Consensual sex:

[cousinbasil]

If people did consider the consequences of having sex, then we wouldn't have a population of 7 billion human beings today. People wouldn't kill others, wouldn't pollute the very planet they inhabit for the sake of their families. They wouldn't deprive others of their own wealth because they want their own children to survive. They wouldn't create clubs to abuse and degrade each other for the sake of pleasure. There wouldn't be any single mothers who hang around in bars as "cougars" while their sons play call of duty or sell drugs on street corners, or teenage girls getting knocked up by psychopaths, or STD-ridden 20-something sluts ruining their lives in the company of PUA douchebags. There wouldn't be domestic violence, child abuse, rape....and Lady Gaga. And so on.

You are changing the subject, are you not? I of course am not claiming all sex is consensual - just that it can be. It should be. All too often it is not.

Your broad-stroke portrait of the human condition is more or less on the mark, I would say - and attributing it to not enough consideration of consequences of sexual activity is as well. But you are not demonstrating your original claim that sexual activity cannot be consensual because sexual behavior itself is irrational.

BTW, until recently I could not have agreed with you more about Lady Gaga - and I still find the outfits and the mindless dance-riff "music" less than "Music that Moves." But get a hold of her live number on the Howard Stern Show and see if it doesn't change your mind. I am now a fan - not that that I would buy her music, but I think she is remarkably talented as a performer. Not an Ella Fitzgerald, but that's comparing apples to oranges. Certainly not a Brittany Spears, which is the rotten fruit you were trying to point to.

[Tomas]

[This may or not be relevant to Tomas's 'case' but just today I got an email from 'brokenhead'. He asked me how things were here at GF. I have yet to reply. Tomas, should I send your regards?]

Why should you, he posts now as cousinbasil.

Give it up Alex. Why are you covering for him?

What caused Brokie to leave Boise? She got rid of him for what reason(s).

I'm assuming you helped him come back here as 'cousinbasil'. Why are you being dishonest?

Do a search of brokenhead's posts regarding 'anal' and 'retentive'.

Brokie and basil are one in the same.

"I always said you were anal-retentive."

.

[jupiviv]

You are changing the subject, are you not? I of course am not claiming all sex is consensual - just that it can be. It should be. All too often it is not.

It can't be consensual if the act itself is irrational - that is a logical necessity. Amongst humans, and all other organisms on this planet, sex is an unconscious act.

[cousinbasil]

You are changing the subject, are you not? I of course am not claiming all sex is consensual - just that it can be. It should be. All too often it is not.

It can't be consensual if the act itself is irrational - that is a logical necessity. Amongst humans, and all other organisms on this planet, sex is an unconscious act.

I think it is a logical necessity for you, jupiviv. In reality - that is, for other people - your assertion has to be considered false. If your claim were true, the difference between forced sexual activity and any other kind would be purely imaginary. If consensual sex is a logical impossibility, then the notion that one has the responsibility or the right to decide when or if to engage in sex is completely meaningless. This would result from the fact that such decisions are logically not possible? Do you really believe that?

[jupiviv]

If your claim were true, the difference between forced sexual activity and any other kind would be purely imaginary.

There is a difference between them, but it's not one of consent(i.e, as I define the word.)

[cousinbasil]

If your claim were true, the difference between forced sexual activity and any other kind would be purely imaginary.

There is a difference between them, but it's not one of consent(i.e, as I define the word.)

Can you describe how this difference is not the same as calling one consensual and the other not?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

[This may or not be relevant to Tomas's 'case' but just today I got an email from 'brokenhead'. He asked me how things were here at GF. I have yet to reply. Tomas, should I send your regards?]

By the way, "cousin Basil" is the name of a fictive character, actually a case of mistaken identity in The Three Stooges. Quite appropriate I'd say.

[cousinbasil]

[This may or not be relevant to Tomas's 'case' but just today I got an email from 'brokenhead'. He asked me how things were here at GF. I have yet to reply. Tomas, should I send your regards?]

By the way, "cousin Basel" is the name of a fictive character, actually a case of mistaken identity in The Three Stooges. Quite appropriate I'd say.

Finally gets it - but until he does a little googling, hmm, Diebs...?

[jupiviv]

There is a difference between them, but it's not one of consent(i.e, as I define the word.)

Can you describe how this difference is not the same as calling one consensual and the other not?

When you pluck fruit off a tree, do you ask it for its consent? On the other hand, fruit sometimes falls off trees without anybody plucking it.

[refract_light]

Upon thinking about this for a while I have come to realize that the only way to have consensual intercourse is to agree to create a child. This creates purpose other than pleasure, which is abstract. A child is something concrete.

[ForbidenRea]

Lady Gaga say's:
This is outlandish!!
I'm going home with my puppy and ass- vomit!

[cousinbasil]

When you pluck fruit off a tree, do you ask it for its consent? On the other hand, fruit sometimes falls off trees without anybody plucking it.

You don't ask the tree for its consent because trees cannot give consent in any circumstance. You would want to obtain a potential sexual partner's consent because that person can consent to things.

As you define "consent," the concept of "age of consent" can have no meaning whatsoever.

You are not grasping the fact that people can and often do decide to act irrationally.

[jupiviv]

When you pluck fruit off a tree, do you ask it for its consent? On the other hand, fruit sometimes falls off trees without anybody plucking it.

You don't ask the tree for its consent because trees cannot give consent in any circumstance. You would want to obtain a potential sexual partner's consent because that person can consent to things.

Women don't show many signs of consciousness, so I wouldn't say they are capable of consenting to anything. They "go with the flow".

Anyways, why would a conscious person want a sexual partner, if sex(as we know it) is an unconscious act? Obviously, people who want sexual partners aren't conscious to begin with - at least, not about sexual matters.

As you define "consent," the concept of "age of consent" can have no meaning whatsoever.

Actually, the age of consent doesn't make any sense to me. The world is filled with adults who act like children, so why should we expect 18 year olds to start acting rationally all of a sudden?

You are not grasping the fact that people can and often do decide to act irrationally.

You obviously have a different definition of "decision" than me(probably similar to fruit falling off the tree by itself). A decision can only be made by a rational person, and a rational person does not decide to act irrationally. Either he decides to act rationally, or he doesn't decide anything at all.

[uncledote]

jupiviv wrote:
"If people did consider the consequences of having sex, then we wouldn't have a population of 7 billion human beings today. People wouldn't kill others, wouldn't pollute the very planet they inhabit for the sake of their families. They wouldn't deprive others of their own wealth because they want their own children to survive. They wouldn't create clubs to abuse and degrade each other for the sake of pleasure. There wouldn't be any single mothers who hang around in bars as "cougars" while their sons play call of duty or sell drugs on street corners, or teenage girls getting knocked up by psychopaths, or STD-ridden 20-something sluts ruining their lives in the company of PUA douchebags. There wouldn't be domestic violence, child abuse, rape....and Lady Gaga. And so on."



Sounds like someone is in dire need of a good shag! Let some of the steam escape from that cesspool of pessimism... : 0

[Bobo]

You don't ask the tree for its consent because trees cannot give consent in any circumstance. You would want to obtain a potential sexual partner's consent because that person can consent to things.

As you define "consent," the concept of "age of consent" can have no meaning whatsoever.

You are not grasping the fact that people can and often do decide to act irrationally.

Some passion fruits produce cyanide before they are ripe and full of fructose (you may want to avoid those). It's consent, or your consent before it, is non-volitional, as your own raw perceptions are non-volitional.

[mental vagrant]

As most arguments, yes that is what this is, over definition there is a solution THIS WAS A LINK TO A DICTIONARY BUT THE GENIUS WHO CREATED THE SITE DIDN'T THINK TO HAVE INTELLIGENT LINK SCANNING ALGORITHMS IN PLACE , consent is a degree of non resistence to a situation. Doesn't have to be "rational". The word rational is thrown around a lot and i think is greatly misused in this case, you must stop looking at the brain as a computer is it absolutely nothing of the sort.

[mental vagrant]

You obviously have a different definition of "decision" than me(probably similar to fruit falling off the tree by itself). A decision can only be made by a rational person, and a rational person does not decide to act irrationally. Either he decides to act rationally, or he doesn't decide anything at all.

No.

[Dan Rowden]

THIS WAS A LINK TO A DICTIONARY BUT THE GENIUS WHO CREATED THE SITE DIDN'T THINK TO HAVE INTELLIGENT LINK SCANNING ALGORITHMS IN PLACE

What? When you're in the edit pane you might wish to look at the menu just above. It includes a url button that might help you if you can't work out the tags. It's pretty simple.

i.e. insert url

[mental vagrant]

Thanks

[cousinbasil]

You obviously have a different definition of "decision" than me(probably similar to fruit falling off the tree by itself). A decision can only be made by a rational person, and a rational person does not decide to act irrationally. Either he decides to act rationally, or he doesn't decide anything at all.

That would mean one can't be responsible for irrational acts. I see why this appeals to you, but I don't see how you can think it is logically consistent. Let A represent the set of possible rational activity in a situation, and B represent all other possible activity. We can see that all possible activity, including refraining from activity, must fall into one set or the other. How can we have a situation in which a person can choose A yet not be able to choose B? If one cannot choose B, then there must be no such thing as "choosing" A.

BTW, this is where some of the philosphy I glean at GF doesn't hold up. It seems that the GF way out of this dilemma would be to say, exactly! There is no choosing of either A or B! But since rational thinking is rational behavior, it would fall into category A. This would mean one cannot choose to think rationally, which would contradict the very raison d'être of the forum, would it not?

[Dennis Mahar]

Basil,

BTW, this is where some of the philosphy I glean at GF doesn't hold up. It seems that the GF way out of this dilemma would be to say, exactly! There is no choosing of either A or B! But since rational thinking is rational behavior, it would fall into category A. This would mean one cannot choose to think rationally, which would contradict the very raison d'être of the forum, would it not?

Kensho!
Exactly!
Voila!
There it is!
Cognition!
Joy!

spontaneous upon hearing or reading some significant statement.
always/already understood as background then it appears,
glistening jewel.

movingalways,
hard to catch.

[jupiviv]

Let A represent the set of possible rational activity in a situation, and B represent all other possible activity. We can see that all possible activity, including refraining from activity, must fall into one set or the other. How can we have a situation in which a person can choose A yet not be able to choose B? If one cannot choose B, then there must be no such thing as "choosing" A.

What set of activity would the act of choosing belong to? I would say rational activity.

This would mean one cannot choose to think rationally

Who is it that chooses to think rationally? It can only be a rational being, since an irrational being wouldn't have any idea what thinking rationally means.

[cousinbasil]

What set of activity would the act of choosing belong to? I would say rational activity.

A retard can choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream bunnies, correct? Animal psychologists have always set up experiments that force a subject animal to choose between alternatives. Can the choice ever really be considered rational?

Would a "Sophie's choice" ever be entirely rational?

I think this is where your error lies, jupiviv. Who says the act of deciding always has to fall into either category? Choosing to act irrationally can be regarded as being an irrational act (set B). Choosing to act rationally would be a rational act (set A).

cousinbasil: This would mean one cannot choose to think rationally

jupiviv: Who is it that chooses to think rationally? It can only be a rational being, since an irrational being wouldn't have any idea what thinking rationally means.

Consider this, then: is an infant a rational being? Say this infant becomes an adult and is clearly a rational being. At some point, he began to choose to think rationally for the first time. Was he then suddenly a rational being after his first rational decision? If so, then he could not ever make irrational decisions thereafter, by your definition. Who acts like that? Anyone you have ever known? Or was he basically still largely irrational who occasionally made rational decisions, as if by trial and error, and thereby learned the superior nature of being rational. Therefore, an irrational being most definitely can have an idea of what rational thinking means - it is what he aspires to, since he has witnessed others so engaged.

You make things more automatic than they ever are in the real world!

[mental vagrant]

Rationality is a different form of imperfect inner deliberation. Driven by genetics and prior events along a regressive continuum, whatever. Point is all i want to separate is the conception of rationality from free will.

Yes you choose, but what is choice? Let's make love like on the Discovery Channel!

[mental vagrant]

Upon thinking about this for a while I have come to realize that the only way to have consensual intercourse is to agree to create a child. This creates purpose other than pleasure, which is abstract. A child is something concrete.

Define abstract and concrete, why can't they have synonmous properties?

Women don't show many signs of consciousness, so I wouldn't say they are capable of consenting to anything. They "go with the flow".

Anyways, why would a conscious person want a sexual partner, if sex(as we know it) is an unconscious act? Obviously, people who want sexual partners aren't conscious to begin with - at least, not about sexual matters.

Presumably you don't comprehend the relationships between Frontal Lobes and the limbic system? I expect with such an opinion you maintian a near exact body mass, and abstain from almost everything including existence? Why aren't you dead, oh great deity?!