Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sex. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Sex & The City: The Time I Dated A Christian

Several years back I found myself sitting alone in a Starbucks coffee shop in Manhattan killing time. I had no idea that I was being watched. The young barista working there came up to me and smiled. She said she thought I was cute, and then offered me her phone number. I was pleasantly surprised since these kinds of things didn't happen everyday. I accepted her offer and eventually left. I remember her smiling to me as I walked out.

Several days later I either called or texted her and we decided to meet in Union Square Park, right across the street from the Starbucks. Like many first dates, it was awkward, but this encounter was even more so because we didn't even know each other at all. So we spent the day walking around the city, talking, and getting to know one another. We ended up in a Barnes & Noble sitting on the floor, looking at pictures in magazines and making gross jokes about the people in them.

She was a southern girl, with a slight accent, from Georgia - right outside of Atlanta if I can remember properly, and came to New York to chase her dreams of becoming an actress. (Oh how cliche.) I wasn't familiar with the ways of the south all that much but she was very easy going and we got along. She told me she thought I was cute and decided to be brave and go for it. I remember her telling me her thoughts before doing so. The worst that could happen, she told me, would be either that I was gay or taken, and that in either case she'd be risking humiliation. I praised her courage.

Monday, June 3, 2013

The Gentleman's Guide To Militant Atheism (10 Rules Of Etiquette)

Militant atheism gets a bad wrap.

I'm just about as anti-religious as you can get. I'm completely opposed to virtually all forms of religious belief. I think living by faith is a horrible thing that is destructive to humanity and that all people should live evidence-based lives using critical thinking, science, reason, and a little skepticism.

That being said there should be some etiquette involved when opposing religious belief. Militant atheism should be like a switch that is turned off most of the time and only turned on when faced with a theist of the militant type or when opposing a law or rule that discriminates against non-believers. Atheists should not ever be standing on corners with blow-horns, ranting about there not being a god to annoyed passers-by. We should not be confronting believers with those in-your-face tactics that theists are so fond of. We should however, be open about our non-belief but in the right way.

So I've thought of a few suggestions on rules of etiquette when it comes to expressing non-belief publicly. Although this is a "Gentleman's" guide I do not intend this to be from a male's perspective only. These suggestions are gender-neutral (I just liked the way Gentleman's Guide sounded).

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Catholic Sex Scandal

I haven't written at all about the Pope's decision to resign because I really don't care about it. But when the news came out of his resignation, it was accompanied by yet another sex scandal perpetrated by priests. I'd like to add a few thoughts on the subject of why so many priests seem to be entangled in sex scandals involving young boys. To me, the obvious reason why is because priests are forced to take a vow of celibacy. It is not natural for a human being to be able to suppress their sexual desire because we are all to one degree or another, sexual beings. Sexual desire in Christianity has been likened to an addictive craving for gambling or sweet foods, but science tells us that that is not exactly the case. Sexual desire is not some addiction, it is natures way of ensuring the survival of the species by making it want to reproduce. When suppressed it can deviate in peculiar ways.

Now I don't think that taking a vow of celibacy makes one a homosexual pedophile, rather, the desire for male children in most cases already exists in people who become priests. What better place is there to hide such desires than in the priesthood? Priests are not expected to marry and engage in sexual relations with adult women, so a man who's attracted to boys can hide under the cloth and be free from societal pressure to marry and be attracted to women. The same is also true for regular homosexuality and that's why the priesthood is a haven for repressed homosexuals in desperate need to hide their sexuality. 

The best thing the Catholic Church can do to alleviate the problem of homosexuality and pederasty in the priesthood is to change back the rules for priests and allow them to marry and have sex as Protestant denominations do. Or better yet, allow priests to be openly gay while serving their church and god so that the "issue" of homosexuality is no longer an issue. The pederasty however can not be allowed for obvious moral reasons, but allowing consenting adult homosexuality and priests to marry would be an obvious starting point. Now I feel that most Christian denominations will eventually come around to accepting homosexuality, it's only a matter of time. And when they eventually do, since Christianity frowns upon all sexual relations outside of marriage, many will actually take the position that gay sex is only right within marriage and do 180 degree about-face on their current stance on gay marriage!

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Atheism Is Only A Justification Of Sin

Just about every time I read about Christians defending their doctrines it makes me want to puke. They say sin leads to atheism, and atheism is really just a way for people to justify their sins. Let's examine this for a bit. Why is a sin a sin? Take sex outside of marriage for example, which pretty much everyone in the industrialized world does. Is it really harmful, like in the way murder is harmful? Or is it a sin because the Bible says so? Before the invention of birth control, and effective condoms, sex outside of marriage could lead to unwanted pregnancy, and in the traditional societies of antiquity, this could spell a lot of trouble. A woman who had sex with multiple men could get pregnant, and if the men weren't seriously involved with her, they might not be willing to take care of the child especially since they might not know for sure if it was theirs.  So it's easy to see the source of why we'd think of fornication as sinful.

Fast forward to the modern world, and men and women can have sex without the consequences of sex due to technological advances like birth control. So now we can all fuck to our heart's desire, and wake up the next morning free of any long-term consequences. The pervasiveness of fornication enrages religious conservatives and many correlate the rise in atheism as society's quest to rid itself of the guilt and sin associated with it. It's interesting to note however, that many people raised in the modern world in progressive environments don't even have that guilt associated with fornication that existed before.

Let's face it, the sexual revolution happened, and the cat's out of the bag. We are never going back to those puritan times that many religious conservatives are longing for. Our evolved intellect has enabled us to create technology that has fundamentally changed the nature in which we can have sex. Even though sex has always been about pleasure, we now we have the means to maximize that pleasure with none of the consequences we traditionally faced.

So while many atheists (and theists alike) are living lifestyles that were (and are) traditionally considered sinful, anyone who seriously questions the nature of "sin" and the moral arguments behind it, realizes that many of them are pretty much founded on the Bible saying so. And since the Bible is a very bad attempt at a historical document, and contains such harmful commandments like killing gay people (Leviticus 20:13) and even female victims of rape (Deuteronomy 20-22), there's no morally justifiable reason why we should seriously consider violations of rules in its pages as anything worthy of respect. A morally responsible atheist today realizes that the "sins" of the Bible are only justified by supposed divine commandments, and if we were to take them seriously, we might have a society today that is doing what Leviticus and Deuteronomy recommend above, and that would be the greater "sin".

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Sex & The City: A Few Notes On Polyamory

I rarely write about my sex life or my personal life on this blog so this is a marked occasion. As man who has never been married, and who doesn't particularly like the idea of marriage, I've been a pretty active player in the dating field over the last decade or so. And living in New York City, I perhaps have benefited by having a front row seat to seeing cultural trends develop.

One growing trend I've noticed today is that many young women and men are identifying as polyamorous. Polyamory is basically when you have multiple sex partners at the same time and are open about it. So a woman may have several men and women in their lives that they are having sex with, and vice-versa. What I wonder, is whether polyamory is a natural evolutionary expression of human sexuality given that we are no longer really having sex to reproduce anymore.

Throughout the 2000s I was dating a pool of 20 something post-college grads and aspiring wannabe actresses (AKA waitresses). If a girl liked me when we started dating, sex usually came quickly, sometimes it was the first "date", but often no more than a few dates later. The women in the 21st century always seemed pretty sexually liberated to me. I even dated a few girls who were so sexually aggressive they intimidated me.

The modern sexual revolution, enabled largely by the birth control pill, allowed people for the first time in history to be able to have sex without a condom where there was a reasonably high expectation that the woman wouldn't get pregnant. This lead to "free love" and non-traditional displays of human sexuality (i.e. fornication). This also helped ignite the gay rights movement not much later.

Four decades later, the children and grand children of the sexual revolution have continued to make what was once non-traditional, the new normal. Homosexuality and gay marriage for example, are such non-issues to much of the liberal and progressive world that we have simply moved on to more important issues like the environment and the economy.

Today in most of the industrialized world, when a boy and girl start dating, if there is mutual attraction and a connection, they will usually begin a sexual relationship shortly thereafter. This is the norm today as it has been for decades. Polyamory evolves from the idea that having a committed monogamous relationship with one person is too restrictive, unsatisfying and perhaps too suffocating. I can understand this. A woman for example, might have a man in her life that satisfies her manly urge, and another woman who satisfies her female urge. Men can do the same, although it seems to be more rare. It is interesting to note that polyamorous relationships do not always have to involve bisexual people who want to have the best of both worlds at the same time.

Let's look at the morality behind polyamory. I personally have no problems with any juxtaposition of sexuality as long as it is between adults and is consensual. Although conservatives hate the idea of people having open relationships, they must face the facts. For some people, the idea of a monogamous heterosexual marriage does not come natural and can seem even oppressive. This cookie-cutter mold may fit some people, but it does not fit everyone. So to each's own, they say.

People have been cheating on their significant others since the beginning of humanity. I've never really had much faith that long-term monogamy was practical or even natural. Polyamory seems to be just the natural evolution of our sexuality given that long-term monogamy is not feasible for some of us. It basically says, "Hey instead of cheating on each other behind our backs and being deceptive, let's just be honest with each other and agree that we will also see other people." I find this a lot more moral than cheating behind someone's back.

Now the critics will say that having multiple relationships is unnatural and will inevitably lead to heartbreak and failure and that traditional marriage is the only route to go. Now that may be true for some people, but it's for everyone. For some, polyamory is the only way they can naturally express themselves in relationships. We must also recognize that polyamory certainly isn't for everyone just as heterosexual marriage isn't. Human sexuality is extremely complex, and it is much more than boy meets girl, they get married and live happily ever after. Human sexuality is a complex range of interconnected relationships, fetishes, and gender-roles. Sure heterosexual monogamy is one of them, and if that works for some people, then fine. But it must be acknowledged that there are other types of relationships that deserve just as much legitimacy.

So finally, am I personally into polyamorous relationships? Well I have to be honest that I've never actually had an open relationship and I tend to prefer being with one person at a time. But, in the right context, I'd certainly be open to a polyamory.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

How To Talk To A Muslim: Debating Homosexuality Part 3

Continuing from part 2 of my dialogue and commentary over homosexuality with a hard line Muslim Gareth Bryant which basically turned into a written debate, we address deeper issues of morality within the Islamic framework. Gareth basically comes to the conclusion that he is in a way forced to take as a fundamentalist Muslim, which is that the Qur'an has the final word on what is right and wrong, and that any critical thinking that can be used to justify better moral alternatives are the result of selfish acts of "ego & desire".

I present to you this debate as an example of how trying to have a rational debate with a fundamentalist Muslim on almost anything is futile, because when it comes down to the detail, they just invoke the Qur'an as the supreme authority on what is right. As atheists, we all know how difficult dealing with fundamentalists of all religions can be. Tactically, we must force them to justify their beliefs using reason and science because we know that on most points of disagreement, whether scientifically or morally, they have no case outside of their religious texts. Even if you never win them over through argument, it is important that it is made apparent to them that their beliefs are not justifiable outside their religious texts and that using those texts to justify their texts is not a valid method in the realm of logic and reason.

The debate stemmed from Gareth's critique of gay-friendly mosques. He doesn't acknowledge that they should even exist since he believes homosexuality is a sin and that it is un-Islamic to name a mosque after a sinful act. What I care about is how he justifies the sin of homosexuality in Islam, but is OK with forcing prepubescent girls into arranged marriages with older men which Islam condones. He never makes a rational argument to support his position even after many attempts by me to squeeze one out. Please enjoy this insight into the mind of a fundamentalist Muslim.


Islam is probably the last bastion of absolute intolerance towards homosexuals. It is because Islam has not gone through an enlightenment period. It probably will eventually as Western influence and modernity forces it to. Tariq Ramadan has voiced a slightly more modern view a Muslim could have towards homosexuality that I personally think is a step in the right direction, but not quite there yet. He says although you might not personally agree with the homosexual lifestyle, it can be acknowledged that people have the right to freedom, and privacy, and to live their lives differently than what Islam says is true. But if Muslims think that homosexuality is a choice, and think they can cure it somehow with Islamic philosophy, their efforts will be a waste of time and hopelessly futile and instead should best be used towards alleviating the poverty and suffering, that of course you believe allah willed for, created and designed.


Firstly, Homosexuality is, just like any other sin that people choose to do, a choice. I know people personally, whom have become Muslims, and they were Homosexuals, before they became Muslims. And, they have admitted, publicly, that Homosexuality is a choice & sin.


What kind of evidence is that for anything? Anecdotal evidence is not science, it is about as scientific as revelation. I can just as easily say I know someone who heard the voice of an angel named Maroni telling him that Mormonism is the one true faith. Would that make Mormonism true? Your friend could be bisexual, in which case they can be both gay ad straight at the same time, or they could’ve been faking their homosexuality, or are faking their heterosexuality now. They’d have to be hooked up to a machine that measures whether they get aroused or not when exposed to homosexual imagery. Saying they are “straight” means nothing, anyone can lie about anything. Religious people like you base far too many “facts” on what a few people say.


You claim that Homosexuality is normal & natural. Now, if this were true, then: one, how do you explain the fact that there is no such thing as a “Gay-Gene”; two, how do you explain a straight man, in prison, who gets raped, and because of whatever reason (most probably pressure from fellow-inmates or shame), decides to be Homosexual. Are you saying that all of these men, whom have succumb to rape were all Homosexual from the very start, they just needed to get raped, in order to activate their Homosexual nature that was hiding inside of them, dormantly?

Or, better yet, how about a young person, regardless of being male or female, whom was sexually-molested as a child; are you saying that they were really Homosexual, all along, but just needed to be sexually-molested, in order to activate their Homosexuality?

To really believe this would be utterly retarded.

Monday, December 10, 2012

How To Talk To A Muslim: Debating Homosexuality Part 2

Some theists today take the position that religious "holy" books are not meant to be books of science, even while they all do indeed make factual claims. Nevertheless, you can interpret many of these claims as symbolic parables. With Islam you generally get a more strict interpretation of the stories with in the Qur'an and this makes talking to Muslims a bit more difficult. Being that I live for debate and challenge when I come across a theist I feel is uttering nonsense, I call them out on it. One Muslim named Gareth Bryant wrote about how he thinks Western culture is turning people gay. He insists that homosexuality is a choice, and that it can be "activated" like a button from a situation like going to prison, or being taught that it is OK. His Islamic view point forces him to believe homosexuality is a choice, because if it is biological than this brings up some serious theological issues for him. He offers only personal anecdotes and one-off examples of bisexual celebrities showing their ability to switch their sexuality from hetero to homo as proof that homosexuality is a choice, and he even plays up the term "sexual preference" saying that it denotes a preference - as in preferring vanilla or chocolate.

So I challenge him on several points and even offer 7 physiological findings that show differences in gay people from the general population. He offers nothing in response as a rebuttal and from this it is obvious that his position is not scientifically based, but instead based on his own close minded ignorant religious world view. Now he doesn't represent all Muslims, and on his blog there were many Muslims who voiced opposition to his views. He does however offer a very typical conservative hard line Islamic approach to various issues on sexuality that a growing number of Muslims are moving away from.

Below is our dialog going back and forth on the issue of whether homosexuality is a choice taken from the comments section of his blog post about "Princess-Boy", a boy who's fond of wearing girl's clothing who Gareth thinks is a “Homo-In-Training”.


It could be possible that this boy has gender identity issues. There are people born who identify with another gender, and it has nothing to do with the “Devil”, it is simply just a product of hormonal/chemical imbalances and issues with DNA, just like hermaphrodites are. I don’t know of this case but as long as the child is not forced or pressured into behaving how he is, there is no problem here. Your narrow minded Islamic world view forces you to look at everything being black and white, but our world is much more complicated than that. Human sexuality comes in a variety of shades.

You seem to think that all gay people are straight and then one day wake up and decide to be gay. Where is your scientific evidence of that? You know there are bisexual people who can identify as more straight or more gay, and can go both ways. That doesn't mean being gay is a choice. How could a straight man, make his penis get hard for other men when it doesn't do so naturally?

It is comforting to know that ignorant people like you are a shrinking and disappearing minority in this country, and eventually you will be a tiny fringe group of extremists complaining to each other why the world doesn't think like you. And the reason why is because you base knowledge on a book from the 7th century while ignoring much of modern science and blasphemy.


Well, since you’re an atheist, I’m going to move right past responding to this previous comment of yours, because, the fact that you can deny the existence of a divine-creator, yet believe that Homosexuality is something scientifically/biologically natural is more serious than the current topic-at-hand.

Firstly, I've never viewed anything as “black & white” as you’ve so foolishly presumed. I’ve simply viewed this particular topic based upon right & wrong, thus dictated by Allah, the Lord of the Universe, because it is He who decides what’s right & what’s wrong, what’s pure & what’s filth. And, since Allah is responsible for everything which exists, then, yeah…I’m of the position that He has the right to tell us what to do/not to do, how to live/how not to live.

Furthermore, chemical-imbalances have absolutely nothing to do with gender, because of the term, itself, “sexual-preference” anything that we inherit, biologically, is outside of our control. But, whom we are attracted to is within our control.

And, one of the even secular proofs of this are the following: Cynthia Nixon, one of the popular character-actresses from the SexAndTheCity franchise, not too long ago, recently announced that she was no longer a Homosexual, that she no longer lives that lifestyle; she spoke out concerning her choice to be a Homosexual, and this caught monumental media-attention. In fact, to the extent that, the LGBT lobby blasted her, and tried to pressure her not to say that “being ‘Gay’ is a ‘choice’.”, and, obviously, the reason why they would try to place pressure upon one of the most famous actresses in the world, right now, from taking a position like that, is simply because it completely shoots down their falsified-propagation that Homosexuality is something biologically-natural. And, that fact that she’s a very popular celebrity, people are going to be prone to take he very seriously, regarding this issue, based upon her personal-experience with being a former Homosexual.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

The Masochism Of Christianity

I've always felt from an early age, that Christianity was an extremely masochistic religion. It seems rather obvious to me, that at some level, religion is a product of the sadomasochistic aspects of the human personality. The desire to be a slave, the desire to be humiliated, degraded, denied pleasure, and subject to the will of someone else's whim, characterizes much of religion, but especially in Christianity. This is evident in self-flagellation and crucifixion rituals, perverse obsessions with chastity and sexual regulation, guilt-ridden feelings of unworthiness, and many more. This is all somewhat counterbalanced with the natural solipsism and ego gratifying beliefs that the whole entire universe is human centered, that we are in the spotlight, that it is all created with us in mind and that we are all loved by an invisible being. Christianity paints a picture that plays perfectly upon the warped conditions that the human mind endures.

I've never had any doubt that all religions are man made. Their obvious contradictions, plagiarisms, and child-like observations of the natural world around them convince me beyond any reasonable doubt to their falsity. With Christianity, we are told that we are sinners from the moment of conception, that we are born sick and commanded to be perfect, that we don't deserve the life that we didn't even ask for, and that we all deserve the Christian hell by default. Now to me the masochism here is obviously apparent. This guilt ridden wallowing on one's knees in shame and terror of one's natural state, is tantamount to the slave who enjoys being urinated on and whipped.

Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to be urinated on and whipped, but when your whole life outlook concerning human nature, sexuality, desire, and existence, is from the point of view of the self-loathing masochist via the Christian mindset, and you are promoting this view towards others, that is when it becomes a problem. As atheists we do not believe in an inherent state of "sin", and we don't need to feel guilty of natural desires as long as they are not harmful to others. There is no need to seek approval from some invisible authority that we can't see, hear, touch, feel or measure in any way to justify our very existence.

The freedom involved with being an atheist is something that makes some theists anger. While they shackle themselves psychologically in manacles submitting to an invisible master, they see us laughing and enjoying our lives free from a harmful masochistic complex in our outlook on life and nature. They see us indulging in activities they consider sin, and sometimes boil with rage as to why we are not also swimming in guilt. Many Christians also want to export their Christian guilt onto us so that we too become self loathing and submit to their invisible god. The atheistic outlook does not necessary sanction a totally hedonistic indulgence for one to engage unmitigated in every desire because every rational person understands that we have to live in a society with rules. The problem is that the rules of Christianity are not based on reason, they're based on the ignorance and superstition of masochists.

Monday, October 15, 2012

How To Talk To A Muslim: Debating Homosexuality

In debating conservative Muslim Gareth Bryant, I get to see how the mind of the devoutly religious behaves. When he wrote a blog post concerning the origin of sodomy and homosexuality, I once again had to call him out on his bullshit. Not only does he think homosexuality is wrong, he thinks it's a choice and that it originated from the fabled towns of Sodom and Gomorrah!

In this short exchange, I try to talk some sense into him by arguing that homosexuality is perfectly natural using a common sense argument that he never refutes. All he can do is use a trick of wordplay by insisting that the term "sexual preference" itself shows that it is a choice.

Some Brief Islamic-History (the origin of Sodomy & Homosexuality):


Homosexuality is natural, it always was, and it is no more a choice than being left-handed is a choice. Now I used to think like you about homosexuality when I was a teenager, which is to say – ignorant, but then I grew up and got educated on the matter. Homosexuality predates all the people in biblical lands in towns whose existence is even disputed by modern archaeology, because it existed in the animal kingdom long before humans evolved.
At any given time, at any given location, you are going to have a certain percentage of people that are gay – that’s just the way it is OK. To deny gay people their equal civil rights today, is tantamount to the denial of black people their equal civil rights generations ago. Why can’t we live in a society, where consenting adults can do what they want, sexually? If you don’t like sodomy, or gay sex, DON’T DO IT! Don’t watch porn, or the trash perpetrated by the movie industry. I’m an atheist and I don’t watch that crap. But don’t deny other people the right to do so.
If you don’t eat pork, fine. I respect your right not to eat it. Respect the civil rights of people in a free secular society like ours or go move to an oppressive Muslim majority country like Sudan.
Homosexuality is a choice: Allowing a man to insert his penis, or any other foreign, non-medically required item, into one’s rectum, voluntarily, is a choice; likewise, allowing one’s self to insert one’s own penis, or any other foreign, non-medically required item, into another man’s rectum, voluntarily, is a choice. Why do you think that Homosexuality is still classified as a “sexual-preference”? The word “preference” in and of itself, directly denotes the manifestation of the power of choice.
A homosexual act might be a choice, just as a left handed person can physically write with their right hand. But homosexual desire is innate as is being left handed. You and I are both men, right? You know and I know that we cannot force an erection at will, it has to just happen. How could a heterosexual man who gets aroused by women, suddenly make his penis only get aroused when he is with other men? Gay men cannot get sexually aroused to have sex with women so how can they pretend to be straight. You cannot just change your sexual “preference” like you can change your politics. And why would heterosexual men choose to be gay anyway if they are straight? So they can get their asses kicked more? It makes no sense. Why do animals like Bonobos engage in homosexuality, when they are not conscious of god or any silly divine commandments?
One thing I hate about religion is that is misrepresents human sexuality through the scope of man kind when we knew nothing of real science. That is why all religions are full of nonsense on matters of science, history, and human sexuality. And to those like me who aren’t brainwashed, it is painfully obvious.
The term “sexual preference” does not accurately describe sexual orientation and I don’t like the term myself. As does the term “sexual persuasion”. These terms was made by people ignorant of the truth. I didn't invent these terms so don’t hold me accountable to their ignorance.

I also make the comment here on the "sexually-deviant" nature of homosexuality comparing it to other Islamic morality:

What is normal in Islam? Marrying pre-pubescent girls? Slavery? Let’s make homosexuality illegal and bring back slavery the way it was in the 7th century to restore “morality” the way it should be. See why the West and the Islamic world will never get along?


Conservative Muslims today do not want to concede an inch on homosexuality, but they're willing to renounce slavery and forcing underage girls into arranged marriages with older men (at least some in the West are). These are both things condoned in the Qur'an but many Muslims are against them today. It is obvious that Muslims, just like Christians, pick and choose their morality from their "holy" books. 

Finally, we have science on our side concerning sexuality, and they don't. And that is why we will win this debate in the long run. So it is comforting to know that uneducated, conservative minded religious fanatics like Gareth are becoming more and more rare everyday. 

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Does Altruism Exist?

"Why do good for others," many have asked, "when it results in a cost to you?" It is a fair question raised throughout the years. Does doing good for others, at your own expense, have positive gains in the long run? Surely it does, I don't really think that there is an argument there. What I'd like to dive into, is the notion of whether these benefits, render altruism itself, non-existent.

Altruism is generally defined as the "principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism)" or more simply "a concern for the welfare of others." So altruism is caring for others and doing helpful deeds to them. But does it matter where those altruistic motives come from? If you are only helping someone, because you seek to gain something immediate in return, is this still altruism? For example, if I offer to help you fix your car only because I know that you will drive me to places I want to go, am I then really just acting out of my own selfish best interests? Can all thinkable acts of altruism be found to have motivations in one's own self interests? Would acting ultimately out of one's own self interest, cancel the notion of altruism itself?

When I think of altruism, one of the best examples I can think of is giving your seat up for a stranger on a bus or subway, or helping a stranger carry a large package they are having difficulty with. The stranger in this case is of no relation to me, and in a large city, there is little chance that I will see them again and that my altruism will ever be reciprocated. Altruism cannot be motivated out of one's duty or obligation. So a firefighter who saves a child from a burning building is not performing an act of altruism because they have a sworn duty to do so that their job commands of them, and they will face punishment if they fail to do so. Altruism must be voluntary with no commandments involved. It is true to note however, that many police, firefighters and doctors are motivated my altruism to get into their career fields in the first place.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Porn and perspective

I, like most men occasionally watch porn. The internet has made it so easy for all of us to access virtually unlimited amounts of hardcore pornography, the levels of which I would have only dreamed about when I has a preteen. Discussing porn one day with a friend, the idea of pornographic etiquette of sorts came up. I mentioned that in a porn movie, I wouldn't be able to watch it if I knew the guy in the movie, like if he was my friend or coworker. That would be just too personal and weird. The guy in a porn movie should merely be a faceless, nameless male, in a way vicariously acting out the position that I would want to be in. Anything more than that is just too, dare I say it, gay.

This is largely why women tend to not get off on male oriented porn, because of the lack of emotion and focus on the male. Instead porn made for or by women tends to be more story oriented and sensual, where the guy in it has a much larger personality.

Notice throughout this I don't even bring up the questions of whether porn is moral. We have been so desensitized to hardcore porn, largely through the internet, that most of the arguments of generations past, over whether porn is immoral, have nearly all but dissipated. I have no problem with porn as long as it is consenting adults who are performing in it. And porn, just like anything else, such as a drug, should be done in moderation.

Me and my friend both agree how awkward it would be to see another guy we know in a porn movie. It would render the film, un-jerkoffable. I'm sure most other heterosexual men would agree. Porn as it appears, has roles of normalcy and notions of taste and perspective.

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Sexual Politics

There goes that pesky sex drive again, making me do things I don't want to do. Making me bother that girl who just wants to be left alone. Making me go out and humiliate myself when I'd rather just stay in my comfort zone. I wish I could just turn it off, like a switch, so that I could concentrate on other things more productive. In truth, our sex drives have a purpose: they are what motivate us to procreate and this is of course the driving force of the continuum of all species.

I'm always amazed at how women can be sort of asexual in a way in terms of not being motivated by sex to do almost everything, as men mostly are. Then, they can suddenly become sexual creatures when they are with the right person in the right circumstance. It is a very peculiar outcome of thousands of years of human evolution. The hunter and gatherers that we were have conditioned women to attach emotional bonds with those men who could provide the most food and resources. They didn't think as much with their eyes and try to sleep with the first willing participant as the hunters did, and so they attached an emotional bond with a man first and then they become ferocious sexual beasts.

This is how things were with a girl I once dated. She had such an emotional bond with me that I excited her sexually by almost everything I did. Had I met her on the street or perhaps in a bar she might not have even been willing to engage in a conversation with me, let alone sleep with me. The same woman who would might not look at you twice, could suddenly become intensely sexual attracted to you if you struck the right emotional chords with her through the right situation. This has frustrated men since the beginning of time, who merely wanted to spread their seed without any emotional baggage.

Meeting women in bars has its ups and downs. On the one hand you can get laid really fast and even jump-start head first into a relationship in the fast track. These usually never last longer than a month or two. On the other hand you must deal with rejection from very beautiful and highly sexualized women who just want to go out for a drink and have a good time and who are not there to meet anyone. As frustrating as it is, the possibility of success far out weighs any fear of failure. That's evolution in a nutshell.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

A Conversation

We sat talking at the edge of the bar, oblivious to the noise around us. She was a pretty young brunette who had just transferred here from California. I was an overworked, jaded New Yorker in need of some Friday night beguilement. "I work in advertising" she says, barely audible. "Oh nice" I respond, "So what's better, New York or L.A.?" This question is one I frequently ask everyone I meet who moves to New York from L.A. I'm always comparing people's experience of New York to that of where they grew up. "Well," she says digging deep into her little mind, "New York is more convenient because everything is close by. And, you don't have to drive everywhere." I feign interest and pretend like her point is something I haven't heard. Unfortunately, I've heard it all.

I, the jaded New Yorker, have had this conversation one too many times. It's gotten to the point where, I already know what they're going to say. To spice things up, sometimes I play the guessing game, where I guess where they're from, or their ethnicity or religion. Just the other week, I correctly guessed two girls were Jewish just by knowing what neighborhood they grew up in.

Then suddenly, the conversation got interesting....

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

A Confusing Message About Faith

I hate how we in America like to stress the importance of faith, but at the same time like to stress the importance of moderation, religious moderation. The two seem contradictory to me. How can you embrace faith strongly and be moderate at the same time? Are these ideas stressed by the same parties or different ones? It seems to me like they are coming from the same source.

I remember during the Bush era especially the emphasis put on our nation to keeps its faith strong and secure. Then they urge the Islamic world to move towards moderation. What I really get from this message is the urge to embrace the Christian faith. What the right wingers and conservatives really want is for all the people of the world to embrace Christianity, but they can't come out and say it like that because it might offend Jews, Muslims and Hindus. So, instead they spew out this debatable message to embrace faith while urging some towards moderation. What they want is people to embrace Christian faith, while people of other faiths should embrace moderation. I agree that Muslims should move towards moderation, as I think all people of faith should. I'd go a step further and urge all people of faith to move towards Atheism, in a calm and timely manner.

This issue of moderation is another thing. What does it mean to be a moderate? It plainly means that one must disregard all the beliefs of their faith that seem outdated and don't make sense anymore. For example a moderate Muslim, might look at the prohibition against alcohol and say, "Ok I'll scrape that." He might look at rules forbidding sex before marriage, the mandatory praying of 5 times a day, the rule to distrust Christians and Jews, the allowance of slavery and the subjugation of women and say, "Ok OK I'll scrape those too." And voila! Now we have the modern Muslim, compatible with Western culture, able to live amongst infidels without conflict. Or do we?

Whenever a Muslim is accused of being or having ties to, right wing Islamic fundamentalists, there's always that inevitable defense of the claims that they are very moderate and harbor no extremest beliefs at all. So, then the accused must now put on this show about how they're actually very westernized and not one of those types of Muslims, who takes their faith literally. So if taking ones faith literally means being an enemy to the West, or an enemy to freedom, then why is faith a good thing? Why must we keep this silly parade going on about faith being a good thing? When will the world realize that less faith is a good thing, not more? The whole world is never going to embrace your faith, you Muslims and Christians. And even if it did it wouldn't make the world a better place at all. Just look at how Sunnis and Shiites and Catholics and Protestants alike have been hating and killing each other for hundreds of years, all while praying to the same God. More faith is not a good thing and it is my duty to spread this word.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

It's time for a blog.

This blog is about resistance. Resistance to temptation. I am currently abstaining from all masturbatory activities. It's been a full week now and I'm going strong. This is very hard to resist because our brains are hardwired for sexual pleasure. Alone or not. This can become an addictive activity especially during a long cold winter when I'm indoors a lot. Most guys can't go more than a week or two, I'll see how far I can go.

A friend of mine years ago went months with out an orgasm and he told me about it. I applauded his diligence. I hope I can have the same longevity as he did. I want to save myself for the next lady in my life whoever she is. I think it's only right that I sacrifice the selfish pleasure of masturbation so that I can give it all to the next girl I have sex with. I hope she is a girl that is worth it and not some slutty drunk girl. I really want to have a connection with her. I'd prefer to be in love but it doesn't always happen that way. We'll see what the mystery of life brings me.

Friday, July 31, 2009

10 things I hate about women

10 things I hate about women

1. I hate how women think it's perfectly OK to gain lot's of weight when you settle down with them.
2. I hate how women are pre-programmed to just want to settle down and have kids.
3. I hate it how women judge a man by what he has rather than who he is on the inside.
4. I hate how women aren't dirty perverts like how us men are.
5. I hate how women can go long periods of time with out sex and be totally fine with it.
6. I hate how women are totally obsessed with how sexy they are, and then they don't want to be looked at as sex objects.
7. I hate how women go out at night dressed all sexy and then say they aren't looking for someone to have sex with.
8. I hate how women use sex to get what they want out of men.
9. I hate it when women make a big ass deal when you try to talk to them, like you just violated their personal space or something and broke down there defensive barrier they use to protect themselves with.
10. I hate it when women expect you to pay for shit and then they consider themselves feminists who think men and women should be equal, you should be paying for your own damn shit then.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...