Printable View
Well, if you don’t have no need to defend them…why did you post such a response? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Again, you bring anti-Semitism that is absolutely irrelevant ……but I have noticed that it is a hopeless argument for some people. The next will be personal attack….to argue the point. :reddevil:
Enjoy LitNet.....I don't have time for that.
You misunderstand, my purpose wasn't to defend them, but to point out what a humongous twat you are.
LMAO. So subtle Orphan - this nearly passed me by :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
Ftil, I fail to see how your post supports your argument.
That excerpt comes from a highly biased source, by an author who refuses to state his/her real name or state credentials, and therefore can safely be assumed to have zero authority on the subject. The two gentlemen of which the article speaks are not unknowns, and reading this report is not a source of enlightenment by any means, as your comment suggests. Kinsey's work is majorly considered defunct, but opened up a completely new field of research and new ways of looking at sexual orientation that have led to good research today. Much of his research has been proven to have been falsified (IE, presenting data from one subject as though it was a survey of many), and the claims made against him by Judith Reisman have never been proven, that is, her claims against his involvement with children. So, he most likely wasn't the crazed sex maniac, whose existence would back you up.
Aside from that, what's your point? These men are the ones who want to talk about sex, and are also highly sexual individuals. That means that everyone who talks about sex is "sex-crazed" and devoid of meaningful relationships, as your article implies and with which I presume you agree?
What makes you think that they didn't have meaningful relationships?
Sexual addiction is a medical condition, much the same as any other psychological pathology, though it was not recognized as such at the time. If he were afflicted (I have no authority to say whether or not this was the case), would that not explain his intense interest in explaining his own behaviour?
And if not, and he was purely interested in the topic, how on earth can you draw the inference that everyone who talks about sex has the same interests as he?
Am I missing something?! If so, what is your actual argument and how does Kinsey's life and work support it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Well, why don’t you do your own research about Alfred Kinsey and Wilhelm Reich? Don’t forget to investigate Freud. Don’t stop there but find out where those ideas originated.
BTW, are you going to continue arguing your point by attacking the author? I have found that on forums and websites character assassinations is so common when there is no intelligent argument. Of course, personal attacks are the last weapons. :yikes: Sad, or a better word, pathetic.
Character assassination? But isn't that exactly what you have done with Reich and Kinsey?
Oh come on, you know very well what character assassination means. You have used anti-Semitism or political associations rather than discussing the book of the author. :lol: In the articles I have posted, the author presented personal lives of Reich and Kinsey.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
I'm sorry, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
I am familiar with them, and the allegations made against them. Which is why I mentioned that some of them mentioned in your post have yet to be proven correct. I'm also familiar with Freud. And yet, I don't see how any of their views makes me a person devoid of fulfilling relationships if I choose to have a conversation about sex. Technically, we're talking about sex right now. Both of us. So I guess neither of us has fulfilling relationships either?
Also, at what point has a character assassination occurred? You stated an opinion. You provided an excerpt from an article to back it up. I have discredited the article.
At what point did I personally attack you? Because at no point did I ever call you sad or pathetic, as you have just called me.
I have stated that some of the allegations made about Reich and Kinsey by that author have not been validated. Which makes the article an unreliable source of information, and therefore invalidates your use of the information to back up your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
It doesn't mean that your argument is invalid, just that your evidence is null. You're welcome to try to defend your argument using other evidence.
However, if you choose to be rude and sarcastic, I will choose not to participate.
No, you did not. You questioned credentials of the author of the article without knowing who he was. BTW, do you believe those who have credentials without checking what other scholars had to say? It is not very wise considering the fact that we are bombarded with pseudo scientists who have credentials. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by *Classic*Charm*
I have discredited the article.
I don’t have doubts that you know Freud. Who doesn’t know that fraud? It was not my point.
I am not rude or sarcastic. I am definitely bored. I like intelligent discussions where I learn something. Life is too short to be wasted. :ihih:Quote:
However, if you choose to be rude and sarcastic
On this note, we may end our discussion. Enjoy LitNet.
Maybe you're done, maybe you're not; nevertheless:
R e m i n d e r
Please do not personalise your comments.
If you are not ready to accept the fact that your opinions might be questioned by the others,
please refrain from posting in public forums.
Posts containing such remarks and off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.
fitl, you may not think that you are rude and sarcastic, but your tone is dismissive and argumentative, which is not conducive to a discussion, intelligent or otherwise.
Sex in art to me convey this analogy of I like sex for what it is and not for what it does.
Painting of nudity of sexual natures but never actually the end result the fulfilment it brings to the mind and the body. Art I am thinking would not be able to depict the pleasures sex is truly about and therefore one is left to ponder at the body rather the actual physical attainment of it.
Art, literature, music and poetry are adders. Fuel and fire your appetite and plant a desire inside you. Sex begins in the head and of course your imagination about it fans your desires. Everything has an art, a style, a presentation and if you do it appropriately or effectively the degree of satisfaction will be all the more or else it will be a mechanic and boring activity. If you are not sufficiently literate about it you are likely to lose the thrust, the intensity of it. Reading novels, watching movies and discussing it amongst friends will indeed add to our eagerness and zeal. Sometimes even a movie will arouse us and when we go home after watching a big cinema movie in a hall the act of sex will be really juicing.
Thank you for your honesty but I don’t share your opinion. What you call dismissive and argumentative, I call honesty. :biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by qimissung
this thread just shows how flammable this subject can be. Here on the ice there is really an awakening about sex and educating teenagers about it. There is a weekly column in the biggest newspaper written by a scholar in the subject and lectures regularly.
The original post was about discussion between friends and in society, in my simple opinion (simple!) I don't think I would like to discuss this with anyone except a partner, unless it's for educational purposes when for example I need to talk to my son about the subject.