I can get her to be alone with me

  • Thread starter SELFMADE
  • Start date
88
1
Yes, I acknowledge that we're talking apples and oranges here, but in the larger picture of what one might want to be cognizant of for the sake of one's own quality of life, and what one might be "afraid" of, you seem to be disregarding the very real consequences on your life of getting pregnant.
Dave, it's impossible for a male to get pregnant. :tongue2:

I just thought it curious that you would seem to regard an infection as so much scarier than the potential dramatic redirection of the rest of your life.
The consequences of having a child never scared me. I would adapt.
 

FrancisZ

He is just trying to get laid :P It's not like he is using anyone.

I beg to differ. Even if she agrees, they're still essentially using each other, even if no harm no foul.


Besides, you ought to try to sleep with any women you like. They'll just believe your a wimp otherwise.

Maybe some; but probably the women that don't have much respect for themselves to begin with. So why should you value their opinion?


Philosophy wont get you laid

That's probably true; but that isn't the point of it. Just trying to be able to look at myself in the mirror.


Anyway a good education will minimize the risk of both.

I agree. Still nothing tops reason and self-control.


If all else fails, abortion anyone?

Now that definitely violates the categorical imperative. That's not even for fear of the mother's life; that's just disposing of an "inconvenience." Real classy.


Boy, if this conglomerate advice won't kill the mood, nothing will...

"Hey Baabee! Never mind that Greg Brady-esque arm trick from before. Let's "seal this deal!" What would you say to a non-committal, unprotected "laying;" wherefore, if I...whoopsie...forget to "pull out," we can always then mitigate the long term consequences for both of us, by paying for a small potentially heart wrenching surgery for YOU; while simultaneously snuffing out the life of an otherwise inconveniently timed and proportioned human."

Real douchie.
 
88
1
I beg to differ. Even if she agrees, they're still essentially using each other, even if no harm no foul.
Oh boy, Im so sorry for each and every time Ive been "used". Making sex is nothing to be ashamed off. Old "morale" associating sex out of wedlock with guilt and immoral behaviors
is a hideous thing.


Maybe some; but probably the women that don't have much respect for themselves to begin with. So why should you value their opinion?
And ending with the ones which have tons of self respect. But I agree, you shouldn't care about their opinion. :devil:


That's probably true; but that isn't the point of it. Just trying to be able to look at myself in the mirror.
Im always shining after sex. Its a pleasure to look at myself in the mirror.


I agree. Still nothing tops reason and self-control.
You only live once.


Now that definitely violates the categorical imperative. That's not even for fear of the mother's life; that's just disposing of an "inconvenience." Real classy.
Just a fact of life. SHE must have the liberty to decide what she wants to do in the case of a unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is just another tool. It doesn't violates any imperative. Nor do couples which resort to it.
 
115
2
:) haha.
ok, whatever is the right thing to do aside. good ways of getting more physical contact between you (that I think are good) are:
1. take her to watch a scary film - and she'll probably start to hide on you in the scary bits, then you can hug her! (but dont hide on her - makes you look wimpy if she's not scared and you are!)
2. take her out in the evening, like dinner or a walk outside, and when she gets cold, put your jacket over her, and if she's still cold, put your arm around her!
see! both are nice things to do - makes you seem caring and nice! and not sleazy/just wanting one thing. just dont go any further unless you are sure she wants you to :)
 

FrancisZ

Oh boy, Im so sorry for each and every time Ive been "used". Making sex is nothing to be ashamed off. Old "morale" associating sex out of wedlock with guilt and immoral behaviors is a hideous thing.

I didn't say anything about being shameful; I just think we have to take the other person's emotional feelings into consideration. They may not complain about it, but this, nonetheless, is the single most intimate thing you can ever share with another person; it isn't to be taken lightly. If the act becomes purely a mechanical and chemical reaction, then what are we but complex machines that can reproduce themselves. It seems less than human without love.



You only live once.
I truly hope that there is but one life for myself; I'm honestly very tired already, sometimes; even at the age of 30. But I don't know what will happen. I don't think anyone knows for certain.

And I don't mean to suggest that you can't have intercourse. It is simply a matter of character. There is much more to the imperative responsibility therein, than simply remembering to be sanitary. We each above an effect on one another. In most instances, just day-to-day, it might be minor; but in the case of intercourse, you are obviously quite intimately affecting your partner (physically and psychologically) in a way that they will never be the same. And hopefully for reason of affection.

People are more fragile than you think.


Just a fact of life. SHE must have the liberty to decide what she wants to do in the case of a unwanted pregnancy.
If it isn't life or death situation to the mother, to that I will simply say that I disagree (there is a third party involved). Even then, I don't wish to ever imagine the horror of having to decide between my own life, my wife's life, or any one else life, for another. That is truly hell.


Abortion is just another tool. It doesn't violates any imperative. Nor do couples which resort to it.

The categorical imperative is violated whenever you chose to do something that is selfish.
 

Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,734
98
The categorical imperative is violated whenever you chose to do something that is selfish.
In that case we shouldn't really worry about it
 
88
1
I didn't say anything about being shameful; I just think we have to take the other person's emotional feelings into consideration. They may not complain about it, but this, nonetheless, is the single most intimate thing you can ever share with another person; it isn't to be taken lightly. If the act becomes purely a mechanical and chemical reaction, then what are we but complex machines that can reproduce themselves. It seems less than human without love.
Francis, but we are biological machines. There is nothing sacred about us, nothing special, nothing to write home about. Some humans have the desire to think that we are something more, that we occupy a privileged place in the creation, but it's just a vain wish with not a single grain of truth in it.

Some ppl think in many different ways about sex. It may be special to you, but to a lot of us there are a great deal of things which are much more intimate than sex.

As for the feelings of the other person, really ... She wants it, I want it. Where is the problem ? You know what, at least one girl hated me a pretty long time because I didn't want to sleep with her :P She got her way eventually, she convinced me to have with her a one night stand like 2 years after the initial events. So much for doing "the right thing". She was hurt and upset for months because I rejected her. Would have been much simple to just give her what she wanted in the first place :P


I truly hope that there is but one life for myself; I'm honestly very tired already, sometimes; even at the age of 30. But I don't know what will happen. I don't think anyone knows for certain.
Age is an attitude. If you are tired, your slowly going down. I personally love life. Honestly, I wouldn't mind to live centuries.

but in the case of intercourse, you are obviously quite intimately affecting your partner (physically and psychologically) in a way that they will never be the same. And hopefully for reason of affection.
I think your dramatizing it a bit.


People are more fragile than you think.
Humans are resilient. Everyday I see a lot of humans with garbageloads of problems and issues, and you know what, they cope. They prevail, they make things happen, they solve problems and most of them don't break to pieces.



If it isn't life or death situation to the mother, to that I will simply say that I disagree (there is a third party involved). Even then, I don't wish to ever imagine the horror of having to decide between my own life, my wife's life, or any one else life, for another. That is truly hell.
Might be hell for you, for others is a much easier choice. And besides, it;s not like an abortion is deciding between your life , your wife's life and so. This is over-dramatizing again. It;s a safe procedure (as much as any intervention can be safe), and the cases where somebody dies from it in our century are extremely rare.


The categorical imperative is violated whenever you chose to do something that is selfish.
The categorical imperative is devoid of any real value, as its most of philosophy. For all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. It's built on flawed axioms, trying to raise morale to the rank of universal laws, when morale is just an expression of the customs, prejudices and fears of a society at a certain moment in time.

As I said, abortion doesn't violates any imperative. Ultimately, you have to recognize the right of a women to dispose of her body as she does see fit. Church has tried for centuries to rob them of this right. We really don't need philosophizers to try and do the same thing.
 
Last edited:

FrancisZ

Francis, but we are biological machines.
Perhaps that, and nothing more. And I am even willing to accept that; but I don't think we know enough yet to make that assertion.


There is nothing sacred about us, nothing special, nothing to write home about. Some humans have the desire to think that we are something more, that we occupy a privileged place in the creation, but it's just a vain wish with not a single grain of truth in it.

Correction: we are lucky, because even if there is no after life, and there was no point to our existence, we still had the capacity to understand that.


Some ppl think in many different ways about sex. It may be special to you, but to a lot of us there are a great deal of things which are much more intimate than sex.

Such as?


As for the feelings of the other person, really ... She wants it, I want it. Where is the problem?
There isn't a problem really, unless you are being inconsiderate of the other person.


You know what, at least one girl hated me a pretty long time because I didn't want to sleep with her :P
Well then she's obviously not an adult; that's kind of bratty.


She got her way eventually, she convinced me to have with her a one night stand like 2 years after the initial events. So much for doing "the right thing". She was hurt and upset for months because I rejected her. Would have been much simple to just give her what she wanted in the first place :P
Geez, don't do her any favors (being sarcastic). Again, I wouldn't call this person "all there" to begin with; no disrespect to you.


Age is an attitude. If you are tired, your slowly going down. I personally love life. Honestly, I wouldn't mind to live centuries.

I agree; and I can respect that.



I think your dramatizing it a bit.
No, I'm just trying to take things seriously.




Humans are resilient. Everyday I see a lot of humans with garbageloads of problems and issues, and you know what, they cope. They prevail, they make things happen, they solve problems and most of them don't break to pieces.

But that doesn't excuse us to be a "Bull in a China Shop," in handling them either.



Might be hell for you, for others is a much easier choice.
Then perhaps they haven't dwelt upon it as much.


And besides, it;s not like an abortion is deciding between your life , your wife's life and so. This is over-dramatizing again. It;s a safe procedure (as much as any intervention can be safe), and the cases where somebody dies from it in our century are extremely rare.

I'm not critiquing the procedure. I'm talking about a situation in which a person is presented with complications--meaning the mother would die in regular childbirth. I'm just saying that I would never want to have to decide between my wife and my child; or worse, if I were a mother, to have to decide between myself and my child, in order to live.



The categorical imperative is devoid of any real value, as its most of philosophy. For all practical purposes, it doesn't exist. It's built on flawed axioms, trying to raise morale to the rank of universal laws, when morale is just an expression of the customs, prejudices and fears of a society at a certain moment in time.

That's fine, I agree, to say that a human construct--such as a particular philosophy--is flawed, or potentially flawed. But we humans also created civilization; and we also abide by certain rules while we are here (unless of course we'd prefer accusations of insanity or criminal behavior, decided upon by the part of the majority). We play the game; we participate in the illusion. We perpetuate it even, because (for now at least) it is all that we have.

That having been said, I should think we'd each (as members of civilization) always aim to perfect our society (even if we are doomed to failure). We still try harder. And that is the point of philosophy or religious philosophy.


As I said, abortion doesn't violates any imperative. Ultimately, you have to recognize the right of a women to dispose of her body as she does see fit.

But that should never serve as a convenient excuse for a man to shirk his responsibility either.


Church has tried for centuries to rob them of this right. We really don't need philosophizers to try and do the same thing.

The Catholic Church, without a doubt, has major issues; it's a human construct as well, after all. But the perspective, in this case at least, is not about simple domination of the free will (as so many people conveniently portray it); it is about making judgments that are the most gentle and least obstructive to living things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
88
1
A great deal of things. Basically almost everything which belongs to my private life. Sleeping with someone can be simply done just for fun, you don't even need to know her family name, it can just happen, it can mean nothing for either of you. J

There isn't a problem really, unless you are being inconsiderate of the other person.
Then we agree that none is using anyone ?



Well then she's obviously not an adult; that's kind of bratty.
DO you know her ? :P Not everyone which do not fit your pattern of "maturity" is lacking the "all there".

Then perhaps they haven't dwelt upon it as much.
Dwelling on things (especially on things which have not come to pass yet, but you fear they will ) too much breeds depression IMO. Britons have a saying: " we will see how to cross the bridge when we come to it". Its wise IMO.
 

FrancisZ

A great deal of things. Basically almost everything which belongs to my private life.
Again: such as?


Sleeping with someone can be simply done just for fun, you don't even need to know her family name, it can just happen, it can mean nothing for either of you.

Is that respectable--you don't even know her name? :confused:


Then we agree that none is using anyone?

No, you're still using each other; it's just that, potentially, neither of you actually cares.



DO you know her? :P Not everyone which do not fit your pattern of "maturity" is lacking the "all there".

Can't say that I do; but getting angry with you for not having a sexual relationship with her, sounds remarkable crazy, or otherwise totally contrived.


Dwelling on things (especially on things which have not come to pass yet...
But that sort of thing does happen, all of the time; just hasn't to me (gratefully). I'm sure it's no picnic.
 

Mentallic

Homework Helper
3,797
94
No, you're still using each other; it's just that, potentially, neither of you actually cares.
When two children that don't know each other play together at a park one day, knowing full well they won't see each other again, are they using each other? Of course they are, they're using each other for fun. If the kids weren't going to have fun playing then they wouldn't do it. This isn't as bad as the usual case of someone using you for their own personal gain at the expense of your happiness.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,184
1,796
When two children that don't know each other play together at a park one day, knowing full well they won't see each other again, are they using each other? Of course they are, they're using each other for fun. If the kids weren't going to have fun playing then they wouldn't do it. This isn't as bad as the usual case of someone using you for their own personal gain at the expense of your happiness.
Poor analogy. A person's sexuality is, by societal definition (and need), a private thing. Sharing something private of yourself is not the same thing as public playing in a sandbox.

It is this use of something which is private and intimate, while not caring about it, that connotes "using" someone.

I'm not passing judgement, I'm just trying to apply some logic and semantics.
 

Mentallic

Homework Helper
3,797
94
Hmm yeah you're right. In that case, I agree that neither party members care.
 
88
1
Again: such as?
You have to understand that sex for me it is not in itself an intimate thing. I dont feel I have reached a deeper level of intimacy only because I had sex with a girl. Sex comes into play very fast in any relationship, way before you develop any real connection to your partner. Way before you love, way before a strong bound it;s been formed, way before a strong trust between partners is formed and many times it comes into play even before you commit to a relation. Many of us do sex for fun and do not require love or a special connection to be formed before it. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

So what exactly do you want to hear ? An exhaustive list of things ? It wont happen. But to give you an example, spending the overnight at her place is requiring more intimacy then having sex with her.


Is that respectable--you don't even know her name? :confused:
It is. A first name basis is enough sometimes. Respectability has nothing to do with a family name.


No, you're still using each other; it's just that, potentially, neither of you actually cares.
Forgive me, but you seem bent to project your feelings onto what other persons do think.
Nobody uses anyone. This is just bollocks. I could very well extend your belief and say that you use your wife for sex. Just that she doesn't care. DO you feel you use your wife / girlfriend ? Does she feels used ?


Can't say that I do; but getting angry with you for not having a sexual relationship with her, sounds remarkable crazy, or otherwise totally contrived.
Strong infatuation can breed such feelings in otherwise completely normal humans.




But that sort of thing does happen, all of the time; just hasn't to me (gratefully). I'm sure it's no picnic.
It does. Asteroids also drop on earth. I shall now begin to dwell on how Ill cope when an asteroid will hit my home.
 
2,014
85
I seriously hope the OP's posts are a level, and we've been taken for fools in elaborate troll. Taking into account this one and his previous, if they are serious, they are really really creepy.
 
Last edited:
88
1
Poor analogy. A person's sexuality is, by societal definition (and need), a private thing.
The society should get over it. The "need" of the society to keep sexuality buried, repressed has already caused untold damage to certain groups.

Think for example the gay community. Many of them are (still) afraid to reveal their sexuality for fear of misunderstanding and reprisals from the bulk of the society. Forcing humans to live a lie, way to go "society" :P Politicians doing escorts after campaigning for public office with his wife and kids near him, preaching family values; priests doing altar boys while preaching temperance and the regular person on the street who is afraid to talk about sex, but wanking regularly to some internet porn page; this is the society :P
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,184
1,796
The society should get over it.
Society is what it is. It is the collective sensibilities of all its constituents.

And it sees sexuality as an intimate thing.


This is all complete straw man. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a Nazi example. :wink:
Think for example the gay community. Many of them are (still) afraid to reveal their sexuality for fear of misunderstanding and reprisals from the bulk of the society. Forcing humans to live a lie, way to go "society" :P Politicians doing escorts after campaigning for public office with his wife and kids near him, preaching family values; priests doing altar boys while preaching temperance and the regular person on the street who is afraid to talk about sex, but wanking regularly to some internet porn page; this is the society :P
 
88
1
And it sees sexuality as an intimate thing.

But you do realize how stupid is this thing ? It may take up to several years to develop a close social relationship with a high degree of intimacy when sex is routinely done after a couple of dates.

I'm surprised you didn't throw in a Nazi example
Why use Nazis of 1/2 century ago when I can just throw in the prejudices of today's society :P
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,184
1,796
But you do realize how stupid is this thing ? It may take up to several years to develop a close social relationship with a high degree of intimacy when sex is routinely done after a couple of dates.
That is one man's opinion. Which is fine, but if you base the entire previous argument of yours on that opinion, then it really just becomes a wishful-thinking scenario. "Wouldn't it be nice if society were this way", which is a completely different topic and thread.

Why use Nazis of 1/2 century ago when I can just throw in the prejudices of today's society :P
Either one. They're both strawmen and just as irrelevant to the topic at-hand.
 
88
1
That is one man's opinion. Which is fine, but if you base the entire previous argument of yours on that opinion, then it really just becomes a wishful-thinking scenario. "Wouldn't it be nice if society were this way", which is a completely different topic and thread.
So what is your opinion ? Is it or not easy like hell to have sex with someone but much harder to built a intimate close social relation ? Or you think that you should waith a couple of years till you get a intimate relation, then have sex ?

Either one. They're both strawmen and just as irrelevant to the topic at-hand.
The moment you introduce society in the discussion of sexuality the topic of homosexuality is hardly irrelevant.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,184
1,796
So what is your opinion ? Is it or not easy like hell to have sex with someone but much harder to built a intimate close social relation ? Or you think that you should waith a couple of years till you get a intimate relation, then have sex ?
I am not opining; I am simply clarifying the concept of using someone.

Air is a public thing. No one questions someone using someone else's air. A toothbrush, on the other hand, is a private thing. "Using" someone else's toothbrush is a valid concept because it is a personal thing.

Same with sex.

Playing in a sandbox is a public thing. no one questions two people playing together. But the act of sex, on the other hand, is a private thing. "Using" someone else for the sex is a valid concept because it is a personal thing.

As previously noted, this does not mean anybody gets hurt, or anyone is unwilling. What it does mean though, is that the "can I use you" question is there (even if implicit) and cannot be dismissed as not existing.

Likewise, you do not need ask to someone to breathe air near them, but you should ask (at least implicitly) to use their toothbrush.

The moment you introduce society in the discussion of sexuality the topic of homosexuality is hardly irrelevant.
It is irrelevant to this topic.
 
88
1

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,184
1,796
I was asking you, because I am curious to see what you think
The original question has been kind of lost. Seems to me, the question being asked was: should sexuality be a private thing as opposed to being on display for the public.

I am for it remaining private.
 
88
1
I am for it remaining private.
Im rather more interested in opinion over *intimacy* rather than *privacy*. They are very different IMO.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,184
1,796
Im rather more interested in opinion over *intimacy* rather than *privacy*. They are very different IMO.
The point is, in our society as a whole, they are pretty much synonymous. Even if you don't want it to be intimate, you still need to clear that with your chosen partner. No matter how liberal society becomes, it will never reach a point where no one prefers intimacy, therefore you will always have to check.
 

Related Threads for: I can get her to be alone with me

Replies
38
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
74
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
441
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
6K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top