Philosophy Now Forum

hahaha............

I just had a mental picture. LOL

Well, given that you are now enjoying mental porn, that leads nicely in to my question...

If a woman pleases herself while watching a romantic movie, does that mean she's not a real woman? Does her hobby make her lowly, immoral, weak, immature or otherwise somehow scandalous?

Or does the formula apply only to men?

There's been much discussion here and elsewhere of men's hobbies, with much concern shown by many commentators etc etc. But...

I can not remember a single discussion, article, book, TV show etc that has expressed interest in what women may be doing with their private time. Nobody seems worried at all about what the gals may be up to when nobody's looking.

Kinda curious that, eh?

Do you get it yet?

This thread and the larger discussion it represents is part of a clever guilt based negotiation strategy by women who don't want virtual competition.

Not quite clever enough for this lurker though. So, if I don't take the guilt bait, and go about my business doing exactly what I want without worrying about what other's think or say, does that make me a real man? Not that I would actually do such a thing of course, I promise, strictly hypothetical!

PS: I'm doing a lot of typing here (which isn't easy with just one hand!) and am hoping for more than a quip in return.

as was said in another thread..... but has been used in this thread as well

...... can be explained by the biological mission given to us by our mammal heritage, impregnate as many females as possible.

This has been given to validate reasons why men can be justified in "indulging" their unrestrained sexual desires in porn or even in real life. So the question can be asked is it unjust and unfair to condemn men for responding to their "biological mission".

In today's society this can be asked both ways. For every man who wants to justify his "affairs", ask yourself are you prepared to raise another man's child? Current research shows that women engage in intercourse with multiple partners as readily as men when they have the freedom and opportunity.

So the question can be asked is it unjust and unfair to condemn men for responding to their "biological mission".

Another question might be, what can be accomplished by condemning men for being men? If it is determined nothing can be accomplished, then it doesn't really matter whether a judgment is fair or just etc.

As example, is it fair and just to condemn the weather for raining today? Such a question would be nonsensical and pointless.

A moral judgment process, whether for or against, would seem to assume that human culture only a few thousand years old can meaningfully edit primal behaviors a million years in the making.

If this were true, perhaps we wouldn't have so many Catholic priests raping children entrusted to their care, because Catholics can do the moral judgment dance like nobody else.

Finally, a moral judgment process may be an obstacle to understanding, as it shifts the focus to competitive social agendas. Who is right and who is wrong, who is big and who is little, who is up and who is down, who wins and who loses etc.

All that said, if you were to introduce the subject of children, you would seem to have much firmer moral ground to stand on, as kids are innocent and powerless parties to the male/female negotiation. Is it moral for a man to have an affair if this threatens the family structure his kids depend on?
That seems an easier project.

Is it moral for a man to have an affair if this threatens the family structure his kids depend on?

Don't give it a second thought as it would be perfectly natural, "as it is primal behavior a million years in the making".

Ok, I understand. You're going to confine your analysis to moral statements and quips. Fair enough, game over.

oh, dont be like that, you missed the humor.

It would be interesting if perhaps another woman's viewpoint could be posted. Perhaps a feminist point of view.

Another gal is making a try, perhaps we might reconvene the party there?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10222

Nope, that gal is a guy and he banned me from his threads.

Now Artisticsolution will give a straight forward answer and she is a feminist. How about it AS?

Felasco wrote:The females have and raise the babies, and the males compete with other males so that the babies get the strongest genes available.

i had a science teacher explain how the notion of strongest is usually misunderstood by people talking about evolution and strongest genes

here is his example

imagine if you will a tribe of cavemen

the women stay near the cave, do bit of gathering, cure the animal skins etc

the big tough men go out there and club mammoths to death

so this one guy has congenital near sighteness or a club foot or whatever - so he is not going to be very useful in a hunt

but he is still useful to the tribe - he can gather if not hunt and he can cure animal skins

so the big tough men go out to get trampled to death by mammoths

while this guy stays at home

with the women

while the other guys are hunting

and he is going to live longer than most of the hunters

whose genes are stronger now bitch?

reasonvemotion wrote:tells a man his well being is not important while preparing him for the day (as you yourself said in an earlier post) when he has to fix a bayonet to a rifle, charge a hill under fire,

in laser tag and paintball girls routinely totally kick boy ass

yes boys are more likely to bravely charge in under fire - because for some reason it is important for a boy that he be the one that makes the kill and not someone else

girls will cooperate - and a girl will not care as much about being the one to do the kill

this is a trend not a fixed rule - the gender behavior covers a spectrum and male and female spectrum overlaps quite a bit

Felasco wrote:For millions of years, predating even the existence of humans, the male was physically stronger than the female, and this mattered.

in which species

OMG! Damn! There are lonely people in this society. Anyone gonna hug them, these wrecks of capitalism, burnt out mothers and fathers, their children! Anyone?

.

















...................................................................................












.