The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

For discussion of general issues pertaining to asexuality.
Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Mar 2016, 15:07

The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby Thrasymachus » 25 Mar 2016, 08:19

Everyone is familiar with a walnut, they usually have a hard shell and a nut in the inside. Now imagine if there was this mythical type of a walnut, that has five hard shells and the same meager amount of nut in the inside. And imagine you had no tool to open it but your bare hands, or a rock and they were not commercially de-shelled. Would you bother with the effort to eat a walnut then? I wouldn't.

I think this is the best analogy I can come up with to explain why as a 33 year old male with an attraction to women, I will not bother forming any type of relationship with them. I don't even really have female friends or want any. To me they are like mythical walnuts with five shells, I don't want to do the work required to flirt, ask them out, have relationships with them, then sex. There are also issues like the fact that I hate subterfuge and modern flirting is based mostly on that, low self-confidence, body image issues, the fact that I am in the hole so bad I may as well stay a virgin, etc. Also I don't like to meet people in general, the more people I meet the less hope I find I can have for the future. Further I feel like sex is way over-hyped and even if tomorrow I could bed as many women as Gene Simmons, it wouldn't be worth it. The sexual pleasure is mitigated by emotional attachment, emotional conflict, feelings of guilt, etc.

Right now I am in the bordello nation of Greece visiting family. So many young couples are like the type you can see sometimes in American malls who cannot keep their hands off each other, but it is obvious they are conforming to culturally imposed patterns of behavior. Greeks tend to choke or drown many of their close social connections. If they are young and single they seem to be out with the same friends day after day, after day. If they have kids they drown them with constant nagging, phone calls and contact allowing no space to develop. Young couples here seem to follow the same pattern. But even if a couple cannot keep their hands off each genuinely, out of a fidelity to the social construct called love imagine five years down the road. Everyone that knows them would be sickened if they still could not walk without holding hands, if they constantly kissed and whispered to each other, etc. That is because deep down everyone knows that alot of the imagery associated with eternal love as a social construct in our society is bullshit, echoing previous views when Western society was more mature on this issue and cultural memes portrayed love as something that comes and goes or something that cannot be requited like in Romeo and Juliet. They died before they could pass the blind passion phase of youth and their newfound acquitanceship.
The way I look at marriage and children is that it is alot like juggling. I have a job I hate, but stay at it for the pay and benefits. That is one ball. But supposed I did look at women differently and was married. That wife would be the second ball. Then maybe we want a kid. That is a third ball. Then a house. A fourth ball! Now the juggling is getting difficult. Another kid? The fifth ball! I often joke that what if I get good at bobsledding and want to join the Jamaican bobsled team(a reference to the film Cool Runnings). Now with my current life situation, I could do that if I really wanted to. If I was juggling the five balls, I almost definitely could not, it would mean abandoning my family, my wife, my home on a lark with a low success rate, especially since Jamaica cannot have a world class bobsled team.

There is actually much going against the traditional family structure. For one according to an American retirement magazine:
http://www.aarp.org/personal-growth/tra ... eople.html
Shocking no one, married people are less lonely than those who are divorced, separated, or never married. But that wedding band doesn't have magical powers: 29 percent of married people reported being lonely. "There's nothing worse than being half of a couple that's not getting along," says Ironside, the London Independent advice columnist. "There are lots of difficult things about living alone, but at least no one is actively ignoring you."


Btw, that is just stats for how many are married but still feel lonely. That doesn't meant they are actually happy in their marriage. According to statistics this is how many divorce:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/divorce
One of the latest reports about divorce was released this year by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It is based on a 1995 federal study of nearly 11,000 women ages 15-44. It predicted that one-third of new marriages among younger people will end in divorce within 10 years and 43 percent within 15 years. That is not a death sentence, however; it’s a forecast. Martha Farnsworth Riche, former head of the Census Bureau, told USA Today, “This is what is going to happen unless we want to change it.”


But again that just tells how many marriages outright fail in the USA, about 43% within 15 years a shocking number. In addition we must also realize that alot of people are staying unhappily married because they don't want all the juggling balls they are constantly throwing up to fall.

What about kids?

http://nymag.com/news/features/67024/
From the perspective of the species, it’s perfectly unmysterious why people have children. From the perspective of the individual, however, it’s more of a mystery than one might think. Most people assume that having children will make them happier. Yet a wide variety of academic research shows that parents are not happier than their childless peers, and in many cases are less so. This finding is surprisingly consistent, showing up across a range of disciplines. Perhaps the most oft-cited datum comes from a 2004 study by Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize–winning behavioral economist, who surveyed 909 working Texas women and found that child care ranked sixteenth in pleasurability out of nineteen activities. (Among the endeavors they preferred: preparing food, watching TV, exercising, talking on the phone, napping, shopping, housework.) This result also shows up regularly in relationship research, with children invariably reducing marital satisfaction. The economist Andrew Oswald, who’s compared tens of thousands of Britons with children to those without, is at least inclined to view his data in a more positive light: “The broad message is not that children make you less happy; it’s just that children don’t make youmore happy.” That is, he tells me, unless you have more than one. “Then the studies show a more negative impact.” As a rule, most studies show that mothers are less happy than fathers, that single parents are less happy still, that babies and toddlers are the hardest, and that each successive child produces diminishing returns. But some of the studies are grimmer than others. Robin Simon, a sociologist at Wake Forest University, says parents are more depressed than nonparents no matter what their circumstances—whether they’re single or married, whether they have one child or four.
The idea that parents are less happy than nonparents has become so commonplace in academia that it was big news last year when the Journal of Happiness Studies published a Scottish paper declaring the opposite was true. “Contrary to much of the literature,” said the introduction, “our results are consistent with an effect of children on life satisfaction that is positive, large and increasing in the number of children.” Alas, the euphoria was short-lived. A few months later, the poor author discovered a coding error in his data, and the publication ran an erratum. “After correcting the problem,”it read,“the main results of the paper no longer hold. The effect of children on the life satisfaction of married individuals is small, often negative, and never statistically significant.”
Yet one can see why people were rooting for that paper. The results of almost all the others violate a parent’s deepest intuition. Daniel Gilbert, the Harvard psychologist and host of This Emotional Life on PBS, wrote fewer than three pages about compromised parental well-being in Stumbling on Happiness. But whenever he goes on the lecture circuit, skeptical questions about those pages come up more frequently than anything else. “I’ve never met anyone who didn’t argue with me about this,” he says. “Even people who believe the data say they feel sorry for those for whom it’s true.”


I remember two of my married co-workers with children conversing. One was saying how great it was for him that a school bus took 40 minutes to take his child to and from school even though he lived about 10 minutes away by car due to the structure of the route. Even though it sucked for the kid, he loved the situation. The other unlucky one complained that between work, acting as the kids taxi to school, watching the kids, he had no real significant down time to unwind.

I could go on but I think I made my point. Unlike most people I am more cerebral, inward focused, live in my own head more; I analyze to death every small decision. I cannot just go with the herd. The walnut of sex is probably not worth the effort of much more people to open, they just can never know it because they live a simple life of imitating their peers, conforming to parental and societal expectations. They are too intellectually incurious and invested in distracted and pursuing entertainment industry to come across or ponder the type of sources I cited why in atomized capitalist society, sex, marriage and kids, is as they say perhaps obsolete or a bad deal for the adults involved. Africans wisely say that it takes a village to raise a child and in modernized societies there is no village or social support, everything burdens your shoulders. When I was a kid in the 1980's as soon as I was old enough, I was outside frequently. Now in the 2016 that is not the case where I live, the kids rarely go outside. There is no respite. Is the walnut of sex even worth opening even for people who don't consider themselves asexual? It seems our predicament has its virtues in some instances.

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1242
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 10:09

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby KAGU143 » 25 Mar 2016, 09:25

Thrasymachus, have you ever done any research into schizoid personality disorder?

I'm just curious, because there is quite a bit of overlap between asexuality and some of the symptoms of SPD.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 25 Mar 2016, 09:57

I have a nut allergy.

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Mar 2016, 15:07

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby Thrasymachus » 30 Mar 2016, 17:18

@KAGU143:

I was actually classified as schizoid by a therapist, but social science is the least scientific field, with the mental health related fields leading the pack of psuedo-science. The real common ground of asexuality with mental disorders is that most self-identified asexuals were likely processed by the mental health fields first and then they discovered asexuality online, probably through the mental basketcases of AVEN. And just like people who receive a mental health diagnosis like say depression tend to say to themselves "well I am depressed so I cannot do x,y,z but I can to h and j" and use the diagnosis to create a series of self-limitations and self-justifications for why they are the way they are, the asexual community does the same. They see the mental health professionals have created man-made categories that they pretend are ontological, and so the asexual community most of whom likely have seen therapists/psychologists/etc., see that and say "us also." So they created alot of stupid asexual and sexual terminology so they can say "I am x,y sexually/asexually and not h and j because I am aromantic/cupioromantic/gender queer asexual."

In reality it is all bullshit man-made categories that don't really explain much and infact only make the world more confusing.

@PiF:
Given that you identify as a straight male asexual, you do have a very specific taste in nuts.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 30 Mar 2016, 22:13

I would agree that the mental health industry is as obsessed with labels as the asexual community but the point is that this isn't just them but more as we as a society have woken upto the fact that most of us are worker ants but want to feel "special"

the rise in selfies, social media etc have taken people away from reality so your claim about asexuals and mental health could as easily been applied to fairground workers and mental health

Mental health within the last five years has seen a massive growth not only as a suedo science but also as a need, as more and more look for "safe places" that never have and never will exist in the real world.

Labelittus is the plague of this generation...in my day someone who wanted to be left alone, shunning others and trying to not have relationships of any kind was largely and simply called a hermit..now they are labelled as schizoid personality disorder

a person who was so full of themselves that they love themself more than they could anyone else..was generally described just as that...now they are Autosexual

Many are these are capitalism based..rebranding old ideals, old conditions and old terms but the same thing is nothing new it is cyclical

In many ways society has been like that line from That Kevin Costner film..build it and they will come

I have no taste in nuts thank you..man sex is not for me...I always prefer to have a woman tell me I am a shit shag

User avatar
TheGuvnorsMoll
Super Member
Posts: 280
Joined: 06 Aug 2015, 23:43

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby TheGuvnorsMoll » 31 Mar 2016, 02:30

Sex, marriage and kids are definitely not worth it.

I have no interest in sex. Marriage is a far worse loss of freedom than any prison, anyway why would I elect to spend my life having to consider someone else when I am perfectly happy alone? I detest kids of all ages.
'The best Government is that which governs least, if at all' - Henry David Thoreau.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 31 Mar 2016, 03:06

I'm okay with that^^^^

i've often said relationships are f*cking hard work full of compromises, Marriage, well that is just a title as some live together for decades without getting married. When i have, I've never gone into it seeing it as a prison but more as a friend who I love and care for greatly enough that I want to share my life with

Sex, still would rather have a cup of tea

Kids....you only have to look in aven to see why they are not a good idea...even in there the kids hate kids :lol: :lol:

I think in today's world people are generally more selfish, less tolerant of others and less likely to compromise. Humans mostly are horrible so if your not prepared to compromise in life...then your going to be single a lot of the time...if that works for you then all power too you.

In fact i admire the honesty of those who take this action based on what they think is important to them and their life. The only time I have an issue with this is when SOME confuse this inability to compromise as asexuality.

User avatar
CatBunny
Established Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 09 Jul 2015, 12:50

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby CatBunny » 31 Mar 2016, 15:29

Thrasymachus wrote:@KAGU143:

I was actually classified as schizoid by a therapist, but social science is the least scientific field, with the mental health related fields leading the pack of psuedo-science. The real common ground of asexuality with mental disorders is that most self-identified asexuals were likely processed by the mental health fields first and then they discovered asexuality online, probably through the mental basketcases of AVEN. And just like people who receive a mental health diagnosis like say depression tend to say to themselves "well I am depressed so I cannot do x,y,z but I can to h and j" and use the diagnosis to create a series of self-limitations and self-justifications for why they are the way they are, the asexual community does the same. They see the mental health professionals have created man-made categories that they pretend are ontological, and so the asexual community most of whom likely have seen therapists/psychologists/etc., see that and say "us also." So they created alot of stupid asexual and sexual terminology so they can say "I am x,y sexually/asexually and not h and j because I am aromantic/cupioromantic/gender queer asexual."

In reality it is all bullshit man-made categories that don't really explain much and infact only make the world more confusing.

@PiF:
Given that you identify as a straight male asexual, you do have a very specific taste in nuts.


I dunno, as someone who suffers from one, I'm sure it's pretty freakin' real. Psychology is probably not a pseudo science by now, maybe in the 1700s it was. And maybe you are, who knows, this isn't a mental health forum though, so not really a place to discuss that.

Other than that I would definitely not have kids, even if I wanted my genetics are utter garbage, I would just adopt.
Image

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Mar 2016, 15:07

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby Thrasymachus » 31 Mar 2016, 15:48

I found this funny video while watching Tosh.0 it is highly relevant it is a web redemption of a female "men's right attorney", the clip at the end advertising a faux commercial where parents divorce their kids is especially hilarious:
http://tosh.cc.com/blog/2016/03/09/last ... hts-lawyer
I couldn't find just the fake commercial alone, though.

@Catbunny:
No, the mental health fields like psychology/psychiatry are definitely the most pseudo-scientific disciplines. In the 1700's there was no elaborate concept of mental health and no dirty, corrupt industry surrounding it. The concept of madness was thus actually much healthier back then in many ways.

See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16636630
And:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302834/

Literally the people most involved in creating new mental disorders in the DSM Committee are financially biased by the Pharmaceutical industry that will make billions from drugging more people with each new diagnosis.

This is a devastating analysis that based on how many hypotheses are proved positive in a given scientific discipline in the journal literature and using that to create a hierarchy of the sciences with the medical fields almost dead last, especially psychiatry/psychology because they have too many positive results, it is too good to be true:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0010068
The image tells it all: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... 10068.g001

User avatar
CatBunny
Established Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 09 Jul 2015, 12:50

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby CatBunny » 01 Apr 2016, 03:53

Thrasymachus wrote:I found this funny video while watching Tosh.0 it is highly relevant it is a web redemption of a female "men's right attorney", the clip at the end advertising a faux commercial where parents divorce their kids is especially hilarious:
http://tosh.cc.com/blog/2016/03/09/last ... hts-lawyer
I couldn't find just the fake commercial alone, though.

@Catbunny:
No, the mental health fields like psychology/psychiatry are definitely the most pseudo-scientific disciplines. In the 1700's there was no elaborate concept of mental health and no dirty, corrupt industry surrounding it. The concept of madness was thus actually much healthier back then in many ways.

See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16636630
And:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302834/

Literally the people most involved in creating new mental disorders in the DSM Committee are financially biased by the Pharmaceutical industry that will make billions from drugging more people with each new diagnosis.

This is a devastating analysis that based on how many hypotheses are proved positive in a given scientific discipline in the journal literature and using that to create a hierarchy of the sciences with the medical fields almost dead last, especially psychiatry/psychology because they have too many positive results, it is too good to be true:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0010068
The image tells it all: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... 10068.g001


I would reply but this isn't an anti-psych or neurodiverse or whatever they call in nowadays thread and it'd be just spam. There are billions on psych forums and they would love to hear your input. lol
Image

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Mar 2016, 15:07

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby Thrasymachus » 01 Apr 2016, 05:07

Well given this is a asexuality forum and that most asexuals have probably been processed by the mental health industry, it is very relevant. Since that is how the stupid penchant to try to create endless categories and spectrums came from, from asexuals imitating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

I don't write what I write just to write it. And btw, people who don't read serious works they could learn from and instead spend all their time distracting themselves, don't get to mock others who want to live and engage in the real world and its social structures. I know people like you may be used to that thanks to 4chan/Reddit/AVEN but neckbeard forums are not something to gain confidence by. Again this image says it all, psychology/psychiatry is dead last in the hierarchy of the sciences too many hypothesis/theses are positive, it is too good to be true, also the field has lowest replication rate(most studies are rarely retested to see if they are true):
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... 10068.g001

User avatar
CatBunny
Established Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 09 Jul 2015, 12:50

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby CatBunny » 01 Apr 2016, 05:38

Thrasymachus wrote:Well given this is a asexuality forum and that most asexuals have probably been processed by the mental health industry, it is very relevant. Since that is how the stupid penchant to try to create endless categories and spectrums came from, from asexuals imitating the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

I don't write what I write just to write it. And btw, people who don't read serious works they could learn from and instead spend all their time distracting themselves, don't get to mock others who want to live and engage in the real world and its social structures. I know people like you may be used to that thanks to 4chan/Reddit/AVEN but neckbeard forums are not something to gain confidence by. Again this image says it all, psychology/psychiatry is dead last in the hierarchy of the sciences too many hypothesis/theses are positive, it is too good to be true, also the field has lowest replication rate(most studies are rarely retested to see if they are true):
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... 10068.g001


sounds like you have some beef with the mental health community and you need to vent it, I don't even see the correlation.
Image

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Mar 2016, 15:07

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby Thrasymachus » 01 Apr 2016, 05:52

Well you can not see it all you want, but it is there. You asserted:
Catbunny wrote:Psychology is probably not a pseudo science by now, maybe in the 1700s it was


And I gave you the proof and your replied with a lame quip about how popular mental health is.

It took me a long while to learn in this life, but I learned that unlike me, most people are not naturally curious and don't want to learn about the world. Mass schooling is probably what does it as young kids at a certain point in life(before they enter compulsory schooling) ask an average of hundreds of questions a day. If I suggest to friends/family to watch a documentary they will whine because it is not entertaining, they rather watch something mindless to distract themselves from their social condition. I can already get a sense that you seem to be big into escapism and that you identify around your mental health diagnosis, that is why are you are "la, la, la, ing" the evidence I gave. Sorry, but when people just care about their comfort, entertainment, they lose their ability to comment on such issues.

Now, you may not see the connection but to me it is very obvious the asexual community sees the horrid DSM as something of a model -- and that is why the asexual community is largely a joke today, because of the desire to create stupid definitions, spectrums and classifications at an alarming pace .

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1242
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 10:09

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby KAGU143 » 01 Apr 2016, 07:44

Thrasymachus wrote:Well you can not see it all you want, but it is there. You asserted:
Catbunny wrote:Psychology is probably not a pseudo science by now, maybe in the 1700s it was


And I gave you the proof and your replied with a lame quip about how popular mental health is.

It took me a long while to learn in this life, but I learned that unlike me, most people are not naturally curious and don't want to learn about the world.


'Hate to break it to you, but curiosity is one of the defining characteristics of ALL humans, except for those with severe brain damage. For that matter, it is common to practically all of the higher life forms on Earth. You are not making yourself sound superior - you're making yourself sound exceptionally ignorant and egotistical. Curiosity is a desire to acquire new knowledge and understanding. It seems that you are confusing it with the desire to confirm opinions that you already hold, and that's why you reject any new data which contradicts what you already believe.

Thrasymachus wrote:Mass schooling is probably what does it as young kids at a certain point in life(before they enter compulsory schooling) ask an average of hundreds of questions a day. If I suggest to friends/family to watch a documentary they will whine because it is not entertaining, they rather watch something mindless to distract themselves from their social condition. I can already get a sense that you seem to be big into escapism and that you identify around your mental health diagnosis, that is why are you are "la, la, la, ing" the evidence I gave. Sorry, but when people just care about their comfort, entertainment, they lose their ability to comment on such issues.


Your psychic abilities must be extraordinary.
Or, if we rely on Occam's Razor, you are projecting what you want to believe and confusing it with the truth.

Thrasymachus wrote:Now, you may not see the connection but to me it is very obvious the asexual community sees the horrid DSM as something of a model -- and that is why the asexual community is largely a joke today, because of the desire to create stupid definitions, spectrums and classifications at an alarming pace .

Your ability to arrive at truthful conclusions when you are provided with data that you don't like has already been demonstrated.


However, just FYI, the truth about ANY topic isn't determined by whether or not it meets with someone's pre-conceived beliefs.
This is true for everybody and it applies to all subjects.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

User avatar
CatBunny
Established Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 09 Jul 2015, 12:50

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby CatBunny » 01 Apr 2016, 07:55

KAGU143 wrote:
Thrasymachus wrote:Well you can not see it all you want, but it is there. You asserted:
Catbunny wrote:Psychology is probably not a pseudo science by now, maybe in the 1700s it was


And I gave you the proof and your replied with a lame quip about how popular mental health is.

It took me a long while to learn in this life, but I learned that unlike me, most people are not naturally curious and don't want to learn about the world.


'Hate to break it to you, but curiosity is one of the defining characteristics of ALL humans, except for those with severe brain damage. For that matter, it is common to practically all of the higher life forms on Earth. You are not making yourself sound superior - you're making yourself sound exceptionally ignorant and egotistical. Curiosity is a desire to acquire new knowledge and understanding. It seems that you are confusing it with the desire to confirm opinions that you already hold, and that's why you reject any new data which contradicts what you already believe.

Thrasymachus wrote:Mass schooling is probably what does it as young kids at a certain point in life(before they enter compulsory schooling) ask an average of hundreds of questions a day. If I suggest to friends/family to watch a documentary they will whine because it is not entertaining, they rather watch something mindless to distract themselves from their social condition. I can already get a sense that you seem to be big into escapism and that you identify around your mental health diagnosis, that is why are you are "la, la, la, ing" the evidence I gave. Sorry, but when people just care about their comfort, entertainment, they lose their ability to comment on such issues.


Your psychic abilities must be extraordinary.
Or, if we rely on Occam's Razor, you are projecting what you want to believe and confusing it with the truth.

Thrasymachus wrote:Now, you may not see the connection but to me it is very obvious the asexual community sees the horrid DSM as something of a model -- and that is why the asexual community is largely a joke today, because of the desire to create stupid definitions, spectrums and classifications at an alarming pace .

Your ability to arrive at truthful conclusions when you are provided with data that you don't like has already been demonstrated.


However, just FYI, the truth about ANY topic isn't determined by whether or not it meets with someone's pre-conceived beliefs.
This is true for everybody and it applies to all subjects.


thank you, KAGU143

Also the last thing I want to do is turn this thread into the Youtube comment section. :/
Image

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Mar 2016, 15:07

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby Thrasymachus » 06 Apr 2016, 19:16

@KAGU143:
Dun, dun, dun:
Image

More obnoxious white-knighting from you. I actually acknowledged that others are curious, but about the wrong things in previous posts in this very thread that flew over your fairy head:
Thrasymachus wrote:people who don't read serious works they could learn from and instead spend all their time distracting themselves, don't get to mock others who want to live and engage in the real world and its social structures.

I can already get a sense that you seem to be big into escapism


Yes, people are very curious about escapism: sports, reality tv, facebook gossip, celeb gossip, television, movies, video games, the rest of the entertainment industry. Is there much curiosity about actual social reality or one's actual life circumstances? It is, "no thanks please," for most people, infact with modern technology they never have to be alone with their own thoughts for long:
Image
Full size image: http://i.imgur.com/M4S4fUK.jpg
Isn't technology grand? You can play word games on AVEN all day, only socialize online, distract yourself at almost all times, then get uppity when someone who spends the time groping lived reality, challenges your "life's myths" by reading and citing the type of articles cited in this thread by me. Further thanks to the advent of cultural relativism and post-modernism you can hold that any opinion or fact is just as valid or invalid as any other.

KAGU143 wrote:Or, if we rely on Occam's Razor, you are projecting what you want to believe and confusing it with the truth.


Actually that is what you are doing what you are doing with your lame white knighting all over the forum and probably elsewhere and in real life. What I am doing is interjecting some depressive realism into an asexual community dominated by stunted, socially awkward escapists.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 06 Apr 2016, 22:38

Neck beards, white knighting, Occums razor....I nearly fainted, I thought I was in aven for a momment with all these labels :lol:

Often diving headlong into obsessive intelligencia can also be seen as equally escapist as those diving into using social media. Both rely an obsession with the internet, both rely on seeing what others are doing and both rely on other people's approval or a war starts...Think of ying and yang but at the extreme ends

Every generation that see's massive steps forward normally handles it badly in the early years...The millenials are the generation at the momment that have largely had 24 hour communication and contact mostly through social media. Some will say it has it's positive and it does have some positives..but when you involve humans it doesn't take long to see the evil as well as the good.

When I was a kid we only had 3 tv channels, We didn't question our teachers and if we did we did it in a respectfull way, If a policeman stopped you and told you off, your parents were angry at you for being naughty and not angry at the cop for stopping you doing it..but more relevant to the conversation..... if we were bullied it was almost always someone in our street or the next one over or someone at school.....now thanks to social media...everyone in the world can hate you, hate how you look, comment negatively about you and your appearance, physical shape etc..which is weird given how many now see this as the new reality

I mention this more to say this level of internet escapism happens worldwide and not just on aven..give it 2 or three generations and humans will find a better way to manage technology rather than the current technology managing the sheeple..many of the millenials when they get to say their 40's will look back with embarrasment as to how they are now...escapism has always been their for humanity...just never to the level that we have now, where reality is seen as odd and escapism on the internet is the new reality

I think myself lucky that I had a childhood free from the internet....the big rise in internet, particularly social media use by our young..is almost matched by the massive rise in mental health issues within that very same age group, insecurity, body image doubts, people seeking "likes" for affirmation , people's need for others to see every duckface, meal and shit they have had for you tube likes etc

in relation to asexuality...that combination of nonsense of the internet life at the same time of seeking an identity for life even though you haven't even lived a 5th of it yet, most identifying as asexual when they are not...is incredibly damaging to us as a movement. When only 10% of asexuality are asexuals in aven and the 90% remaining are sexuals desperatly hanging onto asexuality because at that momment they want somewhere to belong..pretty much kills any credibility for asexuality

What can we do about it?...going back to basics would help.

At the moment it would mean telling 90% of aven no you are not asexual, that silly label you hold onto isn't what asexuality is, your are in fact sexual but importantly, will always be welcome here and be treated equally.

Would aven do that? I feel it isn't something the largest asexual site wants to do...why? because it would no longer be the largest asexual site if they did....and until they do, they would rather sacrifice the integrity of asexuality in favour of numbers ..than be honest.

User avatar
CatBunny
Established Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 09 Jul 2015, 12:50

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby CatBunny » 07 Apr 2016, 03:44

...what are we talking about now? This thread went off the rails so fast I think we're going to talk about how david jay is a lizard person and AVEN is the new world order.
Image

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 07 Apr 2016, 04:29

Yeah that was my fault Cat :oops:

Everyone knows David jay is not a lizard person...he would only get a as far as hello I am david jay and i am a Liz...then before he stops and finishes one project he would be off on another :lol:

We were trying to talk about reality, escapism and the mental health arena and how it ties in with kids,marriage and sex

When it comes to mental health I often place it in the same group as cancer...many many milions have employment due to both..if ever there was a one stop pill to stop either..would the industry allow it to happen given how many millions would suddenly become without a living? I do feel we have had the means to kill cancer..but far too many people, drug companies, hospitals, councillors etc make too much money out of it...I feel the same about mental health

That is why so many of things I always knew as a basic, have now become a new psuedo science term..being a hermit shunning people suddenly becomes schizoid personality dissorder..you get my drift

From my generation as I am one of those, I do see a place for children, marriage and as I am sex positive, then sex too

were I a millenial however, I think I would also be saying no to marriage, sex and kids as lets be honest, the millenials are one of the most self centered generations so far and despite most having had a college/uni education..are some of the most ignorant/close minded and unable to compromise generations ever..I admire the honesty of that choice but am not a fan when they try and hide that truth with blaming it on everyone else

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1242
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 10:09

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby KAGU143 » 07 Apr 2016, 06:16

What this thread is really about is one person's fervent attempt to justify their own emotional bankruptcy by trying to portray it as superior to the accepted social and emotional relationships which have formed the basis of human society since our species first evolved.

In related news, DJ has just written a blog in which he tries to break all relationships down into a mathematical formula.

Who else can see the surprising amount of overlap between these two superficially different opinions?
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 07 Apr 2016, 07:02

Could you post that link Nancy? I only ask because I like to see what that cheeky scamp is upto..it wasn't in Freedom magazine was it ?? :lol: :lol:

http://www.freedommag.org/

as to the thread..if relationships were easy, everyone would be having them :D

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1242
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 10:09

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby KAGU143 » 07 Apr 2016, 10:13

I will see if I can find a link. (*plays the waiting-while-on-hold music*)
Okay, I hope this works.

https://medium.com/@davidgljay/what-if- ... .aghl73bsa

No, it wasn't in Freedom Magazine. It's actually quite well-written, but that doesn't surprise me at all since DJ is exceptionally articulate when he wants to be. It's quite interesting in its own way, but I can't help but think that he doesn't understand how loving human relationships work, and that he's industriously trying to come up with a work-around that will allow him to figure it out while still maintaining a safe distance.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 07 Apr 2016, 10:41

I can see exactly what you mean and agree with you..I'd like to offer two other points

(1) He is trying to re-invent the egg

(2) he watches too much big bang theory

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Mar 2016, 15:07

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby Thrasymachus » 07 Apr 2016, 11:18

KAGU143 wrote:What this thread is really about is one person's fervent attempt to justify their own emotional bankruptcy by trying to portray it as superior to the accepted social and emotional relationships which have formed the basis of human society since our species first evolved.


Like I wrote and have to write again and again, you cannot spend most of your time on entertainment industry distractions, surrogate online socialization and expect to be taken seriously on any serious issue. The real world is not anime, video games, cos-play or saying you know someone when you have never or barely met them in real life.

When marriage was successful it was because until recently divorce was almost impossible or not possible at all. For most women in the Christian and European tradition, if you did actually manage to divorce it meant something akin to social death, you ceased to exist as anything but a despised, barely tolerated pariah. That was the social constellation when marriage was successful, because back then there was largely no alternative, no choice. Now there is choice and the unhappily married massively split and divorce. However even today with this new freedom, alot of people stay unhappily married for financial reasons, because of the kids, etc.

Here is a great class analysis of the American family and US household's by the noted Marxist economist Richard Wolff:
http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/627_-_Th ... Analysis_4)

Westerners often try to underplay the financial dynamics of the family structure, but Wollf nails it in this analysis. Wolff point out that the 1970s is when wages starting falling for American workers, and when women had to start massively entering the workforce. That is also when the divorce rate started exploding, because the traditional unspoken deal of the quasi-feudal American household up until that point was that the man earns the living for the family, and in turn the woman reproduces with her surplus labor the effort to maintain, clean and feed the rest of the household. When most men couldn't earn enough, there was no longer incentive to stay unhappily married if you had to work anyway. So divorce exploded. Anyway that was mostly for white people, I am pretty sure African Americans, American Indians and other minorities never really managed to survive with just one adult wage earner.

I just listened to a podcast recently with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and he covers how the USA hides the true unemployment rate, and how it is really at the shocking rate of 23%:
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts wrote:Transcript: Interview with Analyst and Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts

Now, how do they measure employment? We now have, according to the government, a 4.9 percent rate of unemployment. This rate of unemployment does not count any discouraged workers. Suppose you’ve been out of employment for months and months and you can’t find a job. You know, a search for a job is expensive, it’s not free, it has a cost. You’re out of income, you’ve searched and searched, there’s no jobs to be found. You give up. You’re no longer counted as unemployment. So all discouraged workers who are not currently searching for jobs are no longer counted in the 5 percent unemployment figure.

The government has a second measure of unemployment that is never reported in the headline news or emphasized in the financial press. This second measure, known as U6, counts short-term discouraged workers, and if you add the short-term discouraged workers—and short-term means less than one year—so if you have been discouraged for less than one year, you’re counted as part of this second measure of unemployment U6, and that measure of unemployment is double the reported rate, it’s 10 percent. Now, if you add in the long-term discouraged workers, which no longer does any government measure, if you add them, the current rate of unemployment in the United States, right now, is 23 percent. This is a multiple of the headline-reported number of 4.9 percent. How do we know this? We know this because John Williams of shadowstats.com continues to measure long-term unemployment according the methodology that the U.S. government used to measure it before it abandoned it. And so, those are the ways that they create the image of economic success when really there is serious economic deterioration.

We can see other signs of this economic deterioration, for example, recently the Federal Reserve itself reported that 50 percent, that is one-half, of all Americans who are 25 years old currently live at home with their parents. Now, at 25 year old person is a person who would normally be in the workforce, living an independent existence. But they can’t find jobs sufficient in pay to support an independent existence, so we now have the youth of America, half of the youth, this includes university-educated people, who cannot establish independent households, which means they can’t get married, they can’t take a mortgage and buy a home, they can’t buy home furnishings and appliances. They have to live at home in their childhood rooms. So that also is inconsistent with a 4.9 percent unemployment rate.

If someone prefers to consume the interview in audio format, here it is as a podcast.

So, Kagu, the biggest difference between me and you is I am realistic and investigative and not some air-fairy making up stuff to feel good about my preconceived notions. One of the most common reasons for divorce is fighting over finances and money, when you don't have enough money and/or one partner is chronically unemployed or under-employed it creates relationship problems. The real unemployment in the USA is 23% and gonna get even worse as the years and decades pass. You have to an absent minded fool to birth children into such an environment. And that is exactly what happens, those who think the least, especially about children and what future they won't have 20 years from now, breed the most. And those who have children paradoxically are more locked into short-term survival mode decisions, instead of long-term thinking since they bleed so much money. It should be the opposite, those who have children should be thinking even more long-term than the childless.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 07 Apr 2016, 13:19

This sounds very similar to me to the anti capitalist rhetoric??

we the rich will trap the poor into being worker ants with such thing as poor wages that they will have to have mortgages, credit cards, bank loans and zero hour contracts, children, relationships then allow technology to distract them from our evil deeds as father, forgive them as they do not know what they do.

Yes despite more people going to university and more people using smartphones....most people are becoming dumber...copy and pasting others work is not intellect but these days that is all you need to get a degree

People are inherently like water...they will take the path of least resistance..and as technology gives us more free time the question has to be asked..what for?

Unemployment will go down as most of the millenials are not having kids or are just having 1...this is why Merkel flooded Germany with over a million migrants, their own birth rate would not be enough to supply labour to keep the country going long term. Same for the U.S. apparently with 11 million illegal migrants most are doing jobs not only the young indiginous refuse to do but also there are not enough of them to do it. so in time with a natural dropping birthrate and immigration being tightened up on, unemployment will drop substantially I feel but there will always be unemployment in most walks of life

As to the class system...it no longer exists..class used to mean quality of breeding...now it can be easily defined and applicable as haves and have nots

what this shows however is that similar to hiding behind the internet and gaming unreal world to avoid the real world...Hiding behind an obsessive need to prove this exists can also be the same hiding from the real world..similar to those of a faith and those who are atheists..different sides of the same coin if you will but both need that same coin to exist

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1242
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 10:09

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby KAGU143 » 07 Apr 2016, 14:24

Thrasymachus wrote:
Like I wrote and have to write again and again, you cannot spend most of your time on entertainment industry distractions, surrogate online socialization and expect to be taken seriously on any serious issue. The real world is not anime, video games, cos-play or saying you know someone when you have never or barely met them in real life.


I'm guessing that you aren't referring to me with the above comment? If you are, I can't decide if it would be better to correct you, or to sit back with the people on this forum who know something about me and to enjoy it as a good joke.

Thrasymachus wrote:When marriage was successful it was because until recently divorce was almost impossible or not possible at all.

Wrong.
When marriage is successful it's because both people enter into it with realistic expectations of what it can and cannot do, they both have a strong desire for the marriage to succeed, and they are both emotionally mature enough to know how to solve relationship problems instead of fleeing from them.

Thrasymachus wrote:For most women in the Christian and European tradition, if you did actually manage to divorce it meant something akin to social death, you ceased to exist as anything but a despised, barely tolerated pariah. That was the social constellation when marriage was successful, because back then there was largely no alternative, no choice. Now there is choice and the unhappily married massively split and divorce. However even today with this new freedom, alot of people stay unhappily married for financial reasons, because of the kids, etc.



So, Kagu, the biggest difference between me and you is I am realistic and investigative and not some air-fairy making up stuff to feel good about my preconceived notions. One of the most common reasons for divorce is fighting over finances and money, when you don't have enough money and/or one partner is chronically unemployed or under-employed it creates relationship problems. The real unemployment in the USA is 23% and gonna get even worse as the years and decades pass. You have to an absent minded fool to birth children into such an environment. And that is exactly what happens, those who think the least, especially about children and what future they won't have 20 years from now, breed the most. And those who have children paradoxically are more locked into short-term survival mode decisions, instead of long-term thinking since they bleed so much money. It should be the opposite, those who have children should be thinking even more long-term than the childless.


Why are you referring to the marriage customs of modern history when I plainly said
" accepted social and emotional relationships which have formed the basis of human society since our species first evolved. "


My primary educational background is in animal husbandry and animal behavior, with more than a passing interest and subsequent focus on human behavior and anthropology.
If you have any interest in knowing "where I'm coming from", so to speak, then you should remember that I interpret EVERYTHING about human relationships based on that foundation, and it is absolutely unshakable. The more I learn, the more it all fits together.
Taken in the context of my background knowledge, your argument sounds poorly reasoned and based on a lot of assumptions which (if I try to be as academically generous as possible) might be true on the surface, but fail to address, or even acknowledge, the underlying issues.

You seem to have little or no understanding of basic human nature, and by that I mean what motivates people to act the way that they do. You can't grasp WHY so many people, both men and women, WANT to be married. (Has it ever occurred to you that they might know something that you don't?)
You don't seem to grasp the importance of empathy and/or how it serves to facilitate and enhance human relationships. You dismiss the value of a stable family structure. In a nutshell: based solely on what you have written in this message board, you have an emotional IQ of zero.

If you want an example of " some air-fairy making up stuff to feel good about their preconceived notions." just take a look at the title of this thread.
You are not at all realistic, and the conclusions that you've drawn from your investigations, if they truly exist, don't stand up to scrutiny.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

User avatar
CatBunny
Established Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 09 Jul 2015, 12:50

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby CatBunny » 07 Apr 2016, 15:27

KAGU143 wrote:What this thread is really about is one person's fervent attempt to justify their own emotional bankruptcy by trying to portray it as superior to the accepted social and emotional relationships which have formed the basis of human society since our species first evolved.

Well that and their posts seem almost paranoid conspiracy theory almost. I'm not surprised they haven't called us all sheeples yet lol
Image

User avatar
KAGU143
Administrator
Posts: 1242
Joined: 05 Jan 2008, 10:09

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby KAGU143 » 07 Apr 2016, 16:47

Oh! Sheeples! I had forgotten about that . . . but then I avoid Rush Limbaugh and his ilk like the plague.
If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

PiF
Apositive Star
Posts: 2265
Joined: 14 Nov 2011, 22:47

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby PiF » 07 Apr 2016, 21:31

CatBunny wrote:Well that and their posts seem almost paranoid conspiracy theory almost. I'm not surprised they haven't called us all sheeples yet lol


Too late, I beat everyone too it 10 posts ago ... I mention this more to say this level of internet escapism happens worldwide and not just on aven..give it 2 or three generations and humans will find a better way to manage technology rather than the current technology managing the sheeple.. :lol: :lol:

Just sayin :P

Thrasymachus
Established Member
Posts: 65
Joined: 07 Mar 2016, 15:07

Re: The Walnut Theory: Sex, Marriage & Kids Are Not Worth It

Postby Thrasymachus » 09 Apr 2016, 14:56

KAGU143 wrote:" accepted social and emotional relationships which have formed the basis of human society since our species first evolved. "


Sorry that is nonsense, I spoon fed the info to you. Until very, very recently in the Western-European tradition a woman couldn't really get a divorce. And if she did it lead to her being a social pariah and outcast. So in the past we had large number of women and men staying unhappily married, rather than face a sort of social death. Once again I will have to play your intellectual nanny since you are so unrealistic and make stuff up:
UK Science Museum wrote:http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/brought ... psychiatry

Psychiatry emerged as a medical speciality in Europe at the beginning of the 1800s. However, women’s suffrage was over a century away. Most people, psychiatrists included, believed a woman’s place was in the home. She should be subordinate to her husband and dedicated to maternal and domestic responsibilities. Women’s roles have since profoundly changed in many parts of the world. Psychiatry has changed as a result.

Victorian women and asylum reform
A woman who rebelled against Victorian domesticity risked being declared insane and committed to an asylum. This was usually at her husband’s or father’s request, and she generally had no right to contest or appeal. Women were further disempowered by moral treatment once locked away. This cornerstone of Victorian psychiatry claimed male dominance was therapeutic. The doctor ruled the asylum like a father ruled his family.

L0023128

The spread of asylums between 1800 and 1900 surprisingly enabled a few women to be heard in politics. Elizabeth Packard won freedom after being confined to an asylum by her husband. She wrote a bestselling exposé, and advocated asylum reform and women’s rights. Dorothea Dix lobbied successfully for public asylums throughout the US and UK. Some scholars argue Victorian readers became more outraged by the mistreatment of ‘madwomen’ than the mistreatment of ‘madmen’. This may have been a response to the stereotyped ‘madwoman in the attic’ in novels of the time.

Hysteria and psychoanalysis
Nearly all Victorian physicians considered women more fragile and sensitive than men. They believed women were more susceptible to nervous breakdown and neurasthenia. The classic ‘female malady’ was hysteria. This diagnosis covered strange behaviours and nerve symptoms found most often in women, but also sometimes in ‘feminine’ men. The most commonly prescribed treatment for an unmarried woman showing signs of hysteria was to find a husband.

...


Did you get that? In the 1800's a woman who was not obedient to her husband would be called or diagnosed as a hysteric. A woman that liked sex too much also may have gotten that label, a women who didn't like sex at all could have received that psychological stigma, a woman who was unmarried late in life, etc. If woman didn't obey males especially their husband they got categorized as having hysteria. And that was all sanctioned and condoned by the mental health professionals of the time, for the mental health lovers out there.

Here is an epic Youtube video with Dr. Thomas Szasz also saying terms like hysteria and drapaetomonia(runaway slave syndrome) was used by psychiatry to stigmatize those who didn't fit into dominant social roles and that they don't constitute objection diseases like the the rest of the medical field:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQveNlsSCuE
In the case of women, not obeying the husband could lead to the process of being labeled a hysteric if they were processed by mental health professionals of the time.

Also human nature is a nonsense phrase used by dull people. Here is a take by Foucault on it in his debate with Chomsky:
Michel Foucualt wrote:https://chomsky.info/1971xxxx/

...

I will take an example by greatly simplifying it. The socialism of a certain period, at the end of the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth century, admitted in effect that in capitalist societies man hadn’t realised the full potential for his development and self-realisation; that human nature was effectively alienated in the capitalist system. And it dreamed of an ultimately liberated human nature.

What model did it use to conceive, project, and eventually realise that human nature? It was in fact the bourgeois model.

It considered that an alienated society was a society which, for example, gave pride of place to the benefit of all, to a sexuality of a bourgeois type, to a family of a bourgeois type, to an aesthetic of a bourgeois type. And it is moreover very true that this has happened in the Soviet Union and in the popular democracies: a kind of society has been reconstituted which has been transposed from the bourgeois society of the nineteenth century. The universalisation of the model of the bourgeois has been the utopia which has animated the constitution of Soviet society.

The result is that you too realised, I think, that it is difficult to say exactly what human nature is.

Isn’t there a risk that we will be led into error? Mao Tse-Tung spoke of bourgeois human nature and proletarian human nature, and he considers that they are not the same thing.

...

On the other hand, when we discussed the problem of human nature and political problems, then differences arose between us. And contrary to what you think, you can’t prevent me from believing that these notions of human nature, of justice, of the realisation of the essence of human beings, are all notions and concepts which have been formed within our civilisation, within our type of knowledge and our form of philosophy, and that as a result form part of our class system; and one can’t, however regrettable it may be, put forward these notions to describe or justify a fight which should-and shall in principle–overthrow the very fundaments of our society. This is an extrapolation for which I can’t find the historical justification. That’s the point. ..

...


Or to use the example of hysteria as it used to be defined in the 19th Century by medical professionals and society:
It is female human nature to be submissive to male figures, especially their husband. And if you were not, simply you suffered from hysteria.

Every society in every epoch has its way of thinking, its worldview, and it changes if you look at a different society or even the same society in a different epoch, don't mistake it for human nature. Further within a given society subgroups, like Muslims, communists, socialists, right-wingers, Mormons have their unique conception of this "human nature." Monogamy and marriage are not human nature, alot of societies have not used those concepts in their social organization and had more success. Infact now that we have a society with the freedom to divorce with little social stigma, marriage is a spectacular failure. Your arguments are wet noodle arguments.

@CatBunny:
Again if you spend all your time looking at cat macros, video games and anime, you cannot accuse others of squat, besides engaging in reality and social space time, while you deathly avoid it. Call it a conspiracy, call it what you will. Your side is simply not credible with your "la la la I want to remain ignorant" approach.


Return to “Asexuality”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests