konerko14

If a married couple always makes rational choices throughout their relationship, does that ensure their love will last? Or is their anyway to ensure that a couple will be happily married for the rest of their lives? If not, then why do all marriage ceremonies have the phrase, "til death do us part" in it? If theres no way to know if your marriage will last that long, why say it? Of course it would be nice for a couple to be happily married until they die, but it would be an unrealistic goal or expectation. Also, the obligation one feels from their religion to never divorce is a recipe for disaster, but that should probably be in a different thread.

Thats part of it. The other part is lowering your bodyfat levels so you achieve a high definition appearance. You already knew this Inspector, but just forgot to mention it.

I wonder how often a parent is physically or sexually attracted to their own child. I say this because their child is probably somewhat similar to either the father or mother. Meaning if the father is attracted to his significant other who he had the child with, the father may be attracted to their daughter as well since the mother/daughter will probably be similar. Do you think its uncommon that parents feel an attraction towards their child?

Now that I understand the fundamentals of reality better, I have a hard time enjoying most of the movies I watch. During films such as The Exorcist or Nightmare On Elm Street, for example, that have their premises based on supernatural entities and subjectiveness, I constantly find myself saying throughout the movie, "Thats just not possible." But is there a way for an Objectivist to be entertained by such movies, or does one have to abandon the use of reason to enjoy them?

So, do you think people who accept the "Dont judge others" saying dont really know what it means? And why would they accept it in the first place? This topic is giving me a headache. I cant seem to understand how its even possible to not judge others.

Heres the Dictionary.com definition of 'judge': "To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration." What I cant seem to figure out exactly is the meaning behind the popular saying, "Dont judge others." I know the rational saying is, "Judge, and be prepared to be judged," but what is the difference between judging and not judging others? How does one not judge another? This may be somewhat of a laymens question for most of you, but I just cant decipher the two right now.

Do you typically have an approximate range on how close the person has to be to you to hold the door for them? Is it 5ft, 20ft, 50ft, etc? And does that range increase when you see a person you are attracted to? I only hold doors for people if they are pretty much right next to me, considering how easy it is to open a door. However, if I see an attractive girl behind me, I'll wait a little bit to hold it for her so we can make eye contact and also to give her pleasure(like sex).

Who is willing to continue this discussion on Mike Mentzer's system with me?

Family Feud http://www.uproar.com/games/familyfeud/def....asp?launch=143

That was a very intriguing theory. Do you really think the American government would do such an evil thing? And why?

No, because I know the manner code but I dont like to follow some of them- specifically with taking my hat off. I know the "rule" is to take my hat off at the table or when I enter someone's house. But I dont choose to not take it off to be impolite. I'm not going to obey some superficial "rule". People say it is polite just because it is- theres no reason for it. If I did take off my hat to supposedly be respectful, most people would probably find some other meaningless, miniscule act that is disrespectful to them anyways. They would say(irritated)-"Why is your hair so out of place?" I would respond-"Because I took off my hat to respect you." They say-"Well put it back on, your hair is a mess. Thats so disrespectful." Then I conclude the conversation-"Bullshit." And as I'm walking out of their house, they are shaking their head at me when they see I have grabbed the doorknob with my left hand as opposed to my right. Under their breath they say- "So disrespectful." What if taking your hat off had never been accepted as politeness in our society? People wouldnt think twice about it ever, because it doesnt matter. What if pulling your pants down when entering someone's home was the substitute for taking your hat off to be respectful? Its not an inconvenience, right? It takes two seconds. Thats why I hate taking my hat off in these situations, for these reasons. Maybe if you thought in practical terms, hypothetically speaking, where every time you took off your hat your hair would be a complete mess. You would feel uncomfertable and look like a fool all because of the stupid "rule". I like that manner. It makes sense. Its practical.

That makes sense. I like that viewpoint. I stand corrected. I usually dont like spending my money on other people except on gifts because they have their own money. If the other person has also worked hard for their money, I would think they would want to spend it and not feel like a second-hander taking hand-me-downs, even if it is from someone close. I wouldnt want my girlfriend to pay for all my things. I would feel like a bum.

Heres a video interview with Ayn Rand: http://www.americanwriters.org/archives/player/rand.asp (click on Interview with Ayn Rand on the left) I get turned on when I watch it. Her mind is hot, which in turn makes her body attractive. Thats the way I see it at least.

Ayn Rand is perfect. I find her physically attractive because I am in awe of her mind. It has a carryover effect, if that makes sense to you. I love her mind, her certainty in her actions and ideas, her personality. Without her mind though, I probably wouldnt be attracted to her. But if I had to choose two women that I would be attracted to even if they didnt have a great mind, it would be Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen(during the Full House years. jk of course). http://benoit2501.free.fr/vrac/olsen/olsen...s_050517_08.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Olsen.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaLKAY7GEsg...h=olsen%20twins (funny video of MK and Ashley)

I know there are some manners that make sense and should be performed, but I want to know if there is a rational reason to do the manners listed below. The reason I picked these specific ones is because they are accepted in a lot of countries as the proper thing to do. But are they accepted because there is a good reason to do them or because they are tradition and people dont want to go against the majority? I dont like these manners: 1. Taking your hat off at the table or when entering someone else's house. Its supposed to be a sign of respect but why is it respectful? Just because its tradition? Would people even think twice about it if it wasnt established already as tradition or is there a good reason to do it? I hate taking my hat off in these situations because I'll have hat hair, and I think having your hair displayed in such a manner would be more disrespectful than not taking it off at all. Not to mention it also makes me feel awkward with my hair all over the place. I mean, I wore the hat for a reason in the first place: to make me feel comfertable. 2. Men opening doors for ladies. The supposed purpose of this is respect, I assume. But why are men the ones who have to open the doors? Dont the ladies respect the men, or are they just using them as slaves? If ladies do respect men, why dont they open doors for men? Yes, ladies are generally weaker than men(not all the time though) but thats no excuse for men to have to open doors for them, especially car doors. What really makes me mad though is that men pretty much have to open doors for women(especially on first dates) or else the guy drastically decreases his chances of the lady liking him. The only reason the lady hates opening doors for herself is the fact that this tradition is implanted in her head and she will not care to figure out if the tradition is good or bad because she is on the winning side of it already, and she knows she can get plenty of guys who will open doors for her. 3. Men having to pay for the woman. Whether this involves dinner, activities,etc, I dont think the guy should always have to pay. If its on a date, I think the one who intiates the date should pay for most things unless a mutual agreement has been made for a different way. If its just a casual hangout with a girl/girlfriend then I see no reason for the guy to have to pay for everything. Its very second-handed of the lady isnt it? I just dont think guys should feel obligated to pay for everything. A better solution would be to establish a mutual agreement on what each person should pay for. That way the guy isnt spending a fortune on the relationship, when she is cashing in. Another thing I've noticed is that a lot of adults(men and women but usually women I think) try to pay for their friends' expenses such as dinner when they go out together. I've seen this happen almost every time I have gone out to eat with my mom and her woman friends- its always the same thing. They dont just offer to pay for their friend(s) but they just dont take no for an answer. Its absolutely ridiculous. I think they do this for a couple reasons: 1)to prove or show off to their friend(s) that they have a lot of money and can afford such expenses 2)they feel obligated to pay for them because thats how they were raised and also since they dont question traditions. 3)they value altruism more than selfishness. The only other thing I really want to say about this is that each person in this situation should pay for their own meal. I'm sure there are many, many more manners that I would not be fond of but here are a few. I want to know if theres a valid reason for these manners or if they are just stupid traditions. Also I wouldnt mind if others listed manners they personally disliked.

But child predators usually rape, abuse, or violate the childs rights in some way, and that would be punishable under a regular abuse law. EDIT: nevermind. I forgot to take into account the ones who get munipulated and it probably wouldnt qualify as rape or abuse.

I think if they are able to make those types of decisions such as career choices and being successful at it, then they can probably choose the right partner for themselves, even if the partner may be over 18. So does this mean there should be no law against 18+ year olds being with underage teenagers? I'm not sure that law doesnt much of anything anyways. 20 year olds will date 15 year olds right now if they both choose to be with each other, and they will ignore the law. And I dont think this law so much persuades older adults not to be a pedophile either- I think a persons conscience or morals are what keep them from acting on these desires. So what I'm saying is I dont think there would be more pedophiles if there was no such law, and the same people would abuse underagers either way.

I chose the 12-15 range because thats when puberty starts in most people and it also supports my biological hypothesis best. I figured if you are attracted to that age range then you will probably be attracted to anything reasonably older than 15 as well. So I wanted to pick out the lowest acceptable age range to be attracted to. I like the second part of your question- I was going to bring that up eventually. The conclusion people seemingly automatically make when hearing about a 20 yr old with a 15 yr old is that it is disgusting and wrong. Most of the time it probably is, but what if they both share the same values, interests, and are honestly mutually fond of each other? Although I'm guessing it is rare that a 15 yr old will think rationally, some actually do know how to think independently and rationally, and can figure out if a 20 yr old is right for them. I like to think its the same thing as an 18 yr old with a 40 yr old. If they share the same values, interests, etc then they rightfully could love each other.

I explained why it was bad to act on the desire in most cases. But the purpose of the thread is not so much the action, but figuring out where the desire originates. I knew some people would still get confused even after I said, "To clarify, I mean the attraction alone, not the desire to act on it."

Is it bad to be attracted to teenagers who are 12-15 years old when you are over 20 years old? To clarify, I mean the attraction alone, not acting on the desire. I dont think the attraction is bad when looking at the issue from a biological point of view. This is the timeframe that most humans reach puberty and start developing into adults. In effect, at this age most girls become able to reproduce. Therefore, I would assume it is naturally attractive from this perspective because it creates more opportunities to spread your own seed, which is usually an animal's top priority. A hypothesis I thought of just now which may not have much substance is some adults may have a stronger desire to have sex with underagers as part of evolution. If their ancestors were around more underagers, it would make sense that they would evolve a stronger desire to have sex with them, as opposed to ancestors who didnt have many underagers in their clan or group, or less encounters with them. To go to the opposing side of the issue, I will ask this as well. Instead of the attraction being a biological desire, could it possibly be a pyschological problem? If an adult cant get a partner who is of the age of consent(above 17 yrs old usually), could this possibly be a subconscious(or conscious) effect that will increase his chances of attracting a partner? Studies have shown(listed at bottom) that aprx. 30 percent of all adult men may have sexual arousal towards children. So, if this desire is contributed from a pyschological problem, then there must be a serious issue forming this controversy that needs to be discovered and eventually fixed. However, if the attraction is biological then a different approach must be taken. What I do know though is people shouldnt act on this desire in most cases. As most people know, most teenagers can be munipulated easily as their minds are still very immature. And even though the desire can be overwhelming at times, I dont think it would be in ones rational self-interest to act on it. Heres some websites: Studies of sexual arousal towards children(Extent of Occurrence chapter): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophilia Explains teenage puberty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty Explains this attraction in various cultures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

I didnt realize I came off that way. I see how it appears that Im saying to act on the desire alone. But that wasnt my intention, and I'll try to be more clear next time.

Something they all have in common is that they are an interest, a pleasure, or a relief to the person. They are all desires designed to make the individual feel good- the desire to act, the desire to play chess, the desire to relieve pain with painkillers, the desire to get drunk. Taking pain killers to relieve a physical pain is different than getting drunk to relieve emotional pain. Taking a painkiller is to help you to function better, and getting drunk will make you function worse. Being an actor or science-fiction writer are usually chosen because you have an interest to do that, and doing so will help you function better;i.e. make you happy. If you masturbate rationally you are not evading reality because the act will help you function better(ease stress and anxiousness), as I pointed earlier. Hows this hypothesis: when you avoid using a rational moral code, your actions will evade reality. If you dont use reason to make a particular decision, you will inevitably be escaping something in reality with that decision.

I never said that someone should act on the desire alone. What I was saying is the desire will get too strong and make you very uncomfertable if you do not act on it eventually. And that doesnt mean you have to do it during a concert symphony- wait until a better time, but you may be uncomfertable until that time comes. I guess masturbating rationally is not evading reality because youre not necessarily trying to escape anything, youre probably just trying to satisfy a desire. Because even though you are fantasizing about sexual acts that you arent really performing, that is the only way to get off. You cut one of my sentences short and then commented on the part that didnt matter. Heres the full sentence "I wanted to explain why it doesnt matter if you accept masturbation as a form of hedonism or an evasion of reality, because the desire is strong enough(at least for a lot of people) so that it will almost force you to not refrain from masturbation completely." I was referring to the individual and that even if he accepts masturbation as hedonism(or any philosophy) and thinks its evil, he will still get that strong urge eventually and will have to act on it to relieve the stress. You can convince yourself that masturbating is bad for you but its going to be hell trying to hold off from doing forever. Meaning, you have to act on it to function properly.

You misinterpreted what I said. I was actually explaining the morality of masturbation. I just meant that it depends on the certain situation to judge if the act is moral or immoral- just like your murder example. I kind of lost track of the purpose of my intial entries in this thread, so I'm going to clarify the reason I started writing in here in the first place. I wanted to try to answer some of the thread starters questions. I wanted to explain why it doesnt matter if you accept masturbation as a form of hedonism or an evasion of reality, because the desire is strong enough(at least for a lot of people) so that it will almost force you to not refrain from masturbation completely. And a reason why it doesnt have to be a form of hedonism is because some people act on the desire to relieve the sexual tension and to help them stay level headed- so there can rational reasons to masturbate. It can however be hedonism with the ones who randomly act on the desire. The reason why masturbation isnt an evasion of reality is because you have to think about some sexual objects to get turned on fully- you cant just stare at a wall and not think about anything. Its an evasion of reality in the sense that you arent really having sex with that person or object but its accepting reality by realizing you have to fantasize about something to get turned on completely. This kind of goes along with my last paragraph but it answers the fourth question of the thread starters post about pornography. Ayn Rand did say she thought pornography was disgusting but thats an opinion. You need to fantasize about some sexual objects to turn you on properly, and if pornography turns on like that then I think its fine to use as material. Pornography is generally people having sex, so naturally I think most people would get turned on by this, and it wouldnt qualify as a pyschological disorder.

Do you agree that each individual should choose whether or not to masturbate based on their specific situation? So, masturbation as a whole is not moral or immoral but it depends strictly on the situation. If performing the act affects you negatively(doing it during a concert symphony), then it is immoral. If performing the act doesnt affect you negatively and gives you great pleasure(doing it during the right time at the right place), then it is moral. Isnt that really as in depth the discussion can go?