Philosophy of sex

People seem to think the roles people take on in the bedroom reveal their "true" selves. If a successful alpha male turns out to be a cuckold/submissive in the bed, we laugh and think "oh, he is ACTUALLY just some pathetic beta in truth". If a self-proclaimed feminist turns out to like being dominated sexually, we think she's a fraud who just can't admit at other times she like the patriarchy. Etc etc.

But what is actually the truer self? The person we become in the most intimate and intense (sexual) moments or the person we're the rest of time, the majority of the time?
It's easy to answer we're both, but clearly, as given examples show, in practice we tend to associate the sexual self as the true self. Why is that? Should we stop thinking that way?

As a philosopher of virtue ethics, I'm going to tell you that the true self is created by continuous habits. As a philosopher in general, I'm going to tell you to read Foucault.

>the true self is created by continuous habits
Right, but what's the answer then?
It's our sexual habit, but it's a habit we (often) do much more rarely than all our other habits. The successful alpha man spends much more time performing his habit of being domineering and assertive at work than he spends being whipped which is his sexual habit.
Doesn't answer which is the truer self.

>Why is that ?
I'm no philosopher of any kind, but I suppose it is because in bed we often act directly on our desires, while in normal society we act according to social restraints and constraints first.
Our behaviour is much more controlled and artificial in our daily lives, though of course sex is not devoid of lies, roles and such.

I really don't understand what the big deal about sex is. Its like the whole fucking universe revolves around it for some people.

Let's pump your body full of hormones that're going to lower your inhibitions and turn you into a whimpering puppy just begging to be touched. No, I like to think the true self is when your head is on straight and you're calm enough to think before you act. But then I'm no philosopher.

I blame Freud for making everything seem sexually deterministic. His ideas have been discredited to a large extent in Psychology, but his imprint is still there.

You can't really disregard the human being is an animal driven by primal instinct, where a major instinct is the sexual/reproductive drive. We're sexual beings. Don't underestimate our primal nature.

Read Topaz.

Read Anti-Oedipus by Deleuze and Guattari. Shit's cash. They talk about the limits of the Freudian model and how it has constricted thought in continental psychology and philosophy. It's fuckin dense though and they are nut jobs from the 70s.

Why do continental philosophers flagrantly abuse scientific concepts for their own retarded metaphors?

But what say alpha male had to feign aggressiveness every day at work so he could be successful? So that means even though he's being aggressive most of the time, he's still at heart weak and submissive.

because so do all people, because "muh science" is a spook created by idiots who can't actually accomplish anything

>People seem to think the roles people take on in the bedroom reveal their "true" selves.
There is no "true" self.

"Guise real accomplishments are writing intentionally obscure meaningless drivel about things that don't matter to 99.99% of the population."

Continentals provide 0 value to society and probably are a detriment.

>read Foucault.

The best philosophy is the one you do yourself.
Well, no, but philosophizing is usually better than taking someone elses view.
Read everyone and find out what is true.

>implying a regular average Joe American nihilist can achieve the same goals and possess the same drive as a member of the highly motivated Spartan warrior cult

Get out
Philosophy is everything.

All they're saying is not to overestimate it either.

B A I T
A
I
T

philosophy is about making and then confirming hypotheses, why would someone go through the effort of creating a hypothesis, when you can read someone else's conclusion,

>abuse
they take scientific concepts as theoretical models around which they can structure their ideas. All they're doing is finding new ways of conceptualising their ideas. It has literally no bearing at all on hard science.

now you're sounding like an autistic stem undergrad

Read George Battaile's The Solar Anus.

What does autism have to do with it?

>why would someone go through the effort of creating a hypothesis, when you can read someone else's conclusion

That isn't progress.
Let me guess, American/European, or least somewhere of European descent. relativist, certain things if not all things are subjective, god probably doesn't exist/god is a metaphor or an unknown spirit. semi-liberal semi conservative, probably value freedom, probably don't even accept an objective scale of values.

I think its time to do as Sarte and Camus did and question if your life is worth living.
Read "The closing of the American mind", even if you aren't American.

If there is no "right way" if there is no objective way, then philosophy is waste of time.
And please, don't squander in ignorance as some know nothing open questioned pop-psychologist.


"All is a form of bait"
-Thales of Miletus

inability to understand social relationships
inability to understand language and abstract thought
inability to empathise

you know, the sort of attributes in a student which go without saying if you're learning continental thought?

You need to read up on Jung and understand the compensatory function of the unconscious. The reason most people have these urges that seem to fly in the face of their ego is because they are lopsided, stressing an area too much and the unconscious compensates in the opposite direction in dreams, and in subconscious urges (sexual or otherwise).

>his ideas are incomprehensible to entirety of the population
>he's not the autistic one

Do you not realise you're the reason why philosophy is laughed at nowadays? Why the fuck are you trying to psychoanalyse me, while coming to the conclusion that I'm ignorant? it has no point other then to stroke your ego. And when did i mention that I don't objectivity values? All that I am saying is for the average person you shouldn't try to create philosophical conclusions and hypotheses when you can read someone else's conclusion which they have spent a lifetime compiling. If you want progress in philosophy you should try to research how to create larger data sets with more factors so your conclusions have more legitimacy.

>I am the entirety of the population
I would've thought a stem student had better statistical knowledge than the hyperbole you're shitting out right now.

You know humanities students outnumber stem students, right? This shit quite literally isn't rocket science. Continental thinkers crop up in all sorts of fields, and plenty of people have no trouble at all understanding them. Deleuze is certainly difficult, but you're wholly overestimating the challenge and understating the usefulness of continental thought.

>Do you not realise you're the reason why philosophy is laughed at nowadays?
The fool mocks what he does not understand.
>Why the fuck are you trying to psychoanalyse me
If I am incorrect you shouldn't care.
>I'm ignorant?
You are.
>stroke your ego
This make me think I am correct.

You sound flustered, my arrow found its mark I presume?
>average person
You'd be surprised what the "average" person can discover.
I am not advocating a "build your own philosophy" I am advocating the pursuit of Truth, which must be focused on wholeheartedly lest it elude us.
A life time of work is not exempt from scrutiny, nor critique.
Only by chipping at and refining these philosophers and their worldviews can one hope to discover what is worth discovering.

>larger data sets
no
That's a bad idea, you're just advocating a Hegelian form of philosophy.
>just expand your viewpoint
Truth is slim and narrow and must be chased after with all conviction and celerity.

Sex doesn't reveal anything about people, it reveals what culture wants us to be in relation to sex.

Yeah, they outnumber stem students the same way poor, easily replaceable baristas outnumber rich, successful engineers.
>b-b-but your in stem your just a ugly nerd!!!
Lol, I'm a 6'2" athletic alpha who used to play lacrosse on the D1 level. My materials engineering degree is just the cherry on top.

>Lol, I'm a 6'2" athletic alpha who used to play lacrosse on the D1 level. My materials engineering degree is just the cherry on top.

So you're like every other dude who flooded into important fields that require utmost precision like engineering for that sweet sweet paycheck and not the work itself?

Why are you in college? To immigrate to these fields en masse with all the others to devalue them and their discourse?

Hey brah I realise your doing this to find some value in your life but you sound a little but to indoctrinated by abstract language "Truth is slim" what is "truth" and why is it "slim"? Or can "discover" woah what can you "discover" or "build your philosophy" why does that matter i'm still going to drive to my job 5 days a week then sleep in my house at the end of the day so it really isn't changing my way of life. Philosophy at its finest can give you a different perspective at the actions you do, so mundane or tedious events are more bearable but in the essence of things philosophers and normal people are no different on this planet.

Lol my degree is finished you ditch digger. Already making $65000 as a 24 year old and will soon make 6 figures. What I will accomplish will affect far more people than your pathetic musings will.
>for the work itself
What a pathetic ideal. Only marxists who have no idea of how the world works actually believe enjoyment of the work itself means quality work output(not that I don't love doing what I do). The most important part of engineering isn't the "love of engineering" but the ability to apply highly complex mathematical and scientific concepts that the humanities student couldn't even begin to understand.
It's like people who say they hate math and think people who are good at it are just magically gifted with the blessing of mathematical understanding. Any jackoff could do this if they were willing to put the effort. But most can't, and just believe it's something inherent in them.

>Lol my degree is finished you ditch digger. Already making $65000 as a 24 year old and will soon make 6 figures. What I will accomplish will affect far more people than your pathetic musings will.

You're right, and my Dad works for Nintendo.

>What a pathetic ideal. Only marxists who have no idea of how the world works actually believe enjoyment of the work itself means quality work output(not that I don't love doing what I do). The most important part of engineering isn't the "love of engineering" but the ability to apply highly complex mathematical and scientific concepts that the humanities student couldn't even begin to understand.

No, you misunderstood me. I said the more people who only care for a paycheck influx into a field, the more unqualified mistakes are bound to happen. People chasing degrees for money is one of the worst poxes on academia currently, engineering degrees instead of just regular econ degrees as there used to be influx from daddy's trust, it's just going to make the field worse.

>but the ability to apply highly complex mathematical and scientific concepts that the humanities student couldn't even begin to understand.

Are you done being condescending and sounding like a kingdom heart's villain for flocking to a degree because of a paycheck. I doubt you could understand them either.

>It's like people who say they hate math and think people who are good at it are just magically gifted with the blessing of mathematical understanding.

What? Who says that?

>Any jackoff could do this if they were willing to put the effort

This is the problem I'm speaking of.

He's too inundated with his own self image as a jock my dude. Seriously, who uses "alpha" unironically?

Just because your lives are pathetic and full of resentment towards those better doesn't mean there aren't hyper successful people like me around.

>Just because your lives are pathetic and full of resentment towards those better doesn't mean there aren't hyper successful people like me around.

When did I say anything you're implying

What if you've never had sex OP? Does that mean you don't exist?

Your equanimity is not amusing.

Truth is slim because there are a thousand inferences that can reach deduction, but there is only one deductive method.

I said I do not advocate a "build your own philosophy", I suggest re-examine or re-think what I said.

>it isn't changing my way of life
You mean, (you) aren't changing your way of life.

Philosophy changes men as men change philosophy.


Meaning can guard ones soul, those who felt a higher calling during the holocaust survived at a better rate than those who lost all hope.

>philosophers and normal people are not different on this planet.
Here I concur.

Cool projection mate. You're pretty narcissistic.

I think you're a silly fucker for posturing on an anonymous forum but OK. If you derive your self worth from comparing yourself to anonymous browsers on the net, that's you.

Friends, arrest your destiny

From the fact that you think philosophy is a more noble pursuit for the betterment of humanity than people doing actual work that the general population is affected by. The humanities are filled with weak willed people who can't put forth the effort do anything apart from masturbatory whinging. Artists, writers, and even garbage collectors offer tangible benefit to humanity. What can you claim to provide?

>when in doubt of the legitimacy of your argument, posture and claim bragging rights on an Uzbekistani goat-herding site

you're a shining example to us all, user.

>implying this didnt begin from the user insulting my aspergers and stem degree

We have a reaction to it, not because of insecurity, but because it's pointless. If you were a woman, we'd say tits or GTFO.

I could be a fortune 500 heir with nothing better to do, or a dirt shoveler from the Balkans. It doesn't matter here.

Stop playing the victim. It began when you tried devaluing continental thought and the people who pursue it through their studies, simply because the material was incomprehensible to you. That is wilful ignorance. It's no one's fault but your own.

>>From the fact that you think philosophy is a more noble pursuit for the betterment of humanity than people doing actual work that the general population is affected by.

I never said that?

>The humanities are filled with weak willed people who can't put forth the effort do anything apart from masturbatory whinging.

Engineering is filled with weak willed people who want a paycheck above anything else? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying engineering is more noble a pursuit? Because that's not true in the slightest, no field is above another beyond paycheck, and if you chase the highest paycheck for a degree and not betterment of the field you simply shouldn't be in college.

>Artists, writers, and even garbage collectors offer tangible benefit to humanity. What can you claim to provide?

Artists, writers, musicians, designers I think these fields are pretty important. I don't think I'm who you think I am? I'm another user, but I think you're even misinterpreting the other user.

>what is masturbation
>what are sexual thoughts and fantasies

>hurr how are values important

Yes, and you're also a supreme gentleman

>in practice we tend to associate the sexual self as the true self. Why is that? Should we stop thinking that way?
What I desire and who I am are two different things. The one is mediated by the other: I am not my fetish to cum on a cute pair of feet, nor is it necessarily a defining aspect to my nature, but rather I am the vessel through which this act may be realised.

Desire is something transitory, but it is only through succumbing to this temporary moment of inexplicable pleasure that the 'true self' actually arrises out of the sexual act. It seems impossible to determine any kind of evolutionary factor as to why we have our fetishes, because all that is really necessary to propagate our genes can be achieved through penetrative sex. The true self does not lie in my fetish for feet, but rather in the fact that the possession of the fetish motivates me to act on it at all.

>If you were a woman, we'd say tits or GTFO.
You're not on /b/, you know.

>implying philosophy doesn't influence anything you've listed

>The best philosophy is the one you do yourself.

Even if that's true (and for most retards it definitely isn't) there's nothing wrong with informing yourself by reading other philosophers on a subject. Nobody says you have to AGREE with Foucault, just that you should read him if you're interested in the subject.

Nobody has time to "read everyone" so directing people to the bigger fish first just makes sense.

I wanted to include it because it is on /b/, and it's a good example of the universal identity policing that goes on here.

>Nobody has time to "read everyone"
Did it in 2 years.
Everyone has the time, they just don't want to.

It's not easy, and there are plenty of other things you could be doing, for instance, making money or improving relationships.
Set aside time.

>job
>family
>friends
Depends on what you want, you'll find yourself going full circle with the literary heroic cycle.

Okay what exactly do you mean by "everyone" if you did it in two years?

It does, the truer self of that man is the "domineering alpha". In my opinion the relevance of sexuality to psychology is grossly overstated (thanks, Freud!) as in the end is it not a bodily need, no different than eating and shitting? Nobody thinks of your fondness for taking a huge fibrous no-wiper as a glimpse at your "true self", do they?

The talk of "primal instinct" recalls Freud's work on the "id", and Jung's of the "shadow" which of course reeks of his gnostic habits. A "defecating man" is not a more base, pathological form of life than the "ejaculating man" - he is just shitting, and attenuated to the faculties best suited for shitting at that moment. So it is with sex. Don't overthink it.

You're making a strawman. Feigning agressiveness is HARD. You have to be naturally aggressive to be stereotypical alpha male aggressive.

A desire in the heart for a moment of weakness and submission is just that. To say "still at heart weak and submissive" is one of those dangerous lines. You have not judged anyone's heart. You haven't even seen the beating of one, let alone probed its secrets.

Men are aggressive because they are aggressive, not because all surfaces are facades, so to speak..

At most, I think, the philosophy of sex ought to reduce to the images that the culture-industry produces and encourages of the Madonna/Whore complex, that border zone where the biological intersects with the social. Much in the the same way as food advertisement, to extend other bodily function metaphors. Yes, you NEED salts, fat, and sweets to live, but the order and manner you're probably eating them in is probably a perversion of what you're body is expecting and deleterious in the long term.

Isn't sexuality meant to be private, deeply intimate consummations of a relationship? How comfortable would you be if someone busted in on you with the bae and started taking photos, or sizing you up according to their latest Cosmo catalog? Isn't that what happens with pornography, where you have to submit to the image of a lusted-object violated by someone else, and probably someone better than you? The whole affair is intensely voyeuristic. Is that healthy? Is it social?

Why scientifically so many men love to eat pussy?
What is the advantage of eating pussy?

Because once the man leads by committing oral sex so will the woman.

If you ever had a bitch not suck you off, just do your thing on her and then walk away, she will feel worthless and insecure and she will end up in a rut feel guilty and become a whore, where she will just throw herself at you. It is the gateway to make a bitch dirty and bent to your will.

>ctrl f

rape

why?

Th-thanks for the advice

is this bait lol

...What do you mean?

OKC is a god send for me. With minimal efforts, I found orbiters very easily and some of them are good in bed (I keep those around the most :)). I use them for a few months, while still getting providers from the site so that I totally renew the stock at least twice a year.

The best part is that there are all possible men on this site. From the young man who loves to try to impress me thru all the ways that I like to cum, while believing that he has the upper hand, to the sugar daddy who would like to have one last natural orgasm before being on Viagra until he dies, to the 30 yo bored man with some girl who no longer acknowledges him.
Thanks OKC for all the free fun :).

...

The true you is whatever you act like without those animal instincts pulling your strings so your sexual self is not really you its more like a wild animal that is activated in your mind when you are horny,

>tfw you've still got the same power as a cute twink and you have less nerve endings on your genitals than a male

Keep talking, demonborn.

Because in and out.

1 / 0

Alternating Current.

The phallic nature of buildings in any sustainable city.

The nature of weaponry is a piercing motion in almost all cases, specifically throughout any archaic history.

Dominance is built in piercing things.

It's a fact of existence.

Double dubs don't lie

I'm a 6'4 powerlifter and I jerk it to sissy porn. For 99% of my life I like being big, masculine, and dominant. But I love the aesthetic of the feminine form as well and its a basic physiological fact that stimulating your prostate is pleasurable
My "true" self is how I act outside of the bedroom

Stabbing is the most efficient way to kill someone. The body is just vulnerable to stabs. Vertically inclined architecture is a more sophisticated and more space efficient way of building

Won't it be fair to say there is no self? we're just a collection of personalties that we choose to be depending on the situations we are in. Some like to dominate and can also like being sissified. Even army NCO's can have desires to be sissified despite having to be alpha most of their time. It's either that or we have to redfine what we mean by self

>culture
I think you mean I D E O L O G Y

Whatever helps you sleep at night, sissy bitch :^)

Lacrosse is like hurling for ladyboys, we're not impressed, faggot.

What helps me sleep at night is some whippits and a big dick in my ass

>My "true" self is how I act outside of the bedroom
fagget in damage control

hahahahha

I don't think who we are in the bedroom accurately
represents who we are as a person, with sex being a more instinctual drive among people.
A sort of primal need to carry on ones lineage or for indulging in it's pleasures isn't going to accurately represent everyone.
Are their people who will fit into this? Of course that's a given, but sex is on a more emotional level than the everyday life cycle of emotional
walls people put up around themselves.
It's truly hard to get to know someone completely, we all have are little secrets we don't care to share, I think through something like a persons hobbies are more indicative of a persons "true self" but even that is still not guaranteed.

This.

Socrates & Zeno of Citium

I think he wanted to say ">ctrl f rape, no results"

>Won't it be fair to say there is no self? we're just a collection of personalties

This.

Yeah but I mean, why would rape come up here?

Post link to publications or GTFO

The fact that it affects the general populace is proof that it's NOT noble. Do you know what the word noble means?

>tfw act cold and distant towards girls in my day to day life
>tfw I'm actually incredibly tender and loving in bed
Perhaps how they behave in their normal lives is simply defense mechanisms spawned from what they have experienced, while their behaviour in their sex life is how they behave when their defenses are down.
Niether is "who they really are", just the yin and yang of that person.

>>tfw act cold and distant towards girls in my day to day life
>>tfw I'm actually incredibly tender and loving in bed

This is a whole new level of fedorism.

>have had sex
>fedora
Wew lad

Anyone here who would drink that tea?

>wasting perfectly good tea
I want yanks to leave

Oh I'm sorry. Does the way I live my life not measure up to your standards? Well EXCUSE me. I'll just change who I am to better fit your ideals. I wouldn't want to disappoint a complete stranger. In fact, I urge everyone here to live their lives according to what these guys think. We should just make you Emporer of the fucking world and then you can decide for everyone how to seek satisfaction in life

Again this.
The philosophical problem we get are selves into about finding our 'true' inner self is that there isn't one. We are a totality of impulses, desires, personalities coming together to create a larger whole, namely you. We are individuals but we are also a cast.

>inb4 yeah dude drugs

I've taken psychedelics before and I've become convinced of the 'cast of characters' idea. When under a sufficient amount of a psychedelic substance the psyche disjoints and the ego in a sense disappears or becomes lessened and various parts of the psyche speak to one another that usually don't. It sounds crazy but I've had the organs of my body speak to me as if there were something separate from 'me'. It was only then that I understood what I really am.

Yeah dude, drugs.
fMRI scans show that this is exactly what happens btw. Apparently that pixar movie Inside Out wasn't entirely off-base after all.

...

desu my sexuality is basically just projection of fears for the most part.

i'm a control freak, which lends itself to fetishes about loss of control. (bondage, etc.)

i'm terrified of social humiliation, so humiliating fetishes

and so on.

it does however mean that beyond a relatively cute and cowardly exterior lies a seriously warped depraved sexuality which can't be shared with other people because of risk to reputation and appearance of severe perversion.

Philosophy of the act of sex bothers me. Not because I think it's indecent, but rather because there is so much of it for an act that's pretty nice at best. Am I missing something? Is an orgasm really the pinnacle of human experience for some people?
And if so why?
To be frank there are simply more important things to talk about in terms of philosophy.
Like philosophy/ethics of education and history for example, what should be taught in what class what way? What makes a good/worthwhile/important philosopher?
For me this is just a result of hedonism.
It may just be me but if I had to take a shot for every bit of Foucault inspired nonsense spouted in any particular philosophy classes I took I would have died on a few occasions from alcohol poisoning.
As a amateur philosopher of logic and reasoning within formal sets, I'm going to tell you to take "the history of sexuality" and shove it into every symbolic orifice you have.
If you actually want to learn about sex through method other than "well it occurred to me in the shower the other day so it must be true" and not the silly meanderings of a fake scholar, I suggest looking into some empirical apa affiliated journals.

I don't think it's the act or even the orgasm that's so significant here, but the fact that sex is such a huge and utterly primal motivator for us. Something that can lead us to all sorts of extreme (good, bad, or just silly) behaviour. It's damn near up there with eating, but different in that it requires another person to be "fulfilled" in a truly satisfactory manner typically.