Vacation Poll

[simonus]

Or maybe half the guys here just aren't into that sort of thing.

Not a chance... and that would not deserve a clap.

[Fanpuck33]

Not a chance... and that would not deserve a clap.

Hey, you're free to your view, and I'm free to mine. If I feel that deserves a clap, then I will clap. There are tons of guys out there who aren't into one night stands.

[simonus]

Hey, you're free to your view, and I'm free to mine. If I feel that deserves a clap, then I will clap. There are tons of guys out there who aren't into one night stands.

ascetism is a false virtue. I think this is more a statement about poor response rate, a lack of self-awareness, and differing interpretation of poll questions.

[dark_faerie87]

Okay, not to sound presumptuous and that I think I know better than all of you, but I think it's safe to say that I have a...different perspective than probably everyone else on this board. Anyways, from my own personal experiences and half-baked philosophizing/psychoanalyzing, I think it's safe to say that evolution has hardwired a number of traits into the male psyche. One of these being the urge to spread one's seed everywhere, aka knocking up random chicks. Now of course, a lot of guys are going to deny this, but it's the same thing with people who say that everyone is beautiful or that beauty is only skin deep. That's a load of bollocks and the only people who spew such ######ed propaganda are those who are in fact not beautiful themselves. It's a way for them to feel better about themselves. Now, going back to the scoring with random chicks tangent, if you put anyone, regardless of "moral/ethical" beliefs or whatever you want to call them, who's attracted to females in a room with a very attractive woman who is willing to go at it, every single one of those people would totally go for it. The people who claim they wouldn't are only lying to themselves because in reality they have no chance at actually landing the above mentioned woman. So, in order to feel better about themselves, they try to justify their lack of success with a "personal choice not to indulge." And on that note, Dr. Freud will now sign off.

[simonus]

...

Now, going back to the scoring with random chicks tangent, if you put anyone, regardless of "moral/ethical" beliefs or whatever you want to call them, who's attracted to females in a room with a very attractive woman who is willing to go at it, every single one of those people would totally go for it. The people who claim they wouldn't are only lying to themselves because in reality they have no chance at actually landing the above mentioned woman. So, in order to feel better about themselves, they try to justify their lack of success with a "personal choice not to indulge." And on that note, Dr. Freud will now sign off.

you are forgetting guilt.

[dark_faerie87]

you are forgetting guilt.

That too. I'm sure I probably forgot one or two other things as well. It's been a long day and my thought process is hardly coherent. But then, it rarely is at the best of times. *shrugs*

[jetsniper]

Okay, not to sound presumptuous and that I think I know better than all of you, but I think it's safe to say that I have a...different perspective than probably everyone else on this board. Anyways, from my own personal experiences and half-baked philosophizing/psychoanalyzing, I think it's safe to say that evolution has hardwired a number of traits into the male psyche. One of these being the urge to spread one's seed everywhere, aka knocking up random chicks. Now of course, a lot of guys are going to deny this, but it's the same thing with people who say that everyone is beautiful or that beauty is only skin deep. That's a load of bollocks and the only people who spew such ######ed propaganda are those who are in fact not beautiful themselves. It's a way for them to feel better about themselves. Now, going back to the scoring with random chicks tangent, if you put anyone, regardless of "moral/ethical" beliefs or whatever you want to call them, who's attracted to females in a room with a very attractive woman who is willing to go at it, every single one of those people would totally go for it. The people who claim they wouldn't are only lying to themselves because in reality they have no chance at actually landing the above mentioned woman. So, in order to feel better about themselves, they try to justify their lack of success with a "personal choice not to indulge." And on that note, Dr. Freud will now sign off.

I completely agree with every word here.

Of course, I don't think I've ever disagreed with faerie either so it's not like thats a surprise or anything.

[Fanpuck33]

Okay, not to sound presumptuous and that I think I know better than all of you, but I think it's safe to say that I have a...different perspective than probably everyone else on this board. Anyways, from my own personal experiences and half-baked philosophizing/psychoanalyzing, I think it's safe to say that evolution has hardwired a number of traits into the male psyche. One of these being the urge to spread one's seed everywhere, aka knocking up random chicks. Now of course, a lot of guys are going to deny this, but it's the same thing with people who say that everyone is beautiful or that beauty is only skin deep. That's a load of bollocks and the only people who spew such ######ed propaganda are those who are in fact not beautiful themselves. It's a way for them to feel better about themselves. Now, going back to the scoring with random chicks tangent, if you put anyone, regardless of "moral/ethical" beliefs or whatever you want to call them, who's attracted to females in a room with a very attractive woman who is willing to go at it, every single one of those people would totally go for it. The people who claim they wouldn't are only lying to themselves because in reality they have no chance at actually landing the above mentioned woman. So, in order to feel better about themselves, they try to justify their lack of success with a "personal choice not to indulge." And on that note, Dr. Freud will now sign off.

I feel fine about myself and I can honestly say I would turn down such a situation. I had no problem making it through college without "indulging" in random drunk chicks who were "ready to go." There are simply too many risks involved for me to take a chance with some girl I know nothing about. I'm not willing to risk an STD or pregnancy for an hour of fun. It had nothing to do with me not being successful, it had to do with me making a choice. Maybe I am "hardwired" wrong, but I have no urge to "spread my seed" to as many people as possible. I have no problem waiting for the right "soil" to come along to "put my seed into." I simply have no desire to take the risk, no matter how small, of creating life with someone with whom I am not planning to raise a child. I find that to be a complete turnoff.

[Dutch_Habs_Fan]

I feel fine about myself and I can honestly say I would turn down such a situation. I had no problem making it through college without "indulging" in random drunk chicks who were "ready to go." There are simply too many risks involved for me to take a chance with some girl I know nothing about. I'm not willing to risk an STD or pregnancy for an hour of fun. It had nothing to do with me not being successful, it had to do with me making a choice. Maybe I am "hardwired" wrong, but I have no urge to "spread my seed" to as many people as possible. I have no problem waiting for the right "soil" to come along to "put my seed into." I simply have no desire to take the risk, no matter how small, of creating life with someone with whom I am not planning to raise a child. I find that to be a complete turnoff.

You know they invented the condom??

[Fanpuck33]

You know they invented the condom??

I also know they can break, come off, and don't protect against disease.

[Colin]

Okay, not to sound presumptuous and that I think I know better than all of you, but I think it's safe to say that I have a...different perspective than probably everyone else on this board. Anyways, from my own personal experiences and half-baked philosophizing/psychoanalyzing, I think it's safe to say that evolution has hardwired a number of traits into the male psyche. One of these being the urge to spread one's seed everywhere, aka knocking up random chicks. Now of course, a lot of guys are going to deny this, but it's the same thing with people who say that everyone is beautiful or that beauty is only skin deep. That's a load of bollocks and the only people who spew such ######ed propaganda are those who are in fact not beautiful themselves. It's a way for them to feel better about themselves. Now, going back to the scoring with random chicks tangent, if you put anyone, regardless of "moral/ethical" beliefs or whatever you want to call them, who's attracted to females in a room with a very attractive woman who is willing to go at it, every single one of those people would totally go for it. The people who claim they wouldn't are only lying to themselves because in reality they have no chance at actually landing the above mentioned woman. So, in order to feel better about themselves, they try to justify their lack of success with a "personal choice not to indulge." And on that note, Dr. Freud will now sign off.

While I would love to agree with everything - in particular the biological aspect of what you're saying, and which is fundamentally true - there's one aspect I think you might be forgetting:

We have a pre-frontal cortex. It's that part of the brain which allows us to reason and go beyond the simple biological impulses that, yes, dominate our thoughts. It's that aspect of us that puts us above the chimps, which allows us to build tall buildings, and which stops us from killing anyone who looks at our mate the wrong way. I would counter your argument by saying that those who do not resist doing something because of a biological need are just not strong-willed enough. Your scenario - having a willing hottie sequestered in a room - would, on the surface, lead many to agree that a quick roll in the hay has no negative impact and therefore no reason not to do it. But there are always reasons, even simple choice. "Man, she's hot, I want her, but I choose not to do that with someone I don't love." It's a choice, maybe one not well understood, but a real one nonetheless.

Evolution says we aren't just walking sperm donors anymore, we're thinking, feeling creatures. Believe me when I say that, the older you get, the more you understand this. (Now I feel old.)

Now, Faerie: if I get *YOU* in a room.... Where's the soap?

[simonus]

I also know they can break, come off, and don't protect against disease.

which disease in particular do you feel they don't protect against? They protect against AIDS, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Hepatitis C, Herpes, and anything else someone might get from genital contact. I guess you could get the Syphilis and Herpes from open sores not covered by the condom, but that is pretty easy to avoid.

I had a condom break once... in 1998.. and it was from the free basket at the college health centre.

EDIT: Oh yeah... they protect against HPV.

[Fanpuck33]

Protect was a poor word choice.

Anyways, time for me to step out of the conversation. It's getting a bit too personal here.

[Quebecois]

I chose the drink heavily option since my idea of a vacation would most likely include a stay at an all inclusive resort, with drinking being a logical consequence.

if you put anyone, regardless of "moral/ethical" beliefs or whatever you want to call them, who's attracted to females in a room with a very attractive woman who is willing to go at it, every single one of those people would totally go for it. The people who claim they wouldn't are only lying to themselves because in reality they have no chance at actually landing the above mentioned woman. So, in order to feel better about themselves, they try to justify their lack of success with a "personal choice not to indulge." And on that note, Dr. Freud will now sign off.

Completely disagree with this part. This basically equates a human being to an animal with zero self-control.

[simonus]

Completely disagree with this part. This basically equates a human being to an animal with zero self-control.

I think I agree with your result, if not your process. Obviously we all experience sexual urges (thankfully) and we do not act on them all the time (thankfully). We do not act on these urges for different reasons - shame, guilt, fear, moral considerations - but we all experience the urge.

If you mean self control in the denotative sense that conscious humans have the ability to act opposite to their instincts, then I absolutely agree. If you mean that self-control is necessarily positive, I cannot agree. Internal moderation (or complete repression) of our instincts can be a good or a bad thing - it depends on the motivation for that self-control. In the case of sexuality, self control is often advocated as part of a moral system which denigrates sexuality - in particular female sexuality - by the notion that sex renders one impure. Self-control in furtherance of this theory of morality is not laudable.

Obviously there are positive reasons to deny one's sexual urges other than the one I listed above - adherence to oaths of fidelity, avoidance of disease (although this concern can be drastically diminished through protective meaures), personal dislike, and probably 100 others.

Denying sex for denial's sake is not, however, one of these positive reasons.

[dark_faerie87]

While I would love to agree with everything - in particular the biological aspect of what you're saying, and which is fundamentally true - there's one aspect I think you might be forgetting:

We have a pre-frontal cortex. It's that part of the brain which allows us to reason and go beyond the simple biological impulses that, yes, dominate our thoughts. It's that aspect of us that puts us above the chimps, which allows us to build tall buildings, and which stops us from killing anyone who looks at our mate the wrong way. I would counter your argument by saying that those who do not resist doing something because of a biological need are just not strong-willed enough. Your scenario - having a willing hottie sequestered in a room - would, on the surface, lead many to agree that a quick roll in the hay has no negative impact and therefore no reason not to do it. But there are always reasons, even simple choice. "Man, she's hot, I want her, but I choose not to do that with someone I don't love." It's a choice, maybe one not well understood, but a real one nonetheless.

Evolution says we aren't just walking sperm donors anymore, we're thinking, feeling creatures. Believe me when I say that, the older you get, the more you understand this. (Now I feel old.)

Now, Faerie: if I get *YOU* in a room.... Where's the soap?

Yeah, my scenario was basically just in broad/general terms, as well as being a rather hypothetical situation. That said, you do raise a good point, but I still think that if you were able to remove any and all inhibitions (ie. risk of pregnancy, disease, already being in a monogamous relationship, etc), there would be no real justifiable reason to not want to bang someone both willing and attractive in your eyes. To say you wouldn't in such a situation is just denial as far as I'm concerned. Also, we could even take this one step further by saying that said apple of your eye actually attempts to seduce you, instead of simply being passively willing.

And Colin, if you got me in a room I don't think we'd need the excuse of a bar of soap.

Completely disagree with this part. This basically equates a human being to an animal with zero self-control.

Your opinion I suppose. I'm not here to start a flame war nor get dragged into some ridiculous internet argument, but going back to my previously stated hypothetical situation, if you're able to sate all of your desires with virtually no (if any) repercussions, is there any reason to exercise said self-control? And remember, this is assuming that you're single and have no commitments else where, so that eliminates any X-factors such as being in a relationship already and all that.

[Quebecois]

If you mean self control in the denotative sense that conscious humans have the ability to act opposite to their instincts, then I absolutely agree.

This is exactly what i mean.

Your opinion I suppose. I'm not here to start a flame war nor get dragged into some ridiculous internet argument, but going back to my previously stated hypothetical situation, if you're able to sate all of your desires with virtually no (if any) repercussions, is there any reason to exercise said self-control? And remember, this is assuming that you're single and have no commitments else where, so that eliminates any X-factors such as being in a relationship already and all that.

But theres never going to be a human decision that has no repercussions in some form or another, that is what separates us from animals...I guess that's what makes your situation a hypothetical one but it's also what makes it irrelevant to me.

I mean i can easily say that, hypothetically, any human being would steal a million dollars from a bank if there were no repercussions, guilt or otherwise. That argument doesn't really have much substance to it either does it?

[BTH]

Yet I bet there are people - Fanpuck? - who wouldn't steal a million dollars from bank, even if there was no chance of being caught, etc... If you're counting guilt, maybe that's no longer true, but Faerie didn't list any emotions in his example, only objective factors.

[dark_faerie87]

But theres never going to be a human decision that has no repercussions in some form or another, that is what separates us from animals...I guess that's what makes your situation a hypothetical one but it's also what makes it irrelevant to me.

I mean i can easily say that, hypothetically, any human being would steal a million dollars from a bank if there were no repercussions, guilt or otherwise. That argument doesn't really have much substance to it either does it?

Yet I bet there are people - Fanpuck? - who wouldn't steal a million dollars from bank, even if there was no chance of being caught, etc... If you're counting guilt, maybe that's no longer true, but Faerie didn't list any emotions in his example, only objective factors.

Yeah, mine was an objective hypothetical example designed to illustrate the hardwiring of our brains and such. It was not meant to be taken as the absolute truth because nothing is truly black and white, but rather shades of grey.

Now going to the "stealing a million dollars from a bank" idea, how is that in any way related to having a one-night stand? Let's see, what are the possible repercussions for having anonymous sex? Unwanted pregnancy, contracting a disease, screwing up a relationship (either with a significant other or friends/family), becoming a social pariah (more so for women than men, because females who have lots of sex are considered whores whereas males are heroes ). Now, is it possible to remove all of those potential repercussions? Yes. Now, when you're robbing a bank...you're in theory robbing other people and thus depriving them of their valuables/money. Even if you were guaranteed not to get caught, the guilt from that alone would hang over your head. It's not nearly as cut-and-dry as having sex with someone.

[Quebecois]

I know it's not a perfect comparison, but under the pretense that there are no consequences on either side (sex or robbing banks) there would still be people who decide to resist their instincts in both occasions. Maybe because they know that both pleasures are only temporary and will not lead to long-term happiness?

[jetsniper]

I know it's not a perfect comparison, but under the pretense that there are no consequences on either side (sex or robbing banks) there would still be people who decide to resist their instincts in both occasions. Maybe because they know that both pleasures are only temporary and will not lead to long-term happiness?

And you can say that for sure?

[Quebecois]

I can say for sure that this would be the thought process of some individuals yes.

Edited December 1, 2008 by Quebecois

[jetsniper]

Well this is digging deep into my personal life so I won't get into the details but one night stands don't always turn out to be one night stands.

Money can be argued too but this topic isn't about money. I've always disagreed with "Money can't buy happiness" though.

[Quebecois]

hooking up with random girls on vacation would seem to have limited long-term prospects.

the money and happiness argument is an interesting one but i feel that would be getting even further off topic.

[simonus]

I know it's not a perfect comparison, but under the pretense that there are no consequences on either side (sex or robbing banks) there would still be people who decide to resist their instincts in both occasions. Maybe because they know that both pleasures are only temporary and will not lead to long-term happiness?

As others have implicitly pointed out, there is an absolute qualitative difference between robbing a bank and having casual sex. This difference is sufficient as to render any syllogism drawn therefrom moot.

A bank robbery necessarily requires one to dispossess another. The act itself creates a negative effect. This is not true for sex. There can be times where engaging in sex will create a negative result, but it will not be simply because an additional act of intercourse has occurred.

Temporary happiness, even that which in and of itself will not lead to enduring happiness, is not a bad thing. Playing video games, watching a hockey game, or riding a roller coaster create temporary happiness that does not lead to long-term happiness. Unlike a bank robbery, it is neither the sex act nor the pleasure of sex which leads to negative consequences. Cheating is bad because of the violation of a covenant, not the sex itself.

Casual sex between consenting people who are capable of giving meaningful consent can create pleasure for all participants and need not lead to guilt, shame, or an abdication of morality.

In short, sex outside of a monogamous relationship can be a ton of fun.