say, its implications etc., aren't so obvious to other people, even if they are to me.

Yes, it's possible to be both solitary and happy, but being solitary isn't a necessity, nor is it a prerequisite to being happy. As for a happy life based around "introspection and inquiry" being hard to square with "arguing online", that much is a misunderstanding. I seek only the truth. Every person I can question, every single individual whose experiences and stories I can listen to and gather is one step I take towards the truth. Few things are as worthy as the dialectical activity and that is why Socrates spent so much time arguing with others, that is why Plato and Xenophon and others recorded and transcribed the master's dialogues, that's why the whole of Antiquity, from Aristotle to Cicero, paid tribute to the Athenian by discussing philosophy in the dialogical form.

And anyway, I strongly disagree. Relationships represent a serious risk, even for those who can easily get into them. Women risk their lives, while men risk their finances and mental health. Do you think many would go through all that if were possible to be as happy in a solitary sort of way?

This argument is superlatively weak, so much so that it actually impresses me a little that you would make use of it. Many people risk many things when such risks aren't absolutely necessary. A drug user uses drugs to gain a semblant of happiness, risking many things in doing so. Does it mean that it's absolutely necessary for them to use drugs? does it mean that that's the only way for them to get even so much as a semblance of happiness? No, non sequitur.

 

[ardour]

This is a perfect reminder to me as to why what I say, its implications etc., aren't so obvious to other people, even if they are to me.

Yes, it's possible to be both solitary and happy, but being solitary isn't a necessity, nor is it a prerequisite to being happy. As for a happy life based around "introspection and inquiry" being hard to square with "arguing online", that much is a misunderstanding. I seek only the truth. Every person I can question, every single individual whose experiences and stories I can listen to and gather is one step I take towards the truth. Few things are as worthy as the dialectical activity and that is why Socrates spent so much time arguing with others, that is why Plato and Xenophon and others recorded and transcribed the master's dialogues, that's why the whole of Antiquity, from Aristotle to Cicero, paid tribute to the Athenian by discussing philosophy in the dialogical form.

There are better places for that, though. I suspect you're here because you're lonely and want some kind of interaction, like the rest of us.

This argument is superlatively weak, so much so that it actually impresses me a little that you would make use of it. Many people risk many things when such risks aren't absolutely necessary. A drug user uses drugs to gain a semblant of happiness, risking many things in doing so. Does it mean that it's absolutely necessary for them to use drugs? does it mean that that's the only way for them to get even so much as a semblance of happiness? No, non sequitur.

Have the majority of people been addicted to hard drugs at some point? Are hard drugs a requirement for the continuation of the species? No equivalence.

 

[TheRealCallie]

The explanation is simple: anyone or nearly anyone who can read this can, indeed, live happy, dignified and worthwhile lives, they only need to begin to philosophize and, once that is done, realize that happiness, dignity and a worthwhile existence are the supreme properties of the philosopher, of the union between the mind and the body that have chosen to devote themselves to philosophy, simply because to philosophize is to rise above the conditions that allow the existence of unhappiness, indignity and personal misery in the first place. In truth, one might even philosophize as a result of any of these 3 things, but then one will quickly - and erroneously - conclude, like @TheSkaFish did, that philosophy and philosophizing are nothing more than a cope, a way to vent. An understandable mistake, and one that is typical of someone who is still too attached to earthly dogmas, to the chains of social convention, a mistake that is typical of someone whose philosophizing hasn't yet flown high into the etereal regions of the most recondite thoughts. Just as happiness is best found when one isn't trying to find it at all, since happiness, being the state of being in which desiring ceases to be the determinant factor, is the property of a spiritually self-sufficient being, so is philosophizing best done when one doesn't have any particular, material or personal interest in conducting it, none beyond the eternal search for the truth, that is. This illustrates, albeit briefly, the relationship that exists between philosophizing and happiness.

I would hardly call myself a philosophizer, but I would likely be considered "happy" by other people's standards.....Now, I say it that way because I don't believe one is "happy." I believe one is "content," with all out happiness being reserved for special moments.
But anyway, I think there are different methods for everyone to find that happiness. Philosophy happens to be yours.

And yet, you are here, on THIS forum.

The point being if you were able to successfully implement this view into your own life then you wouldn't be here, wasting time with the malcontents.

C'mon guys, this is unfair. Even people who are "happy" or okay with themselves have their moments. No one is perfect, things happen, life gets messy....and yeah, sometimes you just want someone to talk to. There's no shame in any of that.
OR...there's even the possibility that maybe he's here because he wants to help others. To some people, that IS a better option. It's a large part of why I'm still here (regardless of what some believe.)

And anyway, I strongly disagree. Relationships represent a serious risk, even for those who can easily get into them. Women risk their lives, while men risk their finances and mental health. Do you think many would go through all that if were possible to be as happy in a solitary sort of way?

Both women and men risk their lives, finances and mental health. It's not mutually exclusive to one gender anymore. And honestly, not sure mental health ever was.
But, not my point. My point is, you CAN be happy in a solitary lifestyle...IF that's what you want. Sure, it could be denial or convincing yourself that you don't want it, but it IS possible for certain people in the right frame of mind. That said, doesn't mean they couldn't be happier or happy in a different way IN a relationship. It also depends on how you look at relationships.

A drug user uses drugs to gain a semblant of happiness, risking many things in doing so.

Poor example, IMO. That's not happiness in any form, it's delusion.

 

[Unsigned]

while men risk their finances and mental health

and our dignity...

 

[user 191088]

Poor example, IMO. That's not happiness in any form, it's delusion.

That's actually the very reason why it's a good example. People are willing to risk so much to go after this delusion, yet it's only a delusion. Why do you think they do it, instead of seeking the real thing? Do you think it's impossible for them to ever know true happiness? do you think their course of action, as bad as it is, is necessary? In other words, is that the best they can do, the best they can get? or, perhaps, something is preventing them from following the right path? Ignorance, vice etc., are things that lock people into decadent lifestyles, yet they need not to remain there. There is a path to salvation.

There are better places for that, though. I suspect you're here because you're lonely and want some kind of interaction, like the rest of us.

Like where? Please tell me, since you know better.

Have the majority of people been addicted to hard drugs at some point?

Who said anything about hard drugs? See, even you know your point is weak, so you make a concession by limiting yourself to hard drugs, when I'm talking about all kinds of drugs, drugs in general. I'm not even talking about addiction itself, just drug use.

Are hard drugs a requirement for the continuation of the species?

*** is not a requirement for the continuation of the species, either. Dumb point is dumb.

No equivalence.

Every equivalence. Just like you can be addicted to drugs, you can also get addicted to women or a specific woman and ***. There are scientific papers that prove that *** is just as addictive as some drugs are. There is every equivalence, you just refuse to see it!

 

[ardour]

*** is not a requirement for the continuation of the species, either. Dumb point is dumb.

We're a sexually reproducing species hardwired to seek out close bonded sexual relationships, ultimately for that purpose, whether or not we individually reproduce. To put that on a similar level to a superficial high or the emotional crutch of drugs or similar addictions is frankly kind of dumb and a bit beneath you. We're also a social species that evolved in small groups. Most of us need friends and some sense of community to be content. I think you realize this but have decided to double down for whatever reason.

 

[user 191088]

Your argument is basically an extended naturalistic fallacy. In this case, because something is natural in such a way, it's also necessary. It takes no great intelligence to realize this is faulty reasoning. It's not because something is natural (or we're "hardwired" to want it) that it's also necessary for us be happy.

To put that on a similar level to a superficial high or the emotional crutch of drugs or similar addictions is frankly kind of dumb.

Why is it then that anywhere that drugs run wild, *** also runs wild? There's definitely a close link between drugs and ***, what is dumb is failing to realize this or pretending it's not the case and believing in a romanticized view of *** and relationships, like you yourself do. Romanticism looks good on walls, but reality is very, very different.

We're also social species evolved in small groups. Most of us need friends and some sense of community to be content.

We do, but even without it we can still be happy.

 

[ardour]

pfft... It's possible to be happy stuck in an 8 foot cell 24/7 with nothing but a copy of The Joy of Cooking to keep one amused for 70 years. Do you think it's reasonable to expect most people will be happy in that situation?

Naturalistic fallacies are when people invoke evo psych to determine right from wrong, or explain anything and everything. You're denying we have specific requirements as human beings, based on outliers. Look around. People aren't living lives of simple solitude. That should tell you enough.

 

[user 191088]

pfft... It's possible to be happy stuck in an 8 foot cell 24/7 with nothing but a copy of The Joy of Cooking to keep one amused for 70 years. Do you think it's reasonable to expect most people will be happy in that situation?

Of course not. What I deem an ideally happy life, one that is reasonable to expect most people could be satisfied with, is a life centered on the idea of a self-sufficient or nearly self-sufficient community of like-minded individuals who get together to eat, talk, walk etc., all united in friendship. To ensure the success of this enterprise as well as its ideological cohesiveness, it must also feature a leader or master and a group of close subordinates who together teach the initiates and prepare them to carry out the community's practical activities.

You're denying we have specific requirements as human beings

I'm not denying we have "specific requirements", I'm denying *** is one of them.

 

[okidoke]

.....There's definitely a close link between drugs and *** ......

I've avoided drugs all my life. Now I'm starting to regret it. Not just for the possible ***, but for some feeling of ecstasy that's eluded me.

 

[TheSkaFish]

The "or" is the key to interpreting that sentence.



The explanation is simple: anyone or nearly anyone who can read this can, indeed, live happy, dignified and worthwhile lives, they only need to begin to philosophize and, once that is done, realize that happiness, dignity and a worthwhile existence are the supreme properties of the philosopher, of the union between the mind and the body that have chosen to devote themselves to philosophy, simply because to philosophize is to rise above the conditions that allow the existence of unhappiness, indignity and personal misery in the first place. In truth, one might even philosophize as a result of any of these 3 things, but then one will quickly - and erroneously - conclude, like @TheSkaFish did, that philosophy and philosophizing are nothing more than a cope, a way to vent. An understandable mistake, and one that is typical of someone who is still too attached to earthly dogmas, to the chains of social convention, a mistake that is typical of someone whose philosophizing hasn't yet flown high into the etereal regions of the most recondite thoughts. Just as happiness is best found when one isn't trying to find it at all, since happiness, being the state of being in which desiring ceases to be the determinant factor, is the property of a spiritually self-sufficient being, so is philosophizing best done when one doesn't have any particular, material or personal interest in conducting it, none beyond the eternal search for the truth, that is. This illustrates, albeit briefly, the relationship that exists between philosophizing and happiness.

That's just it -
I think if this works for you, or is what you believe, and you're fine with that, that's OK.

But I know a monastic, philosophical life isn't the answer for me.
Other times people have suggested that I join a hippie commune, or even squat.
But those aren't the answers for me either.

I don't think because I actually want a life of pure thinking.
That's a wrong thing a lot of people assume about me (not saying you, just saying in general).
I think to find solutions to my problems that have eluded me, so I can stop making the same mistakes over and over, and do what works to get me into a life I'd be happier with.

I'm not a non-materialist. I like material possessions. I want to experience *** as part of a relationship. I just don't know how to get there.

I want the same things most people, and most guys, want. The only difference with me is that I'm not a "bro".

 

[TheSkaFish]

We're a sexually reproducing species hardwired to seek out close bonded sexual relationships, ultimately for that purpose, whether or not we individually reproduce. To put that on a similar level to a superficial high or the emotional crutch of drugs or similar addictions is frankly kind of dumb and a bit beneath you. We're also a social species that evolved in small groups. Most of us need friends and some sense of community to be content. I think you realize this but have decided to double down for whatever reason.

Gonna have to agree with this.

*** is closer to friendship, than hard drug use.

It can be an addiction, but so can anything.

Romantic relationships especially, are closer to friendship than to hard drug use.

Again, I think people can want whatever they want, whether it is relationships, philosophy, or something else.
But there have to be reasons, beyond just base instinct, that most people choose relationships over lives of solitude, like you were saying.

 

[Unsigned]

But there have to be reasons, beyond just base instinct, that most people choose relationships over lives of solitude, like you were saying.

Why does it have to be beyond base instinct?
I think that is the far and away the strongest force in life.
In the entire animal kingdom (us included), males want females.
It's just how it is. And to be denied that is rather devastating.
Those of us denied deal with it in different ways - drinking, drugs, prostitutes, philosophy & academic studies, religion, ****, video games, etc...

I can only speak for myself. I would not find the Philosophy/Newton/Tesla route satisfying in the least.

 

[TheSkaFish]

Why does it have to be beyond base instinct?
I think that is the far and away the strongest force in life.
In the entire animal kingdom (us included), males want females.
It's just how it is. And to be denied that is rather devastating.
Those of us denied deal with it in different ways - drinking, drugs, prostitutes, philosophy & academic studies, religion, ****, video games, etc...

I can only speak for myself. I would not find the Philosophy/Newton/Tesla route satisfying in the least.

I just mean, the physical side is base instinct. But the emotional side, I would say is beyond it.
The physical side is just wanting a hot woman. The emotional side is the feelings part, having someone you care for. That's what I mean.

At some point I realized that being with someone I cared about, was more important to me than just
"getting" a hotter woman than the dudebros did, and "beating" them.

But other than that, I totally agree. Being denied, shut out of that is devastating (and for me, gravely insulting/humiliating - it's like calling me inferior, once again, in a profound, fundamental way that I can't change - I hate it). And that's why I have to get out, because to me, none of those things you listed there would fill the void for me. The genie can't go back in the bottle.

I wouldn't find the philosophy/Newton/Tesla route satisfying either.
Not even if I was granted the ability to be good at whatever I wanted.
The only thing I would think could numb me to it is hard drugs, but I haven't tried them, don't want to, and hope it doesn't come down to that.

 

[okidoke]

....Those of us denied .....

To be fair, you're not denied, you just don't choose to accept what's not your preference. Your base instinct to have a female could easily be satisfied, but you don't want them. Nothing wrong with that of course, but don't say you're denied.

 

[Unsigned]

I just mean, the physical side is base instinct. But the emotional side, I would say is beyond it.

I should have stated that I believe BOTH the physical and emotional to be base instincts.
Again, just IMO. I am not an expert.
But I think we NEED to be needed by a female.
It's just something hard wired into our DNA.

 

[Unsigned]

To be fair, you're not denied, you just don't choose to accept what's not your preference. You base instinct to have a female could easily be satisfied, but you don't want them. Nothing wrong with that of course, but don't say you're denied.

I don't have the emotional part.
Yes, it is most likely of my own doing based on my "pickiness" and personality traits.
But the emotional part is just as important. Maybe more.