Male psychology

[Disenchantedly Yours]

zengirl

How is something not wrong if it's imperfect?

 

Please see my response to Mme for the answer to your question. You will find it in the first two paragraphs I addressed toward her.

 

If a person is in any way "imperfect" because they have sexual fantasies, it implies wrongness.

 

People are imperfect in every way possible. That is the nature of the world. Imperfection exists in every area of our lives.

 

Are you offended by the idea that people aren't perfect?

 

Does the fact that people aren't "perfect" mean they are "wrong" or "bad"? No.

 

It doesn't matter if you keep saying that's what you mean, because then you also keep making it very clear and saying that IS what you mean by referring to it as imperfect.

 

If that's what you think, they why are you bothering to ask me any questions at all? You've already made up your mind about what my thoughts are.

 

I'm saying I think it is 100% perfectly okay to have sexual fantasies and that it is, in no way, an imperfection -- not at all wrong. You are saying, very clearly, that you find it an imperfection, which is a synonym for a flaw or something wrong!

 

As defined by the dictionary:

 

Wrong: Not correct or true. An unjust, dishonest, or immoral action. False.

Imperfection: A fault, blemish, or undesirable feature. The state of being faulty or incomplete.

 

"Wrong" is simpy "false" while "imperfection" is simply "faulty". "Wrong" and "imperfection" are not synonymous.

 

All human beings are infact imperfect all the time. Not all human beings are "wrong" all the time.

 

You have qualified things in a way that I simply don't think are true.

 

In a relationship, I consider mental, emotional and physical elements to all be important to the happiness of a relationship. And since I consider all three of these elments important, I expect a certain amount of self control to be exercised in all of them. For myself and my boyfriend. Phyiscal commitment is important to most people. People expect varying levels of physical commitment from their partners based within the parameters they are both comfortable with. Since the phyiscal element is not the only part of a relationship, why would I only expect phyiscal commitment? I wouldn't. I also expect mental and emotional commitment. I prefer to be with the type of man that will exercise control in all thress of these elements. I do not beliee that self control equals repression. But I also am realistic about human nature and know that myself or my boyfriend are not perfect. That sometimes I will infact burst out into tears in frustration and that it might not be fair to him. And that sometimes he will have thoughts of other women. However, for the most part, we try to not let our more base emotions and responses get the best of us so we can show our respect to one another. I am not saying anyting new here. I have made these comments many times before. And instead of taking my entire conversation into context about what I pesronall ybelieve is important in relationships (phyiscal, mental and emotional elements) and how they play out in expectations, you seem focused on one statement that is not in context.

 

Failing is a degree of wrongness and imperfection. You're missing the point; please read the above.

 

I looked up the word "imperfection" and "wrong" is not listed as a synonym.

 

I also looked up the word "wrong" and "imperfection" is not listed as a synonym either.

 

I believe you to be missing the point. I guess we are at an impasse.

 

 

I disagree with all those generalizations too (except where statistically proven and even then don't see the point in the fuss of complaining about it), and I've done so in many posts. The fact that there are male posters who fixate on the weight of women of different nationalities doesn't have anything to do with what we're discussing here

.

 

It does in terms of self control and what can be a prized way to practice self control and how both genders infact prize self control in each other even if it shows up in different ways. Men usually appreicate a woman that practices discipline and self control to keep her body in shape. He also usually appreciates a woman that doesn't react emotionally to everything and uses some amount of self control on her emotions.

 

Additionally, weight is something that can be documented, and the unhealthiness of true obesity can also be easily documented through medical science.

 

Exactly. Weight is more easily documented for it's physical element. things that go on in our brain are not as easy to pinpoint because there is no visable signifiers that lets us know what is going on with someone. It's like when someone does something bad and they interview people that knew that person and they talk about what a nice person they seemed to be. I am going to qualfy this that I am not implying that when people fantasize they are bad people. I am only using an example to showcase an example of when this happens. Mental constructs are harder to pin down. Sexual fantasy is certainly healthy, but not all sexual fantasies are neccesarily healthy just because fantisizing about sexuality is. Often, some of the more complicated sexual fantasies are born out of pyschological things. Such as a strong male leader that in the bedroom likes to be dominated.

 

 

First of all: "Over indulgent" is a comparative term, a value judgement. What makes something 'over' indulgent?

 

Of course it is. Which is why this discussion never gets boring. We do not all agree on what is "over" indulgent. Although I do think we all socially have a based understanding of the increase in sexual images in society.

 

Second of all: We can analyze a Big Mac and our body processes and tell that it is not terribly healthy -- we can argue the degree of its unhealthiness, sure, and they may be fine in certain quantities, but this can all be scientifically discussed. Personally, I don't care what people eat, but I do think you can prove -- via hard, biological science -- that certain foods are not good for the body's basic processes. You cannot really do that with ANYTHING psychological, including sexual thoughts.

 

Agree. That's why this issue is so complicated. This is a point I've made myself. But that doesn't mean that just because there is no phyiscal way to measure it that it doesn't exist.

 

Sure, you have. You've said over and over again we live in an 'overindulgent' culture where sexuality is not to your liking; that impacts and applies to me and everyone else!

 

It's not a matter of "sexuality not being to my liking". It's too much of a complex issue for that black and white of a statement. It's matter of being realistic about the sociology of sexuality in all it's goodness and badness. This will clearly be subjective. But I appear to be getting criticized for even having an opinion on it to begin with.

 

I have been very clear that I do think there are certain problems with sexuality in current society. (Mme has said as much herself.) I do think we have an over indulgent culture. I do think it's wrong to think that we have a culture that over indulges in many vices, (spending, weight, drugs) but that somehow, when it comes to sexuality, we are a fully evolved and healthy non-indulgent society. That's just not realistic.

 

I however have been very clear about how the perimaters I try to set around my relationships apply to *me*. You are free to choose whatever relationship makes you happy based on the perimaters you want to set for yourself and your partner.

 

 

You haven't owned it. You think you can call something an imperfection and yet that you haven't made a value judgement on it.

 

Do you think you aren't making values and judgements at all Zengirl? We all are. This is not specific to me. Our values and judgements give us a baseline how we individually see fit to live our lives.

 

 

 

All good questions!

 

See my response to Mme on her questions. I was very honest and sincere in my response.

[2sunny]

I disagree with the part that no one is perfect.

 

I do believe that everyone is perfect... And everything in the world is just as it should be - it is me that has learned to accept how perfect everything and everyone actually is.

 

If I don't agree with someone - that is perfectly ok too! Everyone has their own opinion and there is value in that.

[zengirl]

Please see my response to Mme for the answer to your question. You will find it in the first two paragraphs I addressed toward her.

 

People are imperfect in every way possible. That is the nature of the world. Imperfection exists in every area of our lives.

 

I'm speaking to using the phrase, "People are not perfect," as a response to people having sexual fantasies.

 

Are you offended by the idea that people aren't perfect?

 

This is irrelevant. My point was you somehow correlated perfection or imperfection to the content of people's thoughts, specifically sexual fantasies. You can try to disown those statements now, but you're really just flailing around. You CLEARLY (by what you said and even by this simple example you gave us time and time again about imperfections) have an issue with sexual fantasies and see them as wrong -- maybe not all the time, but you think you get to be the arbiter of what degree or what amount are 'acceptable.' That's what many, many people have taken away from you in this thread, and it's what you keep saying time and time again with your statements and then pretending you didn't say. That's what you're dancing around.

 

Does the fact that people aren't "perfect" mean they are "wrong" or "bad"? No.

 

I never said bad. I said an imperfection -- a specific imperfection we are speaking of -- speaks to something that is incorrect/wrong/could be made perfect. We are not speaking of people in general. We are speaking of sexual fantasies.

 

Do you think sexual fantasies are healthy? Do you think sexual fantasies, in no way, hinder a person's level of perfection? Mme. Chaucer asked many great questions, most of which you ignored.

 

It's not a matter of "sexuality not being to my liking". It's too much of a complex issue for that black and white of a statement. It's matter of being realistic about the sociology of sexuality in all it's goodness and badness. This will clearly be subjective. But I appear to be getting criticized for even having an opinion on it to begin with.

 

FTR, Nobody is criticizing you for having an opinion. It's the way you express your opinions that earns you criticism.

 

See my response to Mme on her questions. I was very honest and sincere in my response.

 

You didn't answer most of them directly. No surprise, but you didn't.

[Mme. Chaucer]

 

 

My point was you somehow correlated perfection or imperfection to the content of people's thoughts, specifically sexual fantasies. You can try to disown those statements now, but you're really just flailing around. You CLEARLY (by what you said and even by this simple example you gave us time and time again about imperfections) have an issue with sexual fantasies and see them as wrong -- maybe not all the time, but you think you get to be the arbiter of what degree or what amount are 'acceptable.' That's what many, many people have taken away from you in this thread, and it's what you keep saying time and time again with your statements and then pretending you didn't say. That's what you're dancing around.

 

And how about this fabulous food analogy to explain "self control" in the context of sexual fantasies and masturbation (I assume, since it was offered in response to my questions about those things):

 

Actually, self control can be quite freeing. When I control myself and don't eat bad food, it might be hard to deny myself that cheesecakse in the moment, but the long term rewards are infinately more promising and rewarding. I like myself more when I don't gain a few extra pounds and subcumb to a weakness. I feel stronger because I had the self control. But I am human, so of course, sometimes I do subcumb to the weakness. It's like when I go to the gym too. That requires a certain amount of self control to regularly go. Most nights, I just want to go home. But I go anway. I use self control. And I bet more men enjoy when a woman exercises self control to take care of her body then not. Just as I enjoy a man that exercises self control to take care of his mind in a way that I think is going to be best beneficial to our relationship. It's not really that different. We would never say a man was horrible because he wanted his partner to use physical self control and be commited to working out and keeping in shape. Why do you think that mentally it should be any different?

 

Why do you think that mentally it should be any different?

 

Simple. Because I don't see sexual fantasies or masturbation, for me or for other people, as analogous to eating "bad" food and letting my body go to hell, or as a "weakness," or in any way "bad" for me or for other people. I do not equate the positive act of going to the gym when one does not feel like it to any kind of positive in refraining from masturbating if one does feel like it. I don't share your elevated opinion of denial of healthy, harmless pleasure to myself, or for other people, either.

 

I DON'T THINK SEXUALITY IS BAD OR THAT IT'S SOMEHOW NOBLE, ADMIRABLE, BENEFICIAL TO HAPPINESS OR LOVE TO REPRESS IT.

 

Now, kindly refrain from yelling "I NEVER SAID it should be repressed." The entire quote I posted of yours above is a description of repression, or at least suppression, and a celebration of it, though you did not use those words. Your entire posting history regarding sex is a celebration and elevation of repression. We can read. Maybe you are in denial about your own beliefs, but you are actually expressing yourself very clearly.

 

I believe that attitudes like yours promote a sick relationship with ones own sexuality and actually increase the propensity for addictive, covert and / or abusive behaviors around sexuality.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Mme. Chaucer

[xxoo]

Do people generally think of cheesecake (or similar deliciousness) as "bad" food, and eating it as "succumbing" to weakness?

 

I thoroughly enjoy eating cheesecake and other "bad" food, in healthy proportion to more nutritious foods. No guilt, no weakness. Just pleasure!

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Zengirl

I'm speaking to using the phrase, "People are not perfect," as a response to people having sexual fantasies.

 

Again, please see my response to Mme. It's all there. I'm not sure what more you are looking for. You have repeatidly asked me the same question about the same comment. I have repeatidly given you a response to these questions only to have you tell me that's not what I mean and that you know better about what I mean then I do. You continue to insist this one mentality holds true for my philosophy when it's really something that only holds true for yours. I can agree that we hold different philosphies we apply to life. Why is that a bad thing?

 

Despite my further explaing of my viewpoint, I think a good chunk of my entire conversation is being ignored to repeatidly reiterate a line you are focused on in a way that misrepresents the completness of my thoughts on this. There are many things you can draw on from my conversation that helps explain my position. I think you are remaining dogmatically specific to the comment, "people are not perfect", and taking it out of context to pursue a wrong idealogy of my own thoughts. And when you ask me questions and I supply answers, you ignore those answers and once again go back to the same one line.

 

This is irrelevant.

 

I didn't think it was irrelevant. I asked the question because I am trying to better understand where you are coming from.

 

My point was you somehow correlated perfection or imperfection to the content of people's thoughts, specifically sexual fantasies. You can try to disown those statements now, but you're really just flailing around.

 

At this point, I feel that this is not a question of me "flailing around" as it is being browbeaten for my personal beliefs. You continue to harp on this same comment over and over again. I have tried to explain this comment and how it applies to my thoughts many times. Here:

 

In a relationship, I consider mental, emotional and physical elements to all be important to the happiness of a relationship. And since I consider all three of these elments important, I expect a certain amount of self control to be exercised in all of them..... People expect varying levels of physical commitment from their partners based within the parameters they are both comfortable with. Since the phyiscal element is not the only part of a relationship, why would I only expect phyiscal commitment? I wouldn't. I also expect mental and emotional commitment. I prefer to be with the type of man that will exercise control in all thress of these elements. I do not beliee that self control equals repression. But I also am realistic about human nature and know that myself or my boyfriend are not perfect. That sometimes I will infact burst out into tears in frustration and that it might not be fair to him. And that sometimes he will have thoughts of other women.

 

Can you specifically show me what part of that says that sexual fantasy is "wrong"? Because I want some amount of self control in a relationship that pertains to the physical, mental and emotional elements of our relationship? That's wrong? It's wrong for me to not live in an over fantasy idealized state and understand that men will sometimes have thoughts of other women?

 

Here:

 

Men usually appreicate a woman that practices discipline and self control to keep her body in shape. He also usually appreciates a woman that doesn't react emotionally to everything and uses some amount of self control on her emotions.

 

What do you think? Do you think men appreicate women that exercise some form of self control and discipline and don't react to all their most base emotions? I certainly do. Does this mean that men think women's emotions are "wrong" or that they should never have them? I don't think so.

 

Here:

 

Sexual fantasy is certainly healthy, but not all sexual fantasies are neccesarily healthy just because fantisizing about sexuality is.

 

I think this sounds reasonable. What about you?

 

Here:

 

It's matter of being realistic about the sociology of sexuality in all it's goodness and badness. This will clearly be subjective. But I appear to be getting criticized for even having an opinion on it to begin with.

 

Sexuality is healthy. That does not mean that there are not elements of sexuality that are both positive and negative. Does this imply that under a uniform umbrella that I think fantasy is wrong?

 

Here:

 

I have been very clear that I do think there are certain problems with sexuality in current society. (Mme has said as much herself.) I do think we have an over indulgent culture. I do think it's wrong to think that we have a culture that over indulges in many vices, (spending, weight, drugs) but that somehow, when it comes to sexuality, we are a fully evolved and healthy non-indulgent society. That's just not realistic.

 

These are my words. It would help if you could show me where I have made the all encompassing comment that "fantasy" is "wrong". This is a gross and wrong simplicifaction of the entirety of the discussion.

 

I also have to say that your point did not seem to be about, "my point was you somehow correlated perfection or imperfection to the content of people's thoughts, specifically sexual fantasies" so much so as you were drawing the connection that "wrong" and "imperfect" where the same thing.

 

You said: "You are saying, very clearly, that you find it an imperfection, which is a synonym for a flaw or something wrong!"

 

"Wrong" and "imperfect" are not synonymous. That was the correlation you appeared to be trying to draw. That was nothing I said.

 

You CLEARLY (by what you said and even by this simple example you gave us time and time again about imperfections) have an issue with sexual fantasies and see them as wrong -- maybe not all the time, but you think you get to be the arbiter of what degree or what amount are 'acceptable.

 

Tell me what I said that proves that i have an issue with sexual fantasies and where I said they were wrong. You keep saying it's so clear, you keep saying it's plain as day. You keep telling me what I think. And when I ask you to get to specifics, you ignore that and the only thing you turn to is that comment about imperfection. "Imperfection" and "wrong" are not the same things. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

You tell me that I think I get to be the arbiter of what is accetable. But your continued desire to tell me what I think and distort my views reflects more of a desire to be the arbiter of what and who gets to think what then me stating my relationships philosophies. Ironically, I am not the one browbeating you for your personal belief!

 

 

That's what many, many people have taken away from you in this thread, and it's what you keep saying time and time again with your statements and then pretending you didn't say. That's what you're dancing around.

 

I have addressed everything very directly. I am not pretending anything and I am not throwing around insults telling you that you are "flailing, dancing around and pretending." I respect your right to hold your relatoinships in a way that works best for you. And you sharing that doesn't mean you have a dictation over others. If I started telling you that you were "pretending" or told you "you think this", I would be met with more scorn at an unmatched level then anyone else. Tell me again who is being the arbitrator of who gets to think what.

 

 

I never said bad. I said an imperfection -- a specific imperfection we are speaking of -- speaks to something that is incorrect/wrong/could be made perfect. We are not speaking of people in general. We are speaking of sexual fantasies.

 

I was always speaking of people.

 

"wrong" and "imperfection" are not the same word.

 

Do you think sexual fantasies are healthy? Do you think sexual fantasies, in no way, hinder a person's level of perfection? Mme. Chaucer asked many great questions, most of which you ignored.

 

I have repeatidly stated that I think sexual fantasies can be healthy. Please look here:

 

"Sexual fantasy is certainly healthy, but not all sexual fantasies are neccesarily healthy just because fantisizing about sexuality is."

 

Mme. Chaucer's questions where an over simplification of a very complex topic and I can not answer those questions. I also did not ignore them. I told her I couldn't answer them and why I couldn't. Her questions qualified things that I can't possibly qualify and never have qualfied. I was very honest and sincere in that response. I also supplied a study that gave a back drop to a number of my beliefs which actually do answer some of her questions in a more board way. Which is as specific as one can get when talking about this topic boardly and not specific to any one person. Take away from the study what you will.

 

FTR, Nobody is criticizing you for having an opinion. It's the way you express your opinions that earns you criticism.

 

Can you please explain to me how I have expressed my opinions that's been offensive?

 

Through out these threads I get told what I think, how I think. I get told I hate men that I am pretty much an awful person. I get told that I "pretend", "ignore", "flail"...and so much more. I only speciflcally used those words because they were the lastest ones I could draw on.

 

 

You didn't answer most of them directly. No surprise, but you didn't.

 

Is the comment "no surprise" not meant as a criticizism Zengirl? When someone says something like that to you is it not somewhat criticizing of them?

 

I did answer it. And I was honest about my in ability to answer those questions. They are overly simplistic and those are questions I can not qualify. Opennly responding to those questions and saying I can not answer them is not ignoring them. I firmly have acknowledged that these questions where asked of me but that I can not answer them. I can not qualify those things in the way Mme. C wants me to. I think that's pretty honest and realistic. Don't you?

[Mme. Chaucer]

please see my response to Mme. It's all there.

 

No it's not! You've rambled, flailed, backpedalled, obfuscated, and not answered anything succinctly.

 

Since you continue to use the word "perfect," please define exactly what perfection would be with regards to sexuality.

 

In fact, I can respect a very conservative view of sexuality; for example, if a person believes that they should remain chaste until marriage, and attaining that is "perfection" for them. That's fine by me and I would not scoff or argue with them AS LONG AS THEY IMPOSED THIS "STANDARD" UPON THEMSELVES ONLY. If they judged sexually adventurous people as "imperfect" using their own very specific standard (like YOU do. Alot .) I would freely scoff and argue. Like I do with you!

 

Through out these threads I get told what I think, how I think. I get told I hate men that I am pretty much an awful person. I get told that I "pretend", "ignore", "flail"...and so much more. I only speciflcally used those words because they were the lastest ones I could draw on.

 

You do pretend, ignore and flail.

 

You constantly, and verbosely tell us what you think - and then deny that you think it when others challenge you or even ask for clarification. Almost every time.

 

Tell me what I said that proves that i have an issue with sexual fantasies and where I said they were wrong.

 

I pointed out great examples in my last post (with the "bad food" = sexual fantasies analogy). Which you've ignored. Like you ignored my questions. Flailingly.

 

Sexual fantasy is certainly healthy, but not all sexual fantasies are neccesarily healthy just because fantisizing about sexuality is.

 

I think this sounds reasonable. What about you?

 

Who is the arbiter of which ones are healthy and which ones are not? Who decides how much is too much? YOU??? Your mom? Your pastor at church? Michele Bachman? Saint Paul? WHO??? PLEASE ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION.

 

however think that we have reached an epidemic level of promoting sex in our culture that might promote a lot of unneccesary masturbation for people. We don't require people to act with any self control.

 

Please explain (as I have asked you a few times before) exactly what constitutes "unnecessary" and "necessary" masturbation, and from whence / whom this standard originates. Who are the "WE" to which you refer - the entity that is evidently doing a good enough job of promoting control of OTHER PEOPLE'S MASTURBATION? What gives them the authority?

 

Thanks.

[Mme. Chaucer]

A comment referring back to the OP!

 

I believe that there are vast areas of difference between:

 

1. John / Jane Doe is so hot, I'm imagining that I'm f*****g their brains out right now!

 

2. I can't even get off without imagining that I'm f*****g the brains of John / Jane Doe out.

 

3. I so wish that my man / woman had all the features that John / Jane Doe has and my real partner doesn't. I would be so much happier if they did. I am pretty unhappy with the way my real partner looks / acts / has sex, especially in comparison to John / Jane Doe.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Mme. Chaucer

And how about this fabulous food analogy to explain "self control" in the context of sexual fantasies and masturbation (I assume, since it was offered in response to my questions about those things):

 

Analogies are pretty standard in discussions. They can be compared to any number of other factors. I have used the food analogies to put my comments into perspective. It's not exactly a new ideal. It's been done all over the message boards by most people at some point. If I'm not mistaken, I think I've seen you use analogies Mme.

 

My position is simple. We are a culture that is over indulgent in many respects. I use food as an example of this. Interestingly, my comments about food and over indulgence and unhealthy behavior with food don't seem to draw the same vitriol that the topic of sexuality does. I understand that sexuality is a very intimate and personal issue and our feelings on it sometimes cloud a good discussion. I have certainily fallen pray to that too.

 

Clearly food is not the only avenue of human life that gets indulged in to unhealthy proportions. This does not mean that food is unhealthy in itself. It means that it has the potential to be indulged in, in unhealthy amounts and that in today's society, society struggles with managing healthy food consumption. Acknowledging that people can be over indulgent and interact unhealthy with many of elements of life does not equate to saying that food or whatever else is unnessesarily unhealthy. Despite repeating this same message, you insist on attempting to draw the conclusion that I said sexual fantasy is unhealthy. Please be mindful of the statement I made to you earlier that appears to be getting ignored:

 

Sexuality is healthy. That does not mean that there are not elements of sexuality that are both positive and negative.

 

and

 

Sexual fantasy is certainly healthy, but not all sexual fantasies are neccesarily healthy just because fantisizing about sexuality is.

 

I think this sounds reasonable. What about you?

 

I understand if you disagree. However, these exchanges are no longer about a conversation and disagreeing with each other's opinion as they seem to be an oppurtunity to be mocking and abusive.

 

Simple. Because I don't see sexual fantasies or masturbation, for me or for other people, as analogous to eating "bad" food and letting my body go to hell, or as a "weakness," or in any way "bad" for me or for other people.

 

How is sharing your opinion about what *you* don't think is bad for you and other people any different then me sharing my opinion about what I think has the potential to be harmful for me or other people?

 

I am not berating you for your opinion! I am not telling you that you are not allowed to have this opinion or that you can't disagree with me. We disagree. I accept that. Why can't you? We see life differently. I accept this. I only take issue with you telling me what I think or degrading the way I choose to respond after you have asked me questions about what I think. You don't have to like or agree with what I said. You do not get to tell me I said things I never did. You do not get to tell me that I can not say "I never said that" when that is what I mean. You do not get to heap abusive comment after abusive comment at me and expect me to lay down and take such vitriol. Our different opinions is what makes the world go round. I like the person I am, even if you don't. But I will not let you misrepresent my ideas, ask me questions, and then respond in ways that is meant to degrade and shame me by putting me down and mocking me.

 

 

I DON'T THINK SEXUALITY IS BAD OR THAT IT'S SOMEHOW NOBLE, ADMIRABLE, BENEFICIAL TO HAPPINESS OR LOVE TO REPRESS IT.

 

Please show me an example of where I ever said sexuality was bad?

I do not think self control is equal to repression. I do not thinking catering to every whim and fancy I have is healthy. Just because I get mad at my boyfriend over something and I *feel* like I need to yell and cry at him, doesn't mean I should. The short term release of such energy would feel better but that would not be a fair way to conduct myself toward him. And I think most men respect when a woman controls her wild emotions out of respect for him and deals with something with some self control and restrait. In essense, that is exactly what is being asked of women to do when they are told that they need to understand about how men need certain sexual things when it comes to other women. When a woman responds with her own natural feelings whatever those may be, she is told that she needs to work on that and control herself. usually, both men and women respect each other when they infact do exercise control over their more base and selfish desires. That is a good chunk of what relationships are about at times.

 

Now, kindly refrain from yelling "I NEVER SAID it should be repressed."

 

Well, I never yelled it and if I think someone is claiming I said things that I didn't, I am free to say as much. I have often asked people to show me where I have said these things and I have yet to see proof of it.

 

Maybe you are in denial about your own beliefs, but you are actually expressing yourself very clearly.

 

If I told you that you were in denial about your own beliefs, we both know how that would have gone down. But I respect your right to know *you* best. I am not asking you to agree with me. I just don't understand why you ask me questions when you only turn around and tell me that's not what I think.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No it's not! You've rambled, flailed, backpedalled, obfuscated, and not answered anything succinctly.

 

Then don't continue to exchange a dialogue with me if you find my comments so low and incomprehensible. There is a rational solution to your issue with me.

 

I pointed out great examples in my last post (with the "bad food" = sexual fantasies analogy). Which you've ignored. Like you ignored my questions. Flailingly.

 

I simply don't agree with them Mme. Why should I have to address everything you say when you certainly don't address everything I say? You criticize me for things you yourself do. I have said many things in my own posts that I thought were very good points that have gone unaddressed.

 

What does it matter anyway? You have no respect for me or my opinion and would likely only spend more time berating me and telling me what a failure I am. Show me the last time I have talked to you like you are talking to me.

 

And no, I didn't ignore your questions. I acknowledged that you asked them. Now I am getting berated because I can't answer your questions? Because I don't have answers to them? That is simply unfair on your part. Your questions are over simplifications of a complex topic. I have never set standards for these questions for individual people. My comments have only ever been about society in general and what I see reflected in it. The irony is that even as you pose these questions, you have previously accused me of setting up these standards previously. I hava however posted a research link that addresses many of the things I've been saying and that I think are true. That research link talks about the following:

 

Finding One:

Unlike at any other time in history, pornography is now available and

consumed widely in our society, due in large part to the internet. No one

remains untouched by it.

 

Finding Two:

There is abundant empirical evidence that this pornography is qualitatively

different from any that has gone before, in several ways: its ubiquity, the use of increasingly realistic streaming images, and the increasingly “hard-core” character of what is consumed.

 

By the way, you're first question is actually something I have already answered in my discussion of self control. I have already talked about how I think self control applies to relationships and fantasy. You have consistently mocked it. What more do I need to say on the topic only to have you tell me what **** I am? I answer questions, you make me your punching bag and berate me and put me down. I tell you I can't answer certain questions and you again make me your punching bag and berate me.

[soulm8]

Since when does anyone have the right to personally put down/attack a member of this forum? The purpose of a discussion board is for what exactly?

 

FTR, I agree with the majority of DY's views and opinions. I also respect how she tactfully shares her opininons and refrains from putting others' down.

 

I understand if you disagree. However, these exchanges are no longer about a conversation and disagreeing with each other's opinion as they seem to be an oppurtunity to be mocking and abusive.

 

I am not berating you for your opinion!

 

You do not get to heap abusive comment after abusive comment at me and expect me to lay down and take such vitriol. Our different opinions is what makes the world go round. I like the person I am, even if you don't. But I will not let you misrepresent my ideas, ask me questions, and then respond in ways that is meant to degrade and shame me by putting me down and mocking me.

 

Show me the last time I have talked to you like you are talking to me.

Edited February 12, 2012 by soulm8

[Mme. Chaucer]

Since when does anyone have the right to personally put down/attack a member of this forum? The purpose of a discussion board is for what exactly?

 

Even though it appears to be many against one, if you read the thread, DY is putting down and disparaging the majority whose views are not the same as hers.

 

FTR, I agree with the majority of DY's views and opinions. I also respect how she tactfully shares her opininons and refrains from putting others' down.

 

Tactfully? No.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Why don't you answer any of the direct questions asked of you?

Edited February 12, 2012 by Mme. Chaucer

[joystickd]

All I can do is LOL at this. I can't believe she is that manipulative to resort to crying to get her way shame shame.

[zengirl]

Again, please see my response to Mme. It's all there. I'm not sure what more you are looking for.

 

As Mme. says: none of it is there. Not the answer to my question, not the answer to any of her questions. You do not directly answer questions.

 

You have repeatidly asked me the same question about the same comment.

 

Because it has repeatedly gone without answer!

 

I have repeatidly given you a response to these questions only to have you tell me that's not what I mean and that you know better about what I mean then I do. You continue to insist this one mentality holds true for my philosophy when it's really something that only holds true for yours. I can agree that we hold different philosphies we apply to life. Why is that a bad thing?

 

I don't care that we hold different philosophies, which I've said. I care that you deliberately avoid answering direct questions and directly addressing things that you've said and speak like a politician on cable news instead of a person engaging in an actual discussion!

 

Despite my further explaing of my viewpoint, I think a good chunk of my entire conversation is being ignored to repeatidly reiterate a line you are focused on in a way that misrepresents the completness of my thoughts on this. There are many things you can draw on from my conversation that helps explain my position. I think you are remaining dogmatically specific to the comment, "people are not perfect", and taking it out of context to pursue a wrong idealogy of my own thoughts. And when you ask me questions and I supply answers, you ignore those answers and once again go back to the same one line.

 

I'm not taking it out of context---I'm taking it very much in the context YOU put it in in a later post to illustrate a point and pointing out it does the very OPPOSITE of illustrating your point.

 

You are suggesting that because everyone is imperfect that it did not imply a criticism of sexuality; I am saying that linking the particular imperfection TO sexuality DOES directly imply a criticism of sexuality, and that point has not been addressed. Instead, you've talked around and around the subject, never addressing the point that I raised which is: Regardless of how perfect or imperfect people are, why would you discuss sexuality as a kind of imperfection IF you thought it was perfectly okay?

 

I didn't think it was irrelevant. I asked the question because I am trying to better understand where you are coming from.

 

I am coming from a place where someone's sexuality is not AT ALL related to their idea of perfection or imperfection.

 

In a relationship, I consider mental, emotional and physical elements to all be important to the happiness of a relationship. And since I consider all three of these elments important, I expect a certain amount of self control to be exercised in all of them..... People expect varying levels of physical commitment from their partners based within the parameters they are both comfortable with. Since the phyiscal element is not the only part of a relationship, why would I only expect phyiscal commitment? I wouldn't. I also expect mental and emotional commitment. I prefer to be with the type of man that will exercise control in all thress of these elements. I do not beliee that self control equals repression. But I also am realistic about human nature and know that myself or my boyfriend are not perfect. That sometimes I will infact burst out into tears in frustration and that it might not be fair to him. And that sometimes he will have thoughts of other women.

 

This has nothing to do with what I was asking, or with what Mme. was asking. None of us have suggested that we would want to enforce any rules on what YOU need, as an individual, in a relationship. We are talking about sexual attitudes and health in a general sense. You are welcome to seek any dynamic you like in your relationship -- what we are asking about and criticizing is the idea that a man (or woman) having sexual thoughts is a general imperfection. It is not, in my book. It may be something that YOU, as an individual, do not want in a mate---that is a totally different story. I never wanted a guy who was a gym rat (went to the gym every day), for instance, but I wouldn't consider it an imperfection or human failing.

 

NO ONE is suggesting you cannot have personal choices in a mate or relationship. We are suggesting that seeing human sexuality as being something one can be perfect/imperfect or pass/fail or whatever at is something we GREATLY disagree with and that your comments DO imply that, very strongly, and in some cases directly say that it is what you believe. That is what I want you to own.

 

Can you specifically show me what part of that says that sexual fantasy is "wrong"? Because I want some amount of self control in a relationship that pertains to the physical, mental and emotional elements of our relationship? That's wrong? It's wrong for me to not live in an over fantasy idealized state and understand that men will sometimes have thoughts of other women?

 

Right there! You're saying fantasy is wrong right there. You have called it "imperfect." You have compared it to infidelity (a lesser form, yes, but you compared it). You have said that it should be 'controlled' and that people should exercise 'self control' to dissipate their fantasies. You have said "over" many, many times, relating to it, suggesting that you are the arbiter of what degree is "enough" or "adequate" --- those are all examples of you saying it is or can be wrong!

 

As to what you are allowed to live or not live in -- you can, of course, choose to live YOUR life any way you wish--- what we are criticizing are your ideas and wishes for society, not what you choose to do with your individual mind and love life. YOU are the one criticizing what people choose to do with their individual minds and love lives!

 

What do you think? Do you think men appreicate women that exercise some form of self control and discipline and don't react to all their most base emotions? I certainly do. Does this mean that men think women's emotions are "wrong" or that they should never have them? I don't think so.

 

I think reacting to an emotion (i.e. bringing it to word or action) is different from having an emotion or fantasy. The better analogy would be: Do men wish women didn't have emotional thoughts? But. . . men HAVE emotional thoughts. What they are socialized to have are less emotional reactions, which, yes, depending on HOW the woman reacts to her emotion, they might prefer her to have some self-control but they wouldn't care about thought-control. It's the expression of that thought that would be up for debate.

 

The expression of sexual fantasies is not the same thing as the thought and having of them. If someone had a thought of a threesome, I fail to see how that's wrong. If someone insists to their partner -- who is not interested at all -- that they have a threesome, of course, their partner will react to that! That's not a thought anymore: it's become words and intent towards action.

 

As I said before, I think fantasies, emotions, and all content of our minds is never wholesale 'right' or 'wrong' but either 'working for us' or 'working against us.' What works for one person might not work for another! And it's not really up to others to judge what another person should/shouldn't think; that's very 'thought police' and controlling.

 

Here:

 

Sexual fantasy is certainly healthy, but not all sexual fantasies are neccesarily healthy just because fantisizing about sexuality is.

 

I think this sounds reasonable. What about you?

 

I've already said that nobody has argued ALL sexual fantasies are ALWAYS healthy; what we've argued is whether 'what is healthy' should be arbitrated by you!

 

Again, no one has suggested all of society is healthy regarding sexuality, nor is that related to the OP or the questions Mme or I have asked you, which have still gone unanswered. Look at those questions again and see if you can find some direct answers. We have not seen any.

 

These are my words. It would help if you could show me where I have made the all encompassing comment that "fantasy" is "wrong". This is a gross and wrong simplicifaction of the entirety of the discussion.

 

You discussed it as an imperfection. I've shown you many, many times where I got the idea you found it wrong. Many, many times. As have others.

 

You said: "You are saying, very clearly, that you find it an imperfection, which is a synonym for a flaw or something wrong!"

 

"Wrong" and "imperfect" are not synonymous. That was the correlation you appeared to be trying to draw. That was nothing I said.

 

Okay, here are some direct synonyms then.

 

imperfect  [im-pur-fikt] Show IPA

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: flawed

Synonyms: amiss, below par, bottom-of-barrel, broken, damaged, defective, deficient, disfigured, dud, faulty, few bugs, garbage*, immature, impaired, incomplete, inexact, injured, junk*, lemon, limited, low, marred, minus, partial, patchy, rudimentary, schlocky, sick, sketchy, two-bit, undeveloped, unfinished, unsound, vicious, warped

Antonyms: excellent, faultless, finished, perfect, pure, unblemished, unflawed

 

The definition being 'flawed' -- the other word, besides wrong, that I used!

 

When you look up flawed,

 

flawed [flawd]  

Main Entry: amiss  [uh-mis] Show IPA

Part of Speech: adjective

Definition: wrong; defective

Synonyms: awry, bad, confused, crooked, erring, erroneous, fallacious, false, faulty, flawed , foul, glitched up, haywire, imperfect, improper, inaccurate, inappropriate, incorrect, mistaken, out of order, sick, unfair, unlawful, unsuitable, untoward

Antonyms: good, right

 

Thus, the word chain I was going on for my point.

 

Tell me what I said that proves that i have an issue with sexual fantasies and where I said they were wrong. You keep saying it's so clear, you keep saying it's plain as day. You keep telling me what I think. And when I ask you to get to specifics, you ignore that and the only thing you turn to is that comment about imperfection. "Imperfection" and "wrong" are not the same things. Look it up if you don't believe me.

 

Above, there is a quote of you saying you'd see it as imperfect if your boyfriend had sexual fantasies and you further relate that point to human imperfection, in general, and relate it to what men or women, in general, would want.

 

See above for words and their meanings.

 

No it's not! You've rambled, flailed, backpedalled, obfuscated, and not answered anything succinctly.

 

Basically, this!

 

Since you continue to use the word "perfect," please define exactly what perfection would be with regards to sexuality.

 

YES! Please do!

 

In fact, I can respect a very conservative view of sexuality; for example, if a person believes that they should remain chaste until marriage, and attaining that is "perfection" for them. That's fine by me and I would not scoff or argue with them AS LONG AS THEY IMPOSED THIS "STANDARD" UPON THEMSELVES ONLY. If they judged sexually adventurous people as "imperfect" using their own very specific standard (like YOU do. Alot .) I would freely scoff and argue. Like I do with you!

 

This is what I am saying, as well.

 

Even though it appears to be many against one, if you read the thread, DY is putting down and disparaging the majority whose views are not the same as hers.

 

Tactfully? No.

 

Right. The things she said to XXOO alone are quite disturbing---and XXOO is not one to argue or pester anyone!

[Mme. Chaucer]

zengirl, we need to give up and step away. This is insanity.

[zengirl]

You're right, Mme. No use discussing with someone who won't define or answer directly.

[soulm8]

I RE-READ the thread, and I will respectfully disagree with you. You are accusing DY precisely of what you and zengirl are doing. You both seem to be misunderstanding her posts and feel the need to somehow discredit and alienate her.

 

DY has simply shared her thoughts and perspective on the topic without resorting to putting anyone down or mocking them. You have chosen to take her words as judgemental -- it's plain as day to see if you review the posts...

[Mme. Chaucer]

I RE-READ the thread, and I will respectfully disagree with you. You are accusing DY precisely of what you and zengirl are doing. You both seem to be misunderstanding her posts and feel the need to somehow discredit and alienate her.

 

DY has simply shared her thoughts and perspective on the topic without resorting to putting anyone down or mocking them. You have chosen to take her words as judgemental -- it's plain as day to see if you review the posts...

 

Evidently, YOU are the one and only person who is "understanding" her posts, on this thread, anyway. I'm glad to know it's even possible.

 

I'm not taking responsibility for discrediting and alienating DY. If that's the result of her communications here, she can take full credit for it.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Zengirl

As Mme. says: none of it is there. Not the answer to my question, not the answer to any of her questions. You do not directly answer questions.

 

Bull. This isn't a matter of me not answering things. This is a matter of you and Mme simply not liking the answers I give you and retaliating with slanderous and defamatory comments about every little thing I say.

 

I have answered what I could. I have been honest about what I can't answer. You are attempting to casterate me because I'm honest about the things I can and can't answer. That's on you.

 

There have been times in this discussion when both you and Mme have ignored large chunks of things I've said and relentlessly continued to pick apart and dissect and tell *me* what *I* think because I said "no one is perfect". You're dogmatic pursuit of this in a bigger discussion is stunningly strange. I never dictated a specific set of standards about the number or times a week someone would have to masturbate to consider it okay. I certainly have talked in generalities about our culture and what I preceived to be an over indulgence in sex. I have talked about the high volume of sexual images we have availble to us and that society is using that is changing how we respond sexually.

 

Do you know what is further strange about your acccusations? I have asked a load of questions in my own posts and you both ignore those. That's the real hysterical part here. It's okay when you ignore questions, but you have the audacity to relentlessly criticize me because I was straight up honest about what I could and couldn't answer.

 

You and Mme both talk about "owning" what you say while you lob insults at the same time and attack me for no other reason then I hold different thoughts then the both of you. You engage in a dialogue with me, you set up questions for me to answer and when I respond to what I can, in the best way I know how to, you respond by telling me what crap my thoughts are or mock my "wall of texts" and basically criticize where ever and whatever you can. Yet you dogmatically pursue conversation with me while at the same time telling me my thoughts, my posts, my comments are basicaly unintelligent. This isn't about me not answering things you asked. And if you want to give lectures about owning stuff, you need to start with yourself.

 

Right there! You're saying fantasy is wrong right there. You have called it "imperfect."

 

"Wrong" and "imperfect" do not mean the same things.

 

 

And it's not really up to others to judge what another person should/shouldn't think; that's very 'thought police' and controlling. [/quote

 

Do you not see that within that statement, that is exactly what you are doing toward me?

 

 

I've already said that nobody has argued ALL sexual fantasies are ALWAYS healthy; what we've argued is whether 'what is healthy' should be arbitrated by you!

 

Everyone here is allowed to arbitrate what they think is healthy or unhealthy.Everyone here is allowed to arbirtate whatever they want. Whether it's inregards to determining what is healthy or it's in regards to making judgements about another's posts or another poster. It is infact, exactly what you are doing in your own posts.

 

 

You discussed it as an imperfection. I've shown you many, many times where I got the idea you found it wrong. Many, many times. As have others.

 

I understand that you think I am saying it's wrong. I have done my best to explain that that is not infact what I ever thought or said. Just like you, I've done this many, many times. But no matter what I say or what I do, you continue to tell me how I think.

 

Yes, there are certainly people that disagree with me. But there are people that agree with me too

 

Thus, the word chain I was going on for my point.

 

Some of those words conjure up a more powerful commentary then others for me Zengirl.

 

Take "amiss" for example. I will use it in a sentence: The kids where amiss on the play ground today. They could also have been "immature", "partial", unsound" too, but I think it changes the meaning of the sentence when you use another word like "damange" for example. Exampe: The kids where damaged on the playground today. To me, "damaged" is a bigger word them "amiss". While they forshadow a simliar meaning, interchanging these two words does put a different spin on the context of the sentence with this example. I think the kids can be "amiss" on the playground but I do not think "damanged" would apply in quite the same context.

 

I do not think saying something is "imperfect" is the same thing as saying it's "wrong". You have repeatidly tried to tell me what I think on this score. You clearly do think "wrong" and "imperfect" are completey interchangable. I do not. Which is why you have applied certain things to my comments that simply aren't true. Because we simply see it differently. I am not berating you for the way you see it. I just am being honest that when you interchange "wrong" for "imperfect", that is not what I was thinking.

 

Basically, this!

 

Right. The things she said to XXOO alone are quite disturbing---and XXOO is not one to argue or pester anyone

 

What thing have I said that were disturbing to XXOO?

 

Do you not see how agreeing with Mme, on disparging comments about me and then criticizing me for what you think are disparging comments to another poster is backwards?

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Evidently, YOU are the one and only person who is "understanding" her posts, on this thread, anyway. I'm glad to know it's even possible.

 

I'm not taking responsibility for discrediting and alienating DY. If that's the result of her communications here, she can take full credit for it.

 

She's really not Mme. I have had several posters at this point and time private message me with kinds words and have said a few things personally about the bullying that has taken place in this thread.

 

I have see you disparage a number of posters on this board. Don't think that I am the only one that doesn't see it.

 

By the way, I don't feel discredited by you at all. You are alientating yourself more then me.

[zengirl]

DY,

 

Mme. is right that there is really no point in engaging you, but it was interesting that you found my fixation odd in a "bigger discussion." To me, it's not a bigger discussion --- whether sexual fantasies can be a normal part of human sexuality or are inherently 'imperfect' (whatever that means to you, it is not a good thing in any definition of the word) IS the discussion.

 

There can be other discussions had, but not until that is settled. And you refuse to settle your stance on it and own the fact that you said sexual fantasies were an imperfection; hence my fixation. Until you can own what you say and be pinned down precisely to a meaning, no discussion can be had.

 

There is no 'larger' issue for me. That was the OP -- is it normal and healthy -- and that is still the topic. You, clearly, have larger issues with modern views on human sexuality, but that has never been what this thread or this board has been about for me. There is no larger discussion. This IS the discussion I'm having and I've tried to say that many ways, many different times.

 

I'm not lobbing insults, but rather summing up my experiences with you. I find you have run around in circles rather than answer very simple questions that could create some reasonable discourse.