Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Daeiros    

Rank #786 on Comments
Daeiros Avatar Level 299 Comments: Post Master
Offline
Send mail to Daeiros Block Daeiros Invite Daeiros to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 27
Date Signed Up:11/13/2009
Last Login:9/23/2014
Location:USA
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Ranking:#8522
Comment Ranking:#786
Highest Content Rank:#1163
Highest Comment Rank:#710
Content Thumbs: 2710 total,  3000 ,  290
Comment Thumbs: 10902 total,  12048 ,  1146
Content Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 126 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 25% (25/100)
Level 299 Comments: Post Master → Level 300 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
Subscribers:8
Content Views:28864
Times Content Favorited:207 times
Total Comments Made:2059
FJ Points:926

latest user's comments

#2 - troll harder buddy 01/10/2014 on Much doge -1
#44 - In my earlier classes, a lot of the people would actually do s…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/10/2014 on That's nice. The assignment... +2
User avatar #45 - pkman (01/10/2014) [-]
I hear ya man. Their lack of work will catch up to them when they get a job. Just know that you will be better in the long run having a good head on your shoulders and a decent work ethic.
#31 - yeah, the site has a pretty well established community that is… 01/09/2014 on Dickbutt rant +1
#30 - If anyone needs me, I will be in the angry dome! 01/09/2014 on Dickbutt rant +1
#6 - admin wants to make money from this site he does this… 01/07/2014 on help. 0
#129 - It's the new Google Parkour! 01/06/2014 on i guess i'll just fly +9
#7 - ive seen this a few times before, but this is the first time i… 01/01/2014 on Clever Title 0
#105 - if someone blocks their profile, you can still find their comm… 12/25/2013 on A school protest +2
#88 - ... dat logic if homosexuals don't make children, how…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/25/2013 on What's next? 0
User avatar #90 - commandershit (12/25/2013) [-]
mutations are traits a child gets upon being born , you can have perfectly healthy parents and be born a cripple. You can have intelligent parents and be born the biggest dumbfuck of history. You can have straight parents and be born gay.

You get the point right?
#253 - on that site, one of the additional links on the side was a st… 12/25/2013 on Science time 0
#14 - Who the **** would assume a crack in a windshield…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/24/2013 on not sure if +3
User avatar #27 - TheHutchie (12/24/2013) [-]
I'm preying purely on words, not subject or content or context.

All I'm saying is that this isn't what "direct reference" actually means.
#86 - oh my yes, a wall, how ******* terrifying a w…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/20/2013 on Because fuck you 0
User avatar #91 - overlordweasel (12/20/2013) [-]
let me tell you why that's bullshit.

assuming you're MF as you suggested. walking straight through it brings you into his melee range...where get wrecked and die, bc his damage is stupid high as well, its not only his one skill that makes him too strong. what idiot blows their ult in front of him when his wall of bullshit is off CD? It's the fact he even has it and that it blocks ults (which are all basically over 100+ long CDS and the basis of many characters' kits for large amounts of their damage) all on a what...basic ability thats not even his ult that he can throw to be in melee range forcing you to move taking extra damage (and if were talking a good yas here that's easily half your health or finishing you off if he capitalizes on the moment on your squishy ass and unless you pop barrier, another long 100+ sec CD, or use something like trist's jump which not every adc had mind you; you're fucked) I've played multiple games as Cait, ashe, and other champs not even adcs and have found that I might as well not ult through 90% of the times I would want/need to..bc why bother when he just negates it....and when a basic skill just completely negates a shite ton of champions' main niche ability, they stop getting played at all bc the majority of people aren't gonna play a game when 80% of the time they get told "no you can't play, bc I said so"

TL;DR: you're claiming it's not op bc you can just walk through it and (putting yourself as a ranged squishy in a world of danger) still fire everything off, when the whole reason behind the skill is to block projectile ultimate's like cait and ashe's ults. and if it doesnt have a 30+ CD or more, that's an unfair advantage especially on a champ as mobile and bursty as he is...and wait, he doesn't eve go off a rescource?!? oh well fuck that.
#5 - gems are truly outrageous! 12/19/2013 on Thats some quality driving... +3
#175 - Fair enough, chemistry plays a significant role in influencing…  [+] (1 new reply) 12/17/2013 on (untitled) 0
User avatar #176 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
whoa, wait, you think being the one receiving advances is submissive behavior?

No no no, it is an expression of supplication and need from the "agressors". Women are the ones in control in those scenarios, and they always have been, that's why their reproductive choices are always so much more numerous.
#173 - Okay, lets see if I understand you correctly. The onl…  [+] (3 new replies) 12/17/2013 on (untitled) 0
#174 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
No, I'm saying those hormones were already pumping through you, and the boredom increased your desire for stimulation, which made you more succeptable to the effect of those hormones.

Your conscious mind is chemical distribution and electrical signal bridges, working together to grant you the ability to rationalize and (mostly specific to humans) plot out a sequence of events in your head. You made the decision to masturbate, and are responsible for your actions, but hormones colored your choice, and were influential in the decision.

My suggestion is that the influence of your biology is greater than you are letting on, and it is the origin of the behavior now being criticized by social sciences. I'm not even saying it isn't worth criticizing the behavior, it certainly is along with analyzing everything else. But disregarding the biological origins of that behavior is no way to do that. The root cause is sound, the question is how do we correct that behavior? That is where social sciences come in.

I re-read what I said and I didn't really make that clear, sorry.
User avatar #175 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Fair enough, chemistry plays a significant role in influencing behavior. Did you know that smiling for no reason at all, simply positioning your facial muscles into a smile, causes your brain to release happiness-inducing hormones?

So you are saying there is a specific chemical combination in the female brain that drives them to reproduce with the same force as the male sex drive, while simultaneously restricting that drive to only accept advances and not make them, and then only accept the best advances as chosen by complex selection structures based on various social and biological cues like clothing and physical features?

No wonder bitches be crazy. It would certainly take one hell of a hormone cocktail to pull that effect off.

I think it's more likely that while there is a naturally occurring biological tendency towards submissive behavior in women and dominant behavior in men, our social structure, rather than mirroring that, has actually amplified it. In the earlier days of our modern culture, men got a bit power hungry and set themselves up as the masters and women as the slaves, marriage was originally more like buying a car. Over the years this extremist male dominant society has begun to soften gradually with victories like spousal abuse being declared a crime and women earning the right to vote and work. Now that the dynamic has come closer to being even, as it is biologically, some women are beginning to display some traditionally male traits and this threatens those males who are resistant to change. One of the methods of fighting back is to propagate social pressures such as the slut double standard.
User avatar #176 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
whoa, wait, you think being the one receiving advances is submissive behavior?

No no no, it is an expression of supplication and need from the "agressors". Women are the ones in control in those scenarios, and they always have been, that's why their reproductive choices are always so much more numerous.
#171 - Okay, I feel like I'm not explaining myself correctly here. …  [+] (5 new replies) 12/17/2013 on (untitled) 0
#172 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
Your assertion is incorrect, the biological inclination is represented socially, and while some societies have gone against that biological imperative in the past it remains a biological drive.

There IS a difference between how the genders approach sex without the purpose of procreation, since sex is biologically the act of procreation even if rationally that is not the goal being expressed. This reality does not change merely because social sciences claim it is made up, and not biological. I have a degree in microbiology minoring in biochemistry, the things I've seen various hormones do to the human body neatly refute the suggestion that it is merely social pressures.

Oxytocin is why we don't eat babies. It's not because they aren't delicious, or that we rationalize not doing it. We can think those things, but in the end if we were starving and dying we still wouldn't eat our babies, not because of how we fear others will see us, not in a moral sense of self-sacrifice, but because of a chemical our brain produces that provides the evolutionary benefit of not having any desire, on pain of death, to devour our children.

It's all biology, that is the contestation I'm making. Biology is an inherent requirement for social science to have any grounding in science to begin with.
User avatar #173 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Okay, lets see if I understand you correctly.

The only reason I masturbate when I am bored is because boredom somehow causes the release of arousal hormones which drive me to carry out the act of reproduction, regardless of the fact that I am "reproducing" with my hand. It has very little to do with the fact that I think it would be a fun and pleasurable way to pass the time, because the conscious mind is in the passenger seat, the hormones are the ones doing the driving. My mood does not trigger the release of hormones, the hormones are what triggers my mood. The mind is simply a result of the body, and has no real control over it. Free will is an illusion created by chemistry.

Is that basically what you are saying?
#174 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
No, I'm saying those hormones were already pumping through you, and the boredom increased your desire for stimulation, which made you more succeptable to the effect of those hormones.

Your conscious mind is chemical distribution and electrical signal bridges, working together to grant you the ability to rationalize and (mostly specific to humans) plot out a sequence of events in your head. You made the decision to masturbate, and are responsible for your actions, but hormones colored your choice, and were influential in the decision.

My suggestion is that the influence of your biology is greater than you are letting on, and it is the origin of the behavior now being criticized by social sciences. I'm not even saying it isn't worth criticizing the behavior, it certainly is along with analyzing everything else. But disregarding the biological origins of that behavior is no way to do that. The root cause is sound, the question is how do we correct that behavior? That is where social sciences come in.

I re-read what I said and I didn't really make that clear, sorry.
User avatar #175 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Fair enough, chemistry plays a significant role in influencing behavior. Did you know that smiling for no reason at all, simply positioning your facial muscles into a smile, causes your brain to release happiness-inducing hormones?

So you are saying there is a specific chemical combination in the female brain that drives them to reproduce with the same force as the male sex drive, while simultaneously restricting that drive to only accept advances and not make them, and then only accept the best advances as chosen by complex selection structures based on various social and biological cues like clothing and physical features?

No wonder bitches be crazy. It would certainly take one hell of a hormone cocktail to pull that effect off.

I think it's more likely that while there is a naturally occurring biological tendency towards submissive behavior in women and dominant behavior in men, our social structure, rather than mirroring that, has actually amplified it. In the earlier days of our modern culture, men got a bit power hungry and set themselves up as the masters and women as the slaves, marriage was originally more like buying a car. Over the years this extremist male dominant society has begun to soften gradually with victories like spousal abuse being declared a crime and women earning the right to vote and work. Now that the dynamic has come closer to being even, as it is biologically, some women are beginning to display some traditionally male traits and this threatens those males who are resistant to change. One of the methods of fighting back is to propagate social pressures such as the slut double standard.
User avatar #176 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
whoa, wait, you think being the one receiving advances is submissive behavior?

No no no, it is an expression of supplication and need from the "agressors". Women are the ones in control in those scenarios, and they always have been, that's why their reproductive choices are always so much more numerous.
#113 - omg anon, i love you I main taric and that video was epic 12/17/2013 on every time I play support... 0
#148 - And so the intelligent conversation descends to name calling! …  [+] (1 new reply) 12/17/2013 on (untitled) +1
User avatar #167 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
He didn't name-call you, he was pointing out that the standard cuts both ways. Not everything in life is a personal attack.
#145 - Natural selection, which you keep saying, implies that it is i…  [+] (7 new replies) 12/17/2013 on (untitled) 0
#166 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
That first sentence is a contradiction, you are aware of that, yes? Whether something is natural or unnatural does not inherently alter it's efficacy or probability. The fact of the matter is that females, as the ones generally pursued for relationships and generally as the judges of reproductive merit for the human species do in fact have far more available sexual resources than the majority of men. Not all men, as particularly desirable males trump this paradigm through copulation with many partners.

The "justification" of the double standard is the explanation of it's root cause, the root cause of a thing is not the product of a thing, rather the thing is a product of it's cause.

Your feelings do not alter scientific findings. You wish to refute evolutionary biology for our species? Get a degree, peer review relevant papers and engage in experiment to see if the conclusions match with experiment.
User avatar #171 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Okay, I feel like I'm not explaining myself correctly here.

You both keep mentioning the fact that males are the pursuers and females are the pursuees.

I am not denying this fact, I am simply pointing out that it is a LEARNED behavior, not an instinctual part of our physiological drives. There have been several societies in the past where this dynamic was completely reversed.

Biological science has very little to do with social science, and that is what we are actually discussing here. Everything you are saying is social science, but you are framing it as if it is biological science. I was merely trying to point out that mistake.

What I meant by the justification being a product is that the idea that sluts are bad because it is easy for women to have sex and the idea that it is the male responsibility to initiate sex both stem from the initial idea that there should be a difference in the way the two genders approach casual sex where there is no intention of procreating.

If you remove the baby-making part of sex, as you do every time you put on a condom or take the pill, at that point, gender is rather irrelevant, really just a matter of personal preference. That is what I was trying to convey with my earlier example about it being just as easy for men or women to eat chocolate. This is also what I meant when I said that the notion that sex exists for the sole purpose of reproduction is used to discriminate against both promiscuous women and homosexuals.

To address your reply to that comment, I wasn't trying to contradict science or deny obvious facts at all. I did not say that sex was completely separate from reproduction, of course it is a result of reproductive biology. What I said was that sex and reproduction are not the same thing, meaning that a blowjob, while still considered sex, is certainly not considered reproduction. We often choose to engage in sex due to our pleasure seeking instincts independently of our reproductive instincts
#172 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
Your assertion is incorrect, the biological inclination is represented socially, and while some societies have gone against that biological imperative in the past it remains a biological drive.

There IS a difference between how the genders approach sex without the purpose of procreation, since sex is biologically the act of procreation even if rationally that is not the goal being expressed. This reality does not change merely because social sciences claim it is made up, and not biological. I have a degree in microbiology minoring in biochemistry, the things I've seen various hormones do to the human body neatly refute the suggestion that it is merely social pressures.

Oxytocin is why we don't eat babies. It's not because they aren't delicious, or that we rationalize not doing it. We can think those things, but in the end if we were starving and dying we still wouldn't eat our babies, not because of how we fear others will see us, not in a moral sense of self-sacrifice, but because of a chemical our brain produces that provides the evolutionary benefit of not having any desire, on pain of death, to devour our children.

It's all biology, that is the contestation I'm making. Biology is an inherent requirement for social science to have any grounding in science to begin with.
User avatar #173 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Okay, lets see if I understand you correctly.

The only reason I masturbate when I am bored is because boredom somehow causes the release of arousal hormones which drive me to carry out the act of reproduction, regardless of the fact that I am "reproducing" with my hand. It has very little to do with the fact that I think it would be a fun and pleasurable way to pass the time, because the conscious mind is in the passenger seat, the hormones are the ones doing the driving. My mood does not trigger the release of hormones, the hormones are what triggers my mood. The mind is simply a result of the body, and has no real control over it. Free will is an illusion created by chemistry.

Is that basically what you are saying?
#174 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
No, I'm saying those hormones were already pumping through you, and the boredom increased your desire for stimulation, which made you more succeptable to the effect of those hormones.

Your conscious mind is chemical distribution and electrical signal bridges, working together to grant you the ability to rationalize and (mostly specific to humans) plot out a sequence of events in your head. You made the decision to masturbate, and are responsible for your actions, but hormones colored your choice, and were influential in the decision.

My suggestion is that the influence of your biology is greater than you are letting on, and it is the origin of the behavior now being criticized by social sciences. I'm not even saying it isn't worth criticizing the behavior, it certainly is along with analyzing everything else. But disregarding the biological origins of that behavior is no way to do that. The root cause is sound, the question is how do we correct that behavior? That is where social sciences come in.

I re-read what I said and I didn't really make that clear, sorry.
User avatar #175 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Fair enough, chemistry plays a significant role in influencing behavior. Did you know that smiling for no reason at all, simply positioning your facial muscles into a smile, causes your brain to release happiness-inducing hormones?

So you are saying there is a specific chemical combination in the female brain that drives them to reproduce with the same force as the male sex drive, while simultaneously restricting that drive to only accept advances and not make them, and then only accept the best advances as chosen by complex selection structures based on various social and biological cues like clothing and physical features?

No wonder bitches be crazy. It would certainly take one hell of a hormone cocktail to pull that effect off.

I think it's more likely that while there is a naturally occurring biological tendency towards submissive behavior in women and dominant behavior in men, our social structure, rather than mirroring that, has actually amplified it. In the earlier days of our modern culture, men got a bit power hungry and set themselves up as the masters and women as the slaves, marriage was originally more like buying a car. Over the years this extremist male dominant society has begun to soften gradually with victories like spousal abuse being declared a crime and women earning the right to vote and work. Now that the dynamic has come closer to being even, as it is biologically, some women are beginning to display some traditionally male traits and this threatens those males who are resistant to change. One of the methods of fighting back is to propagate social pressures such as the slut double standard.
User avatar #176 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
whoa, wait, you think being the one receiving advances is submissive behavior?

No no no, it is an expression of supplication and need from the "agressors". Women are the ones in control in those scenarios, and they always have been, that's why their reproductive choices are always so much more numerous.
#133 - You keep saying that it is easier for women to get laid than i…  [+] (12 new replies) 12/17/2013 on (untitled) -2
User avatar #139 - weenieandthebutt (12/17/2013) [-]
Never stated that it's "biologically easier" for women to have sex. In terms of slut stigmas, there are a lot of grey areas (I don't expect women to be martyrs though I feel there are certain boundaries) but as far as Natural Selection goes, women get laid FAR easier than men. In society, men have always been the pursuers whereas women have been the gatekeepers. Haven't you noticed that women always get hit on all the time and are even discontent with it. Unless you're seriously alpha, men do not get hit on anywhere near to the same extent as women.

As for your last point, I wouldn't mind fucking a slut for one-night stands (as with most men) but to me, they're not dating material.
User avatar #145 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Natural selection, which you keep saying, implies that it is is some way natural, hence why I said that it is in fact not biologically easier.

"In society" as you keep saying, means that it is an idea that the majority of people hold. That does not inherently make it correct.

There really isn't anything natural about it, it is a social construct, something we built and something we can just as easily take apart.


Your so-called justification of the double standard is actually a product of the double standard.

My point is simply that we have entirely too many hangups when it comes to sex, we have this convoluted web of rules around it and that is the only reason the double standards exist. If we change our thinking, if we stop viewing men as the pursuers and women as the gatekeepers, and instead start thinking of sex as something separate from reproduction that both genders enjoy doing because it feels good, then all of that bullshit will go away. Women will hit on men more often because they haven't been taught from birth that they are supposed to passively wait for the perfect mate to choose them while rejecting all other advances.

It just kinda baffles me that people, in the same breath, curse the system and praise it.
"It's so hard for guys to get laid"
"My wife and I only have sex once a year"
"Women who like sex are bad"

What the fuck?
#166 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
That first sentence is a contradiction, you are aware of that, yes? Whether something is natural or unnatural does not inherently alter it's efficacy or probability. The fact of the matter is that females, as the ones generally pursued for relationships and generally as the judges of reproductive merit for the human species do in fact have far more available sexual resources than the majority of men. Not all men, as particularly desirable males trump this paradigm through copulation with many partners.

The "justification" of the double standard is the explanation of it's root cause, the root cause of a thing is not the product of a thing, rather the thing is a product of it's cause.

Your feelings do not alter scientific findings. You wish to refute evolutionary biology for our species? Get a degree, peer review relevant papers and engage in experiment to see if the conclusions match with experiment.
User avatar #171 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Okay, I feel like I'm not explaining myself correctly here.

You both keep mentioning the fact that males are the pursuers and females are the pursuees.

I am not denying this fact, I am simply pointing out that it is a LEARNED behavior, not an instinctual part of our physiological drives. There have been several societies in the past where this dynamic was completely reversed.

Biological science has very little to do with social science, and that is what we are actually discussing here. Everything you are saying is social science, but you are framing it as if it is biological science. I was merely trying to point out that mistake.

What I meant by the justification being a product is that the idea that sluts are bad because it is easy for women to have sex and the idea that it is the male responsibility to initiate sex both stem from the initial idea that there should be a difference in the way the two genders approach casual sex where there is no intention of procreating.

If you remove the baby-making part of sex, as you do every time you put on a condom or take the pill, at that point, gender is rather irrelevant, really just a matter of personal preference. That is what I was trying to convey with my earlier example about it being just as easy for men or women to eat chocolate. This is also what I meant when I said that the notion that sex exists for the sole purpose of reproduction is used to discriminate against both promiscuous women and homosexuals.

To address your reply to that comment, I wasn't trying to contradict science or deny obvious facts at all. I did not say that sex was completely separate from reproduction, of course it is a result of reproductive biology. What I said was that sex and reproduction are not the same thing, meaning that a blowjob, while still considered sex, is certainly not considered reproduction. We often choose to engage in sex due to our pleasure seeking instincts independently of our reproductive instincts
#172 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
Your assertion is incorrect, the biological inclination is represented socially, and while some societies have gone against that biological imperative in the past it remains a biological drive.

There IS a difference between how the genders approach sex without the purpose of procreation, since sex is biologically the act of procreation even if rationally that is not the goal being expressed. This reality does not change merely because social sciences claim it is made up, and not biological. I have a degree in microbiology minoring in biochemistry, the things I've seen various hormones do to the human body neatly refute the suggestion that it is merely social pressures.

Oxytocin is why we don't eat babies. It's not because they aren't delicious, or that we rationalize not doing it. We can think those things, but in the end if we were starving and dying we still wouldn't eat our babies, not because of how we fear others will see us, not in a moral sense of self-sacrifice, but because of a chemical our brain produces that provides the evolutionary benefit of not having any desire, on pain of death, to devour our children.

It's all biology, that is the contestation I'm making. Biology is an inherent requirement for social science to have any grounding in science to begin with.
User avatar #173 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Okay, lets see if I understand you correctly.

The only reason I masturbate when I am bored is because boredom somehow causes the release of arousal hormones which drive me to carry out the act of reproduction, regardless of the fact that I am "reproducing" with my hand. It has very little to do with the fact that I think it would be a fun and pleasurable way to pass the time, because the conscious mind is in the passenger seat, the hormones are the ones doing the driving. My mood does not trigger the release of hormones, the hormones are what triggers my mood. The mind is simply a result of the body, and has no real control over it. Free will is an illusion created by chemistry.

Is that basically what you are saying?
#174 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
No, I'm saying those hormones were already pumping through you, and the boredom increased your desire for stimulation, which made you more succeptable to the effect of those hormones.

Your conscious mind is chemical distribution and electrical signal bridges, working together to grant you the ability to rationalize and (mostly specific to humans) plot out a sequence of events in your head. You made the decision to masturbate, and are responsible for your actions, but hormones colored your choice, and were influential in the decision.

My suggestion is that the influence of your biology is greater than you are letting on, and it is the origin of the behavior now being criticized by social sciences. I'm not even saying it isn't worth criticizing the behavior, it certainly is along with analyzing everything else. But disregarding the biological origins of that behavior is no way to do that. The root cause is sound, the question is how do we correct that behavior? That is where social sciences come in.

I re-read what I said and I didn't really make that clear, sorry.
User avatar #175 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Fair enough, chemistry plays a significant role in influencing behavior. Did you know that smiling for no reason at all, simply positioning your facial muscles into a smile, causes your brain to release happiness-inducing hormones?

So you are saying there is a specific chemical combination in the female brain that drives them to reproduce with the same force as the male sex drive, while simultaneously restricting that drive to only accept advances and not make them, and then only accept the best advances as chosen by complex selection structures based on various social and biological cues like clothing and physical features?

No wonder bitches be crazy. It would certainly take one hell of a hormone cocktail to pull that effect off.

I think it's more likely that while there is a naturally occurring biological tendency towards submissive behavior in women and dominant behavior in men, our social structure, rather than mirroring that, has actually amplified it. In the earlier days of our modern culture, men got a bit power hungry and set themselves up as the masters and women as the slaves, marriage was originally more like buying a car. Over the years this extremist male dominant society has begun to soften gradually with victories like spousal abuse being declared a crime and women earning the right to vote and work. Now that the dynamic has come closer to being even, as it is biologically, some women are beginning to display some traditionally male traits and this threatens those males who are resistant to change. One of the methods of fighting back is to propagate social pressures such as the slut double standard.
User avatar #176 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
whoa, wait, you think being the one receiving advances is submissive behavior?

No no no, it is an expression of supplication and need from the "agressors". Women are the ones in control in those scenarios, and they always have been, that's why their reproductive choices are always so much more numerous.
User avatar #141 - weenieandthebutt (12/17/2013) [-]
Also, if you're that willing to go into a relationship with a slut, then you're just a beta who lacks standards.
User avatar #148 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
And so the intelligent conversation descends to name calling!

Listen here numb-nuts, it's simple fucking math (pun intended)

I like having sex

She likes having sex

If I date her, we will have lots of sex, and therefore, we will both be happy

I fail to see the problem with this logic. I don't see what makes this a bad thing that I should avoid at all costs. I really don't understand how choosing a girl with similar interests means I have low standards.

Unless, of course, you are the special type of retard that thinks that a thing is only good if it is hard to get.

I could just cook that steak in my freezer, but I think instead I will fill my shoes with broken glass and lemon juice and walk to a farm on the other side of the country and kill a cow with my bare hands because that will make my dinner so much more enjoyable. If it's easy, I don't want it.
User avatar #167 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
He didn't name-call you, he was pointing out that the standard cuts both ways. Not everything in life is a personal attack.
#45 - While I get what you are saying here, the fact is that sex is …  [+] (15 new replies) 12/16/2013 on (untitled) +42
User avatar #168 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
the instincts, hormone production, and emotional backing for sex as well as arousal itself are all products of reproductive biology. You started your statement by denying this obvious fact in an effort to use feels to contradict science. It is unfortunate so many decided such behavior was agreeable.
User avatar #86 - weenieandthebutt (12/17/2013) [-]
Obviously culture and technology plays a part, some of the concepts are outdated like you've perfectly stated but women still clearly favoured on Natural Selection grounds (even if sex is for recreational fun as opposed to the reproductive purposes). I'm not that backwards into thinking that sex should be a taboo for women and as long as it's within a healthy boundary, I wouldn't brand them sluts but I wouldn't give them props for it either as I do with males.
User avatar #133 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
You keep saying that it is easier for women to get laid than it is for men.

As I said in my first post, the fact that you say that is the REASON for that.

Natural selection grounds, whatever that is supposed to mean, really isn't relevant here.

We have sex for enjoyment, the existence of contraceptives proves this.

We eat chocolate for enjoyment.

It is not biologically easier for women to eat chocolate, and it is not biologically easier for women to have sex (ignoring erectile dysfunction)

The only reason that women find it easier to get laid than men is because of the social stigmas put in place by puritanical religions who were extremely sexist. They enshrine sex as some holy union of souls that god created for the explicit purpose of baby making, and place men in a dominant role as god's chosen rulers of the earth, and they consider women to essentially be property. Our modern society was built from that starting point.

If we stop putting sex up on a pedestal and just think of it as another fun activity we can do, and we stop treating women as objects, the slut double standard disappears. The female sex drive is just as high as the male sex drive. Biology did not simply place the mating instinct in the male brain and call it a day, it is not the male's sole responsibility to carry on the species.

In one of your other messages here, you said something about women being repulsed by virgin males because they are viewed as rejects, and males being repulsed by sluts because they are untrustworthy. Those are also simply social constructs, and they can easily be changed.

The girl I lost my virginity to happened to be a slut, and I liked that because to me, it did not mean that she was untrustworthy. It meant that she enjoyed sex and was wiling to have it often and that was a plus for me. She liked the fact that I was a virgin because to her, it meant she could be a sort of mentor and teach me all about it. She also liked the idea of corrupting something pure.
User avatar #139 - weenieandthebutt (12/17/2013) [-]
Never stated that it's "biologically easier" for women to have sex. In terms of slut stigmas, there are a lot of grey areas (I don't expect women to be martyrs though I feel there are certain boundaries) but as far as Natural Selection goes, women get laid FAR easier than men. In society, men have always been the pursuers whereas women have been the gatekeepers. Haven't you noticed that women always get hit on all the time and are even discontent with it. Unless you're seriously alpha, men do not get hit on anywhere near to the same extent as women.

As for your last point, I wouldn't mind fucking a slut for one-night stands (as with most men) but to me, they're not dating material.
User avatar #145 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Natural selection, which you keep saying, implies that it is is some way natural, hence why I said that it is in fact not biologically easier.

"In society" as you keep saying, means that it is an idea that the majority of people hold. That does not inherently make it correct.

There really isn't anything natural about it, it is a social construct, something we built and something we can just as easily take apart.


Your so-called justification of the double standard is actually a product of the double standard.

My point is simply that we have entirely too many hangups when it comes to sex, we have this convoluted web of rules around it and that is the only reason the double standards exist. If we change our thinking, if we stop viewing men as the pursuers and women as the gatekeepers, and instead start thinking of sex as something separate from reproduction that both genders enjoy doing because it feels good, then all of that bullshit will go away. Women will hit on men more often because they haven't been taught from birth that they are supposed to passively wait for the perfect mate to choose them while rejecting all other advances.

It just kinda baffles me that people, in the same breath, curse the system and praise it.
"It's so hard for guys to get laid"
"My wife and I only have sex once a year"
"Women who like sex are bad"

What the fuck?
#166 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
That first sentence is a contradiction, you are aware of that, yes? Whether something is natural or unnatural does not inherently alter it's efficacy or probability. The fact of the matter is that females, as the ones generally pursued for relationships and generally as the judges of reproductive merit for the human species do in fact have far more available sexual resources than the majority of men. Not all men, as particularly desirable males trump this paradigm through copulation with many partners.

The "justification" of the double standard is the explanation of it's root cause, the root cause of a thing is not the product of a thing, rather the thing is a product of it's cause.

Your feelings do not alter scientific findings. You wish to refute evolutionary biology for our species? Get a degree, peer review relevant papers and engage in experiment to see if the conclusions match with experiment.
User avatar #171 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Okay, I feel like I'm not explaining myself correctly here.

You both keep mentioning the fact that males are the pursuers and females are the pursuees.

I am not denying this fact, I am simply pointing out that it is a LEARNED behavior, not an instinctual part of our physiological drives. There have been several societies in the past where this dynamic was completely reversed.

Biological science has very little to do with social science, and that is what we are actually discussing here. Everything you are saying is social science, but you are framing it as if it is biological science. I was merely trying to point out that mistake.

What I meant by the justification being a product is that the idea that sluts are bad because it is easy for women to have sex and the idea that it is the male responsibility to initiate sex both stem from the initial idea that there should be a difference in the way the two genders approach casual sex where there is no intention of procreating.

If you remove the baby-making part of sex, as you do every time you put on a condom or take the pill, at that point, gender is rather irrelevant, really just a matter of personal preference. That is what I was trying to convey with my earlier example about it being just as easy for men or women to eat chocolate. This is also what I meant when I said that the notion that sex exists for the sole purpose of reproduction is used to discriminate against both promiscuous women and homosexuals.

To address your reply to that comment, I wasn't trying to contradict science or deny obvious facts at all. I did not say that sex was completely separate from reproduction, of course it is a result of reproductive biology. What I said was that sex and reproduction are not the same thing, meaning that a blowjob, while still considered sex, is certainly not considered reproduction. We often choose to engage in sex due to our pleasure seeking instincts independently of our reproductive instincts
#172 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
Your assertion is incorrect, the biological inclination is represented socially, and while some societies have gone against that biological imperative in the past it remains a biological drive.

There IS a difference between how the genders approach sex without the purpose of procreation, since sex is biologically the act of procreation even if rationally that is not the goal being expressed. This reality does not change merely because social sciences claim it is made up, and not biological. I have a degree in microbiology minoring in biochemistry, the things I've seen various hormones do to the human body neatly refute the suggestion that it is merely social pressures.

Oxytocin is why we don't eat babies. It's not because they aren't delicious, or that we rationalize not doing it. We can think those things, but in the end if we were starving and dying we still wouldn't eat our babies, not because of how we fear others will see us, not in a moral sense of self-sacrifice, but because of a chemical our brain produces that provides the evolutionary benefit of not having any desire, on pain of death, to devour our children.

It's all biology, that is the contestation I'm making. Biology is an inherent requirement for social science to have any grounding in science to begin with.
User avatar #173 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Okay, lets see if I understand you correctly.

The only reason I masturbate when I am bored is because boredom somehow causes the release of arousal hormones which drive me to carry out the act of reproduction, regardless of the fact that I am "reproducing" with my hand. It has very little to do with the fact that I think it would be a fun and pleasurable way to pass the time, because the conscious mind is in the passenger seat, the hormones are the ones doing the driving. My mood does not trigger the release of hormones, the hormones are what triggers my mood. The mind is simply a result of the body, and has no real control over it. Free will is an illusion created by chemistry.

Is that basically what you are saying?
#174 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
No, I'm saying those hormones were already pumping through you, and the boredom increased your desire for stimulation, which made you more succeptable to the effect of those hormones.

Your conscious mind is chemical distribution and electrical signal bridges, working together to grant you the ability to rationalize and (mostly specific to humans) plot out a sequence of events in your head. You made the decision to masturbate, and are responsible for your actions, but hormones colored your choice, and were influential in the decision.

My suggestion is that the influence of your biology is greater than you are letting on, and it is the origin of the behavior now being criticized by social sciences. I'm not even saying it isn't worth criticizing the behavior, it certainly is along with analyzing everything else. But disregarding the biological origins of that behavior is no way to do that. The root cause is sound, the question is how do we correct that behavior? That is where social sciences come in.

I re-read what I said and I didn't really make that clear, sorry.
User avatar #175 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
Fair enough, chemistry plays a significant role in influencing behavior. Did you know that smiling for no reason at all, simply positioning your facial muscles into a smile, causes your brain to release happiness-inducing hormones?

So you are saying there is a specific chemical combination in the female brain that drives them to reproduce with the same force as the male sex drive, while simultaneously restricting that drive to only accept advances and not make them, and then only accept the best advances as chosen by complex selection structures based on various social and biological cues like clothing and physical features?

No wonder bitches be crazy. It would certainly take one hell of a hormone cocktail to pull that effect off.

I think it's more likely that while there is a naturally occurring biological tendency towards submissive behavior in women and dominant behavior in men, our social structure, rather than mirroring that, has actually amplified it. In the earlier days of our modern culture, men got a bit power hungry and set themselves up as the masters and women as the slaves, marriage was originally more like buying a car. Over the years this extremist male dominant society has begun to soften gradually with victories like spousal abuse being declared a crime and women earning the right to vote and work. Now that the dynamic has come closer to being even, as it is biologically, some women are beginning to display some traditionally male traits and this threatens those males who are resistant to change. One of the methods of fighting back is to propagate social pressures such as the slut double standard.
User avatar #176 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
whoa, wait, you think being the one receiving advances is submissive behavior?

No no no, it is an expression of supplication and need from the "agressors". Women are the ones in control in those scenarios, and they always have been, that's why their reproductive choices are always so much more numerous.
User avatar #141 - weenieandthebutt (12/17/2013) [-]
Also, if you're that willing to go into a relationship with a slut, then you're just a beta who lacks standards.
User avatar #148 - Daeiros (12/17/2013) [-]
And so the intelligent conversation descends to name calling!

Listen here numb-nuts, it's simple fucking math (pun intended)

I like having sex

She likes having sex

If I date her, we will have lots of sex, and therefore, we will both be happy

I fail to see the problem with this logic. I don't see what makes this a bad thing that I should avoid at all costs. I really don't understand how choosing a girl with similar interests means I have low standards.

Unless, of course, you are the special type of retard that thinks that a thing is only good if it is hard to get.

I could just cook that steak in my freezer, but I think instead I will fill my shoes with broken glass and lemon juice and walk to a farm on the other side of the country and kill a cow with my bare hands because that will make my dinner so much more enjoyable. If it's easy, I don't want it.
User avatar #167 - teranin (12/17/2013) [-]
He didn't name-call you, he was pointing out that the standard cuts both ways. Not everything in life is a personal attack.
#3 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 11/22/2013 on READ DESCRIPTION +6
User avatar #5 - FIXER (11/22/2013) [-]
LOOOOL!!!! Thanks man!!
#41 - Okay, you clearly did not understand what I said. Let's us…  [+] (3 new replies) 11/22/2013 on Day in the Life 4 +5
#46 - playerdous (11/22/2013) [-]
Although you probably made a valid point.
#66 - CIS White Male (11/22/2013) [-]
Instant-Gratification *drops the mic*
User avatar #52 - Vegeto (11/22/2013) [-]
Supply & Demand means everything in an economy.
#30 - Picture 11/22/2013 on (untitled) +4
#23 - Netflix/Fios & Comcast on demand: Paid service A…  [+] (10 new replies) 11/22/2013 on Day in the Life 4 +25
User avatar #49 - asmodeu (11/22/2013) [-]
Honestly, it's not the $20 movie ticket that's bothering me, it's de $25 for a pop corn and drink and I'm not even allowed to bring my own drink/food in with me, so I have to suck up to their prices :\
#64 - CIS White Male (11/22/2013) [-]
and you can't smoke in the theater, pause the movie to stretch your legs, etc.
User avatar #48 - PubLandlord (11/22/2013) [-]
Sums it up perfectly

Why would I pay for a service that is far far worse than the one that is free at the moment, if netflix was as good as 1channel I would happily pay for it , but netflix in the UK is so shit it makes little sense for me to give a system that is free and caters to my needs to go for one that is worse and costs me money

#56 - CIS White Male (11/22/2013) [-]
If you want to watch American netlix, or Canadian, then go get the Hola chrome extension, and set your country to America.
#38 - CIS White Male (11/22/2013) [-]
Basically you're an unemployed cunt who doesn't grasp the concept of "putting money into the economy" and thinks "Fuck everyone who works hard day and night to make these shows, I deserve them for free and they're not having any of my money".

Your logic is FUCKED too. If you claim the film industry is charging $20 for a ticket and wrongly thinks piracy is driving all their sales away, then you're wrong. Because piracy IS driving all their sales away. That's what people do instead, watch a shitty cinema screen recording or a standard definition hotel pay per view recording of it on a website for free.

Selfish prick, if I ever see you behind a McDonalds counter I'm demanding my food to be taken off your minimum wage paycheque. You don't deserve money if you think that's how the economy should work. Fucking pay for it like everyone else does.
User avatar #41 - Daeiros (11/22/2013) [-]
Okay, you clearly did not understand what I said.
Let's use your mcdonalds example here to clarify

Imagine you went in to mcdonalds in the afternoon after you get off work
you ask for some french fries
they hand you some cold, nasty, half mashed up fries that taste like total shit
you say WTF is this
they say, "oh, we make all our fries for the day at 2AM, so you got here late, this is what you get, and you still have to pay full price for it"

meanwhile, there is another store, right next door to Mcdonalds that makes their fries fresh to order, nice and hot and crispy and they cost less than a third of what mcdonalds charges for their shit fries
where are you gonna go to get your fries?

that IS the definition of an economy
you provide shit service, you don't get any customers

so what I am saying is, if there is obviously a demand for it, and it is obviously possible since other people are doing it with less resources at their disposal, then why is it that the cable company that charges $100 a month cannot manage to provide the same level of service

and on the topic of films, in the good old days there used to be this economic concept called supply and demand that determined prices
so the way this mystical concept worked was that if you raised your prices, and suddenly, people stopped buying your product, the logical solution would be to lower your fucking prices. not everyone who chooses not to go to the theater does so because they would rather just steal the film, the reason attendance is down is because they charge too much and people don't want to pay it.

I am a proper consumer, sir. I vote with my dollar. If I am not satisfied with the product, I don't "just pay for it like everyone else". I typically just do without and save my money for something worth putting money into the economy over.

how selfish of me to demand a refund when someone blows their nose in my burger. I don't pay for shitty service.
#46 - playerdous (11/22/2013) [-]
Although you probably made a valid point.
#66 - CIS White Male (11/22/2013) [-]
Instant-Gratification *drops the mic*
User avatar #52 - Vegeto (11/22/2013) [-]
Supply & Demand means everything in an economy.
User avatar #33 - thebaseballexpert (11/22/2013) [-]
where the hell do you go to movies? My girlfriend and i went to see Catching Fire tonight and spent $30 INCLUDING concessions
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 0 / Total items point value: 0

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Latest users (1): Daeiros, anonymous(1).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#4 - blartonfairweather (07/17/2012) [-]
Heya, mate.   
   
What is up?
Heya, mate.

What is up?
#3 - xLovableLoserx (03/15/2012) [-]
Just wanted to say hey.. hope you're finding the lolz. Hit me up some time when you've got a chance.
Just wanted to say hey.. hope you're finding the lolz. Hit me up some time when you've got a chance.
 Friends (0)