Discussion in 'Community' started by Merlin_Ambrosius69, Jul 22, 2013.
This thread has jumped so many sharks that the sharks committed suicide.
That's not why I called her horrible. It's her use of dismissive and belittling language to which I object.
I dislike debating with you, Wock. You seem immune to reason and your phrasing is often unpleasant and unfriendly. But I will state, in brief, that the "repugnant" thing I believe is that extramarital sex should not be treated with such severe social and political censure. It's wrong to lie, it's wrong to unknowingly expose one's spouse to venereal disease and to risk impregnating a lover of whom one's wife is unaware. But it isn't tantamount to murder or child abuse. The vitriol leveled at John Edwards I personally found to be out of all moral continence. That is the extent of my position on the matter, and as always, you're welcome to disagree.
Let's see if they are kamikaze sharks who blow up other threads on their way out.
This dude used to have all the mod buttons and I never did? Man, what's this world coming to?
But it's not the extent of the opinions that you've expressed in the past, or that were linked to, or that people have been referring or objecting to.
In particular have you renounced:
1. Your wildly misogynistic opinion that women "can't understand" a man's sexual needs, which unavoidably implies that cheating is more justified for men than women
2. John Edwards was some sort of misunderstood victim for the way he chose to treat his family
3. In the abstract, thinking that being horny is a good reason to abandon loved ones.
1. Again with the straw-manning, the shifting of word usage to recast my stated opinions into a position that you've created for me so that you can then would-be-triumphantly demolish it. The problem for you is that these two ideas: "I don't necessarily expect a woman to understand" (my actual position) and "women can't understand" (your false restatement of my position) are two different ideas.
I'll be glad to defend my own opinion on the matter, but I won't touch your windmill-tilting nonsense.
2. I've already agreed -- several times now -- that Edwards made a mistake (or a series of them) and that he did wrong. You seem incapable or unwilling to grasp that objecting to the severity of criticism and thinking someone is a "victim" or totally in the right are two different things.
3. More straw-manning. I don't think that and never thought or stated it. Why not address my actual position on the subject? I don't think Edwards had any right to "abandon his loved ones" if that is indeed what he did.
Why the **** are we talking about John Edwards? I seem to have missed where this came from. Cliff notes?
I walked into McDonald's once and ordered a drink and because I didn't know where they were I asked the employee "Can I have a strawman?"
It's an old discussion from the temp forums. Someone gave a link upthread, but you're logged out when you follow it.
When you say that you don't expect "a woman" to understand, it's a generic descriptor that applies to all females. Whereas when you say you don't expect "women" to understand it's. . .still a generic descriptor that applies to all females.
That besides, it doesn't deal with your sexist point that sexual gratification is "more urgent" for men.
Why don't you stop claiming you're being terribly misrepresented, and simply affirm or reject these starkly radioactive views that you have embraced in the past?
"Don't expect" and "can't" have distinct meanings. It's not sexist to recognize biological differences. I stand by my stated opinions, with which you're welcome to disagree.
My Cliff Notes version is that I objected to John Edwards being heinously villified, as though what he had done were tantamount to murder or child abuse. I offered the opinion that his mistakes should be taken in light of the biological urge to have sex, which is stronger in men than in women. People disagreed with me strenuously.
Merlin, do you have any biology to back up the claim that the urge to have sex is stronger in men than women?
Trying to justify or rationalize a sexist stereotype with some bull**** about "biological differences" doesn't keep a sexist stereotype from being a sexist stereotype.
Unless you have personally interviewed every single woman on the planet (or at least a more decent-sized sample of them outside your own peer circle) about her sexual desires, you know nothing about the urgency of our needs or how they compare to yours. And I am assuming you have not conducted such an interview given the fact that you are, one, still alive; two, posting on a message board; and three, have not mentioned anything about having your balls crushed underneath a steel-toed boot.
If Edwards had had some open-marriage agreement with Elizabeth about what they would do if she couldn't put out, his behavior with Rielle would have been viewed differently. It's not the morality of sex that is in question here, I don't think it's immoral to not be monogamous, but I think it is immoral to betray a trust. And in the position that Elizabeth was in, Johnny-Boy would have to give me a better story than "I need to get laid or I'll die, and you're a woman so you wouldn't understand."
Well, I do disagree with your opinion that the biological urge to have sex is stronger in men than in women. What do you base this assessment on? Quick answer... I'm not actually looking to discuss this with you. Is this your personal experience? I'm just curious about where your view comes from. By the way, that is a pretty sexist way of looking at human sexuality.
Yeah, but it's anecdotal -- every single man and woman with whom I've ever discussed the matter in real life outside of this forum.
It's not sexist to recognize basic human differences. Disagree? Fine.
LOL, well that's a wrap folks.
Everyone Merlin has discussed sex with, says this is true, so it must be true.
And those differences are not relevant to this discussion. Both place blame with women for the cheating of their significant other, because they failed to understand the depth of his sexual urges. Both are used to bolster your pseudo-scientific apologetics. Neither are acceptable or change the problematic parts of your statement.
Any other random words in my sentence you want to pick out as having misrepresented you?
Be quiet, woman. I wouldn't expect someone of your gender to have a high enough IQ to keep pace in a conversation with people carrying Y chromosomes.
See, it's not sexist because I used "expect." She could still surprise me.
So the answer is no, then. You don't have any biology to back it up.
It's not really reliable for you to base your assessment of human sexuality on your own group of friends (or people you discuss this sort of thing with)... groups of friends tend to have similar interests and viewpoints. So yes, you can say that your group of male friends has stronger sexual urges than your group of female friends, but you can't speak for the human race... and you certainly can't link it to biology.
What I'm getting from this is that Merlin's wife doesn't want to have sex with him as much as he does her. But I'm going to assume that he'll bust on back in here with another "MY WIFE JULI LOVES TO HAVE SEX WITH ME SHE JUST POSTED ABOUT IT ON FACEBOOK"
No, he'll say something about her recovering from vagina surgery.
Actually, he'll probably say both.
If a spouse is unwilling to have sex for any reason (husband or wife), then both people need to sit down and have a real conversation about the level of intimacy either one expects from that relationship. Going out and cheating won't solve this at all.