Rules of Attraction for a Psychopath

Yurippe wrote:It's ok apparently I can get Xena's help and hope she doesn't rape me instead.

Video either way. Maybe it'll go viral!

Aww, I was totally gonna send it to you but now I know you're just gonna put it up on the internet.

Yurippe wrote:Aww, I was totally gonna send it to you but now I know you're just gonna put it up on the internet.

Hmmmm... Maybe we can "negotiate"... *wink wink nudge nudge*

Obsidian wrote:

justonemoreperson wrote:

Obsidian wrote:The primal mindset of males is something like: "Is that a hole? I can put my dick in there!".
The idea that one hole is better than another has been decided later by society. :­P

Is that true though? Certainly I've had friends who would support your theory, but in humans, as well as most animals, the male is naturally drawn to the female and vice-versa.
There are anomalies, which leads to other sexual attractions, but generally animals are attracted to that which supports its species.

Hehe, I think what it comes down to is that the females are willing to get boned, and they even invite the males. Female holes are just safer.

then why don't ALL men buy those fake, but lifelike orifices that resemble a female's vagina?

the female body itself provides the visual, and how she animates herself and what she says completes the experience; men need more than a hole I think...without everything else they won't even get it up.

you said it yourself; the hole itself is minimally attractive.

Glue wrote:But what is it that makes sex so taboo, that two women or two men shouldn't engage in it? And it has nothing to do with being an imperfect species, societal burdens have changed significantly in just the past hundred years, men can be openly gay, women are in the workplace etc etc, sex is now so common place, it is more of a recreational activity than a sacred act.

ya but none of this is legitimate. most men and women find gay people repulsive but pretend otherwise because of social norms that they are too afraid to challenge. most women want to be home-makers rather than work in the workplace, but the now small number of men who can support a women and children on one income makes this impossible. and views about sex have changed toward it being more 'common place' because people's lives are so controlled in nearly all other aspects of their life that society (and by society, I mean political and economic elites) makes 'common place' a previous 'forbidden' as a sort of concession for cooperating with what may be possibly viewed as undesirable changes occurring in the rest of society resulting in increased control and stress for the population and for which 'sexual liberation' is a partial remedy or compensation - albeit unsuccessful. thus sex is made 'common place' to compensate for other changes in society.

people don't just change and times don't just change. there is a trend or pattern and the rest of society and aspects of our lives tend to be adjusted accordingly - at least as far as social norms goes, but we can choose to reject or accept such norms.

unfortunately most people are lured by the immediate gratification of sex and don't see the larger picture of what they are really losing in other aspects of their lives. and once a majority accepts in a democracy, the rest, even if they are against, are pressured to follow and so it sticks and becomes 'common place'.

but does making sex more 'common place' make up for the stress, control, and undesirability in nearly all other aspects of our lives? no.

of course none of this is of any concern for people like myself who have independent notions of how things should be and live their lives accordingly.

sex is very special to me. and I make it a special experience with those whom I f*ck. let's just say I never have 'quickies' unless it's a kind of foreplay, and there is on-going teasing and romancing and going out and just making the world our sexual playground everlasting.

I find the idea of sex as recreational or 'common place' repugnant.

Your idea of sex is a very antique view, you see sex as sacred, and to some it is, but not to everyone because everyone does it. Even 11 year olds are getting pregnant, sex lost its flair a long time ago. People are still shocked by sex though, most people brought up with religious values we won't see disappear for another few decades.

However we both agree, sex is pleasurable, so why deny someone who finds attraction in the strangest of places their own sexual desires? Now we do have heteros and homosexuals but the line is muddied when we have bisexuals and even asexuals down the road. However, no two people are attracted to the exact same things in the exact same way. Take me, I am a heterosexual, I can admit when a man is good looking, and i do not find megan fox attractive (nor emma watson from harry potter, such a fahg i am ). But no two straight women, have the exact same taste in men, they may admit george clooney is hot but to varying degrees about other men. So surely this vast spectrum can also include men who happen to like men and women who happen to like women?

And for those who find this repulsive well, it is elitist behaviour. Lets say two rival basketball teams from different states were playing each other, the fans were hostile ready to kill the opposing teams' fans due to the outcome of the game. Their repulse is evident. But suddenly there was been word of a terrorist attack not 3 blocks from them. Watch as that hostility for each other disappears and is channeled towards this new enemy.

I am a man who is sexually attracted to women, i may argue with other men about their taste in women or whatever, but the moment gays are brought the argument becomes some unified gay bashing because of how drastically different the idea of two men engaging in sex is.

Then watch as two gay men argue with two straight men and someone who finds dead bodies sexually attractive is brought into the mix. You think the straight men are going to side with the necrophiliac and continue challenging the gay men?

justonemoreperson wrote:

Mr. No One wrote:Okay God has nothing to do with my comments. And fairly well established? Since when? We all know just because you desire something doesn't mean you need it. Homosexuality the concept in modern times is totally contrived. The whole concept of what it is and it's not a choice and it needs to be accepted and blah blah blah. At no time in the history of mankind has homosexuality been practiced this way. BTW, I'm not trying to debate the morality of people's sexual preferences. This is not a moral exercise.

Normally your posts make reasonable sense, but your comments about this are complete bollocks.

You didn't say "needed", you said "contrived."
It's not a modern phenomenon; it's well reported throughout history (there are even numerous references to it in your bible).

People are attracted to stuff whether it's natural and beneficial or not. It's certainly not contrived.
Is there something / someone in your family which prompts you to make these statements, because they're not consistent with your usual common sense?

I know what I said I was there when I said it. My logic is sound. You should look up the word contrived that would help. The way homosexuality is presented in modern times is contrived. I live around a lot I mean a lot of homosexuals and have spoken to them about it many times. Personally. That is where I get my info.

Mr. No One wrote:I know what I said I was there when I said it. My logic is sound. You should look up the word contrived that would help. The way homosexuality is presented in modern times is contrived. I live around a lot I mean a lot of homosexuals and have spoken to them about it many times. Personally. That is where I get my info.

I'm aware of what contrived means. Your earlier posts were unclear; they made it sound like you believed that homosexuality itself was contrived - In other words deliberately created and artificial.

If you were talking about homosexuality generally then you'd be making the claim that all homosexuals were effectively pretending to enjoy shoving their dicks up other men's sh1t-holes just for effect; which is simply not true. I don't believe that "being gay" is done artificially (I'm trying to keep to the dictionary definition here, to avoid confusion), neither do I believe it was created deliberately for some purpose. It happen naturally, in as much as the person has little control over their sexual orientation.

If you were making out that the culture (how it's presented) around homosexuality is a modern phenomenon then I take issue with this also. Its culture has been prevalent throughout history, including having a prominent role in many lifestyles, recorded for posterity.

You seem to be under the impression that your understanding is better than mine as you have personal experience with talking to gay people. I also have friends, work colleagues and family members who are gay, so I feel I can comment on modern lifestyles with some confidence. However, none of my gay family members who were alive during the Roman empire are still alive, so for that I have to rely on history books.

ok here we go (Glue):

Glue wrote:Your idea of sex is a very antique view, you see sex as sacred, and to some it is, but not to everyone because everyone does it. Even 11 year olds are getting pregnant, sex lost its flair a long time ago. People are still shocked by sex though, most people brought up with religious values we won't see disappear for another few decades.

old ideas are no less worthy by virtue of being old ideas because all present ideas become history and thus old ideas and so the oldness or newness of ideas has no bearing on their merit nor should it act as a barrier to their (re)adoption in present or future time.

people have sex because they will get made fun of if they don't. I think as individuals most people at least start out thinking that sex is sacred, but then due to conformity socialization this attitude slowly gets eroded, and once you lose your virginity and in the context that many often lose it (drunk, at a party) it's pretty much gone.

I don't get shocked by sex. the first time I had sex I was in grade 7; and prior to that I had many sexual experiences with my older older brother when I was around age 6); I love sex, it is like a drug for me and I need it because it is the only way I can connect with people (sort of) or be touched.

Glue wrote:However we both agree, sex is pleasurable, so why deny someone who finds attraction in the strangest of places their own sexual desires? Now we do have heteros and homosexuals but the line is muddied when we have bisexuals and even asexuals down the road. However, no two people are attracted to the exact same things in the exact same way. Take me, I am a heterosexual, I can admit when a man is good looking, and i do not find megan fox attractive (nor emma watson from harry potter, such a fahg i am ). But no two straight women, have the exact same taste in men, they may admit george clooney is hot but to varying degrees about other men. So surely this vast spectrum can also include men who happen to like men and women who happen to like women?

I'm not saying we should deny homosexuals sex, I'm saying we should let them live in their own community so the majority are not repulsed by it or have to pretend to be tolerating.

I am not a homophobe or hating of homosexuals. I don't mind sexual attention from homosexual girls for example, or homosexual boys, and I have made out with other girls for fun at parties, but if a homosexual couple shows up at a party, it just makes everything awkward; it's like the big elephant in the room.

so I don't hate it or disapprove, I just don't want homosexuals around me or where I live, just as I don't want people of other races or cultures around me or where I live. all this mixing erodes my group's ability to just live in a location and feel comfortable. no one should have to pretend to be tolerative of anyone.

Glue wrote:And for those who find this repulsive well, it is elitist behaviour. Lets say two rival basketball teams from different states were playing each other, the fans were hostile ready to kill the opposing teams' fans due to the outcome of the game. Their repulse is evident. But suddenly there was been word of a terrorist attack not 3 blocks from them. Watch as that hostility for each other disappears and is channeled towards this new enemy.

it is not elitist behaviour, it is purist behaviour. I want to maintain the purity of my group because that is how we are most comfortable and open with each other. I would support purity for all other groups - whether they be gay, or racial. all should be allowed to live with their own kind exclusively. I believe all would be happy with this arrangement, too bad political and economic elites gain from the competition that mixing races/immigration brings.

homosexuals are not a threat or enemy, they are just repulsive, like spoiled eggs, so your analogy is hardly applicable.

Glue wrote:Then watch as two gay men argue with two straight men and someone who finds dead bodies sexually attractive is brought into the mix. You think the straight men are going to side with the necrophiliac and continue challenging the gay men?

yes. anything can be made less repulsive by comparison. that doesn't negate the intrinsic repulsiveness of homosexuality.

in general, your arguments are based on the human tendency toward perceptual relativity, but that's dangerous justification because in the end there is always something repulsive in society and making the last most repulsive thing less repulsive doesn't change that fact.

I'm saying we should keep out ALL repulsive groups instead of trying to adjust ourselves to what we previously found repulsive by introducing something even MORE repulsive. like seriously lol that's a really bad path to go, with no solution in sight, just more diversion from one repulsive thing to the next which makes social life uncomfortable and alienates people from their community.

But your feelings of repulsiveness don't come from your biological make up, you were brought up in an environment that nurtured this feeling.
Do children find homosexuals repulsive by their own merit? or are the taught to feel these emotions?
So separating is really just enabling, the biased views of so many people can only come from being taught these feelings.

My point about the basketball team was just to show how the feelings are unjustified, but real nonetheless. The only true reason one finds homosexuality wrong, is because it goes against nature, however so does contraception and birth control.

Any other reason is far too subjective. I personally don't care about anyones sexual preference (even if they want to fiddle kids it truly doesn't bother me) because it doesn't infringe on me in any way.

I understand that you don't like being around them, you cannot help how your brain works, you cannot force yourself to feel different. But understand this, when the world does finally cave and decide to isolate people, they won't stop at gays, psychopaths will be on that list.

All in all, you do bring up valid points, but the key issue is not to see it as two men or two women, it's two people, these are two humans, who happen to share the same chromosome, is it not more likely they would be attracted? they have way more in common than us straighties.

I don't get shocked by sex. the first time I had sex I was in grade 7; and prior to that I had many sexual experiences with my older older brother when I was around age 6); I love sex, it is like a drug for me and I need it because it is the only way I can connect with people (sort of) or be touched.

How old was your brother? Did you understand what he was doing? Incest aside, did you enjoy it?