Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love My Hand

By hmm in Culture
Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:01:25 AM EST
Tags: etc (all tags)
/etc

So. What were we talking about? That's right. Sex.

When I was a boy, some number of years ago, I used to fantasize about sex. Of course I did. Every boy did, and every boy that age still does. And of course, I was filled with the typical ideals that start to creep up on a kid about the time when he starts growing a bit more hair than before and his voice decides to drop a couple octaves. I don't remember exactly where they came from -- it was more a kind of general sublimation of cultural values than a single event influencing me.


At any rate, I'd start to have thoughts about dating, girlfriends, and, of course, sex. It felt, for some reason, like something I ought to do at some point, and hey -- girls are pretty sexy. I do believe I was of the general idea that I was too young for that sort of stuff, though; but decided that some good old masturbation never hurt anyone. So that's what I did: I masturbated like, well, a teenager. With Internet access getting more and more widespread, access to pornographic material was anything but scarce; I'd secretly (or not so secretly as the case may be -- I think in retrospect my parents must surely have known) find something suitable and whack to my heart's content.

After a while the years crept up on me and I found myself in what the yanks call senior high, and I started getting the general idea that other people were going at it like rabbits already. With a libido set to "haywire", half a century worth of collective family values and ideals compressed to half a decade and crammed into an already overloaded head, and an attractiveness quotient somewhere below that of the garden variety snail, I was heading for disaster and ended up doing what way too many people do: I latched onto someone and was, of course, brutally crushed in the end by a ton of reality crashing down. It's a pretty sordid and boring story and I'm not going to go into more detail; but it left me in a state best described as "really fucking depressed".

Now, I'll be the first to admit that I was an angsty fucktard at this point. No lame excuses like "my hormones got the better of me" or anything. I was a prime example of a stupid angsty teenager with way too much time on his hands, and I spent most of it with my hands on my dick. I use the past tense because I got over it -- the angst, not the masturbation.

Later in my high school years I got into a relationship of the internet kind. I don't know if my desperation was beginning to show, or if it was some kind of compensation after my earlier rejection, or if I simply enjoyed it; but that's what happened. I was still an angsty fuck, though, and very demanding at that. In the end, she broke it off and I ended up even more depressed. Maybe I was still too young, but the angstiness was far from overcome.

Right, one final bit of backstory before we get to the core of the poodle. Fast-forwarding through senior high and onto early university studies, I did end up in a manner of an affair. Once again I won't go into great detail; but it was another internet deal, filled with ample situations for sex of the cybery kind. That was... fun, I suppose. She really seemed to like me and all that. But, in the end I got cold feet and broke it all off. Proceeding on our amazing journey through time and space, we arrive at the present date, where finally I've gotten this whole mess that is my sex life sorted out.

I realized something about myself during that last relationship. The woman in question was rather attached to me, to the point where I was beginning to feel that I would need to devote more and more time to her in order not to hurt her. This hurt me, on the other hand; I felt conflicted between doing the things I liked and doing things for her. What's worse, I noticed a rather unsettling conflict between the idea that I should like doing things for her, and the fact that in reality I didn't like it so much. In the end I broke it off because I wasn't ready to deal with that kind of commitment.

The next part of this transformation occurred after this relationship had ended, when I had more time to think about things. I got to thinking about questions such as "Was she wrong to expect so much of me?", "Was I wrong not go give it to her?", and "Am I even ready for a relationship of any kind?" And then it struck me. The answer to all these questions was so damn simple, it was strange that I hadn't thought of it before. No, she wasn't wrong, and neither was I. I don't have to like doing things for other people. I wasn't ready for a relationship, and I was never going to be.

Let's play with the thought for a while, and envision the perfect relationship. The woman would have to be sexy and smart; all right, fair enough, there are people like that, even though the likelihood of one ending up with me is slim at best. She'd have to have no demands on me whatsoever, and I would have to be able to get whatever I wanted whenever I wanted it. She'd also have to love being with me anyway, and enjoy the things I wanted when I wanted it without being in my way when I didn't. See what I'm getting at here? This person does not exist, and if they do, I'll be very, very frightened.

This relationship does not exist. People simply do not work like that. Some might say that my standards here are too high; to which I respond, "Too high for what?" You see, in all this is a kind of culture-implied maxim that you, You, each and every person, has to at some point be in a sexual relationship. It's somehow imprinted in our society that this is the normal mode of operation for people, to the extent that even the relatively deviant tend to follow it. But why should things be that way? Who came up with that rule? In fact, the very thought that one can be "ready" for a relationship implies that it's some kind of inevitable future that you just have to prepare for enough before you can take it in.

Screw that. The reason I couldn't be in a relationship is because relationships aren't for me, and they never were, much like skydiving or ornamental carpentry aren't. Modern culture had imprinted itself on me to the extent where I didn't question it. A relationship is always two-way, and that's, for me, just too much hassle to bother with. So, then, do I feel a lack or longing for this relationship that I can't have? No. Of course not. I would also rather much like to have a million dollars given to me, but I don't expect it to happen, nor do I grieve that it's not going to happen. See, therein lies the secret; I've come to the simple conclusion that relationships are too much work for too little reward, and not by any means something you "have" to do.

Philosophical interlude: Thinking about it today, it all seems very Nietzschean in nature; only after exercising the will to destruction and on my own accord breaking out of the relationship (as opposed to the other party breaking it off) I had sought after for so long could I contemplate myself and cross the gap to overcoming nihilism at the hands of culture-imposed ideals. "Accepting" relationships as something obvious would only have led to either a perpetual cycle of failed relationships, or a lifetime of being trapped in a bad one. Either way, nihilism abounds. You can see the traditional phases in overcoming nihilism echoed in this; the immoralist phase (daring to jump away from the relationship dogma, and wondering how a life without it can be possible), the freethinker phase (realizing that it doesn't really matter, and that I'm a free individual with the ability to do whatever I damn well want); and perhaps even becoming something like the ▄bermensch in some small way.

So let's keep talking about sex. Some of you might have already figured out that I'm technically a virgin. That's cool, it only proves that I got out of that mess in time before I did something stupid. Does this mean I'm some kind of asexual blob with no lusts whatsoever? My dears, nothing could be further from the truth. I get horny just like everyone else, and I take care of business when that happens; skipping the euphemisms altogether, I jack off like there's no tomorrow.

You might think that I lament the fact that I'm likely not going to have sex with another person (short of one-night stands, which I refuse to do for other, irrelevant reasons). I mean, after all, how can someone go through a life without sex? Wait, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? Didn't we just go over this, except we were talking about relationships that time? It turns out that the idea that everyone should have sex with another person, and that such sex is the ultimate pinnacle of human existence, is yet another ingrained cultural ideal. Once again I'd have to pay attention to the needs and desires of another person, and worry about whether it's good for them, and take care to do things right and so on; once again, way too much hassle to be worth it.

Masturbation is convenient. I don't have to please anyone but myself. The porn doesn't care if I blow too early or if I'm too tired to do anything at all. The orgasm feels great, as it's supposed to; and for that matter, who knows what I like more than I do? If I'm feeling like trying some particular fetish, I can just scout for the appropriate type of pornography; no need to worry about what some hypothetical partner is supposed to get out of this. I don't have to worry about STD's, and if I ever manage to get myself pregnant, at least I can look forward to a future as a unique scientific study case. You might ask, "but aren't you curious about what sex really feels like? Surely a pussy must be much more comfortable than your hand!" Well, sure, maybe it is. But is it really worth all that damn hassle? Without actually having tried, I dare to conjecture that it is not; and at any rate, it seems like way too much trouble to find out.

Finally, there's the issue of children. Any ten year old will be able to tell you that if mommy and daddy don't fuck, there isn't going to be a baby brother arriving any time soon. But that's okay. Conveniently, my personal attitude towards children is much like that towards relationships and sex: far, far too much trouble to be worth it. Besides, with the world being overpopulated as it is, I feel it'd be nothing short of purely malevolent to bring more resource-sucking leeches into it. But, most importantly, it boils down to not being worth the effort.

Going through years of changing diapers, baby-proofing apartments, playing inane games and pretending to be impressed with crappy crayon pictures, followed by even more years of being all sensitive and educational towards a creature that's basically just a more stupid version of yourself, then dealing with teenage angst and rebellion, and so on, just doesn't seem worth it. With some luck I'd be able to foster just as cynical a being as myself; but it's so much more convenient to work with existing material if that's what I wanted to do. Let's face it: children start out tiny poop machines, and even given twenty years or so to grow up, most of them don't change into anything that even remotely redeems spending almost two decades tolerating their existence. Some do turn out all right, but it's really too small a chance for me to want to bother with it.

You might think that I'm lazy, or that I'm just not trying enough. I'll be the first to admit that I am generally lazy, and that I'm not trying at all, in fact, in this particular field of interest. Then again, I'm not trying to be a professional athlete either, or a world chess champion, or a renowned architect. I'm sure that I could be all those things if I tried; but I really do not feel interested enough to put in the effort required, as wonderful as they each may be. If you can understand that, and I'm sure you can, then why would the same principle applied to sex be so alien? Does one really have to pursue something just because everyone else is doing it?

As for the rest of you, you may all go fornicate until your ears pop off, engage in lifelong relationships and have a million kids. If that makes you happy, hey, that's wonderful for you; but here's one who doesn't go for that whole lot, and there may be more of you out there of the same kind. I don't know. Maybe no one will ever read this. But if they do, and if they think like me, they should know that they're not alone.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by hmm


Display: Sort:
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love My Hand | 152 comments (137 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
+1 FP (2.60 / 5) (#1)
by trane on Fri May 20, 2005 at 06:57:33 PM EST

Excellent.

The only thing i would add is that, technology can make pr0n much more effective and satisfying. I.E., realdolls with AI and motor functions...then everyone could get much closer to that perfect relationship.

LOL AI (none / 0) (#31)
by Phssthpok on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:56:21 PM EST


____________

affective flattening has caused me to kill 11,357 people

[ Parent ]
I stopped reading halfway down. (2.16 / 6) (#2)
by Resonant on Fri May 20, 2005 at 08:09:32 PM EST

Enjoy dying alone. +1FP, though. Interesting philosophy if nothing else.

"I answer, 'This is _quantitative_ religious studies.'" - glor
same as Parent, except I read the whole thing :) (none / 0) (#3)
by gzur on Fri May 20, 2005 at 08:19:09 PM EST



_________________________________________
"I'm not looking for work, but I wouldn't say no to a Pacific rim job."
[ Parent ]
Being alone is great (none / 0) (#7)
by wre on Fri May 20, 2005 at 09:21:14 PM EST

(Because you don't have to feel lonely - that's optional.)

[ Parent ]
If thats true, I salute your self-discipline (nt) (none / 0) (#37)
by Resonant on Sun May 22, 2005 at 01:23:54 AM EST



"I answer, 'This is _quantitative_ religious studies.'" - glor
[ Parent ]
Loneliness (none / 0) (#125)
by The Voice of Reason on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:59:56 AM EST

You know, emotions aren't something you can turn on and off with a switch at will, they just happen, it's not an option.

[ Parent ]
+1 FP, delicious irony of wanking on front page. (1.71 / 7) (#4)
by Reynolds Number on Fri May 20, 2005 at 09:00:05 PM EST



this is nothing but wankery! (2.81 / 11) (#5)
by circletimessquare on Fri May 20, 2005 at 09:05:02 PM EST

oh wait...

+1 fp

The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

You haven't got over the angst [nt] (2.62 / 8) (#6)
by Stick on Fri May 20, 2005 at 09:07:32 PM EST




---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
IAWTP (2.85 / 7) (#8)
by wre on Fri May 20, 2005 at 09:22:47 PM EST

Throw off the shackles of the 1960s' morals and traditions!

My boyfriend was like you.... (2.92 / 14) (#9)
by Mystess on Fri May 20, 2005 at 10:32:04 PM EST

When I first met him, he was depressed because the girl he 'loved' didn't want him back. He told me he didn't care if he never had sex.

This is all well and good to believe up until the moment you actually do it. When you find someone you may well indeed love, and who feels the same way back, your whole opinion will change.

Sex isn't just about the feeling - its about the emotional connection and I'm sorry to say, you CAN'T get that from your hand.

All that aside, I like your angst +1 FP

"Don't worry, You're better than somaudlin." - stuuart

Not the case here, definitely (2.37 / 8) (#10)
by elver on Fri May 20, 2005 at 11:29:21 PM EST

There's a BIG difference between saying that you "don't care if you never have sex again" and realising that "sex is not needed." One is depression, the other is enlightenment.

What you fail to understand here is that people like the author of the story do not want relationships. At all. They have realised that it's too much hassle just to have some social marker next to their names.

These people, unlike you, are not defined by their friends and associates. They dare to define themselves. They dare to dream, dare to ask "what if...?"

Personally, I feel sorry for your kind. You lack the ability to dream. As for the author, then, unlike the author, having tried it, I still agree with him. And no, I didn't recently break up with anyone. I'm quite fine and dandy on the social frontier at the moment. Doesn't mean I can't agree with the author, even if I don't choose celibacy.

[ Parent ]
Bullshit (1.85 / 7) (#13)
by Stick on Sat May 21, 2005 at 12:47:38 AM EST

Fucking nerds.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
you meant to say (2.25 / 4) (#42)
by whynot on Sun May 22, 2005 at 02:43:10 AM EST

fscking nerds I don't think the word "fuck" is applicable here ;)

[ Parent ]
"What if" indeed. (2.66 / 6) (#18)
by An Onerous Coward on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:00:21 PM EST

I think you're reading too much nobility into the author's ideas.  He's looking for an impossible caricature of a real relationship,  realizing that he'll never find it,  and giving up on the idea altogether.

Just read the way he describes the relationship he wants:  he would get whatever he wanted from the relationship when he wanted it,  and never have to make any effort in return.  Kudos to him for recognizing the stupidity of the notion;  lots of folks seem to have the same notion of what constitutes an ideal relationship,  and generally meet with frustration in trying to achieve it.

He's correct to say that,  if he's the sort of person who hates doing things for other people,  then he shouldn't be in a relationship.  But I think that rather than accepting this as an inevitable consequence of his personality,  he should see it for what it is:  a deep,  tragic character flaw that needs to be rooted out.

There are people who don't care for the happiness of others,  who can't do something for someone they love just because that person's happiness creates happiness within them.  These people leave nothing but pain and misery in their wake.

The problem I see isn't that the author doesn't feel that he's cut out for a sexual relationship.  My problem is that,  as described above,  he's not cut out for anything but the most shallow and selfish sorts of relationships.

I don't think that's who the author really is,  though,  and so I don't take his convictions too seriously.  I think that eventually he'll get over his Simon and Garfunkel, "I am a Rock" phase,  just like most of us do.  I'm not saying that he'll suddenly see the light and recognize the need for a wife, two-point-three kids,  and maybe an SUV.  But I think he'll someday recognize the utility of caring for others and being cared for in return.  

But if he sticks with the current course,  he'll end up being the sort of person whose friends only hang around when it's beneficial to them.  Then he'll be stuck in the same crappy little apartment for the next twenty years because nobody wants to help him move.  I can just see the piles of old pizza boxes.

It's not a pretty sight.

[ Parent ]

Fallacious. (1.00 / 3) (#19)
by hmm on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:43:15 PM EST

>he should see it for what it is: a deep, tragic character flaw that needs to be rooted out.

You are falling victim to the same fallacy most people who are stuck in current culture do; you see this reluctance as a flaw that "needs" to be corrected.

In fact, my very point is rejecting the idea that it's something you "shouldn't" do. Instead of starting from the cultural dogma that "relationships", "love" and such wish-wash is the base from which everything else unfolds, I've come to realize that they are constructs like everything else and are certainly not obvious, or required.

Start with the thought of not having a relationship, and then imagine the idea being offered to you; my reaction would be to respond, "What, all that effort and all I get is a flawed version of something I can do for myself already? No thanks, you can keep it."

>These people leave nothing but pain and misery in their wake.

Now that sounds like something I could spend my life doing!

>he's not cut out for anything but the most shallow and selfish sorts of relationships.

Bingo! And, in fact, I'm not cut out for those relationships either, because I find them dull and uninteresting. Result: Not cut out for any relationships at all. But that's okay. The fish doesn't care that he can't ride a bicycle, because he doesn't want to in the first place.

>Then he'll be stuck in the same crappy little apartment for the next twenty years because nobody wants to help him move. I can just see the piles of old pizza boxes.

You know what? I'd kinda like a life like that. I really would. I live in a small, nice apartment right now, in fact, and it's got pizza boxes in it. I quite enjoy my reclusive lifestyle.

You seem to believe everyone else has the same moral base, and the same goals in life as you do; or in the very least, that they "should" have the same moral base and goals in life as you do. But, everyone else doesn't share your vision of what constitutes a quality life, or the collective vision of modern culture. I sure don't, and that was the point.



[ Parent ]
An undue prominence of the ego (3.00 / 3) (#50)
by CmdrDoc on Sun May 22, 2005 at 10:10:22 AM EST

"Our friends cannot understand why we make this voyage. They shudder, and moan, and raise their hands. No amount of explanation can make them comprehend that we are moving along the line of least resistance; that it is easier for us to go down to the sea in a small ship than to remain on dry land, just as it is easier for them to remain on dry land than to go down to the sea in the small ship. This state of mind comes of an undue prominence of the ego. They cannot get away from themselves. They cannot come out of themselves long enough to see that their line of least resistance is not necessarily everybody else's line of least resistance. They make of their own bundle of desires, likes, and dislikes a yardstick wherewith to measure the desires, likes, and dislikes of all creatures. This is unfair. I tell them so. But they cannot get away from their own miserable egos long enough to hear me. They think I am crazy. In return, I am sympathetic. It is a state of mind familiar to me. We are all prone to think there is something wrong with the mental processes of the man who disagrees with us. [Jack London: The Cruise of the Snark]

[ Parent ]
I _do_ need to be corrected. [n/t] (none / 0) (#138)
by flaw on Tue May 31, 2005 at 06:33:27 AM EST



--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
[ Parent ]
The happiness of others? Bah! (2.00 / 2) (#21)
by elver on Sat May 21, 2005 at 03:57:33 PM EST

There are people who don't care for the happiness of others, who can't do something for someone they love just because that person's happiness creates happiness within them. These people leave nothing but pain and misery in their wake.

So I should let others take advantage of my good nature so they'd feel happy and so I'd feel happy that they're feeling happy? Umm... That doesn't sound right to me.

Not to make this a personal attack or anything, but do you get into relationships so you could take advantage of the other person? Or because the other person likes taking advantage of you and feels the duty to repay you with sex? Because that's not a very satisfying relationship, believe me.

Or do you get into relationships because you actually share something with the other person, like talking to her, spending time with her, etc.? Because if so, then sex is purely optional, is it not? You've got common ground. Tread on it. The need to have sex is mostly just peer pressure.

[ Parent ]
You misunderstand me (3.00 / 3) (#51)
by An Onerous Coward on Sun May 22, 2005 at 11:29:53 AM EST

A healthy relationship is one wherein you do things to make the other person happy,  because their happiness makes you happy.  But this has to work both ways.  Otherwise,  the other person is simply being a leech.

Nor was I explicitly talking about sexual relationships.  I meant for it to apply to any relationship.

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 1) (#61)
by Pseudonym on Sun May 22, 2005 at 08:12:08 PM EST

I think you're reading too much nobility into the author's ideas. He's looking for an impossible caricature of a real relationship, realizing that he'll never find it, and giving up on the idea altogether.

That, too, is noble. IME (which, admittedly, is a fairly limited E), you have much more success with the preferred sex if you go into it without any expectations that they must be this or must be that or you must have sex with them. Your relationships can be what they are, instead of what you feel they must be.

Saying "I don't need sex" is actually a good step on the road to getting lots of it, so long as you follow it up.


sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
Family Guy (none / 1) (#88)
by chaoticset on Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:38:37 PM EST

They actually covered the reality of avoiding sex on Family Guy, in the hypothetical.  Remember?  Quagmire and Peter swore off women as children, and decades later were checking their stock portfolios together and declaring that they were going to have sex with a warm bagel?

You're misunderstanding.  Imagine a person who eschews sex and social interaction for the sake of becoming truly interesting.  (Paul Erdos, generally regarded as the greatest mathematician of modern times.)  Imagine all that time you spend having to deal with people you know, etc., and imagine you could apply it to learning skills, or inventing things, or even just your tennis game.

There are people -- like the author, like myself -- who wonder how much social behavior is truly genuine, and how much is dictated by social circumstance.  If someone has sex with us, and feels obligated to love us, and feels obligated to marry us, and obligated to have kids with us, and obligated to die with us -- where is the genuine affection in that?

I argue there is none, even if they say that they love the kids and you and the house and the dog.  Living life by default is the biggest mistake any human being can make, but many choose to make it anyway.

[ Parent ]

Divergent Evolution (none / 0) (#86)
by chaoticset on Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:30:32 PM EST

I was like that too, once.  It was a good time in my life, and I had some weird hangup that sex would help my emotional immaturity.

And it didn't.

I've learned not to get in relationships that are based on sex, and I still struggle with emotional connection, even though the sex is great and feels wonderful and seems to provide time with emotional connection.  If the only way for my relationship to have a full emotional connection is *if I have sex*, how can I not say that my relationship depends on sex?

I wish, sometimes, that I had listened to myself and not my friends, not worried that they'd think I was gay (turns out I'm not, but I don't even know most of those guys any more), not worried about any of that crap.

I wish I had just not had sex at all.  Things would have been better.

You can say that it's different afterwards; that doesn't mean that, in every case, things are *better*.

[ Parent ]

Don't talk shit (none / 0) (#124)
by The Voice of Reason on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:56:16 AM EST

Sex isn't just about the feeling - its about the emotional connection

Bullshit. If it were about an 'emotional connection', you wouldn't need to have sex at all. Unless you can tell me the 'emotional' value of inserting your cock into some girl's cunt. Also I'm sure there is little emotional value in one night stands, but people have them, because they want sex, not an emotional connection.

All that aside, I like your angst +1 FP

I think he's just saying all that shit to excuse not being able to get laid. Sour grapes, if you will.

[ Parent ]

You sir have slack (2.92 / 13) (#14)
by IceTitan on Sat May 21, 2005 at 06:27:10 AM EST

But not enough, too long.

What's funny to me is the people that tend to get married early usually only expect a steady flow of sex, and base the relationships continued existence squarely on it. These people I think tend to stray more often. Look at trailer trash for one.

I have friends that were married relatively early, 25-23. They have been a big driving force in wanting me to get partnered up. I eventually asked why it was such a big deal. What was so great about being in a relationship. The wife asked if I wanted to have sex as opposed to specifically not wanting to have sex. I kinda feel bad for them.

My advice, don't think about it. And by that I don't mean rule out the possibility or linger on the improbability. Just don't think about it. Whack off when you feel the urge. If you see a pretty girl you would otherwise like to have sex with, don't think about it. Either go up and introduce yourself or move on to what you were doing. If you are like me, and to a good degree you sound like it, you will talk yourself out of damn near everything.

For those of you reading this, yes, I've had sex before. No, it wasn't that good. Yes, I'm glad it ended. No, I will not fuck fat chicks.
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Nice (1.50 / 2) (#70)
by Nyarlathotep on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:46:35 AM EST

For those of you reading this, yes, I've had sex before. No, it wasn't that good. Yes, I'm glad it ended. No, I will not fuck fat chicks.

Nice!
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]

Youf fault (none / 0) (#114)
by spit on Tue May 24, 2005 at 10:37:16 PM EST

If sex is no good, it's your fault.

[ Parent ]
Incorrect and extremely stupid. [n/t] (none / 0) (#136)
by flaw on Tue May 31, 2005 at 06:26:24 AM EST



--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
[ Parent ]
Hmm (2.50 / 2) (#16)
by pHatidic on Sat May 21, 2005 at 01:17:36 PM EST

Someone should really write an article on how to get laid. I could take a stab at it, but given the content I would mostly be just talking out of my ass. Although I guess it wouldn't be any different than any of my other articles.

It's not hard (none / 1) (#33)
by Stick on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:23:26 PM EST

Go to places where women are, preferably drunk, talk to them. It helps to look somewhat attractive and have a bit of confidence. Other way is to get to know a girl, make her your girlfriend and the rest will happen.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
how to get laid in one easy step. (3.00 / 6) (#35)
by army of phred on Sat May 21, 2005 at 10:57:22 PM EST

lower your standards.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
Even easier (none / 0) (#36)
by Stick on Sat May 21, 2005 at 11:28:13 PM EST

Hire a prostitute.


---
Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
[ Parent ]
Actually that's insightful advice (none / 0) (#90)
by tassach on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:24:38 PM EST

You might have been being sarcastic, but it's actually damn good advice.

Besides the obvious physical gratification, a few visits to a good professional will help you learn how to deal with women in a sexual situation, and will help build up your confidence.

Don't bother with street hookers -- that scene has too much risk for too little reward.  Hire a good high-class escort.  Yes, it will be expensive -- $200-$300/hr is the average range.  However, the experience is worth every penny.

There are several review sites (bigdoggie.net, theeroticreview.com) which will help you locate a lady who will deliver the goods (and who won't rip you off).  

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants" -- Thomas Jefferson
[ Parent ]

Doesn't work. (none / 0) (#137)
by flaw on Tue May 31, 2005 at 06:27:44 AM EST

I can't lower mine any further.

--
ピニス, ピニス, everyone loves ピニス!
[ Parent ]
Hell, that almost never works... (none / 0) (#105)
by The Geriatrix Revultions on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:23:40 AM EST

Other way is to get to know a girl, make her your girlfriend and the rest will happen.

The typical result of "getting to know the girl" is that she will come to think of you as such a good friend that she would never risk the friendship by taking it any further.

So instead, you end up with a huge line of girl friends who love you like a brother and screw everyone on the planet other than you...

/me goes off to get emotional support from one of his many platonic friends...



[ Parent ]
Small problem... (none / 0) (#123)
by The Voice of Reason on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:53:10 AM EST

It helps to look somewhat attractive and have a bit of confidence.

And what if you don't? What if you're completely unattractive and your confidence is lower than zero?

Other way is to get to know a girl, make her your girlfriend

And how the fuck do you do that?

[ Parent ]

Here's one... (2.50 / 2) (#60)
by Pseudonym on Sun May 22, 2005 at 07:57:12 PM EST

A guide from Eric S. Raymond: Love Man.


sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
ESR sex tips *shudder* (none / 1) (#81)
by Gord ca on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:21:27 PM EST

I'll take ESR's programming tips, maybe. Maybe I'll read this with a noticably large grain of salt.

If I'm attacking your idea, it's probably because I like it
[ Parent ]
ESR sex tips *shudder* (none / 0) (#134)
by Wobbly Bob on Mon May 30, 2005 at 11:34:23 PM EST

That's what I thought at first, but the man isn't exactly Fabio, so he MUST be a dating guru.

[ Parent ]
Follow up article: The rise of the sexbots (2.50 / 10) (#22)
by nlscb on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:04:13 PM EST

Will we reach a point When the need for a partner to have convincing sex is no longer necessary?

Seriously, it would be very interesting to see speculations on what will happen to human heterosxuality if "virtual sex" became a reality - a point where males could essentially have sex with a machine and have it be just as convincing as having sex with a female w/the exception of the knowledge that it was a machine.

The whole heterosexual courting ritual is built on a disparity between supply (women willing to have sex - fairly low) and demand (men wanting to have sex with women - almost infinitely high). A surplus of wanting, and a lack of desire. Things like porno and prostitution could be thought of as grey and black market inferior goods to fill this inherent disparity. Would the advent of sexbots lead to a complete breakdown of the need for men to court women in order to have sex with them, or even have anything much to do with women beyond dealings in the workplace?

Women like to respond to this kind of speculation saying that we'll still have a need for talking to a real person and having emotional attachments. I'm not so sure about this. The emotional connection is very important to THEM, not so much to us. A good example is the fundamental difference in jealousy between women and men. When a man cheats on a woman, the woman worries mostly about the man's feelings towards the other woman, since he will no longer feel as much as a need to support her and her offsrping. When a woman cheats on a man, the man is overwhelmingly concerned about whether she had sex with the other man, since he may now be obligated to raise a child who is not his. Sexbots might quite literally might free women from us "pigs" and our unwanted advances, but might they not end up regretting what they wished for? The power women enjoy by being the ones who have the goods we desire (while not impossible for a man to have the physical goods a woman wants is possible, it is very rare - if you're not 6'2"+, mediteranean features, light eyed, good shoulders, strong chin, a full head of hair - you are not one of these), which I suspect tends to blind them from the true nature of male desires since they don't really need to consider them in the same sense Microsoft doesn't have to care much about its customers by being a monopoly.

Some potentially good effects of the rise of the sexbots might be the end of prostitution, in the same sense we don't have coach and buggy drivers anymore, since mechanization would eliminate the need and be able to undercut on price as well as increaes safety. Venereal disease might disappear under these circumstances.

Ladies might shoot back that having instant access to sex would make men more violent, along the lines they make about pornography. I doubt that as well. Most rational men should be able to tell the difference between the virtual 36DD-24-36 with the big pretty eyes who let's them jump into bed with them in a heartbeat as opposed to the plain jane on the street who pepper sprays them for grabbing her ass. If anything, violence towards women would probably collapse, in the sense of an end of need to use violence to obtain sex as well as end of the end of men who simply cannot handle long term relationships enterting them and lashing out. There will still be the true rapists, who do it largely out a sense of power, but mankind will always have these kinds of deviants, no matter what is done. While horrible creatures, the number of these cannot be that high, simply because the species simply could not be successful under these circumstances

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

Hmm (2.50 / 2) (#23)
by pHatidic on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:37:55 PM EST

On IT Conversations there is a debate between Will Wright and Jaron Lanier, and part of it is them debating about teledildonics in MMORPGS. Good stuff, I'd highly recommend it.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, trying to find this (none / 1) (#24)
by nlscb on Sat May 21, 2005 at 04:52:03 PM EST

Is this the Nov 5, 2004 debate at www.itconversations.com? click here

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

PS - yep, it is (none / 1) (#25)
by nlscb on Sat May 21, 2005 at 05:00:43 PM EST

around minute 24

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

Type-R, you shoud listen (none / 0) (#93)
by nlscb on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:34:16 PM EST

It makes an interesting point that there will always be a hunger for the real thing. While I disagree to a certain extent (what if you could make them indistinguishable, minus knowing its a machine and knowing it could never really happen to you), the points made during the entire discussion are really interesting.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

Why are you link spamming? [nt] (none / 1) (#38)
by evilmeow on Sun May 22, 2005 at 01:50:03 AM EST


"[O]ne thing is certain: people are certifiably historically myopic"

[ Parent ]
Because he can [nt] (1.50 / 2) (#43)
by monkeymind on Sun May 22, 2005 at 02:48:07 AM EST


I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume the deserve it.
[ Parent ]

There is a solution to make everyone happy (none / 1) (#67)
by Viliam Bur on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:12:42 AM EST

Men need sex: build sexbots.
Women need support for children: raise taxes, give free money to women.

If men using sexbots would pay higher taxes, it would make everyone happy. Including the tax-payers - if one spends all free time in virtual reality with virtual girls, one does not need real money there anyway. The ratio "money : sex" would improve.

[ Parent ]

Not really (none / 0) (#69)
by Nyarlathotep on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:44:03 AM EST

Men need sex: build sexbots.

Yes, this will realeave some social pressures.

Women need support for children: raise taxes, give free money to women.

Not even close to solving the problems.

1) Women care more about "emotional attachment" _because_ it implies "reliable source of money," but they still care about "emotional attachment" itself (plus the BMW). So free money won't make women happy.

2) You still assume that 50% of the population should have child raising as its primary goa, a very bad idea. Why?

2a) We don't need 50% of the society wholely dedicated to childraising, as we don't need to produce children that fast.

2b) Inside 20 years, our "phycological technology" for child raising will outstrip what any ordinary parent can master (never mind the fact that said parent might have a real job).

We need a system designed to placate desired of both geender's in a mannor most likely to produce happy and productive people. We also need child raising specilists. Of course, parents should not be forced to give up their children to specilists, but I think they will want to, especially when the speciallists are better, andthey can still see the kids anytime they want.

Here is one reality check: women will spend their free time caring for their children. Its clearly good for society if less productive women do so. So having the best/24-7 specilists take care of your children should be a perk reserved for those people who society feels spend their free time doing productive things, i.e. academics / professsors / postdocs / grad students, on call doctors/nurses open source programmers, politicians, academics, community voluntears, students, on call sysadmins, academics, etc. (and the rich always get all the perks too). Normal people would only get "while you work" childcare.

In such a system, women who wanted children would be under pressure to take more important roles in society, so as to quality for the extended child care while still young (its not realistic to become rich while young), i.e. yielding 3rd great feminist movment. As always, women would be looking for providers, but the real life pressures to keep one would disapear.

Relationships are progressively more just a form of entertainment. Now having children would just be entertainment too. No, one would be woken up by screeming babies, you just go play with your child whenever you feel like it (and even hand it back to the professional when it starts crying). A 20 year old woman would still go "husband hunting", but the inevitable split 1-5 years later would become painless if she (or he) qualified for 24-7 child care.

As for taxation, normal people would effectively pay for their own "while you work" child care, while the rich and childless would help pay for the 24-7 childare awarded to the most productive members of society.


Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]

what society do you live in? (3.00 / 2) (#109)
by livus on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:19:57 PM EST

where people feel that academics are doing something productive?! I wanna move there.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
*boggle* (3.00 / 3) (#76)
by MyrdemInggala on Mon May 23, 2005 at 11:49:14 AM EST

Your thesis makes the flawed assumption that men and women are fundamentally different when it comes to their attitude to relationships and sex.  You seem to believe that men find sex inherently more desirable while women find it to be a tedious chore, and thus it has to be "purchased" from them for favours.

Just because a given woman is not interested in having sex with a particular random man does not mean that she doesn't desire sex.  Do men find all women equally attractive?  Would the average man shag anything that moved in pursuit of sex?

It is true that because of a persistence of old social imbalances there are many relationships in which the female partner trades sex with a man she does not really enjoy having sex with for economic security, but this is not some kind of natural state that all heterosexual relationships must inevitably conform to.

It is also not necessarily a given that a woman will desire long-term commitment and emotional attachment more than her male partner.  Women can be as detached and mercenary as men.

I'm all for sexbots and porn, though, as utilities for both genders.  One shouldn't enter into a relationship for the sake of access to sex, or for the sake of having a relationship.  If it's not the particular one that you want, it's pointless having it.

-- 22. No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head. -- Evil Overlord List
[ Parent ]

Why bother having different sexes? (1.33 / 3) (#99)
by nlscb on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:29:41 PM EST

In rebuttal

Your thesis makes the flawed assumption that men and women are fundamentally different when it comes to their attitude to relationships and sex.

Again, why bother having different sexes. If they were the same it would be pointless.

You seem to believe that men find sex inherently more desirable while women find it to be a tedious chore, and thus it has to be "purchased" from them for favours.

To a certain extent, yes. Example: Women don't consume large amounts of pornography. The porn industry has been trying for years to make products for them (double their market), but to no avail. In addition, woman are designed to certainly want less sex with a more selective group (nice way of saying she only wants tall, dumb, cute guys screwing her). Because of this inequity in demand, some do find it advantageous to demand favours from the less desirable. She needs to know that if her offspring are inferior, it will be made up in effort of providing the male in question.

Just because a given woman is not interested in having sex with a particular random man does not mean that she doesn't desire sex.

I didn't say she didn't want sex. She just wants sex with tall, dumb, cute men. There are very few of those to go around (outside Scandanavia, the Netherlands, Canada, New England, and the upper Midwest)

Do men find all women equally attractive?

No

Would the average man shag anything that moved in pursuit of sex?

Under the age of 35 with curves (not THIN, curves - doesn't mean fat either) if they could do it without consequence, yes

It is true that because of a persistence of old social imbalances there are many relationships in which the female partner trades sex with a man she does not really enjoy having sex with for economic security, but this is not some kind of natural state that all heterosexual relationships must inevitably conform to.

Not social imbalances - biological imperatives. Unfortunately, to a certain extent this has always been the case. That doesn't mean one has to be rude about it in meatspace (that's what K5's for).

It is also not necessarily a given that a woman will desire long-term commitment and emotional attachment more than her male partner. Women can be as detached and mercenary as men.

I think tall, dumb, and cute and 6'2"+ pretty much sum up my opinion on that

I'm all for sexbots and porn, though, as utilities for both genders. One shouldn't enter into a relationship for the sake of access to sex, or for the sake of having a relationship. If it's not the particular one that you want, it's pointless having it.

I don't really what you are saying here.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

Re: Why bother having different sexes? (3.00 / 2) (#104)
by MyrdemInggala on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:02:48 AM EST

Again, why bother having different sexes. If they were the same it would be pointless.

Whuh?  There is no "point".  Humans weren't suddenly built in their thousands from some kind of blueprint.  Humans (and most other animals) have different genders because sexual reproduction has emerged as an efficient evolutionary strategy.

However, that doesn't mean that we are all driven purely by blind reproductive instinct, or that our sexual desires, when separated from the desire to reproduce, must inherently be different because we have different nads.

nice way of saying she only wants tall, dumb, cute guys screwing her

Dude, where do you get this idea?  Seriously, WTF?  That doesn't even make sense in the context of the "biological imperatives" that you seem to believe are the most important factor in our sex-related motivations.  Intelligence is the most desirable human trait.

It looks like we have irreconcillable differences in our observations about the fundamental nature of human thought and behaviour.  I don't think that we can have any kind of rational discussion if you truly believe that humans are motivated entirely by biological drives.

-- 22. No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head. -- Evil Overlord List
[ Parent ]

Nature vs. Nurture (none / 1) (#113)
by nlscb on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:45:29 PM EST

Man: "AARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH! must hunt for meat and shag as many women as possible - it's how nature intended it"

Woman: "No. We are civilized creatures in touch with our feelings. Nurturing is how things are done".

I don't think we're ever going to agree.

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

Ouch! My brain! (none / 0) (#115)
by MyrdemInggala on Wed May 25, 2005 at 07:12:44 AM EST

OK, now you're mixing this up with an entirely different issue (nature vs nurture? That's a debate over the relative weightings of genetic factors and upbringing on an individual's mental development).

We will never agree, not because I am a woman and you are a man and thus we can Never Understand Each Other, but because I can see no basis in reality for your theories about human behaviour.  It would be like arguing about physics with a flat-earther.

You seem really hung up over this "tall, cute and dumb" thing, since you mention it no fewer than three times in your original rebuttal, and again in response to someone else further down the page.  Did you perhaps have an unpleasant run-in with Sven the Girlfriend-Stealing Male Model?

-- 22. No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head. -- Evil Overlord List
[ Parent ]

porn vs. love novels (none / 1) (#116)
by spacebrain on Wed May 25, 2005 at 08:05:47 PM EST

Again, why bother having different sexes. If they were the same it would be pointless.

I can only recommend to read Mathematics and Sex by Clio Cresswell. :-)

Women don't consume large amounts of pornography. The porn industry has been trying for years to make products for them (double their market), but to no avail.

Women do consume large amounts of cheep love novels. The porn industry obviously missed it's market with those efforts. Just as a writer would who tried to sell love novels to men.

[ Parent ]

Re: porn vs. love novels (none / 1) (#117)
by MyrdemInggala on Thu May 26, 2005 at 08:07:05 AM EST

Women don't consume large amounts of pornography. The porn industry has been trying for years to make products for them (double their market), but to no avail.

Women do consume large amounts of cheep love novels. The porn industry obviously missed it's market with those efforts. Just as a writer would who tried to sell love novels to men.

I often wonder whether the statistical difference in preferences for sex- and romance-related media between men and women is more biological in nature or more a social construct (within "Western" culture, specifically).

Something which may yield interesting results is an examination of the different categories of sexually explicit Japanese manga and the demographics of their audiences.  I know that manga "for girls" is often more fluffy and romantic in nature, but it would be interesting to see if there are any unexpected reading trends, and whether the demographics are changing.

I've skimmed the Wikipedia articles, and it looks like manga-for-women certainly contains porn - there were no specific comparisons with the amount of porn in manga-for-men, but it can apparently be very explicit.  There also seems to be a strong undercurrent of fascination with male homosexuality in women's manga (a trend which is also visible in several online writing communities composed mostly of women).

That's the only example of a large, established porn industry within a large, established culture substantially different to ours, but I'm sure there are other examples.

-- 22. No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head. -- Evil Overlord List
[ Parent ]

Re: porn vs. love novels (none / 1) (#118)
by spacebrain on Thu May 26, 2005 at 09:32:12 AM EST

Concerning the biology / culture issue: did you read The Mating Mind : How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature by Geoffrey Miller? I found that very illuminative.

The manga example is a very interesting issue I wasn't aware of. I'll ask my japanese friends about it... :-)

There also seems to be a strong undercurrent of fascination with male homosexuality in women's manga (a trend which is also visible in several online writing communities composed mostly of women).

Oh, wow! I am astonished about that. You seem to be a woman yourself, right? (At least someone referred to you as such.) Can you explain this to my male brain, please? I see reasons why many women like gay friends, but I don't have a clue what women could find fascinating about male homosexuality as such, except in analogy to many men's interest in (fake) lesbian porn, which is simply because most men like watching women much more than other men. Some may be interested in real female homosexuality to learn more what women like, but then again, most men prefer to find that out by themselves. :-)
Could it be somehow analogous? AFAIK many women like images of other women pretty too, they don't seem to be turned off that readily by nudes of the same sex as many men do.

[ Parent ]

Re: porn vs. love novels (none / 1) (#130)
by MyrdemInggala on Sun May 29, 2005 at 10:57:28 AM EST

The book sounds interesting - I'll check it out if I come across it.

Regarding women writing about male homosexuals - from what I have observed, apart from a general appreciation for the male body and male sexuality (and a genuine erotic interest in male homosexual sex which stems from that), some of these writers  are motivated by a desire to write about idealised romantic relationships between equals.

At the moment, the world of fiction (OK, mostly movies and TV, which I think have the broadest following) is innundated with female characters who are caricatures and stereotypes of women.  They are characters for whom "female" is an important defining characteristic, and for whom "female issues" are always important, regardless of their other interests and motivations.

There is a lot of baggage regarding gender roles and default attitudes which is firmly entrenched into most social groups' perception of heterosexual relationships.  In a story in which two men are having a relationship, on the other hand, the men are just people, on an equal footing - neither is assumed to be weaker than or submissive to the other and neither is assumed to have some kind of special agenda because of his gender.

I've seen various slash writers stating opinions to this effect, so I don't think I'm talking completely out of my ass.  I think some people are mainly just driven by the desire to fantasize about lots of attractive naked men together.

It's kind of analogous to the mainstream male fascination with lesbians (right down to the frequent complete lack of realism), except that women who write slash fiction don't have an analogous revulsion for female homosexuality - some also write about lesbian relationships, although I think it's less popular overall.

I think the widespread rejection of male homosexuality (compared to the more ready acceptance of female homosexuality) is just another symptom of the way our culture currently views male and female bodies: the female form is considered beautiful and decorative, and people of both genders are expected to appreciate it.  The male form, on the other hand, is not supposed to be pretty - it's functional and "manly", and doing anything to it which makes it pretty makes it "effeminate" and provokes a negative reaction.

See how, while women's clothing continues to be elaborate and decorative, men's clothes have become very functional and boring, and it is considered socially unacceptable for (mainstream) men to wear makeup.  Compare this to the fashions of, say, five hundred years' ago.

I have a tendency to write essays instead of replies.  I could waffle about various tangents to this for ages, but I'll restrain myself now. :)

-- 22. No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head. -- Evil Overlord List
[ Parent ]

I agree n/t (none / 0) (#110)
by livus on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:23:10 PM EST



---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Penn and Teller, is that you? (2.33 / 3) (#28)
by Russell Dovey on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:35:43 PM EST

When you read the last four paragraphs, imagine Penn's voice. Works, right?

Penn and Teller's Bullshit: human contact!

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

I'll tell you a little secret. (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by hmm on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:58:09 PM EST

I'm quite a fan of Penn & Teller, and Bullshit! in particular. And even though you surely did not mean it that way, I feel honored and mirthful that your comment compares my writing to a Penn monologue. Made my day.



[ Parent ]
Oh my God (none / 0) (#46)
by wre on Sun May 22, 2005 at 03:48:43 AM EST

Are you me? Do I have a second personality that I don't know about? That would explain where all my free time goes, at least.

[ Parent ]
Actually, I thought your piece was good. (none / 1) (#103)
by Russell Dovey on Tue May 24, 2005 at 03:29:21 AM EST

Society shouldn't push people into anything that genuinely isn't right for them. I agree entirely with your proposition.

Of course, one might say that you could at least TRY having a girlfriend (a serious girlfriend, mr virgin) for a little while before throwing the babe out with the bathwater.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

i know you (2.71 / 7) (#29)
by loteck on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:38:58 PM EST

or should i say, i've known some like you.

i think i would like to believe that there are people out there who are genuinely like you, who actually have a well thought out philosophy behind not having intimate relationships and not having intimate sex, etc etc.

but there's 2 reality problems with this: one is that, as far as i can tell so far, no real, healthy philosophy that i'm aware of can logically come to the conclusion that it is best for anyone to not strive to have intimate relationships with others. especially not niezsche. that leads me to believe that you are twisting philosophy to try to justify your situation to yourself, which makes sense since you already like to masturbate physically, why not do it philisophically?

2nd is, you are a virgin trying to convince me that you are going to make the choice to not have sex or be in relationships. you haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about either way, and people shouldnt listen to you much less applaude your angst-ridden essays on a topic you admittedly aren't ready to intelligently discuss.

so you failed at a couple relationships and are a generally picky guy. so what? welcome to the club. in time you will either find someone who is acceptable and bang the sweet bejeezus out of the poor woman, or you wont find anybody and life will go on.

neither scenario requires you to create philosophies based around it, which just serves to underscore your self confidence problems and is really just a more literate attempt at self congradulation and justification than, say, Gimli falling off a horse and crying out "IT WAS DELIBERATE! IT WAS DELIBERATE!"

-1, catcher in the rye was overrated shit.
--
"You're in tune to the musical sound of loteck hi-fi, the musical sound that moves right round. Keep on moving ya'll." -Mylakovich
"WHAT AN ETERNAL MOBIUS STRIP OF FELLATIATIC BANALITY THIS IS." -Harry B Otch

I like the way... (2.25 / 4) (#30)
by hmm on Sat May 21, 2005 at 07:54:28 PM EST

I like the way how you present exactly zero reasons as to why there can't be any such philosophy. Also, the complete absence of anything even remotely resembling a coherent argument regarding why "no one should listen to me" is just delicious. You sure know how to debate, good sir! I bow before your infinite wisdom.

Create a philosophy? Certainly not. It's just a curious coincidence I found one day after reading Nietzsche, while already formulating this article in my mind. I felt it was a curious tidbit, purely for entertainment purposes. I don't need the words of a dead thinker to motivate what I do.

Self confidence problems? Someone needs an eye exam; my self confidence I would consier the last thing I have problems with today. The state of my window curtains (dusty) worries me more than my self confidence. Much like others, you seem to be starting from the conclusion that every "sane" man must want to shag women, and that anyone who doesn't pursue such a lifestyle must have self confidence issues. Once again, exactly the idea that I'm trying to dispel.



[ Parent ]
IAWTGP (none / 1) (#34)
by pHatidic on Sat May 21, 2005 at 08:56:25 PM EST

Only I voted it up for the same reason that he voted it down. I think every guy who reaches a certain age without getting any starts to think this way, so it is good to talk about. It is hard to really argue against coherently, but at the same time it is impossible to argue for. That is, considering your criticisms of relationships are based mostly on imaginary relationships in your head and what you've seen on TV and such.

[ Parent ]
I don't think it's impossible to hold this view (none / 1) (#63)
by Delirium on Sun May 22, 2005 at 09:49:12 PM EST

There are people who live a non-ascetic—even hedonistic—youth and later in life for one reason or another decide to become more or less hermits.

[ Parent ]
Going that way (3.00 / 2) (#74)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:57:17 AM EST

I've had a lot of pointless sex, a few reasonable relationships, and I agree with tyhe article author. Not about masturbation, but about the all consuming "THOU SHALT FUCK AND PROCREATE" ethos in society. I won't be making little ones, I hate children and won't be giving up two decades to bring one up, and I don't think the physical act of sex or the emotional act of love are worth the compromise and pain they inevitably bring.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Voted +1 the Author will regret this story later (2.00 / 7) (#39)
by MonsieurMerdique on Sun May 22, 2005 at 02:18:34 AM EST

Life and love these two concepts are related, no? You reject love ; you reject life ! I congratulate you for accepting your tomb. Enjoy your masturbation !


No, merdique is not French for shitty!


These two concepts are related, no? (3.00 / 4) (#41)
by monkeymind on Sun May 22, 2005 at 02:35:08 AM EST

No. Such a french idea.

You will die as well, as we all will. Do you plan on making your children carbon copies of yourself so you can live forever?

I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume the deserve it.
[ Parent ]

What a load of crap. (none / 0) (#129)
by The Voice of Reason on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:11:47 AM EST

Really, that's fucking idiotic. Love is a crock of shit, it's just chemicals in the brain. Get over yourself.

[ Parent ]
I would rather see (3.00 / 8) (#40)
by monkeymind on Sun May 22, 2005 at 02:31:25 AM EST

You live as you choose then to fall pray to the bullshit "Must be married with kids" meme and end up hating your wife and your children. It is your life, do what you like. If at some time you decide to change, that's cool too. As long as it is your choice.

There would be a hell of a lot less abused children in the world.

I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people and assume the deserve it.

It's 'prey' (1.66 / 3) (#68)
by glor on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:54:40 AM EST

With love from glor the Spelling Nazi.

--
Disclaimer: I am not the most intelligent kuron.
[ Parent ]

Relax man (3.00 / 6) (#44)
by whynot on Sun May 22, 2005 at 03:05:52 AM EST

Hey, you have come to a conclusion for yourself and that is okay.

However I would like to advise you to NEVER rule out something you do not know for the future. This is like saying: "I will never skydive". Sure, you can never try and you will be correct in the end - but why constraint yourself to something if there is no need for this? Never say never ...

Also please consider that you don't have to have a relationship to have sex: Not talking about hookers here, it just happens. People are not planning on "getting into a relationship and then fuck their brains out". They just walk around with their eyes open (and doing some basic stuff like care about their appearenace). If they get to know somebody they like and he/she is of the opposite sex (in case of heterosexuals) they might have some. So what? Sometimes this will lead to a longer relationship, sometimes it won't. As long as both parties have the same motivation / give the same meaning to this there is not problem. This is not a purely rational process.

According to your description you are not hurting anyone by doing what you are doing, so you should not have any worries. However you might want to think about why people are investing so much time into this "love thing", why so many songs are written about this etc. There might be something to it, so you should really not rule it out for your future :-)

one more thought (none / 1) (#45)
by whynot on Sun May 22, 2005 at 03:26:33 AM EST

Maybe you want to think about it this way:

You may be appalled by the way Star Wars 3 is marketed and how everyone thinks "this is cool". You may blush at the pictures of people dressed up as sith/storm troopers/whatever entering a theater who have no idea about the whole story and just "ride the wave" to be cool.

Does this mean that you will have to automatically hate Star Wars? No. You just need to ignore all of the bullshit surrounding this and STILL have your own opinion: If you like it - so be it, it doesn't make you one of the wackos / mean that you are simply following the crowd. If you don't like it - that is fine too but it does not automatically make you a "rebel" (no pun....) or something.

The same goes for love/relationships/sex. Don't reject something just because of public opinion / pressure. Things can be much more simple than all the bs surrounding them might suggest.

If you are really not doing this and still don't like love/relationships/sex then - congratulations, you are truly free. Also you can rethink / change your opinion any time you like but you don't have to.

[ Parent ]

Hormones and idiocy IMHO (none / 0) (#73)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:53:31 AM EST

But then I just broke up with someone last week. I find myself agreeing with the article author a lot.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
one little note (none / 1) (#91)
by ABlix on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:26:23 PM EST

One slight correction, "According to your description you are not hurting anyone by doing what you are doing," what about the women who are drawn into the porn industry because of the demand for it? Isn't it hurting them? If there was no one to masturbate to the acts of violence often proclaimed in commercial pornography, then perhaps those women wouldn't be victimized. Just a thought.

[ Parent ]
Whilst I'm sure there are victims (none / 0) (#96)
by Have A Nice Day on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:43:16 PM EST

I don't think the whole porn industry runs on victimised women. That view is a little puritan and naive. Some of them are in it because it's a quick and comparatively easy way to get rich.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
I wish.. (none / 0) (#144)
by neuroplasma on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:28:59 PM EST

...I could be a hot chick in a porno.

--
"...you know how you pple are... very sneaky with untrusting slanty eyes" - LxXCaligulaXxl@aol.com
[ Parent ]
Yes! (2.66 / 3) (#47)
by wre on Sun May 22, 2005 at 03:58:12 AM EST

We all need to be like Mike.

go to a 3rd world country (1.62 / 8) (#48)
by dimaq on Sun May 22, 2005 at 04:34:53 AM EST

and get laid for less than your daily allowance

hmm... (1.80 / 5) (#49)
by neuneu2K on Sun May 22, 2005 at 05:05:27 AM EST

As a married, with children, wannabe-christian, geeko´d.
APPLAUSE !
  1. Much better solution then "One Night Stands"
  2. Have you thought of being a priest
  3. Love is insidious and MUCH more sneaky then you think, you will fall in love with someone anyways. Beware

If only all angsty teenagers (or life-long-teenagers) could be like your persona (IHNBT) most worldly problems would be moot.


PS: Of course I do not post here except drunk... So take it anyway you want.



What's a "wannabe-christian"? (none / 0) (#59)
by KrispyKringle on Sun May 22, 2005 at 06:37:53 PM EST

I mean, in all honesty, and no offense meant, the basic requrements to be a christian seem pretty low, at least using the common definition. Most christians I know don't go to church on a regular basis or refrain from drinking, gambling, or being bad bad people every once in a while...

[ Parent ]
No offence taken (3.00 / 2) (#65)
by neuneu2K on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:05:53 AM EST

Coming from a strong rational agnostisism background, there is a LOT of work to becoming a christian.
Identifying your own sins is HARD.

On the other hand, raised christians do seem not to do it so naturally either... But since they go through the gestures and are officially christian...

Sorry for the blurry answer, Hope it is informative.

[ Parent ]

I still dont get it (none / 0) (#84)
by gizzlon on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:01:17 PM EST

Sorry for the blurry answer, Hope it is informative.

Not really,
is it the "requirements" you have "problems" with, or life?
theres no wannabe-christians, if you actually want it, you got it..

g
[ Parent ]
YMMV (2.80 / 5) (#53)
by ergodic on Sun May 22, 2005 at 02:07:00 PM EST

You have a point--- some people aren't capable of being in relationships, and this is a totally valid way of life. +1 FP

The philosophy of a (3.00 / 3) (#55)
by tetsuwan on Sun May 22, 2005 at 04:02:36 PM EST

hermit. The hermit will always exist and always be more or less condemned by society. If you think the life of a hermit is for you - OK. What you are saying, though, is not a no to sex, but a no to society. I'm fine with that.

Njal's Saga: Just like Romeo & Juliet without the romance

depends on the hermit and the society (none / 0) (#62)
by Delirium on Sun May 22, 2005 at 09:45:19 PM EST

In many societies, some sorts of hermits are esteemed as wise; for example, monks who live a hermit lifestyle are well-regarded in some societies.

[ Parent ]
This article is perfect (1.15 / 13) (#64)
by Jonathan Walther on Sun May 22, 2005 at 10:14:27 PM EST

This article shows the exact reason why the race of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel is dying off the face of the planet; Anglo-Saxon mothers and fathers are too comfortable; they couldn't be bothered to produce the next generation?

Overpopulation?  Read Daniel Quinn; there is no such  thing as overpopulation.  It is an illusion.  There are never too many people.  Food supply stops growing, so does the population.  Automatic.  Guaranteed.  The way YHWH designed it.  He loves us.  Why don't we love us?  Why do we hate our children, our parents, our grandchildren and our grandparents?  Why don't we continue their genetic inheritance, which they struggled so hard to preserve for so long?  Why be the weak link in the chain of eternal love?

Masturbation is hate-sex.  Condoms are hate devices.  Anal and oral sex are hate-sex.

Our Father saith, go forth and procreate, lo, and be abundant and reproduce mightily until the earth swarms with you.  If this doesn't appeal to you, you are a misanthrape; a person who hates humanity.

Repent, sinners.  Have babies!

(Luke '22:36 '19:13) => ("Sell your coat and buy a gun." . "Occupy until I come.")


I diagnose you (2.50 / 6) (#66)
by A Bore on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:54:37 AM EST

The reason you are lacking in the basic need to have a mature and satisfying relationship with a woman is because of the pornography you masturbate to. Firstly, by constantly draining yourself of your seed, you are altering the hormonal balance that makes you a man. You are tricking your body into believing it is in a long term relationship with a willing partner. In short, you are on the male equivalent of birth control, and your personality and inner drive has changed as a result of the changes in testosterone caused by your addiction to pornography.

Coupled with this, your constant use of pornography has changed the way you relate to woman. Constant use of pornography every night inevitably leads to a jadedness, where more extreme images and acts must be witnessed to feel the same thrill that you initially got from tamer stuff. This is the reason for your search for alternate fetishes, to try to recapture that feeling. The early stages of a proper relationship are never going to be as thrilling or as sexually appealing as the images or video you now need to get off. Even the actual physical feel of a woman is not going to make up for the what you've trained yourself to get off on, to respond to. So you've created this additional roadblock to having a successful physical relationship. And guess what -chicks can tell when you're a porno watcher. It's in the way you look at them, it isn't normal. And it's obviously a huge turn off.

And so you convince yourself you don't want or need it. Without having experienced it, how can you say? It's as if you've barricaded yourself in a safe place and convinced yourself that your environment contains everything you'll ever need to survive - it does, but you don't know what your missing out on, just outside your barricaded door, and you never will.

So women can tell huh? (none / 0) (#75)
by Shanoyu on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:09:41 AM EST

Man, I hate it how chicks can tell when we've got a haircut or been masturbating or cheating on our taxes or lying in court or pissing in a shower they've never been in or reading comic books and damn! we STILL HAVE NOTHING ON THEM. Actually the porno watcher syndrome is true, but it's true for reasons other than the poster cites. Most people can in fact tell when they are looked at mostly as objects of desire, but some people are slyer about it than others. Most porno watchers older than 17 or so are pretty good about not modeling a bad porn actor. The vast majority of people afflicted with this cruel anti-dating symptom are in fact the sort of preachers you see on your local campus, or at least I do at UGA. Protip: It really hurts your sincerity when you're talking about Jesus and checking out my girlfriend's cleavage. Quit that, thanks.

[ Parent ]
It's not the 'object of desire look' (none / 0) (#111)
by livus on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:30:12 PM EST

...it's the 'you are less than a human' look that really gives it away. Compulsive porn addicts tend to forget this simple thing.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
Women less than human. (none / 0) (#128)
by The Voice of Reason on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:08:16 AM EST

Is it wrong that some of us actually think that women are less worthwhile than men? Let's face it, men are useful for all sorts of things, the only reason we have women is for sex. If women had no vaginas, no-one would care about them. Just look at how many women make a living merely from being attractive to men.

I for one think the best porn is the sort that degrades women. It puts them in their place.

[ Parent ]

that wasn't my point (none / 0) (#131)
by livus on Sun May 29, 2005 at 06:32:41 PM EST

you can be as illogical and quaint about women as you like, just don't complain if it gets you less sex.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

[ Parent ]
I look at everyone that way (none / 0) (#140)
by LilDebbie on Tue May 31, 2005 at 04:16:24 PM EST

though I ratchet up the contempt by thinking, merely, "human."

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0) (#71)
by codejack on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:29:24 AM EST

At least you won't be breeding, so future generations may be spared your angsty. (Is that even a word?)


Please read before posting.

word (none / 0) (#77)
by sunder on Mon May 23, 2005 at 11:50:15 AM EST

Angsty is derived from angst, which I think would be more appropriate here.

[ Parent ]
Similarities (none / 1) (#72)
by incognito on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:39:23 AM EST

I am in a particular similar situation, however you mention that you are not an "asexual blob with no lusts;" I had been tempted to consider myself an asexual as of late. While I had a promiscuous past, things kind of died off about two years ago (I am turning 23 very soon here).

In any ordinary cause-and-effect situation, because of this drought, my drive, or libido as it were, has nearly been exhausted. I've had to resort to the same typical self-tactics you have in order to derive some kind of pleasure.

Without the aid of a truly whorish friend or the mental capacity to ever consider a prostitute, sex for the average male (especially one not in a relationship) is close to impossible to obtain; at least it is for me as many other men may have much better fortune at it.

Do I mope about it? Not so much. Do I whine "Oh, I'll never get laid again; woe is me?" Not really. While I am trying not to utter the weak hopeful "never say never," my views on certain future outlooks are grim and dim.

Perhaps my taste in women are of far too high of standards, so when the "average" girl comes along and seems like an easy catch, my interest is not there. Or that I simply lack the drive anymore.

It's not so much the effort as it is just the basis of things. Self-pleasure has been reduced to a scant one or two times a week and the actual activity of sex seems so far from reality that it never crosses the mind.

I am not ever looking for a relationship (marriage is far out of the question), intentional births are nowhere on the to-do list, and what one would call a "succesful life with another" is not even in one's mind.

So, don't feel so left out; there are others who simply just don't care anymore.

sheesh (2.00 / 3) (#78)
by phip on Mon May 23, 2005 at 12:21:30 PM EST

You are still an angsty fucktard, except now you are trying to rationalize it to the internet. The phrase "cop out" was made for situations like this.

Thanks (none / 0) (#79)
by FreeNSK on Mon May 23, 2005 at 12:42:49 PM EST

Thanks for writing and posting this story, now I know I am not alone!!!

=== NSK ===


Right: you are not alone! (none / 1) (#95)
by gidds on Mon May 23, 2005 at 05:24:36 PM EST

...which IMO is the most important point of the story.

In a particularly angsty mood a while ago, I wrote a song which starts "The world goes two-by-two, hand-in-hand/If you're not a pair, tell me where do you stand?" I know I'm not winning any prizes for it, and I won't bore you with my story, but the point is that society seems so totally permeated with the ideal of the couple, of being in a relationship, of being with someone, that anyone not in that state is necessarily seen as having failed. The idea that someone might not want to be in a pair simply doesn't occur to people -- which is why they can't help but see such people as losers, or weirdos, or as self-deceiving.

Which is rubbish! Even if, as seems likely, most people do indeed want to be with someone for most of the time, there will always be exceptions: some people won't want to be in a relationship at all; and some people would quite like it but have other priorities, or have (temporary or permanent) circumstances which won't allow it. (And of course, some want it and are actively pursuing it; and lots are in it.) Neither state is necessarily 'better' or 'worse'; it depends on the person, and the situation.

So the message here is: if you genuinely don't want to be in a relationship, then accept that, admit it, and be happy with it! And -- perhaps even more importantly -- don't project your own goals and ideals onto your friends and acquaintances. If you know someone who's single, don't assume that's not their preferred state, or see them as a failure for it.

That said, it's also the case that people can persuade themselves that they don't want something simply out of sour grapes, so make sure you know what you're really feeling.

And of course, all this talk about relationships also applies to playing the pink oboe, too. (A subject about which most of the comments seem shy :-) Come on, folks, I was expecting a nice explicit discussion of the different ways we, er, shake hands with the Governor of Love, and we've gone all girly and new agey!

Anyway, I'll leave you with a quote from, of all people, Graham Norton: "I don't mind being single. Because, you see, for me, being single is a choice.

"It's my second choice..." :-)


Andy/
[ Parent ]

It brings me... (none / 0) (#98)
by hmm on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:25:45 PM EST

It brings me great joy to see that there are people who do take the time to read a story completely, think about what it's really about, and actually figure out the point. Well done. (If one wants, one can generalize further...)

[ Parent ]
Missing the point. (none / 0) (#127)
by The Voice of Reason on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:05:53 AM EST

The person who made the article DOES want to be in relationship, but he can't get one, so he makes up all this crap about not really wanting one, to make himself feel better. It's a simple case of sour grapes, not some non-conformist philosophy. This whole discussion is a waste of time, and wouldn't be an issue if the article writer simply got laid.

[ Parent ]
It really isn't normal (2.50 / 2) (#80)
by m50d on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:17:52 PM EST

Don't get me wrong, if you're happy the way you are that's far more important than conforming. But there's more than just culture up against you. 3 billion years of evolution is telling you the entire purpose of your life is to reproduce. You might see it as merely cultural, but it's deeper than that. The desire for sex is a basic instinct, embedded as deeply as the desire for food - and living without it is pretty much as abnormal as starving yourself, and, in the long term, has the same effects.

but wait! (none / 0) (#92)
by ABlix on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:32:57 PM EST

Unfortunutely, going around spreading your seed everywhere has a downside of social reprucusions in this day and age. Your body can adapt to 'no-sex.' Going around fucking and procreating inside every female will land you in the electric chair quick enough. Thus, I think technology needs to be invented where there's an 'alternate' computer reality that functions on the basic principles of quantum physics, along with normal physics, and the basic principles of the human mind. Then maybe we can really see the outcome of such a negative social stigma?

[ Parent ]
Poor purposeless worker bees... (none / 0) (#101)
by G1itch on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:06:35 PM EST

Evolution doesn't neccesarily select in favor of every individual member of a species procreating.

[ Parent ]
evolutionary lesson (none / 0) (#108)
by mpalczew on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:44:49 PM EST

If you have an allele that causes less procreation.  You would expect that since less of this allele is passed to the next generation than the "normal" allele, the frequency of this allele would decrease until it was lost.
-- Death to all Fanatics!
[ Parent ]
Re: It really isn't normal (none / 1) (#107)
by MyrdemInggala on Tue May 24, 2005 at 04:24:05 PM EST

Firstly, the desire for sex is not the same as the instinctive drive to procreate, any more than a craving for chocolate, MSG-laden crisps or some extremely artificial dairy product that comes in a tube is the same as the instinctive drive to acquire nutritious food.

We have separated sex and reproduction as successfully as we have separated food and nutrition.  I'm reasonably confident in my belief that a person who desires sex is being driven by a short-term desire for a pleasurable physical experience much more than by any long-term animal instinct to have lots of babies.

Secondly, I disagree that the instinct to reproduce is as universal or as strong as you make it out to be.  Different people are affected by it to different degrees.  I do not long to have children.  I don't think "awwwww, I want one" when I look at other people's babies.

I'm not against the idea of having children at some point in the future, but I have absolutely no desire to have one now, I am faintly disturbed by the prospect of actually being pregnant and giving birth, and I cannot imagine ever being in a state of mind which would cause my normal mental processes to be overriden by some all-encompassing instinctive desire to breed.

If the author really wanted to reproduce, he could in theory arrange to do so.  This is not inherently tied to being in a relationship.  And if he wants the sensation of sex, he can, as described, get as much of it as he wants.  The idea that the mere act of sex (and especially penetrative sex) with another person is some kind of amazing milestone that everyone must pass before they can be considered an adult is purely cultural mythology.

-- 22. No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head. -- Evil Overlord List
[ Parent ]

No way! (none / 1) (#82)
by bradasch on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:36:09 PM EST

What? A selfish, unnatractive and arrogant male finds relief masturbating to internet porn and rationalizes that it is A Good Thing (tm)?

And this somehow got voted up?

Yep, then it's true: K5 is really dying. :-P


Que? (none / 1) (#89)
by chaoticset on Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:44:07 PM EST

What?

People defend whatever they've decided to undertake?  Selfish and arrogant parents defend their choice to procreate and produce little Pukely Swanson the 3rd?  Murderers defend murdering?  Politicians defend shysterism?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

It's like people make decisions and follow through on them and have reasons for them!  Crazy.

[ Parent ]

A few points... (none / 0) (#126)
by The Voice of Reason on Sun May 29, 2005 at 07:02:55 AM EST

  1. If he's unattractive and women don't want to have sex with him, what other option does he have other than masturbating to internet porn?
  2. What's wrong with masturbating?
  3. What's wrong with Internet porn?
  4. What's arrogant about him?
  5. Why is he selfish? He doesn't owe anyone anything.


[ Parent ]
Some late answers (none / 0) (#142)
by bradasch on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 09:37:26 PM EST

Point by point:

1. I know lots of unattactive guys who happen to have sex with gorgeous women, those cases where you think "what is this goddess doing with this deformed guy?". So being unattractive is not an excuse.

2. Nothing at all. Why did you think I am "against" masturbation?

3. Nothing at all. Again, what made you think I don't approve Internet Porn?

4. Well, his attitude: "relationships are not for me", and other gems.

5. The description of a perfect relationship he makes reminds me of a hot and sexy, female slave. He doesn't wan't to share feelings, doesn't want to please others, and implies that happiness is about him and noone else. That sound pretty selfish to me.

There, your late answers. Although it is my opinion that in 5 years from now we will find this guy hooked to someone, and saying "what an arrogant selfish asshole I was".

[ Parent ]

At least.. (none / 0) (#143)
by neuroplasma on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:15:20 PM EST

..he's honest and seemingly up-front about it all.

--
"...you know how you pple are... very sneaky with untrusting slanty eyes" - LxXCaligulaXxl@aol.com
[ Parent ]
I don't think so. (none / 0) (#147)
by The Voice of Reason on Mon Jun 13, 2005 at 03:52:55 PM EST

1. I know lots of unattactive guys who happen to have sex with gorgeous women, those cases where you think "what is this goddess doing with this deformed guy?". So being unattractive is not an excuse.

It's not about excuses, it's about reality. If a man can't get laid, what else is he supposed to do? Not masturbating is not healthy. Porn is the only solution. Without porn, how would he even know what a vagina looks like?

[ Parent ]

"K5 Is Dying" Is Dying (none / 0) (#133)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Mon May 30, 2005 at 12:05:28 PM EST

You heard it here first.


_____
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weeke
[
Parent ]
It sounds to me like he's going through a phase (none / 1) (#83)
by Gord ca on Mon May 23, 2005 at 01:55:13 PM EST

... only he's probably not.

You see, I went through an "I don't need girls" phase around 2001. Though I didn't manage to be as philosophical and long-winded about it at the time. I've since ditched that idea, even though I haven't exactly been more successful since.

He sounds like he came to these conclusions after more thought than I did, so I can't really project my models on him. Though it still feels like an unstable philosophy.

If I'm attacking your idea, it's probably because I like it

So you're not a settler, pilgrim. (3.00 / 2) (#85)
by LadyChatnoire on Mon May 23, 2005 at 02:51:37 PM EST


That's great. I figured out years ago (at 19) that if having boyfriends tended to make me turn to stupid magazines (ie. Cosmo) to help me figure out why they were so mean to me, they were generally not worth having. Consequently, I only go out with guys who are easy to jettison when the initial thrill is gone.
I'm being facetious, of course. But, it is refreshing to take part in a discourse that questions the "wisdom" of always, always, always trying to be part of some gruesome twosome. However, I hope that someday- perhaps when you're old and wise (I belive that some of the best relationships come about when both partners are over 45)- you will find somebody who you genuinely enjoy being with, and then the whole thing won't be a terrible chore.

suggestion (none / 1) (#94)
by ABlix on Mon May 23, 2005 at 04:36:10 PM EST

Maybe you need to seek boyfriends who don't make you turn to those stupid magazines and instead treat you with the respect you deserve.

[ Parent ]
They're not tall, dumb, and cute enough nt (none / 1) (#97)
by nlscb on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:49:16 PM EST


Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange
[ Parent ]

I learned the truth at *nineteen* I said... (none / 1) (#100)
by LadyChatnoire on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:25:44 PM EST

-(or was it eighteen?)-flipping thru mom's magazines and the ones in dentist's waiting rooms and such places, thinking, "well, if I'm seriously reading these articles about how to get your boyfriend to treat you with basic human respect, instead of just laughing at them, then I shouldn't have such boyfriends." It was really only one guy, and I've never replicated the situation. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[ Parent ]
There must be (3.00 / 2) (#87)
by crustacean on Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:31:13 PM EST

a real shortage of stories.
Will take to the forest before the oil overlords annex Canada.
You've got it all wrong man (3.00 / 2) (#102)
by signal15 on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:26:21 AM EST

It's not about going out and finding someone to fuck. It's about living your life the way you want to live it, and if someone else comes along that wants to live it the same way, then you spend time with them. Contrary to popular belief, people of the opposite sex are for the most part very enjoyable to spend time with. And when both people find each other extremely interesting or exciting, sex is just one of those things that happens.

I've dated and slept with a LOT of women. True, there were nights I went out with the sole intention of getting laid, but, that's not necessarily purely a sexual thing. Sometimes it's just nice to have a warm body spend the night with you.

In any case, I've done a good amount of thinking about relationships/sex/etc over the last 3 years or so (after the end of a 4 year relationship). And, some of the things that I've done and things that have happened have made me realize that it's easy to become jaded and get fed up with the whole significant other thing. But, whether you like to admit it or not, there is probably someone out there that compliments your personality and lifestyle and will drive and inspire you to make your life better than it is now, and do more impressive things. A major part of a relationship is inspiring each other.

People don't get married to fuck, and they don't necessarily date to fuck either (this definitely depends on the person :). Although, fucking is definitely a fun thing to do. Don't be silly man. If you've never been in a serious relationship, try it. I don't think I need to go into all of the different possible ways to meet someone, that's been covered a million times before on every corner of the net, TV, magazines, bathroom walls, etc. But, one great piece of information you should always remember... talking to women or going out on a first date should be simply thought of as 2 friends hanging out. That way, she sees the real you, and you don't set yourself up for disappointment if it doesn't work out.

I don't think he'd dispute that.... (none / 0) (#106)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue May 24, 2005 at 10:33:48 AM EST

It's about living your life the way you want to live it, and if someone else comes along that wants to live it the same way, then you spend time with them
I think that's exactly right, but what the poster is saying is that living his life involves being by himself and not having to care about anyone else, especially an emotionally dependant partner. He is railing against the pressure society puts on people to pair up and procreate and removing his own biological desire to do so by his 'actions'.

I agree with him and you - society at large and the media have this "marriage and kids and suburbia is normal, you will conform" attitude, you just have to llok at all the people up to their neck's in child vomit who still have this smug "oh you poor thing" attitude to anyone single or childless, despite the fact that these are choices.

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
[ Parent ]
Well Actually (none / 0) (#152)
by ableakfuture88 on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 10:18:56 AM EST

From my personal experience, limited i'll admit because im only seventeen, seeking love and a long term relationship is pretty much the worst way to go about finding them. It didnt work for me, and im an intelligent, average looking future marine and lawyer! what's up with that, ladies? anyways, once i changed my mindset to lets just let 'em think im not interested, i've had more females blowing up my cell than i thought even knew me. but thats just my interpretation of tha situation.
And Justice for All...
[ Parent ]
I like this article (none / 0) (#112)
by livus on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:35:31 PM EST

- it's good to know you're happy, and it's good to know that I don't have to feel at all sorry for men in this position.

Seriously! We tend to think other people must secretly want whatever it is we want and try to have ourselves, and feel sorry for those who can't achieve this. So it's always good to hear that this isn't necessarily the case.

---
HIREZ substitute.
be concrete asshole, or shut up. - CTS
I guess I skipped school or something to drink on the internet? - lonelyhobo
I'd like to hope that any impression you got about us from internet forums was incorrect. - debillitatus
I consider myself trolled more or less just by visiting the site. HollyHopDrive

Stop thinking, start being. (none / 1) (#119)
by ExSulfur on Thu May 26, 2005 at 11:13:46 AM EST

Hi, you already got the good stuff worked out for yourself: You want a beautiful, intelligent and nice girl / woman, you don't want her to demand a lot of stuff from you, you want to get everything you want when you want it too. It sounds crazy, but i can tell you that it's no problem at all. I can tell you that woman love men who know what they want and play it straight (don't lie to them). All you have to do is to BE the man who wants (does) all this. And finally i can tell you that most woman would be better off with you than with the 'angsty' normal guys, who hurt them and fight them and tell them they love 'em at the same The problem is, you don't believe that it's possible a) to be liked as you are and b) that woman would like your kind of relationship. The sad thing i heard in a lot of posts here is like "Most woman don't like sex...", "Man marry woman for Sex...". The problem is, of course woman love sex, as much as we (men) do, they just don't always know it and they don't jump on men just to fxxk them. I was like you, too, after a few relationships in my early teenage phase (from 15 - 18), the last one was too much, i thought i loved her more than everything in the world, it ended, and i was totally miserable, angry and sad. After that i didn't put much effort into woman any longer. I stayed in my shell for almost six years, ok, i had friends and nice people (and teh computar, and my hand, hehe), but not much interaction or success with girls. Since last Summer, though, everything changed: I learned that i'm a real cool guy (i'm a nerd, but im interested in many things and can relate to people quite good). I learned that woman are LOOKING for nice guys to pick up their flirting signals, to get over to them and say "Hi!", and to meet them later to get known to each other more intimately :). I learned that woman love sex for what it is, they love experimenting, cuddling and chilling. They don't need roses each other day, they need a kiss or a back rub and are totally happy. They don't even want relationships (ok, they want them, but if you don't give them, that's also ok). Just be careful that they don't fall in love with you, it's hard to get rid of them, especially if you don't wanna hurt them (i don't). Ok, where did my changing process start? As everything today, on the web. I found a community of guys (even some girls) who discuss this sort of things and found out quite a lot very basic stuff on how to change your behaviour just a little and totally change your perception to the eyes of the other sex. Ok, so get googling, look for seduction, especially for fast seduction, i won't write more here, be sure to read introductions / concepts / FAQ and be on your way. Have a good time.

The same Blurb, formatted (none / 1) (#120)
by ExSulfur on Thu May 26, 2005 at 12:17:27 PM EST

Sorry, i'm new here...

-----------------------

Hi,

you already got the good stuff worked out for yourself:

You want a beautiful, intelligent and nice girl / woman, you don't want her to demand a lot of stuff from you, you want to get everything you want when you want it too.

It sounds crazy, but i can tell you that it's no problem at all. I can tell you that woman love men who know what they want and play it straight (don't lie to them). All you have to do is to BE the man who wants (does) all this.

And finally i can tell you that most woman would be better off with you than with the 'angsty' normal guys, who hurt them and fight them and tell them they love 'em at the same

The problem is, you don't believe that it's possible a) to be liked as you are and b) that woman would like your kind of relationship.

The sad thing i heard in a lot of posts here is like "Most woman don't like sex...", "Man marry woman for Sex...".

The problem is, of course woman love sex, as much as we (men) do, they just don't always know it and they don't jump on men just to fxxk them.

I was like you, too, after a few relationships in my early teenage phase (from 15 - 18), the last one was too much, i thought i loved her more than everything in the world, it ended, and i was totally miserable, angry and sad. After that i didn't put much effort into woman any longer. I stayed in my shell for almost six years, ok, i had  friends and nice people (and teh computar, and my hand, hehe), but not much interaction or success with girls.

Since last Summer, though, everything changed: I learned that i'm a real cool guy (i'm a nerd, but im interested in many things and can relate to people quite good). I learned that woman are LOOKING for nice guys to pick up their flirting signals, to get over to them and say "Hi!", and to meet them later to get known to each other more intimately :).

I learned that woman love sex for what it is, they love experimenting, cuddling and chilling. They don't need roses each other day, they need a kiss or a back rub and are totally happy.

They don't even want relationships (ok, they want them, but if you don't give them, that's also ok).

Just be careful that they don't fall in love with you, it's hard to get rid of them, especially if you don't wanna hurt them (i don't).

Ok, where did my changing process start? As everything today, on the web. I found a community of guys (even some girls) who discuss this sort of things and found out quite a lot very basic stuff on how to change your behaviour just a little and totally change your perception to the eyes of the other sex.

Ok, so get googling, look for seduction, especially for fast seduction, i won't write more here, be sure to read introductions / concepts / FAQ and be on your way.

Have a good time.

[ Parent ]

Much more readable now!! n/t (none / 0) (#122)
by PrezKennedy on Sun May 29, 2005 at 03:55:43 AM EST


---
PrezKennedy.org - Bored stuff...
[ Parent ]
Thank You (none / 0) (#151)
by megalomania on Mon Aug 08, 2005 at 04:56:24 AM EST

I know this is an old comment I'm replying to, but I want to tell you that your comment has changed my life.

I actually looked around and found the community you're talking about.

I read everything in June. I started practicing in July.

It only took one month to change my life completely. I'm a new man now; girls initiate flirts with me by themselves, I solved my shyness problems, and I became really outgoing. I'm even dating a lot now (something I never thought possible :)

so anyway.. thanx a lot for this. I hope you read this message, cause I didn't know how else to contact you.

[ Parent ]

Cows and women (none / 1) (#121)
by Gerhard on Fri May 27, 2005 at 06:49:45 AM EST

Getting married to have sex is like buying a cow to get milk - Jeff Foxworthy

My Wife Has Nice Udders. (3.00 / 2) (#132)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Mon May 30, 2005 at 12:04:46 PM EST

Besideswhich, owning livestock has a rich tradition that includes a dignity not available to the casual livestock renter, who must dodge bullets including disease, redundant contraception and what to say in the morning as you make your escape. Myself I just say, "I'll have a cuppa tea if you're up, love." No sweat.


_____
I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weeke
[
Parent ]
Congratulations (none / 0) (#139)
by LilDebbie on Tue May 31, 2005 at 04:09:39 PM EST

Advice: don't let go of that mysogyny you no doubt built up in your immoral stage - it's very useful for pissing people off.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

How I learned to stop worrying and love my b.o.b. (none / 0) (#141)
by black orchidness on Thu Jun 02, 2005 at 09:09:05 PM EST

IMO, most people's view on sex is colored by their experiences. Clearly, your experiences have not been great. Positive reinforcement when you masturbate, negative when you try to date. No wonder you chose your current path.

Don't get me wrong, masturbation is great, but I think there's something greater about sex that no vibrator, plastic pussy, or inflatable sheep can ever replace. Maybe it's just that it's the closest two people can physically get, or maybe it's the bond you forge when you both orgasm at the same time (or close enough to not matter).

I've had bad experiences with sex and relationships too, to the extent that I tend to associate affection with sex, and turn to sexual things rather quickly. But it doesn't have to be bad. Just set up some rules. My rules are: 1. while you're fucking me you don't fuck anyone else; 2: if you decide you want to fuck someone else, just tell me and consider yourself free; and 3: mutual consent and respect in the bedroom. Is that what our society typically calls a relationship? No. That's what I call one. If you want to watch movies and eat food together too, that's fine with me, but I decided a long time ago that following the "relationship" pattern was utter bullshit. I do what I like (safely) and enjoy myself. Maybe you should try the same.

WONDERFUL! (none / 0) (#145)
by storiesrus on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 04:29:56 PM EST

Finally a comment that make me giddy with joy. Thank you. I feel the same way. If only I could start my life all over again.
Karen storiesrus.com
[ Parent ]
Same here (none / 0) (#146)
by paranoid on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 06:22:02 PM EST

I like the article. It's always nice to see a certain confirmation to your personal worldview.

I always knew that I don't want to have relationships. I remember telling that to my friends when I was ~18 years old. Interestingly, one of these friends was the then boyfriend of my future girlfriend. :) I didn't have a detailed philosophy laid down, but I was quite sure that a relationship is a waste of time and I can be self-sufficient.

What happened then? No, it didn't dawn on me that I was wrong, that there is that one person, who can make me happy, that it's great to have someone close, etc. It was just friendship gradually developing into an infatuation (love), because we both didn't mind. I can't say that it was bad, I can't say that sex was bad. But that experience allows me to say that it is simply not worth it (for me). There are too many troubles, too many problems and not enough benefits.

I know I wouldn't have problem finding a girl if I wanted to, but I just don't want to. I don't flirt, I don't act towards females in a sexual way. I separate the porn stars and real women - the former are a target for my sexual feelings, the latter aren't. I enjoy talking with women, but I don't want to treat them "as sexual beings".

May be with a better partner (can eharmony.com help?) the balance can be shifted. If the person is more compatible and fits my "requirements" better, all the troubles will be a small price to pay. May be not.

May be virtual reality sex will be worth my time and effort. May be sexual androids will. But I doubt it, because one thing is certain to me - I can be happy without a partner and without sex. For a certain kind of a rational person this is a normal lifestyle choice. Again, it's not that I am asexual. I like jerking off to porn, I liked getting a blowjob from someone in some shady sex arcade. But it is less than 1% of my life.

Why should I care at all about this stuff? I don't play the social games, I don't need to be an alpha male. I am happy doing things that I enjoy and I don't need anyone else to become "whole". This isn't really interesting.

What is interesting is that I like making choices for myself. Similarly I never saw a good reason to start drinking, smoking or doing drugs (though as better and safer drugs, espcially nootropics, are developed, I will probably start). So I don't drink at all, don't have sex, etc. And I don't feel like I am missing anything. I know it, because I tried.

He's already somebody's baby (none / 0) (#148)
by dbickett on Thu Jun 16, 2005 at 10:14:41 PM EST

I love you and your cynicism, and I love your ability to verbalize it and justify it in such a reasonable way, though I don't agree with all of it. I want to be your lifelong pal.

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love My Hand | 152 comments (137 topical, 15 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest ę 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!