Questions for the Men

[TheLoadedDog]

I just want to weigh in a little bit. I think this started asking the guys about how they view themselves based on their sexual status? I'm not going back to read more... I'm not a guy... But I am a virgin. I just wanted to say that while society does play a role, imo, in how we initially view sexuality and our own attractiveness, I don't see how it's not still a choice. My reasons are all about trust. I don't trust anyone enough to be that vulnerable with them. Also I don't really see myself as a loser for not trying to lose my virginity just for the sake of having "done it" and I wouldn't hold it against a guy either.

You have my total respect.  That is a powerful thing.

 

[Paraiyar]

Please show me where I said you haven't tried?  I believe I said your posts are the same and little, if anything has changed.  
So because you don't believe vibes exist, that makes you sane and me insane?  Lol, that's some excellent logic you have there.

Twisting and twisting, uh?
Show me how I haven't tried since you are so sure I haven't. It seems to me you just did a 180 and simply try to do exactly the opposite as you did before; which is not bad but also believing the exact opposite of what anyone else believes if it doesn't suit you. I don0t believe in anything that's is not measurable. Can you test this vibes? can you use a machine to detect them? Are they electrical? waves? chemical? You are the last person to talk about logic when all you do is form a map of the world and assign every meaning to want to believe as true and never be willing to change your mind. My posts are the same because nothing has worked, not because I haven't tried; learn to read.

Then why do you stay here and participate in these thread discussions? What is it you seriously want? You say you've tried everything but I have a really hard time believing that but if you have then I've got no idea what you want from the forum.

And I also think that you calling Callie condescending is pretty ridiculous when you talk to everyone else like they know nothing and you know everything.

 

[user 139760]

In nature there is no age of consent though. Once they reach the age of being able to make babies... they make babies. For humans that's age 10-14. People tend to use the term pedophile for anyone attracted to those under whatever the age of consent is rather than the actual definition of being attracted to people that haven't hit puberty. 

I do agree though that its more of a psychological disorder. I doubt anyone is born a ****.

Always had trouble with that whole "nature" argument, personally.
Wether it be in defending human nature, or homosexuality or transgenderism and the like. Always though it weakened the defense more than strenghtened it.
Beyond the whole "homosexuality and transgenderism is a choice" debate, living it openly is a choice (as opposed to those who were forced to hide it for fear of death for a couple of thousand years. Some still do), and I always felt a choice is an option anyone should have without fear of persecution. Don't care wether there's examples in nature, we're kind of supposed to have evolved past animal status, at least I like to think so. As such, those sleeping with other men or women or getting sex changes have the obvious right to do so without persecution. The whole nature argument isn't useful in that case. It's also been used against them for a while, which I always found ludicrious.

In a civilized society, we decided the age of consent. We decided that under 18 years of age, new human beings are too innocent or stupid to fully understand what it entails making babies and the like. That's where the fundamental difference lies. Homosexuality and transgenderism aren't about manipulating or forcing someone less smart or less experienced than yourself into something they don't want. Pedophilia is.

And let me tell you firsthand, damages are deep. It changes lives. Never met a homosexual couple who was traumatised by the experienced well unto their adulthood. Except if other people stuck knives under their throats.

 

[TheLoadedDog]

Yep. We don't let kids have sex. We don't act as cannibals. We have the rule of law, and if you transgress, society will hold you to account. We make small sacrifices every day in order to make our society run smoothly. It's not about what you physically can do. It's about what you morally should do. We are not base animals.

 

[kamya]

In nature there is no age of consent though. Once they reach the age of being able to make babies... they make babies. For humans that's age 10-14. People tend to use the term pedophile for anyone attracted to those under whatever the age of consent is rather than the actual definition of being attracted to people that haven't hit puberty. 

I do agree though that its more of a psychological disorder. I doubt anyone is born a ****.

In a civilized society, we decided the age of consent. We decided that under 18 years of age, new human beings are too innocent or stupid to fully understand what it entails making babies and the like. That's where the fundamental difference lies. Homosexuality and transgenderism aren't about manipulating or forcing someone less smart or less experienced than yourself into something they don't want. Pedophilia is.

And let me tell you firsthand, damages are deep. It changes lives. Never met a homosexual couple who was traumatised by the experienced well unto their adulthood. Except if other people stuck knives under their throats.

There are plenty of civilized societies that have a lower age of consent than 18. In my own state its 17. In Indiana and many other states it's 16. In china, germany, italy, greece, and brazil its 14. Japan is 13. In south korea its 20! It is pretty arbitrary honestly. The main similarity is that none of them have ages lower than when kids usually hit/pass puberty.

I'm not trying to say that it is right. Mostly I was just trying to argue semantics. Pedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. If the child has started puberty then it becomes something else. If someone has sex with an underage person and that underage person gets pregnant (or impregnates the perp) , then the underage person is sexually mature. Then, by the actual definition of pedophilia, it's not correct to label the perpetrator as a pedophile. There are other terms used for that.

And I believe for sure that a pregnancy at that age can cause a lot of damage. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

 

[user 139760]

Nah, I get you lol. It was just the nature thing that bothered me, like it always does. Always felt comparing homosexuality and transgenderism to pedophilia is comparing apples and oranges, is all. I mean, I'd lie if I said I necessarily understood it fully, or even necessarily agreed with it. But I don't have to; it's a right and I'm happy that people are finally free to live how they want without burning at the stake anymore. Been too long in coming if you ask me.

As for the semantics, well...I'm a bit too involved to argue them objectively lol. Here age of consent is 18, 14 with parental agreement (dunno if signatures and such are required). So to me, you sleep with him or her and they're below that? Pedophilia. I mean, as a dad, considering my daughter is turning 15 in 2 months, it's becoming harder to see 18 year old girls and such on the subway and, no matter how beautiful they might be, not see a "my daughter" beautiful and think of them as more kids than actual adults. Guess that's what happens when you grow older, when I was 18 and heard people talk about that, didn't get it. Thought that would never happen to me, beautiful girl is just a beautiful girl.

But nahuh ;-) Lots of 'em are turning into just kids. Lots of them might have active sexual drives at that age or younger still, doesn't necessarily mean they always know what they're getting into. Lots of stupid at that age, I know that from looking in the mirror back them ;-) I didn't want to accept back then I was a dumb kid, now that I'm older I know I was and if I could meet myself at that age, I'd probably get into a fight with my younger self over it. Arrogance of youth and all.
Anyway, point is, age of consent isn't in nature, no. Then again, nature is, by it's "nature" (haha, pun) a lot crueler than society is supposed to be. Which is why we made it. So the "in nature" argument...not a big fan. Wouldn't want to go back in there, too many big things want to eat me that I can fight off unless I got a couple of society's rifles with me ;-)

Physical damage is nothing, really. It's the rest. 14 is way too young to be PTSD for a couple of decades for no reason other than satisfying immediate needs. Not to mention there's professionals you can pay for that. Should never be kids. One would think someone 30+ could reason that way, but obviously...

 

[Xpendable]

Please show me where I said you haven't tried?  I believe I said your posts are the same and little, if anything has changed.  
So because you don't believe vibes exist, that makes you sane and me insane?  Lol, that's some excellent logic you have there.

Twisting and twisting, uh?
Show me how I haven't tried since you are so sure I haven't. It seems to me you just did a 180 and simply try to do exactly the opposite as you did before; which is not bad but also believing the exact opposite of what anyone else believes if it doesn't suit you. I don0t believe in anything that's is not measurable. Can you test this vibes? can you use a machine to detect them? Are they electrical? waves? chemical? You are the last person to talk about logic when all you do is form a map of the world and assign every meaning to want to believe as true and never be willing to change your mind. My posts are the same because nothing has worked, not because I haven't tried; learn to read.

Then why do you stay here and participate in these thread discussions? What is it you seriously want? You say you've tried everything but I have a really hard time believing that but if you have then I've got no idea what you want from the forum.

And I also think that you calling Callie condescending is pretty ridiculous when you talk to everyone else like they know nothing and you know everything.

I was seeking understanding, which I've only had for one or two users. I've made my points in depth many times to be accused of assuming things. I call people condescending because they think they know more about me and my life than myself. I only talk about knowing things better when they are about myself, and when is not, I try to give credible evidence.

 

[VanillaCreme]

I was seeking understanding, which I've only had for one or two users. I've made my points in depth many times to be accused of assuming things. I call people condescending because they think they know more about me and my life than myself. I only talk about knowing things better when they are about myself, and when is not, I try to give credible evidence.

Experience isn't exactly evidence of something. And for someone who is condescending and rude to call out anyone else for being condescending...

 

[Xpendable]

I should then dismiss any advice that comes from experience. I've also put studies and many testimonies from other people.

 

[kaetic]

Aren't we all pulling from our own experiences? Personally I don't hold much stock in any of these studies the "experts" do to explain why people are the way they are. There is no single answer.

 

[user 139760]

I view much the same way. Stats and groups and surveys and such are good for a general idea. But to a single individual, it can vary so widely that it comes down to a case by case basis.
I think they're indicative, but applying them to someone you know can be widely off the mark. I think individuals make groups, not the other way 'round.
I also think, as a mass, everyone's opinion has importance. Even if I don't personally agree with it. We're all folk, now.

 

[Xpendable]

Aren't we all pulling from our own experiences? Personally I don't hold much stock in any of these studies the "experts" do to explain why people are the way they are. There is no single answer.

Sounds really dangerous in the right context. I'm not believing experts, I'm trusting what they have discovered. No opinion-based information. That's what most people get wrong, it's not "the scientist says", it's "Science discovered this".

---

 I think individuals make groups, not the other way 'round.

Religion disagrees with you.

 

[MisterLonely]

I think I was lucky enough myself never to get too much into reading up on these things on the internet, if I read an inCel post today I will pretty much be agreeing with at least half of the experiences in it, but because I never did, I never grew bitter. (using own experiences as an example... check)

I wished there was more positive feedback out there of people telling how they broke out of their loneliness in a healthy way, instead of inspiring to change into something or someone that is against the nature of an individual.

 

[user 139760]

Sounds really dangerous in the right context. I'm not believing experts, I'm trusting what they have discovered. No opinion-based information. That's what most people get wrong, it's not "the scientist says", it's "Science discovered this".

---

 I think individuals make groups, not the other way 'round.

Religion disagrees with you.

---

Religion disagrees with EVERYTHING. ;-)
It's a big old jolly mess. Yet even some people broke free from it. My point of view, if individuals hadn't turned out to be on occasion stronger or better than their societies, we'd still be worshipping Enku in 2018.

Besides which, look at it the other way around; Joseph Smith, Raël, L.Ron Hubbard...did a man make the group, or the group make the men? Food for thought ;-)

Big science man myself. Empirical numbers, etc. But I always remember that even Einstein had his biggest blunder. Just because we know something NOW, dun mean this will never change. So I try not to set too many opinions in stone, take those aren't mine with an open-mindedness. Even if they're wacky.
Sometimes especially if they're wacky. I mean, we don't laugh at Hollow-Earthers, who we gonna laugh at?

 

[kaetic]

In the right context? Psychology is still fairly new and since the context is this forum and the topic was... Virginity and how you feel about it... I'm not sensing any danger.

---

I think I was lucky enough myself never to get too much into reading up on these things on the internet, if I read an inCel post today I will pretty much be agreeing with at least half of the experiences in it, but because I never did, I never grew bitter. (using own experiences as an example... check)

I wished there was more positive feedback out there of people telling how they broke out of their loneliness in a healthy way, instead of inspiring to change into something or someone that is against the nature of an individual.

I agree, but my problem is my nature. If left to my own devices I'd become a hermit.

 

[MisterLonely]

In the right context? Psychology is still fairly new and since the context is this forum and the topic was... Virginity and how you feel about it... I'm not sensing any danger.

---

I think I was lucky enough myself never to get too much into reading up on these things on the internet, if I read an inCel post today I will pretty much be agreeing with at least half of the experiences in it, but because I never did, I never grew bitter. (using own experiences as an example... check)

I wished there was more positive feedback out there of people telling how they broke out of their loneliness in a healthy way, instead of inspiring to change into something or someone that is against the nature of an individual.

I agree, but my problem is my nature. If left to my own devices I'd become a hermit.

---

Well my self given title can't really argue with that

How do you feel about that though, is it something that gives you peace of mind or something you fear will become reality? I know there are people out there living busy lives that would gladly trade it for my couch potato filled evenings.

 

[user 139760]

I know there are people out there living busy lives that would gladly trade it for my couch potato filled evenings.

There's like, holy light coming out of that sentence.

Is there a place we can sign up? Do you take on volunteer slaves? ;-)

 

[MisterLonely]

I know there are people out there living busy lives that would gladly trade it for my couch potato filled evenings.

There's like, holy light coming out of that sentence.

Is there a place we can sign up? Do you take on volunteer slaves? ;-)

I didn't say I was willing to trade now did I might consider having the right person join me on that couch though.

 

[ardour]

Always had trouble with that whole "nature" argument, personally.
Wether it be in defending human nature, or homosexuality or transgenderism and the like. Always though it weakened the defense more than strenghtened it.
Beyond the whole "homosexuality and transgenderism is a choice" debate, living it openly is a choice (as opposed to those who were forced to hide it for fear of death for a couple of thousand years. Some still do), and I always felt a choice is an option anyone should have without fear of persecution. Don't care wether there's examples in nature, we're kind of supposed to have evolved past animal status, at least I like to think so. As such, those sleeping with other men or women or getting sex changes have the obvious right to do so without persecution. The whole nature argument isn't useful in that case. It's also been used against them for a while, which I always found ludicrious.

In a civilized society, we decided the age of consent. We decided that under 18 years of age, new human beings are too innocent or stupid to fully understand what it entails making babies and the like. That's where the fundamental difference lies. Homosexuality and transgenderism aren't about manipulating or forcing someone less smart or less experienced than yourself into something they don't want. Pedophilia is.

 Invoking the 'nature' argument is useful if we're trying to distinguish orientation ("born this way") from disorder.  No disagreement with the second paragraph,  but I think most cases a 14 year old still looks childlike enough, and we as a society view them as such,   exclusive interest inm people around that age, whether technically pedophilia or not, is a sign of something wrong, particularly as there's no shortage of younger adult women in their 20's about. You would probably agree that even most 18-20 year olds - legally adults - appear like kids to people our age.

 

[user 139760]

 Invoking the 'nature' argument is useful if we're trying to distinguish orientation ("born this way") from disorder.  No disagreement with the second paragraph,  but I think most cases a 14 year old still looks childlike enough, and we as a society view them as such,   exclusively interest people around that age are attracted childlike qualities, whether technically pedophilia or not, is a sign of something wrong, poarticularly as there's no shortage of younger adult women in their 20's about.  You would probably agree  that even most 18-20 year olds  - legally adults  - appear like kids to people our age.

LOL...people our age.

Dammit, it's starting ;-) Been putting this off for a while now, but I guess it was just a matter of time, huh?


Yeah, no, I get you. I guess. I've always found the distinction to be utterly irrelevant. Never got why homosexuals or trans people or other actually have to defend it, "born this way" vs disorder.
I mean...you're doing you're thing, you're not harming anyone, you're basically not different from anyone else, save the way you feel or who you sleep with. So how's that MY, or anyone else's business? What I mean is, I kind of bypass that whole point of you(lol, notice the typo here, I left it, because I mean "view" but it sounded the same. That's the French coming out, RIGHT THERE!) because it don't really matter. At least to me, in my mind. I'm sure psychs take an interest in such questions and it's been a debate, I always viewed it as an irrelevant debate. I'm not that knowledgeable though, so it might be a naive way to view things. Long as you do your thing don't hurt anyone, should have that right without judgment being passed.
Always figure, in a screwed up world like this? The term "normal" is widely open to interpretation. Much as I'm not a huge Bible fan, "Let he who is spotless throw the first stone" should apply more often to stuff like this.