Community > Science & Philosophy

Topic: Is sex is a Force or desire
JaneStar1 Joined Tue 06/30/09 Posts: 1580	Sun 01/10/10 02:54 PM Edited by JaneStar1 on Sun 01/10/10 02:57 PM
Massagetrade: This is the science forum, and many readers simply don't know this information which you consider obvious and blatant - that alone makes it worth discussing for me. Well said, MT! One small, insignificant clarification: * This so-called "science forum", is part of the friggin DATING SITE** which doesn't require any scientific credentials for participating! * >>> Only failed and washed-out "has-been scientists" may object to the display of the pseudo-scientific views of some members who might be cluttering up the former's display of the scientific superiority!!! __________HOW PATHETIC IS THAT?!?!?!

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Sun 01/10/10 03:09 PM
Only failed and washed-out "has-been scientists" may object to the display of the pseudo-scientific views of some members who might be cluttering up the former's display of the scientific superiority!!! I'm confused by the word 'only'...thankfully, there is actually a large community of people, from a diversity of backgrounds, who value truth and who believe that scientific ideas should not be mis-represented nor co-opted. There have even been some people on here who clearly lacked formal science education who were very proactive in this area. Being willing to learn has a greater advantage than having gone through formal education.

JaneStar1 Joined Tue 06/30/09 Posts: 1580	Sun 01/10/10 04:16 PM Edited by JaneStar1 on Sun 01/10/10 05:01 PM
massagetrade: Being willing to learn has a greater advantage than having gone through formal education. As a general case, that would seem probable (if not questionable). But, actually, the willingness to learn that's restricted only to the information obtained from the "Science" forum of the Dating site, is quite worthless -- from the scientific point of view!!! And, in general, the idiot, possessed with the desire to learn, won't likely achieve anything... _____________________On the other hand_____________________ If the same idiot were capable of going through formal education, then that fact would cast a doubt in the idiot's diagnosis! P.S. Actually, my objection was directed at ZPicante, NOT you!!!

ZPicante Joined Sun 02/03/08 Posts: 1806	Sun 01/10/10 11:58 PM Edited by ZPicante on Mon 01/11/10 12:48 AM
All it really "achieves" is to placate those who are too easily offended or obsequious to believe or assertively ("offensively") think, let alone say, anything straightforward. I don't understand. Yes, I know, my son. All I meant was that I wasn't sure if I was parsing that specific sentence correctly. My first effort to parse your sentence lead me to: "All it achieves is placating those who lack straightforwardness" (leaving out the reason for the lack, and the manifestation of the lack). Given the nested grammatical structure, I wanted to be sure. Yes, well, I like making my sentences convoluted, Pauline almost, sometimes. I'm afraid that "paraphrase" is almost exactly the opposite of what I was saying. What I was saying is, to rephrase: People are (in varying degrees and combinations) too easily offended and/or too cowardly to believe anything straightforward; the general, [post-]modern tendency of our society (American society, in particular) is to dilute or assimilate belief systems themselves rather than encouraging each other to become more opened-minded (at least enough to hear others' beliefs), assertive, and brave. In short, people are willing to sacrifice (in varying degrees, on different levels, in different ways, etc.) traditional beliefs for the sake of avoiding offending other people. And that is sad. I was arguing for the separation of mysticism and science. Clearly, I am the most pedantic human being alive; but where it actually freakin' makes sense contextually. As your general theme, I understand, understood, and agree. On some specifics I have been curious to have a more detailed understanding of your view. Okay, what specifics did you want to know? It is the CO-MINGLING of such ideas--while both very well could be "true" IN THEIR OWN CONTEXT, IN THEIR OWN WAY--but for the sake of INTELLIGENT discussion should not be allowed to conflate into one paradigm from which all these ideas come, etc.! Yes, yes, that point is clear, but there are so many tangents in this conversation that might be worth exploring. Well, it certainly didn't seem to be! But okay.... If you, however, view sex as a biological interaction, I feel sorry for anyone who only has this view of the sexual experience. Er. Well, that isn't my view. Just to be clear, I never thought this was your view. However, the language you used earlier suggested an idea of 'either/or' approach regarding two views of sex, and I simply want to assert that a person can have a biological view without lacking for a 'mystical experience' of sex. I don't presume that we disagree, but you hadn't clarified how seriously/literally you might have meant the 'either/or' approach. Also, I wanted to say (for the sake of saying, to the world, and unrelated to any presumption on your position) that it might be a bad idea to only have a biological view. All of this was related to exploring the implications of an 'either/or' approach to 'this view' and 'that view' of sex, which might be entirely tangential to your points. I was merely distinguishing the views, not claiming to side with either one. Never--not once--did I say it was an "either/or" dichotomy; I was merely defining those two, varying perspectives. A person could believe both without confusing them; I do not think that maintaining both perspectives necessitates an intermingling, a conflation, of ideas into a garbled, meaningless mess; which seems too often to be the case. Perhaps it is an inadvertent blurring, but it is still frustrating to behold. Okay, so you DO agree?! Agh! Please don't assume any of my questions or tangential points mean that I disagree, unless I state it. I strongly agree with the basic theme of your statements here - thought I've been interested in exploring details. Okay. <:( >;) Not humoring, of course, the painfully obvious forces [of Physics, obv.] involved, which are so obvious and so blatant that they are not worth mentioning, let alone discussing at so infuriating a length as this thread has encouraged! There is one place we disagree - 'what is worth discussing' - but this is no more than a matter of preference, tastes, no? Some people like telling jokes in the joke section, others make endless lame sexual innuendos in the dating section. We all have opinions on what has worth. This is the science forum, and many readers simply don't know this information which you consider obvious and blatant - that alone makes it worth discussing for me. Uh, well, I would think someone who reads the "science" forum would be interested in and, almost as an accidental result, somewhat versed in a vague semblance of what some might call science. Also, that terrifies me that someone would not know that; that a person would not know that saying "gravity is at work during intercourse" (for example) in a non-ironic way is both a redundant and somewhat naïve thing to say--unless, of course, that person knows nothing about science (even elementary science) whatsoever, which, to me, brings into question that impetuous individual's intent in making such a comment at all--in a non-inquisitive fashion (seeking insight from someone more informed, like me, haha, which would be perfectly acceptable). But that, too, is a tangent. So, to reword, if I were to enter into a discussion like this (which I have) I would want to have some BASIC understanding of the subject (which I do) before commenting myself. I mean, it's one thing to ask; it is another to make broad, indefensible, uninformed statements--examples of which are sprinkled throughout this thread. So yeah, I think some statements are genuinely, objectively worthless--okay, remarkably pointless and uninteresting--in this context. If someone were to post "gravity is at work during intercourse" (worded in a somewhat cleverer, more humorous way) in the Jokes forum, that would be entirely different. But there is no irony, absolutely no wry-ness that I could detect in many statements hitherto made in this discussion. So, concern; I am concerned for humanity.

ZPicante Joined Sun 02/03/08 Posts: 1806	Mon 01/11/10 12:35 AM Edited by ZPicante on Mon 01/11/10 12:53 AM
One small, insignificant clarification: * This so-called "science forum", is part of the friggin DATING SITE** which doesn't require any scientific credentials for participating! * >>> Only failed and washed-out "has-been scientists" may object to the display of the pseudo-scientific views of some members who might be cluttering up the former's display of the scientific superiority!!! __________HOW PATHETIC IS THAT?!?!?! Ha! Now, THAT is the most hilarious assumption I've heard so far; that I am a scientist. A "has-been scientist"! Hahahahahaha. So, now, knowing basic (and I mean, basic-basic) concepts of Physics--like gravity; like gravity--and how they apply to reality in different contexts makes me a scientist? Funny. Very funny. But no. I am not a scientist. I am simply easily irritated by--and, so, inclined to point out the egregious wrongness of--blind, baseless, yet brazenly overconfident statements...In general. This being a dating site does not mitigate the importance of truth or, let's try, logic--no, how 'bout--common sense in a polemic discussion [such as this forum, S&P, strongly implies). I, for one, don't water down my intelligence, nor put aside my aversion to dryly ridiculous statements, nor silence my penchant for saying things that are sensible, based on context.

JaneStar1 Joined Tue 06/30/09 Posts: 1580	Tue 01/12/10 12:51 AM
ZPicante: There is no benefit to creating a prototypical measurement of whatever "force/s" is/are involved in that activity, mostly because determining such a standard measurement is literally impossible: There is no measurable and "standard" science to that activity, considering the innumerable differences between individuals involved and the high irregularity of the amount of force involved (in part, due to the difference masses of the people involved). No. Just no!! I am sorry, but your intricate manner of self-expression led me to believe you are/have been a scientist!

ZPicante Joined Sun 02/03/08 Posts: 1806	Tue 01/12/10 04:19 PM Edited by ZPicante on Tue 01/12/10 04:20 PM
ZPicante: There is no benefit to creating a prototypical measurement of whatever "force/s" is/are involved in that activity, mostly because determining such a standard measurement is literally impossible: There is no measurable and "standard" science to that activity, considering the innumerable differences between individuals involved and the high irregularity of the amount of force involved (in part, due to the difference masses of the people involved). No. Just no!! I am sorry, but your intricate manner of self-expression led me to believe you are/have been a scientist! Haw haw! Well, thank you. You may still call me Professor Z, if you wish. I just like using long words and using words in circuitous ways. It's what I do. I am probably more intelligent than most Professors, anyway; certainly more willing to oblige alternative thoughts (ha ha)! Also, I am beautiful--a beautiful flower drowning in a dark-water sea of ugliness! Oh, I'm crying right now. But. Back, back on topic, and as concise as I've ever been on the matter, my pupils: Sex is not a force or desire; it is driven by forces and desires. Oh no!

JaneStar1 Joined Tue 06/30/09 Posts: 1580	Tue 01/12/10 08:14 PM Edited by JaneStar1 on Tue 01/12/10 08:15 PM
I completely agree with you: Sex is not a force or desire; it is driven by forces and desires. As I mentioned at the beginning of the thread: THOSE WHO CAN, DO... THOSE WHO CAN'T, MEASURE IT!! p.s. Sorry for confusing you with "Professor Z" -- though your command of the English language makes me envy you!

mygenerationbaby Joined Mon 07/21/08 Posts: 602	Thu 01/14/10 02:00 AM
We read in physics books that there are four fundamental force in nature namely nuclear, magnetic ,electric and gravitational.then wat type of force is sex?we wil all agree that opposite attract as opposite charges or opposite poles.so when men and women attract then which force is playing its part.can we nt measure it?or is it not a physical force?as physics is the study of nature and natural phenomenon and sexual force is the most natural force then why there is not any formula discoverd who can tel the amount of force between two opposite sex individuals ooooh my god, tell your teacher to burn the physics books either that or you haven't been doing the readings, man oh my god

evansmith Joined Thu 11/05/09 Posts: 16	Thu 01/14/10 02:17 AM
hi

mygenerationbaby Joined Mon 07/21/08 Posts: 602	Thu 01/14/10 02:20 AM
hi

evansmith Joined Thu 11/05/09 Posts: 16	Thu 01/14/10 02:22 AM
I think It's a desirable force.

mygenerationbaby Joined Mon 07/21/08 Posts: 602	Thu 01/14/10 02:22 AM
do you like fish?

evansmith Joined Thu 11/05/09 Posts: 16	Thu 01/14/10 02:24 AM
I like oysters

ZPicante Joined Sun 02/03/08 Posts: 1806	Thu 01/14/10 03:27 AM
I completely agree with you: Sex is not a force or desire; it is driven by forces and desires. As I mentioned at the beginning of the thread: THOSE WHO CAN, DO... THOSE WHO CAN'T, MEASURE IT!! p.s. Sorry for confusing you with "Professor Z" -- though your command of the English language makes me envy you! Thank you. I'm glad someone appreciates it. Still, I'm not sure at all what you mean by that. I'm most definitely missing something.

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Thu 01/14/10 05:42 PM Edited by massagetrade on Thu 01/14/10 05:43 PM
I was merely distinguishing the views, not claiming to side with either one. I did notice. Never--not once--did I say it was an "either/or" dichotomy; Exactly. You simply said (paraphrased) "if one takes approach A, then...", and "if one takes approach B, then". Nothing was said about mixing or not mixing, or doing neither. Uh, well, I would think someone who reads the "science" forum would be interested in and, almost as an accidental result, somewhat versed in a vague semblance of what some might call science. If only that were true. Also, that terrifies me that someone would not know that; that a person would not know that saying "gravity is at work during intercourse" (for example) in a non-ironic way is both a redundant and somewhat naïve thing to ... And yet, some apparently think that sex is a 'force' in the way that gravity is a 'force'. Is there an animal friendly alternative to the phrase "beating a dead horse"? I'll try to stop doing so. So yeah, I think some statements are genuinely, objectively worthless--okay, remarkably pointless and uninteresting--in this context. Pointless and uninteresting for you, I can empathize.

JaneStar1 Joined Tue 06/30/09 Posts: 1580	Thu 01/14/10 07:25 PM Edited by JaneStar1 on Thu 01/14/10 07:30 PM
JaneStar1: I completely agree with you: Sex is not a force or desire; it is driven by forces and desires. As I mentioned at the beginning of the thread: THOSE WHO CAN, DO... THOSE WHO CAN'T, MEASURE IT!! p.s. Sorry for confusing you with "Professor Z" -- though your command of the English language makes me envy you! ZPicante: Thank you. I'm glad someone appreciates it. Still, I'm not sure at all what you mean by that. I'm most definitely missing something. What part are you referring to? ? ?

ZPicante Joined Sun 02/03/08 Posts: 1806	Fri 01/15/10 12:13 AM Edited by ZPicante on Fri 01/15/10 12:15 AM
I was merely distinguishing the views, not claiming to side with either one. I did notice. Okay.... Never--not once--did I say it was an "either/or" dichotomy; Exactly. You simply said (paraphrased) "if one takes approach A, then...", and "if one takes approach B, then". Nothing was said about mixing or not mixing, or doing neither. Well, there ya go, then. Uh, well, I would think someone who reads the "science" forum would be interested in and, almost as an accidental result, somewhat versed in a vague semblance of what some might call science. If only that were true. Yeeep. Also, that terrifies me that someone would not know that; that a person would not know that saying "gravity is at work during intercourse" (for example) in a non-ironic way is both a redundant and somewhat naïve thing to ... And yet, some apparently think that sex is a 'force' in the way that gravity is a 'force'. Is there an animal friendly alternative to the phrase "beating a dead horse"? I'll try to stop doing so. Apparently, yes. That was exactly what I was saying. Implying, at least. So yeah, I think some statements are genuinely, objectively worthless--okay, remarkably pointless and uninteresting--in this context. Pointless and uninteresting for you, I can empathize. Indeed. So, I come here to flaunt my advanced knowledge of gravity and inertia--and how those things, when applied to the topic of intercourse, should only end as a punchline. what What part are you referring to? ? ? You earlier: "THOSE WHO CAN, DO... THOSE WHO CAN'T, MEASURE IT!!" Not sure what this means. At all, I'm afraid. <:\|

JaneStar1 Joined Tue 06/30/09 Posts: 1580	Sat 01/16/10 02:19 AM Edited by JaneStar1 on Sat 01/16/10 02:21 AM
* * * SEXUAL ACTIVITY -- "THOSE WHO CAN, DO... THOSE WHO CAN'T, MEASURE IT!!" (or try determining What kind of a force is that...)

mygenerationbaby Joined Mon 07/21/08 Posts: 602	Sat 01/16/10 02:23 AM
I think It's a desirable force. Yes, and a forceful desire.