Dreamspirit

Well, if he's going to be immature and ridiculous about it no. No one on here can know who I am, I can say with certainty that I'm being completely anonymous. In real life I am nonexistant to whoever reads this because they cannot find out who I am. I think any atheist who advocates for sexual purity is just downright hilarious though. Sex is not just about love, it's a physical need and young hormonal people are not going to find love at their age. Every heterosexual person wants to do it badly. If you don't you're probably gay and I'm dead serious, that's my opinion. I don't mind waiting with particular people, in fact I think it's great, but there's nothing wrong with having sex with someone you are highly attracted to and have known long enough to trust reasonably, as long as you don't make it a constant habit. Do you realize that most normal teens experiment with it by the time they get out of highschool?Your signature is pretty funny because you didn't actually understand what I was saying. The whole point of me saying this is that I don't want to tell him simply because he is immature and irrational right now and will use it against me later in the relationship.

My bf is really paranoid about me having an STD because I lost control of myself with a guy last fall, and he has interrogated me a lot about what I actually did with him. I know that he has some kind of anxiety and can be pretty irrational sometimes. He doesn't really know how to associate with girls and be respectful/discreet about that kind of stuff, so that's why I'm doing this and I'm not upset that he's asking me these kind of questions. I have already had an STD test (although it doesn't test everything) and it was all negative. I've had no symptoms or anything like that, so I have no reason to believe I have one since that bf was in the navy and he was tested for that stuff all the time. I do have oral herpes or tiny cold sores, like 80% of people and I was explaining to him that if you kiss people, you will get it (even my parents have it). Here's the issue and it's complicated. He wants to know before I kiss him if I did any oral stuff with this guy. I actually did do some oral stuff, but I didn't do it long enough for him to come, which means there would be little chance of getting something that way anyway. He misinterprets things and worries excessively and will use something like that against me forever when we have disagreements, so I said I didn't do it, I said I only gave him a handjob, deep kissing, and had regular sex. I think that is sufficient, since he didn't actually come and it was only the skin and a really tiny amount of moisture that I had contact with. Like I said before, he has anxiety and can be very irrational about that stuff, is it immoral for me to tell a little lie like that, if I know it won't hurt his health or anything? I can't be 100% sure I didn't pick anything up, but I'm quite sure I couldn't and know I definitely couldn't have herpes, because in most people that would show up within a year (except for the common cold sore kind). I think it is kind of unnecessary for him to know the minute details of what I did with this other guy, except for health reasons.

Hah, now that I take a second look at it, I am totally disgusted.

I've been invited to join Phi Theta Kappa, but it looks like it will be one of those things where they badger you for money and time for some worthless community projects, even though you don't technically have to do it. It might be worth it, because I may decide to transfer and get a bachelors degree at one point and if that could help me get a scholarship, it would be like getting paid to do the community service. I do have weak points in terms of math and science, so if they have tutoring that would also be good (the free tutors the college offers are worthless and sometimes give wrong answers). I just absolutely can't stand being pursuaded to give a dollar here and a dollar there to poor people as I am already a poor person and it enfuriates me, 1 because it's an almost pointless charity and 2 they're asking me to stretch time I should devote to learning and socializing at one of the high points in my life for people that aren't that helpless when I am already bordering on unfortunate. I know it's one of those things that you just have to ignore, but I'm just the type of person who can't stand being unjustly harrased for something I shouldn't give and it would be a huge bother to me. So I was wondering if anyone on here had ever joined that organization before (other students at my college think CS is something they should do, so I'm afraid to ask them). Don't you wish there were more groups at colleges whose interest was promoting specific kinds of intellectual development (ie. young writers club) than this "leadership" nonsense? To me groups like these remind me of the Hitler Youth or something, nobody is an individual with a personality, you're just part of this big "leadership collective."

I used to have rages, but I was a teenager haha. I am in general a very spirited person who is quick to anger, but I have almost never exploded in front of or snapped at an authority figure in public. This I suppose, is due to the fact that my anger changes to fear and shame because I just learned not to be that way when I was little, but I can see how this would be different for a man. If I were you, I would just remind myself of what's at stake (reputation I suppose), and what I would really get out of showing my anger. Try to separate yourself from the job since you know you will get laid off.

Yeah, I think it's more like really seriously obese children that they would take away from their parents, not just overweight children, but yeah, I wasn't suggesting they should nitpick parents for stuff like that. When it all comes down to it, nearly 90% of parents abuse their kids in some way, not that they shouldn't be held accountable, but you can't involve government in stuff like that unless it is real physical abuse. I was just wondering if someone should be held accountable if they are so slobby that they feed their kids bad food and it hurts their health. It's almost like if someone let their kid run into traffic and say they just didn't see them. I was a little tubby when I was young, certainly not overweight, but I was given a normal diet, I think it's not something to focus on, unless it is just ridiculous and really hurting their health. I think it is very dangerous to try to make parents think their kids should be slim though because that just encourages anorexia.

My parents are very very disgusted when I say I don't believe in God, so I tell them what they want to hear. The problem I have is there are some things I really like about my family members and some things I really dislike. For example, my sister and I have a lot in common. We are not religious, we like beauty and fashion, the same tv shows etc. but she is a control freak and acts quite condescending towards me at times. She has done very insulting things to me in the past like give me free money when I don't need it, talk down my choice of career (ie. if I say I want to be a genetic research assistant, she'll hint that she thinks I can't do it), act like she knows everything, and insist that my parents take me to the psychologist when I was a minor. When I complain about it she continues to be more condescending and treats me like I'm some idiot angst ridden child because that's how she sees me no matter how much I've changed. We can have a great time together and then she will all of the sudden say something insulting and pretends that I am just stupid and loony when I react. When I don't react she just acts all foreign and weird like I don't even exist. So yes, I'd say I have some attachment issues with my family, but I think that when I find my own (my bf and I are very close) I won't care anymore.

_

Karma is not really a word an objectivist would use, because it generally implies that the world has a supernatural force and the things that happen to people don't have a rational explanation, like a person's cells becoming cancerous because they have some genetic marker for a type of cancer. Let's say this person with cancer did a very mean thing to another person out of spite for them, like poisened their favorite horse. The victim might say, "What goes around comes around," when they hear this person got cancer but that is very seriously irrational when you think about it. By saying that, they are implying that this supernatural force punishes people for their immorality randomely (and even if this were true it would be a hipocrite). I guess you could use such a word or phrase to express your disgust for their actions, but most of the time people use that as a sort of superstitious assumption. You could also probably use karma rationally to express that when people are considerate or do nice things for others, they will often be that way back.

I have this problem with my eyebrows that makes them look a little funny. I think it has to do with a muscle on that part of my face, but one eyebrow is much more toward my forehead than the other. I also have crazy weird blonde hair that grows very funny if I don't obsess about it. If I get really skilled people that specialize in it to wax my eyebrows over time, you can barely tell and they look very arched and pretty. The place I went to was out of business with no warning a couple of months ago and now I have nowhere else to go except run of the mill nail salons that make them look horrible. Ever since I thought I might as well just do it myself and they are turning out pretty strange looking and I used to look so pretty last fall when I was going to the other place, I'm really sad . I'm going on vacation with my bf in a couple months so I have to do something fast and I want to look good because he is spending a lot of money on this, and the least I can do is have good grooming. In case you don't know eyebrows are very important because they frame your face, and they're even more important for people with high cheekbones and big eye sockets like me. Sorry if this sounds a little obssesive and weird about appearance, but this has been a lifelong battle because I was born with horrible eyebrows and there is such a big difference in my looks when they are groomed. I don't really want to focus on this stuff but I don't have a choice if I don't want to look like a slob. So, I was wondering, is there any kind of plastic surgery you can get to regrow your eyebrows to be more proportional or something? I wouldn't do it now but I would consider it in the future, and I'm not a perfectionist freak I just really need it. I would also probably spend more money on waxing over time. So ladies, any advice?

because yule has mystical reasons behind it's traditions and a holiday IMO could be objectively measured for esthetic value kind of like art. Therefore, I think it might be irrational and result of psychological weakness to celebrate something coming from such things instead of completely making a holiday to fit your own values. It just feels weird to celebrate a Xmas with no sentimentality. I worry that perhaps it is a result of psychological weakness and I don't want to indulge in my own lethargy when I could have a better lifestyle. It doesn't mean I'm going to be a real "pagan" but I'm saying the only comfortable option I can think of is making up my own traditions that fit my lifestyle (ie. going skiing with friends) and giving them a paganistic base because it is anti-religious but still sentimental. I know this sounds silly but I am just the sort of person who needs sentimentality, I suppose it has to do with social needs and having a spontaneous yet famililally oriented personality. It depresses me to wake up on Christmas and do normal, non seasonal things that don't feel sentimental. For example, I shake my head at the people who keep traditions just because they're old when they could do something else that was more pleasurable, convenient etc. I was just watching a documentary on indigenous tribes in a part of Mexico to improve my Spanish comprehension and one of the people went on and on with the most irrational reasons about why they switched back to their traditional dye for textiles which isn't as easy to produce and doesn't look as good as the modern ones available to them. I wonder if folllowing a paganistic holiday is much more rational, just something that I've been conditioned to accept. I have found many things wrong with my lifestyle after adopting a clearer mind which I previously thought were just due to my personality, so I just wanted to know what the others on here thought concerning this issue. Psychological weaknesses can be immoral IMO, especially when they involve other people. However, they are only truly immoral when the person is either partially or fully aware of their actions. For example, a repressive person who does passive agressive things to other people who doesn't cognitively recognize their situation in full is still immoral. A person who practices full volition but for example has a great deal of hostility and takes it out on other people unjustly is also immoral.

So you don't think putting more of an emphasis on the beauty of nature is in any way immoral? I was just making sure. I think Rand might have considered it so because she often described naturalism as "cruel." To me a paganistic holiday is not only aesthetic (ie. christmas trees, snowy scenes etc.) but implies the morality of the value of using our mind and the resources around us for our own pleasure and the advancement of humankind. I would probably never create a santa illusion for my children because I'd rather get credit for it and be "the best mom ever" but I don't really think it is a very big deal anyway, because children are naturally grandiose before they are mature enough to have a clear understanding of the facts like adults. Also, normal children have an integrated knowledge that santa is not real (I know that I did) because they for example see a santa at every mall and realize that it doesn't actually make sense for it to be real, but it is enjoyable for it to feel real, it's just like make believe play. If children are pretending to be a fictional character, it wouldn't be any fun for them to be constantly reminding themselves it's not real. It's the whole point of the game. I'm not sure if this is true for every child, but it was for me. For this reason, I can say that believing in santa as a young child was not harmful because I saw it as a playful, affectionate gesture. On the other hand, I would say it is harmful to FORCE their children to believe in it or get too into it, like saying "You've gotta really believe" and stuff like that. That might confuse or frustrate the child. If it is more directed at making it seem "fun" than convincing the child of magic then I think it's ok. For example, I really liked it when my parents put out a half eaten carrot and put a hoof print on the note left from santa, but deep down inside, I knew it wasn't really possible. It is especially fun and precious to the child for the parent to relate to them in such a way.

f christian christmas? I love christmas, but not for religious reasons. I like the decorations, the colors, some of the traditions within reason, and basically all of the "pagan" elements. Now that I have read some of Rand's works and have become more enlightened and rational about validating my opinions, I can say with certainty that I don't celebrate christian christmas anymore. I think celebrating it in terms of a pagan holiday is moral even though paganism is mystical because the mystical elements are really so obsurd that they don't have any meaning. You can celebrate "Yule" (although I would still call it Christmas) because it is really celebrating abundance and good spirits in winter which can suggest a meaning of greatness. Yule doesn't stray from the conventional holiday too much, except there are no judeo-christian elements like praying, going to church, or putting up shepherd families in your yard. I think it is mean for atheist parents to take a holiday away from their kids. It doesn't have to mean anything religious, you can adjust christmas to incorporate your values.

Is it rational for social services to consider parents letting their children get obese physical abuse? This is one of those issues that I'm not sure about. It almost seems reasonable for them to take a child away in this case because they will suffer later in life from their choices when they were nonrational beings. But then again, some children are rational enough to know they shouldn't eat junk food and with the same logic they could take a child away from their family for non-objective reasons. The only reason I question it is because feeding a child bad food to the point of obesity in actuality causes more physical harm than beating.

I really don't understand your point of view. I'm focused on what kind of society benefits me (not that I'm into socially forcing people to be a certain way), and feminine men aren't my cup of tea even if they're heterosexual. I understand what you mean about going against nature, but most people have no desire to go against their nature. Fitting in does have something to do with it, but not everything. I also sometimes wonder if it is female hormones in milk and meat that are making men more androgenous.

I know what you're talking about, and I didn't mean to imply people don't have varying degrees of agression when they are happy and successful, I just think there must be something wrong in our culture that is making men interact funny around the opposite sex. My ideal man isn't some domineering womanizer, not in the least but if a man is the least bit "artistic" or whatever he seems to be way less sexually masculine than he should be these days. Psychologically healthy women look up to their strength and view it as something they want to own not conquer. Since there isn't much strength to own I guess that's why so many gravitate towards feminism.

I think she was more or less saying that if Jesus existed he was good but christianity is not. I have always leaned more towards deism, I don't like the idea of a God interfering with my life and knowing every thought that goes through my head, but I did like the idea of a creator. Now I've become more of an agnostic. My parents were always berating me and psychologically abusing me because I said I didn't think there was a God. Sick.

Yes, but generally men are the more agressive ones in nature because they have higher levels of testosterone and the sex differences in the brain make the sexes more likely to be good at certain things or react in certain ways. For example, women tend to pay more attention to details, but this doesn't mean a man can't notice more details than the women, because it could be a learned trait or he may be more intelligent than the women.

When I said traditional masculinity, I did mean in terms of sexuality, not necessarily homosexual or heterosexual, but how he approaches the opposite sex. I'm not talking about homosexuals here, when I say women, I'm assuming heterosexuals or predominant heterosexuals. I'm saying that biology wants women to be the more passive ones and men to be the more agressive ones in order to create more offspring. The sexes evolved to carry out this behavior and do it as efficiently and well as possible. The word "traditional" doesn't mean anything, except in the sense that the agressive behavior that is most beneficial for creating is what is what is most accepted by the culture in the past. If I said "natural" that wouldn't really make any sense, because men and women are natural no matter what they do because they exist naturally. Women can certainly be agressive if for example they see a man as the total package and they are not being pursued by him or they are desperate. Men can certainly be more emotional and submissive if they are depressed and have lost all confidence in themselves. In fact, there have been studies that suggests girls are naturally inclined to become more agressive/dominant if they experience distress during adolesence and boys are more naturally inclined to become depressive or self destructive. I can't find the article any more, but I know there was an article about it in scientific american. Of course there are individuals who are different, but judging by Rand's writing, I'm sure she thought that it was most beneficial for sexual relationships to be between a sexually agressive man and a passive woman. Even though in the fountainhead Hank Rearden's love kind of seeks him out, she is still passive in general. Given that sex is a physical capacity and psychologically healthy women look up to men, as well as an expression of self esteem it seems to me that it would be more rational for heterosexual couples to behave that way towards each other.

Romeo and Juliet is very vague though. I'm well aware of that. Theoretically speaking, those are the absolute first things I would keep my child away from. It was very confusing for me growing up seeing the mix of tame, moral sex in movies or books and then seeing trash like that. You pretty much have to keep them away from everything now to avoid that. It's not that I would worry about my child reading it, I'm just saying that it's a viable concern for some parents.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, because there is nothing in there that is too graphic for a young teenager.

You're misunderstanding me. I only use the word tradition in a biological sense, not in a tribal or community standards sense. Biologically, the sexes are programmed to act in certain ways and sometimes if they deviate from that it can denote a psychological flaw. It is just fact that nearly all psychologically healthy women get satisfaction from being the more passive one, it doesn't have anything to do with being domestic. I do pursue men that I have a strong attraction to, but I have a psychological need to be the passive one who gives in to the man. This is why it feels empty.

I guess it is frustrating because I want a particular thing, and there are only a small number of men who pursue me, so there is very little chance of getting what I want. Although I can find my type of men that will submit to being pursued by me they usually treat it like any other relationship, except with sexual attraction (ie. buddy with benefits) it is not very satisfying at all, but it yields more satisfaction than submitting to a guy who isn't very close to what I want.

What does objectivism hold as the rational way for the opposite sex to pursue romantic interest? In general, is it the most rational for men to pursue women, or is this irrelevant? I find that usually in our culture, men do not think of women as members of the opposite sex, but as buddies with different plumbing. It is very unsatisfying as a woman, I like to be pursued, and be appreciated through my feminine qualities, not as a buddy with benefits. It is very frustrating to have to change my own natural behavior to have a conversation with a timid man who I am interested in. Does modern feminism dehumanize men and rob them of their sexual self confidence? This is what I've always thought. There is an implicit hatred in society for traditional masculinity, and most young men learn to de emphasize their behavior because of this. Acknowledginng the strengths that one sex tends to have which is complemented by the other, is not in any way sexist.

I would never post a skeleton for a novel on the internet that I was wishing to eventually publish, because it is available to everyone, and someone could steal my ideas. I wish I could get feedback from multiple opinions from behind a computer screen, but I couldn't do that without seriously jeopardizing my privacy and ideas. I was thinking more in terms of real life people in the community, that I could perhaps pay a fee to help me with editing if it gets to that point. The reason I ask is because I am worried that most people (esp educated people) would not evaluate my writing in terms of esthetic quality.