![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
According to some, simply watching porn is cheating.
Self pleasuring is cheating in the eyes of God, but controversial to others.
Dishonesty is a part of cheating, but without another person involved, self pleasuring with the intent of hiding the fact from your partner is at worse, only dishonest.
Social interaction and bonding[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-repro ... in_animals
Lions are known to engage in sex to create bonds and interact with each other. Lions live in a social group known as a pride that consists of 2-18 females and 1-7 males. The females found in these prides were born into the pride. The males enter the pride from other prides. The success of reproduction for each individual lion is dependent on the number of male lions found in their social group. Male lions create coalitions and search for prides to take over. Successful coalitions have usually created a strong bond with each other and will take over prides. Once winning in a competition, all current males in the pride will be kicked out and left to find another pride. While in search for another pride these males will often engage in sexual behavior with each other; creating a strong bond in this new coalition created.[7][8]
Sex is a basic form of communication in bonobos’ life. It seems to infuse everything from simple expressions of affection to the establishment of dominance. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in sexual activities to create bonds with dominant bonobos. Having created this bond with the male, they will share food with each other and not compete with each other.[1] All members of the group are potential sex partners, males participate in sexual activity with other males, as do females with other females. These bonds made between females are for protection against male bonobos. If a male bonobo attempts to harass a female bonobo, the other females will help the female defend herself because of the strong bonds they have with each other.[9]
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
edy420 » July 15th, 2017, 3:04 pm wrote:Bonding with A.I is possible
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Dave_Oblad » July 15th, 2017, 6:38 pm wrote: both my Wife and I enjoyed porn.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Dave_Oblad » July 15th, 2017, 6:38 pm wrote:Hi all,
We already have many instances of people bonding with their Robotic Pets. Someday, not long from now, AI will be somewhat commonplace and you can buy a customizable Mate Program. Design your perfect soul mate from trait settings and pseudo background choices. Gamers already do this for their personal Avatars.
The sad part is the physical separation from your idealized mate.. but never fear.. New Models of articulated Robots (stemming from a robust Sex Robot Market) will become available. So then you and your ideal AI Mate can shop for the perfect body you both want. Then upload your AI mate into said robot and now you can get Physical.
But do you own your Mate.. since you paid for everything? What rights do such a created Mate possess? What if you cheat on it or it cheats on you? Are you allowed to Kill your Robotic Mate? Or Sell it?
Many would say this is just Science Fiction fantasy and not to worry about such. Those people have their heads stuck deep under the sand and need some light brought into their lives before it's too Late.
We need to start thinking "Now" about the ethics we will soon face in regards to AI, Robots and Androids. Had we been a bit less stupid, perhaps plane hijackings would never have been an issue.
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack your thread. So back on topic.. both my Wife and I enjoyed porn. Was a definite pleasurable asset in our married/sex lives.
Best wishes,
Dave :^)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Braininvat » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:46 pm wrote:Really like Serpent's observations on partners working out what's right for them, without too much invocation of cultural norms and ethical rules. Some couples may feel that masturbation draws energy away from sex, others may feel that it enhances sex. Truly a YMMV situation, seems to me. As a general guideline, I've found it useful to view touch as a basic human need and sexual activity is just one category of that. My impression has been that many people have sex more for the cuddling and caressing than the "happy ending." I've gone so far as to wonder what proportion of our sexual drive is really just wanting to be touched, but in a highly sexualized culture we are trained to interpret that yearning as always about getting laid.
21 year old me would not have written the above posting. :-)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 16th, 2017, 10:04 am wrote:Braininvat » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:46 pm wrote:Really like Serpent's observations on partners working out what's right for them, without too much invocation of cultural norms and ethical rules. Some couples may feel that masturbation draws energy away from sex, others may feel that it enhances sex. Truly a YMMV situation, seems to me. As a general guideline, I've found it useful to view touch as a basic human need and sexual activity is just one category of that. My impression has been that many people have sex more for the cuddling and caressing than the "happy ending." I've gone so far as to wonder what proportion of our sexual drive is really just wanting to be touched, but in a highly sexualized culture we are trained to interpret that yearning as always about getting laid.
21 year old me would not have written the above posting. :-)
We have gone down the whatever consenting adults want to do road and people are still not happy. The sexual revolution resolved some of the neuroticism of the Victorian era but created new problems. As I said it is question of taking into consideration all three relevant drivers, the physical, psychological, and social. The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-doctoroff/sex-in-china-prurience-an_b_524499.html
Wives often turn a blind eye to sexual activities outside the home as long as they pose no threat to cohesion. Tolerance, of course, varies but women, more often than not, endure philandering spouses so long as dedication to family is not in question. They grin and bear an hour with a prostitute or a trip to the massage parlor. A mistress - i.e., a de facto threat to solidarity — is more likely to be a deal breaker, but not necessarily so. According to Xu Xinjin, the owner of marital-advice hotline, divorce due to extramarital affairs is still relatively uncommon. Many go on for years because no one wants to hurt the family’s only child. Yes, the number of men — and women - tempted into “dangerous liaisons” is on the rise. But those who have them, particularly after a child is born, are scorned by society, shamed by family and friends. (Twenty years ago, they would be demoted at work.)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Athena » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:52 pm wrote:wolfhnd » July 16th, 2017, 10:04 am wrote:Braininvat » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:46 pm wrote:Really like Serpent's observations on partners working out what's right for them, without too much invocation of cultural norms and ethical rules. Some couples may feel that masturbation draws energy away from sex, others may feel that it enhances sex. Truly a YMMV situation, seems to me. As a general guideline, I've found it useful to view touch as a basic human need and sexual activity is just one category of that. My impression has been that many people have sex more for the cuddling and caressing than the "happy ending." I've gone so far as to wonder what proportion of our sexual drive is really just wanting to be touched, but in a highly sexualized culture we are trained to interpret that yearning as always about getting laid.
21 year old me would not have written the above posting. :-)
We have gone down the whatever consenting adults want to do road and people are still not happy. The sexual revolution resolved some of the neuroticism of the Victorian era but created new problems. As I said it is question of taking into consideration all three relevant drivers, the physical, psychological, and social. The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.
We once had a notion of family duties and in China where Confucius was strong on family duties, sex and love were not always seen as the same thing. In fact, during the Victorian period, women got circumcised if they liked sex. In the 1933 book "Eugenics and Sex Harmony" by Herman H. Rubin, M.D. argues in favor of teaching birth control to wives, saying this would increase mortality because then they would stop sending their husbands to prostitutes. Before we had birth control, and penicillin, women had good reasons for avoiding sex. Being okay with a man relieving himself with another woman, was also a stress reducer for women. So when writing about China Tom Doctoroff says...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-doctoroff/sex-in-china-prurience-an_b_524499.html
Wives often turn a blind eye to sexual activities outside the home as long as they pose no threat to cohesion. Tolerance, of course, varies but women, more often than not, endure philandering spouses so long as dedication to family is not in question. They grin and bear an hour with a prostitute or a trip to the massage parlor. A mistress - i.e., a de facto threat to solidarity — is more likely to be a deal breaker, but not necessarily so. According to Xu Xinjin, the owner of marital-advice hotline, divorce due to extramarital affairs is still relatively uncommon. Many go on for years because no one wants to hurt the family’s only child. Yes, the number of men — and women - tempted into “dangerous liaisons” is on the rise. But those who have them, particularly after a child is born, are scorned by society, shamed by family and friends. (Twenty years ago, they would be demoted at work.)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 16th, 2017, 11:04 am wrote: The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:08 pm wrote:wolfhnd » July 16th, 2017, 11:04 am wrote: The sticky issue is how the lower half of the IQ range seems to be missing out on long-term happy sexual relationships.
How do you know they are? I'm not doubting, just asking where the information comes from.
Seems to me there must be approximately the same number of eligible individuals of each sex and orientation in every percentile. It's longer odds for people on the skinny ends of the Bell curve to find a compatible partner, because fewer of them are scattered through the population.
So, if people of median and below average intelligence have difficulty with lasting marital bliss, I would imagine the reason is neither sexual nor psychological, but economic and perhaps cultural. Since both persons and partnerships have a finite capacity to withstand stress, I would look for the causes of stress - on adolescents, couples and families.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 18th, 2017, 9:23 pm wrote:Did you consider that people who have trouble with delayed gratification may have difficulty with finance and relationships.
You may also want to consider how stressful a career is.
The relationship between poverty and successful marriage at least historically muddies the water a bit.
In 1960 22 percent of black children were born to single moms in 2006 the percentage had risen to 65 percent.
Figures for other impoverished groups are similar.
Blaming poverty an ignoring social devolution is the easy way out.
People with higher IQs I would argue were able to negotiate the pit falls of the sexual revolution and drug culture introduced in the 60s more successfully than those less gifted.
Economic incentives in fact would seem to dictate a more conservative life style for those with lower earning potential if they had the wisdom to predict consequences.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 19th, 2017, 12:38 am wrote:You see blaming poverty as the rational explanation for crime and broken families
I see as an excuse.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 19th, 2017, 12:44 am wrote:I don't mean politically conservative. I mean using the resources available to you with the maximum efficiency. If you are unable to predict the consequences of not delaying gratification your life will be a mess.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 19th, 2017, 2:18 am wrote: The issue of IQ and reduced stability in marriage. While poverty was suggested as an explanation for the last issue I suggested a common thread.
The break down of traditional moral standards and the inability of many of societies members to recognize the necessity or at least the benefits of delayed gratification.
The consequences of relative poverty and it's effect on social cohesion I don't discount but wish to leave for future discussion.
In societies lacking material wealth commitment to societal duty, and conservation based on foresight are not abstract moral obligations but a matter of necessity. Contact with materially wealthy cultures almost always leads to moral decay.
The conclusion that can be drawn is that moral decay does not result from poverty but from the break down in bonds within society. ... More and more people are finding that they cannot compete for a shrinking number of employment opportunities.
At the same time the welfare state offers an easy alternative to being a productive member of society.
It is not surprising that a society that fosters alienation of classes and places no demands on it citizens is becoming increasingly unhappy. Having no place in the societal structure and having no commitment to that structure could be expected to make a social animal unhappy. Worst still for those unable to predict the consequences of their actions a structureless social fabric is devastating.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
No man's feelings were ever hurt by doing his duty. -On the contrary, one good action, one temptation resisted and overcome, one sacrifice of desire or interest purely for conscience's sake, will prove a cordial for weak and low spirits far beyond what either indulgence, or diversion, or company can do for them. Paley
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
How the hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions in a structureless social fabric?
And just how are unemployed working-class people of average IQ supposed to restructure a broken society? The guy who broke it sailed off on a beautiful white yacht, with his fourth-generation decorative wife on deck, caskets of jewels and robotic mistresses in the hold.
Serpent
Resident Member
Posts: 2311
Joined: 24 Dec 2011
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Athena » July 19th, 2017, 11:32 am wrote:[How the hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions in a structureless social fabric?]
How in hell can anyone predict the consequences of their actions? This is done through the powers of reason and it is because we have the powers of reason that we have democracy. Also is there any doubt how I will react if someone disrespects me? There is a direct relationship between respect, liberty, and equality and education is how to establish a culture that makes liberty possible and raises the human potential for all to achieve their potential and enjoy the happiness of which Aristotle and Jefferson spoke.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 19th, 2017, 6:11 pm wrote:I'm mainly concerned here with delayed gratification so will address that in more detail at some future time unless there is no interest.
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests