[Opinion] Masturbation shouldn't be taught to kids

[Aquarius]

4 hours ago, Eric Tarpall said:

I mean teaching them socializing, flirting, confidence, body language, grooming, fashion, assertiveness, motherly and fatherly skills in case they get knocked up etc.

Yes that's what I meant. You have a great point there. I agree.  

[Aquarius]

1 hour ago, Eric Tarpall said:

 I know if I pet my snake it's my own fault. But some people seem to want me to do it. For unknown reasons. I'm just guessing their motives.

It's not wrong to do it, if you want to do it. You're free to do it if you want to, because everyone is.

You know.. most people speak from experience and a personal point of view that has nothing to do about you. Maybe those people misunderstood you and tried to offer help, the way they thought it would help. I know I went through that before, but different situations, not relating to sexuality. And I had the same reaction as you in this case.

Masturbation can be a great tool for self-exploration and that's the truth. It can also be good for relaxing, getting the stress out, good for insomnia, and many other things, including emotional healing.  

If you want it to be that, of course. It can be anything. 

[Eric Tarpall]

2 hours ago, FredFred said:

You shoudn't expect girls to show interest in you.

I should because I'm a male. They are supposed to be interested in me. But maybe I should work harder to provide value to them. I don't know.

2 hours ago, FredFred said:

Your views on women are so animalistic, it's like you don't see them as actual people.

I see them as people. People are animals including myself. I think you are seeing them as more than people. You're elevating them to goddesses. 

[zambize]

2 hours ago, FredFred said:

I don't know how to begin with that last paragraph. Your views on women are so animalistic, it's like you don't see them as actual people. Make some effort to jump into the 21st century man. 

That might be the case, but it seems maybe you have a similar view.  Your upset with him for his views on women which you feel like he treats like an animal, and that is wrong my your standards as far as I can tell.  But then you call HIS views animilastic and kind of treat him like an animal, commenting so far as to say he needs to make some effort to jump into the 21st century. I just dont think the best ways of getting someone to agree with you is calling their ideas animalistic, but then again maybe thats not your goal idk

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Eric Tarpall said:

I think the purpose of relationships is to reproduce and raise strong cubs together. 

That is a contracted view of a relationship. Where did that view come from? Have people in your environment (family, friends and society) believe that and pass it on to you? Is that a view you really want to hold onto? Is it serving you well?

There is nothing "wrong" with that view. It's just traditional and contracted.

I've also had beliefs about relationships conditioned into me during my upbringing. My mind-body was conditioned to believe relationships should be between a man and a woman that leads to marraige and offspring. Years later, I questioned my own beliefs and was like "Where did this come from? Do I really believe this? What wold life look like without this belief?" I learned that those beliefs were limiting me and letting go of them allowed my mind to expand.

For some people, heterosexual marriage and children is best for them. For others, it isn't.

[Emerald]

16 minutes ago, Eric Tarpall said:

I should because I'm a male. They are supposed to be interested in me. But maybe I should work harder to provide value to them. I don't know.

Wrong. Women have a lot more at stake in terms of child-rearing and the potential effects on their lives and bodies. Women can also only have one child every 9 months or so. So, women have to be selective. Also, she wants to be sure she has chosen a man of character, because in the earliest days of nomadic living, if a man left then both woman and child would die. And even today, women have to REALLY scrutinize men and be selective if they want to live a life that isn't filled with tragedy and mayhem.

Men, on the other hand, could father thousands of children in his lifetime if he tried. And his body and survival wouldn't be effected. And there is more of an opportunity for him to just run away from the responsibility of child rearing. So, men don't have to be as selective. They just have to find a woman that will accept them... which will happen eventually if a guy tries enough times.

So, it is quite practical that women tend to scrutinize men more than men scrutinize women, partnership-wise. And this is one reason why women are very unlikely to approach. 

Also, as a woman, I only like one guy at a time. And if I approach that guy and he says no, then I have to wait a long time before I can get over him and even longer before another attraction comes up. So, I never approach as there is simply too much at stake. I just spend time around him, drop hints, and hope that he approaches me. So, even if a woman did like you, you probably wouldn't know unless you tried to escalate things.

Also, women are not going to just come up to you out of nowhere. It's dangerous to approach strange men, as you don't know what that person is about. Plus, women have tons of guys approaching them all the time, so there really would be no reason for them to approach a stranger. Most often, you have to actually know women for them to become attracted to you.

So, you really should understand that women and men's attractions don't work the same way. Women don't work the way that you do. 

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Women have a lot more at stake in terms of child-rearing and the potential effects on their lives and bodies. Women can also only have one child every 9 months or so. So, women have to be selective. Also, she wants to be sure she has chosen a man of character, because in the earliest days of nomadic living, if a man left then both woman and child would die. And even today, women have to REALLY scrutinize men and be selective if they want to live a life that isn't filled with tragedy and mayhem.

Many countries in central/south america don't hold fathers accountable. They can impregnate a woman and just leave - without accountability to help raise the child or pay alimony. I met many women raising children on their own (or with the help of their parents), because the father just took off. I also noticed that women looking for a mate placed dedication, loyalty and integrity very high up on their priority list.

[Emerald]

24 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Many countries in central/south america don't hold fathers accountable. They can impregnate a woman and just leave - without accountability to help raise the child or pay alimony. I met many women raising children on their own (or with the help of their parents), because the father just took off. I also noticed that women looking for a mate placed dedication, loyalty and integrity very high up on their priority list.

That sucks that the laws in those countries are so antithetical to the stability, health, and wellbeing of women and children. 

And there are tons of people I know who are either single mothers or who have never met their father because they took off. I think it's a lot easier for irresponsible men to leave their children because they don't carry them for 9 months before-hand, and they can detach and kind of pretend it didn't happen. So, this is probably why that dynamic happens as often as it does. 

So, the level of discernment and vetting that women put men through, is just a really wise decision. I think that a lot of inexperienced men like the OP want to see sex in a vacuum without regard to the practical concerns. And just thinking about how things "should be" if they were fair. 

There are so many dysfunctional people out there, men and women both. But there are so many added layers of vulnerability for women as the one possessing less physical strength, less testosterone, and having the lion's share of the role in caring for children in the gestational and baby phase. So, it's very important to find a man who is a rock in terms of reliability, integrity, and stability if a woman gets into any sexual situation that could eventually turn into a family. Otherwise, they will live their life in a constant state of anxious upheaval, with children in tow.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Emerald

[Emerald]

52 minutes ago, zambize said:

That might be the case, but it seems maybe you have a similar view.  Your upset with him for his views on women which you feel like he treats like an animal, and that is wrong my your standards as far as I can tell.  But then you call HIS views animilastic and kind of treat him like an animal, commenting so far as to say he needs to make some effort to jump into the 21st century. I just dont think the best ways of getting someone to agree with you is calling their ideas animalistic, but then again maybe thats not your goal idk

He was saying that he wanted impregnate a woman from every race to raise his "cubs" so that there are a lot of different versions of himself running around in the world. 

I think that the word animalistic is accurate.

[zambize]

5 minutes ago, Emerald said:

He was saying that he wanted impregnate a woman from every race to raise his "cubs" so that there are a lot of different versions of himself running around in the world. 

I think that the word animalistic is accurate.

Fair fair, I missed that.  I think it would maybe sound more "animalistic" to me if it had more thought put into it.  It became  pretty apparent how  silly this would look in reality, going around catching women like they are those coin collection things where you put a quarter from each stare in its place, but instead you're looking for women from each of the races to build up an army with different skin colored kids under the pretense that genetic variation lies primarily in our skin tone, or it's at all relevant to happiness etc.   So maybe that's an accurate word, but it accurately describes something that itself was probably thought up within 10 seconds with not much of a mental revision taking place

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, zambize said:

Fair fair, I missed that.  I think it would maybe sound more "animalistic" to me if it had more thought put into it.  It became  pretty apparent how  silly this would look in reality, going around catching women like they are those coin collection things where you put a quarter from each stare in its place, but instead you're looking for women from each of the races to build up an army with different skin colored kids under the pretense that genetic variation lies primarily in our skin tone, or it's at all relevant to happiness etc.   So maybe that's an accurate word, but it accurately describes something that itself was probably thought up within 10 seconds with not much of a mental revision taking place

I'm sure it was just an on the spot defense that wasn't really thought through. The OP tends to like to come to a lot of snap conclusions about things.

[zambize]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm sure it was just an on the spot defense that wasn't really thought through. The OP tends to like to come to a lot of snap conclusions about things.

Well I'm sorry that's a pain in the ass to deal with,  as strong as I like to think I am, I'm sure i'd be pretty hurt if I was a woman in this world

[Eric Tarpall]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

That is a contracted view of a relationship.

People can be gay and have open relationships if they want. Or have non sexual relationships. That's fine. But I wouldn't consider that healthy. If everyone did that humans would go extinct.

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

So, even if a woman did like you, you probably wouldn't know unless you tried to escalate things.

Yeah that's where my problem lies. My ego can't handle rejection so I never try to escalate things. 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, zambize said:

Well I'm sorry that's a pain in the ass to deal with,  as strong as I like to think I am, I'm sure i'd be pretty hurt if I was a woman in this world

I've heard a lot worse and quite often. I just watched a video where Elliot Hulse who I thought was pretty okay from what I had seen. And he was saying he didn't know if women should have the right to vote and 75% of the comments were affirming how correct he is and how glad they are that he's dropping "red pills". And comments like this can be found in a lot of places.

So, sexism doesn't surprise me anymore, especially fairly small instances like this. The OP said something a bit objectifying without really realizing it. But it's really all over the place on the internet. The OP is just a bit immature and grasping to feel a sense of control and to salvage his self-esteem, and he's doing that through means that happened to be sexist. And he's largely just being effected by these collective waves, as opposed to consciously participating or causing the waves.

So, a single instance of sexism is kind of like a single zombie. It's not really a problem once you get acclimated to the fact that zombies exist. You can just avoid it, and they fall apart easily. Zombies are clumsy and not too smart. 

But it's always the horde you have to worry about. And that's what worries me the most, is that it seems like the number of men being brainwashed into anti-woman rhetoric is festering.

It's like it's all coming up as a reaction to us pressing forward and progressing as a society. It's all to keep us in Orange and to keep us from moving to Green, as well as to avoid the integration of the feminine principle. 

But my assumption is that we will make that jump, and these guys will collectively retreat back to the shadows. And then, their kids and grandkids will be much more forward thinking, while they become irrelevant and eventually die out. And then this cycle will come back again and again in more and more of the minutia of the issue until we fully re-integrate the feminine principle. 

Or we might not make the jump and we will all die and the planet with us... either one. But I'm optimistic. 

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Eric Tarpall said:

People can be gay and have open relationships if they want. Or have non sexual relationships. That's fine. But I wouldn't consider that healthy. If everyone did that humans would go extinct.

That's not what he was saying.

12 minutes ago, Eric Tarpall said:

Yeah that's where my problem lies. My ego can't handle rejection so I never try to escalate things. 

You should really try to gain some connection to your emotions and get out of your comfort zone with it. If you don't learn how to do that, then you'll miss out on a lot of things in life, including but not limited to romantic relationships.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Eric Tarpall said:

People can be gay and have open relationships if they want. Or have non sexual relationships. That's fine. But I wouldn't consider that healthy. If everyone did that humans would go extinct.

Why would humans go extinct if everyone had nonsexual relationships?

Heterosexual intercourse is not necessary for humans to continue on. Men can give sperm without sex. One push of a syringe is all thats necessary. Less than a minute and under $1.

For you to reproduce, all you need to do is masturbate by yourself, put your semen in a vial and pass it off to a woman that you never meet. And you never meet the child. Would that be a satisfying healthy relationship to you? Of course not. What else would one need to have a healthy relationship? . . . Notice how anything you say here to create a healthy relationship has nothing to do with being heterosexual. 

[zambize]

6 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I've heard a lot worse and quite often. I just watched a video where Elliot Hulse who I thought was pretty okay from what I had seen. And he was saying he didn't know if women should have the right to vote and 75% of the comments were affirming how correct he is and how glad they are that he's dropping "red pills". And comments like this can be found in a lot of places.

So, sexism doesn't surprise me anymore, especially fairly small instances like this. The OP said something a bit objectifying without really realizing it. But it's really all over the place on the internet. The OP is just a bit immature and grasping to feel a sense of control and to salvage his self-esteem, and he's doing that through means that happened to be sexist. And he's largely just being effected by these collective waves, as opposed to consciously participating or causing the waves.

So, a single instance of sexism is kind of like a single zombie. It's not really a problem once you get acclimated to the fact that zombies exist. You can just avoid it, and they fall apart easily. Zombies are clumsy and not too smart. 

But it's always the horde you have to worry about. And that's what worries me the most, is that it seems like the number of men being brainwashed into anti-woman rhetoric is festering.

It's like it's all coming up as a reaction to us pressing forward and progressing as a society. It's all to keep us in Orange and to keep us from moving to Green, as well as to avoid the integration of the feminine principle. 

But my assumption is that we will make that jump, and these guys will collectively retreat back to the shadows. And then, their kids and grandkids will be much more forward thinking, while they become irrelevant and eventually die out. And then this cycle will come back again and again in more and more of the minutia of the issue until we fully re-integrate the feminine principle. 

Or we might not make the jump and we will all die and the planet with us... either one. But I'm optimistic. 

Yeah I  think green taught by green is pretty indigestible by men, I also think a lot  of it is a reaction to being hurt by toxic aspects of green.  I think right now our men need other men in yellow to help bridge that gap and educate them on emotional intelligence and integrating their feminine side.  I'm pretty optimistic because I feel like I've been able to have pretty good talks with both women in green and most men in my generation about these issues, but that's definitely alarming that people are still questioning whether women should have the right to vote or not.  I mean maybe that's what we should expect being monkeys and all, but in a relative sense, it does surprise me WIDE range of development we got here with us

[zambize]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

Many men like to think their penis is super important. It’s not. 

You could actually argue that the world would be a much better place if some people didn't have their penis, that's probably a long list 

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, zambize said:

Yeah I  think green taught by green is pretty indigestible by men, I also think a lot  of it is a reaction to being hurt by toxic aspects of green.  I think right now our men need other men in yellow to help bridge that gap and educate them on emotional intelligence and integrating their feminine side.  I'm pretty optimistic because I feel like I've been able to have pretty good talks with both women in green and most men in my generation about these issues, but that's definitely alarming that people are still questioning whether women should have the right to vote or not.  I mean maybe that's what we should expect being monkeys and all, but in a relative sense, it does surprise me WIDE range of development we got here with us

I think the current collective ego (which is Orange and masculinity-centric) is having an extreme reaction to the progression toward Green and feminine integration. And this reaction is causing a lot of people who are not ready to progress, to instead attempt to regress into past societal structures in their reaction against the changes. So, we're seeing a lot of the Blue and Red shadows coming to fruition as well as the darker side of Orange. People don't want to lose the advantage that being an Orange man in an Orange masculine society affords them, even if they would be in an overall better spot to integrate Green. It still registers as a loss.

But I suppose my confidence kind of wavers a bit. I think that if we're able to sufficiently remedy the issue of climate change, then we will continue to integrate the feminine more and more into our present masculine societal structure which will lead to a much healthier society. But the backlash is so strong against the integration of the feminine, I fear that we won't be able to make it in time as a species. So, only time will truly tell if we can make the jump or can't.

 

[zambize]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

I think the current collective ego (which is Orange and masculinity-centric) is having an extreme reaction to the progression toward Green and feminine integration. And this reaction is causing a lot of people who are not ready to progress, to instead attempt to regress into past societal structures in their reaction against the changes. So, we're seeing a lot of the Blue and Red shadows coming to fruition as well as the darker side of Orange. People don't want to lose the advantage that being an Orange man in an Orange masculine society affords them, even if they would be in an overall better spot to integrate Green. It still registers as a loss.

But I suppose my confidence kind of wavers a bit. I think that if we're able to sufficiently remedy the issue of climate change, then we will continue to integrate the feminine more and more into our present masculine societal structure which will lead to a much healthier society. But the backlash is so strong against the integration of the feminine, I fear that we won't be able to make it in time as a species. So, only time will truly tell if we can make the jump or can't.

 

I don't think it will be pretty, but when has social reform been pretty.  It's not like it was roses and sunshine  integrating different races/religions/political ideologies to the point we have now.   A lot of men just feel hurt, and it's sad to see that coming out in toxic ways, but it seems like the culture around "men don't cry" is starting to go away especially for younger generations.  Looking at younger generation guys, I don't really think they fit societies current views of manliness haha.  I actually haven't been so worried about climate change, I'm sure it could really damage our planet, but I guess I don't expect it to kill off everyone, but I could be convinced I'm sure.