Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:31 am

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:27 am Should I erase my contributions to your thread on the grounds of irrelevancy?

Well, if you start doing that sort of thing, you won't have any posts on the forum.

Ghost wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:17 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:01 pm I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

A lot of men WANT whores, yet they speak of them in such disparaging terms.

Also, how is it that so many men want their woman to be sexually unlimited like a "personal whore", yet they will still insult such behavior in women in general?

Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems archaic and primitive and ignorant. Can anyone here offer more perspective and personal opinion about this?

Men want a classy woman who will be a whore only with them. A proper lady, whom once behind closed doors, can be the woman whom can be open to anything imaginable that they both may desire. They never want to "turn a whore into a housewife" because if she is so willing with him, he can assume with other men too. Also, who is to say that lust for random c*ck will stop once married? I know of a woman who gave blowjobs for rides when she needed to go somewhere, my brother fooled around with her, would he want her as a girlfriend? Hell no. That woman was with other men he knew too, she was easy.
My brother did chose a girlfriend that for many years was his friend, and that woman's friend, and he didn't want to be with her at first because she was easy too, and just as I had expected---she cheated on him.

There isn't anything wrong with a woman or man wanting a lot of sex, but if they ever want to be treated like they are not a piece of meat, they will act like they are not a piece of meat. That is why the sexes in general will be called "whores" when they are only so much human as their genitalia makes them out to be.
I had a friend for a decade that used to be a stripper, she had a boyfriend that was with her and respected her. She could make $500/day some days and was a person you wouldn't ever guess was a pole dancer. She didn't fit the stereotypical trash that would post on tinder or instagram all their scantily clad body-whoring for comments on their supposed beauty. Because she is classy, not a whore. Not a commodity except for onstage, and that is only business.

For the most part, everyone loves sex and would have it often if they could. But I consider whom most people call "whore" if one would be in bed with them would likely walk out with regret, and possibly an STI (keep in mind most infections are without symptoms and many are not tested for unless asked for specifically).
Being easy as a ride from point A to B, and being a receptacle for every Tom, Dick and Harry, or nameless man, doesn't have much value or respect. That goes for men too. There are good women I know, myself included (humble right? hahaha) that if we know a man sleeps around with any one who will want him, we won't touch him. May be a friend, but for the most part can't respect him so won't want to be with him.
How a person carries themselves and respects themselves would determine the respect and value they can garner from others.
A whore is just a play thing.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:56 pm
What I find messed up is how the same men who WANT a whore, look down on her for being one.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:56 pm A person either has to stay away from it if they despise it, or have a respectful mindset about it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:56 pm The attitude of USING or abusing a flesh-and-blood being (a sacred soul) and then categorizing THEM as trash is more disgusting than any person's act or reason for using their own body in whatever way they choose.

Furthermore, many men will categorize any woman as a whore if they simply feel contempt for her for any reason. I've had it done to me. It's absurd and primitive -- these are likely very sexually frustrated men who are angry that women's bodies are so off-limit to them. So maybe the man feels more in control by accusing women of being whores as an excuse for why he's not with one. The women simply aren't "good enough"! Yeah, THAT'S what it is!

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:27 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:01 pm I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

A lot of men WANT whores, yet they speak of them in such disparaging terms.

Also, how is it that so many men want their woman to be sexually unlimited like a "personal whore", yet they will still insult such behavior in women in general?

Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems archaic and primitive and ignorant. Can anyone here offer more perspective and personal opinion about this?

Male 'whores' can't bear their own children but CAN be held liable regardless of choice AFTER the fact of pregnancy. Female 'whores' are usually about women who utilize the same kind of thinking as the male 'whores' but gain relative power as being classed 'victimhood' should they not like the men they are with or 'vulnerably' unliable to predatory behaviors.

I rarely here this word now but "slut" is more popular and often come more from women against other women competitively. The males like this are rare and disturbed but due to their kinds of more noticeability to be harmful, the class, men, are treated as 'owning' the causes of harm against women this way.

I've seen this on both sexes. Oddly, where females do this, today they more often act bipolar by LIKING abusive men AND embracing vulnerability that gets others to DEFEND their honor. I've known such women who literally try to get their men to fight or demean them for being pussies.

The genetic nature of women to require more local protections (say of pregnancy) while men to be transient, and dominant in order to be selected (or have the better chance of being selected) make women who attempt to have both transient/dominance AND stationary/subdominance behaviors are internally treated as being 'hypocritical' and why they are targeted more often. Men who are like this behave more consistent in their behavior by being transient/dominant but are not required to be stationary/subdominant. In fact, contrary to the lipservice of women claiming to be less discriminatory, they often only prefer males who are stationary/subdominant as 'friends' only. The proof is in the population pool: men are preferred by women to be taller and more physically strong and, where rape isn't involved, successfully have more children to keep this distinction genetically true.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:55 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am You change the word "whore" with "free spirit"...

No, I was responding to the fact that you have used both descriptions for me, as if they are somehow referring to the same thing...which they are not, of course. I am free-spirited in certain ways -- very honorable ways I assure you -- and I have never been a whore.

Sleeping around...is sleeping around. And I am not saying you are a bad person either. One can be a whore and be "good". But it does not change the fact "whoring" is bad. It is rooted in material attachment...and leads to further suffering.

I think you are making an assumption where you think I am better than you...when in all truth I am not. I am not less than you either. This is not a "greater or less than" argument.

If you want to know my sexual "sins" here is one, a recent (relative to a year ago) one. I once fucked a 19-20 year old girl. And "fucked" is the word.


I thought I could provide stability for her and in turn she would do, well what the ideal "woman" can do best, and alleviate some of the pain.

It did not work for a variety of reasons, and I knew I was walking into a bad situation that could go either way from the beginning.

What both of us did was wrong. She is a whore, but it makes me no less guilty.

It was consensual as in she wanted to keep me as a fuck buddy. I did it out of lust, thinking that "lust" would solve my problems...alleviate my own pain an suffering. And it did...like morphine...for a very, very short period of time.

The girl was also a whore, very troubled and painful past. I am an a brutal, cruel, and rageful man. I have made adult men cry, where not through physical force then shear words. I can guarantee, when put in the proper circumstances...I am much more of a "monster" than you are.

It does not make my actions right however. But neither does it make yours.

The world is a tragedy, and we are left turning our own tragedies...our "chaos" so to speak...into light and order. You can use the word "love" in a definition closer to agape.

However I am beginning to wonder if it can even be done alone, even though we all hold responsibility. We are all at the mercy of a God none of us really truly know...or at least I am.


The most one can do is alleviate suffering where they can...but using sex to alleviate that suffering in a context where it causes more suffering...well is just makes matters worse. It is no different than my "anger".

Adultery and murder are the same things.

You are a whore.
Deep down I am angry, lustful and vain.

Neither is good. But it does not make us entirely evil now does it. It just shows a deep degree of pain and suffering. Even if one commits these..."lifestyles" I guess you could say...out of boredom, boredom is still an absence of love.

The most one can do is to get rid of their ego, crucify that part of themselves that gives cause to all that suffering.

As to the rest of what you stated...well hopefully this gives some brief clarity as to the "nature" of reality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amWhat you call "fun" is just low grade hedonism.

No it's not. You're projecting your distorted and limited view onto me as usual. You would be much more honorable if you stopped acting like you know me, and stopped speaking as if you speak some kind of ultimate cosmic truth about love and fun.

There is more to life and potential than what you know and have experienced.

Actually lust is just a rabbit hole...no different than the other vices. Sleeping around is sleeping around. It is whoring. You claimed or implied that...so that is the nature you give other's to assume. I am not innocent thought either, the above argues a very minute portion of that. What you call "life" is really a series of highs which cause a series of corresponding lows. It is separation at it's root.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amWe are all raised, both men and women, to view the other as an object of gratification...but it does not work when takes the time to look into the other's eyes, eyes which embody the divine sphere of being itself.

I agree... I just don't think that all people go down that path, regardless of the influences around them. I have never been the kind of person to view anyone as an object to be used. I DO look into a being's eyes, and I cherish their soul/spirit.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amExchanging "love" is sacred, and "fun" is sacred,

Agreed!

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am...but if you need to use the other person's body to do it...what type of love is that?

Well, it seems that there's a range of what people are capable of -- probably lots of degrees and shades and levels of love. Like anything with humans... some have more clarity and authenticity and ability... while others are more muddled and shallow and needy. I'm sure that range can exist in ANY interaction.

And what does that mean?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am Those "connections"...are they really connections when you are dividing the human constitution? To please the body, but to forget the "immortal soul"? You are fooling yourself.

First, let me say that it's tiring dealing with your projections because it takes effort to deal with those before getting to the clarity beyond them.

Yes, my connections with people and animals are very real... and they are experienced in the present moment when they occur... they are not dependent on the past or future... and they are not for the purpose of using anyone in any way. They are truly motivated by love.

And makes these connections so real?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amIf you cannot accept the person you are with fully, faults and all, to suffer with them...to feel joy with them then your connection is not real.

Degrees to that... like everything. And lots of scenarios for it reasonably turning out in all sorts of ways.

Not always. Walking out on a person, because they are going through a difficult time is still an absence of love on the part of the lover/spouse.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amYou want to separate eros from agape from philios...but they are all one and the same in the relationship between man and woman.

Me? You seem to be the one claiming what the separations and distinctions are.

And connections...don't forget that.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amSex is the closest thing to divinity we can observe. Why? Because it is when two opposite join and "create".

I think there are lots of ways of co-creation and joining that have nothing to do with sex. Spiritual doesn't require physical, but doesn't exclude it either.

Absolutely true, in the physical sense. However masculinity and feminity, sexuality, is not limited to physicality alone. Man relates in one way, woman another, both are complimentary. A man may bring order. A woman nurturing. So in a seperate respect sex is a part of it, just not in the standard "erotic" connotation.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amYou argue for death.

You argue for distraction.

What are you talking about? More projections? Please stop. I don't want to wade through so much of your false crap. You really should get clear of that.

Any extreme is false.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amYou claim "value" and "love", but what you argue for is desolation. If all you can do is offer an orgasm, first you are shorting and limiting yourself and what you can offer...second you are just destroying sex by idolizing it. All value is not just found in proper timing, but keeping the self in its proper placement.

WHO are you talking about? This isn't me... so I can only wonder if you speak of some part of yourself? Ranting from frustration? If so, again, you really should get clear of that.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:01 pm I've never understood the mentality of calling women "whores" as if that's some terrible insult. What is wrong with a woman having a lot of sex... even if she does it for money? So what? It's business. If a man did it, would HE be a whore... and would that be bad? Or would HE be a good businessman?

A lot of men WANT whores, yet they speak of them in such disparaging terms.

Also, how is it that so many men want their woman to be sexually unlimited like a "personal whore", yet they will still insult such behavior in women in general?

Furthermore, men often hurl the label at women they don't even know, as if it's simply the worst insult they can think of.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It seems archaic and primitive and ignorant. Can anyone here offer more perspective and personal opinion about this?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:03 pm...whore, blah, blah, whore, blah

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am...but if you need to use the other person's body to do it...what type of love is that?

Lacewing wrote:Well, it seems that there's a range of what people are capable of -- probably lots of degrees and shades and levels of love. Like anything with humans... some have more clarity and authenticity and ability... while others are more muddled and shallow and needy. I'm sure that range can exist in ANY interaction.

And what does that mean?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am Those "connections"...are they really connections when you are dividing the human constitution? To please the body, but to forget the "immortal soul"? You are fooling yourself.

Lacewing wrote:Yes, my connections with people and animals are very real... and they are experienced in the present moment when they occur... they are not dependent on the past or future... and they are not for the purpose of using anyone in any way. They are truly motivated by love.

And makes these connections so real?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amWalking out on a person, because they are going through a difficult time is still an absence of love on the part of the lover/spouse.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:18 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:03 pm...whore, blah, blah, whore, blah

So you have your own idea of what and who a whore is... and you'll stick with that regardless of another person's greater awareness of themselves. So there's no point in arguing with your rigidly skewed mentality. You seem to think that your limited view of reality and everyone else is the only truth there is. Maybe that's why you're so angry and have pain and suffering (as you say). Apparently you don't let anyone else (or any other potential) "in".

No, all the major religions observe this facet of sexuality as various grades of adultery.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am...but if you need to use the other person's body to do it...what type of love is that?

Lacewing wrote:Well, it seems that there's a range of what people are capable of -- probably lots of degrees and shades and levels of love. Like anything with humans... some have more clarity and authenticity and ability... while others are more muddled and shallow and needy. I'm sure that range can exist in ANY interaction.

And what does that mean?

I'm saying that people can have all kinds of reasons and intentions for what they do in any capacity. You seem to narrowly judge from a surface perspective. That's not very intelligent.

"All kinds of reasons and intentions" is a surface perspective...elaborate.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am Those "connections"...are they really connections when you are dividing the human constitution? To please the body, but to forget the "immortal soul"? You are fooling yourself.

Lacewing wrote:Yes, my connections with people and animals are very real... and they are experienced in the present moment when they occur... they are not dependent on the past or future... and they are not for the purpose of using anyone in any way. They are truly motivated by love.

And makes these connections so real?

They are genuine and felt by both parties. There are more frequencies to share than just a superficial surface one, ya know? The more you practice that, the more range and connection you experience. It's not unusual for people who are very smart in some ways, to be absolutely clueless of other potential. Maybe you'd find value in expanding your understanding of the potential of love and connection. Find yourself a good, sweet hippy woman and let her show you. Leave your rage behind. It masters you more than serves you.

She was a "hippy" type woman.

Lust also masters a person. And yes, rage is pointless. The hippy movement failed because it degenerated the human condition to stricty material pleasure (material pleasure is not evil, until it is idolized). What it failed to take into account is that this "natural law" they claim is true observes mating norms and pair bonding in a variety of species.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amWalking out on a person, because they are going through a difficult time is still an absence of love on the part of the lover/spouse.

So are you unaware that someone can deeply love another, but choose not to follow them down a certain path if it's dark and repetitive? People need to protect themselves from the unconscious and destructive hellholes of others. It doesn't do anyone any good for twisted mentalities to be treated like they're legitimate. The goal is not to withdraw love, but to move toward sanity one way or another!

The girl I was "with"...using "with" looslely...is walking down a dark path. There is nothing I can do except one thing, pray. We all reap what we sow. The most I can do, as a "man" considering chivarly is dying, is pray that whatever "karma" or "judgement" she is incuring is transferred to me not her...that as a "man" who "joined" himself to her, her "sin" now is on my shoulders. There is nothing I can do. The days of riding in on a horse and fighting off the dragons are dying. Does she deserve this? Noone does. But if the only thing I can do is pray that the Creator will save us both...someway or somehow I do not know...then that is what I will do.

We are bound to our own crosses...sometimes the only thing we can do is help lift those of other's for a moment...and when we cannot do that we can even only if it is a prayer or shallow "intent".

Personally, I think someone's addiction to their crazy crap is a withdrawal of love. It's like saying, my addiction to my mood, rage, opinions, ego, agenda, or whatever, is more important and intoxicating to me than exchanging TRUE CONNECTION AND LOVE with another. You make choices all the time about where and how to invest yourself. That is a huge component in creating the reality you experience. It's irresponsible to blame everyone else for the reality you experience. Such blame leaves you powerless... which probably leads to rage. Try loving instead. Pick a person, puppy, sunset and LOVE it with all of your being. No contact needed. Do it over and over to discover how that transforms you and everything you experience. Then you won't blame others for "taking it away" from you.

You claim "true connection and love" and yet separate my view from yours. I already know my "sins", many of which are no different than yours (some are even much worse, or could be worse given a change in context...given you circumstances I probably have committed acts much worse than you).

But I am not going to justify them...they are what they are and I do not claim innocence.

Rage seperates and destroys. I am guilty of this, and I choose to change.
Lust also does the same. Love the person you joined yourself too, as the body, mind and spirit are interconnected and "the two fleshes become one". Noone is perfect, one does what they can...even if it is strictly just relying on the mercy of God.

If you are looking for someone to justify your "free spirit" where sex can be used "only" for fun without consequences...you will not find it as you are seperating one aspect of the human condition from another.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:37 pm No, all the major religions observe this facet of sexuality as various grades of adultery.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am

Lacewing wrote: I'm saying that people can have all kinds of reasons and intentions for what they do in any capacity.

"All kinds of reasons and intentions" is a surface perspective...elaborate.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am Lust also masters a person.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amThe hippy movement failed because it degenerated the human condition to stricty material pleasure (material pleasure is not evil, until it is idolized).

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am The girl I was "with"...using "with" looslely...is walking down a dark path.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amBut if the only thing I can do is pray that the Creator will save us both...someway or somehow I do not know...then that is what I will do.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amWe are bound to our own crosses...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amthe mercy of God.

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:13 pm Joe gives the ostensible reason that maybe he believes, after all these years.

The real reason is, Power Move.

It says, I can do this to you.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:23 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 6:13 pm Joe gives the ostensible reason that maybe he believes, after all these years.

The real reason is, Power Move.

It says, I can do this to you.

It seems that men -- as a result of social upbringing and patterns -- think that the world, and everything that is fairly accessible to them, is for their use -- to play with or destroy. Yes? No?

They may be good men in most respects -- they just don't know any better -- and that makes them bad for others, in a way.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:43 pm
Let the whoring olympics begin!

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2019 4:10 pm You folks are paying each other for sex in relationships as part of the social norm?