Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
The relationship between unprotected sex, brain damage, and the thousand cock stare
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="questor70" data-source="post: 564736" data-attributes="member: 12560"><p><strong>brain rewiring</strong></p><p></p><p>OK, enough of the semen DNA casuses female brain damage. Here's my own autist's take:</p><p></p><p>There are studies that show how soldiers need to short-circuit their empathy in order to function on the battlefield. This is why basic training involves dehumanizing the enemy (think Full Metal Jacket). Seems like a terrible thing but it's necessary and that mental switch is actually baked into the human animal (at least with men). It flips on and hopefully flips off again, but this is why veterans have trouble readjusting to civilian life and keep anguishing past memories.</p><p></p><p>That's just an extreme case, but something similar to that is at work when you engage in a lot of casual sex. Guys are more adapted to be able to screw without emotional connections, but even guys can <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyMMEmwFQUE" target="_blank">"fool around and fall in love"</a> as it were. You go into a sexual encounter purely for physical gratification and during the process, hormones are released that attempt to rope you into more lasting commitment.</p><p></p><p>The reason why I used the analogy of soldiers in wartime is that I feel women who enter into the cock carousel are trying to short-circuit that automatic bonding impulse. But just as it doesn't feel good for men to repress their empathy...it doesn't feel good for women to repress their ability to pair-bond. It's a tradeoff that has negative downstream consequences.</p><p></p><p>Men associate casual sex as a notch whereas women associate no-strings casual sex as a net loss, that the guy somehow took something away from her. Women see sex as transactional where the mutual pleasure doesn't count. There has to be something else extracted otherwise she got "used". Today's culture may be trying to teach women otherwise, but biologically, that's what her body tells her each time she executes the walk of shame after a ONS. This also explains a lot of cognitive dissonance of #MeToo, that women are on the cock carousel while simultaneously demonizing men. They may <em>say</em> they don't care about shame but they sure as hell <a href="http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/110506-slutwalk-hmed-330a.grid-8x2.jpg" target="_blank">spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone not to shame them for being sluts</a>, so down deep they still care a great deal. The hamster is on constant overdrive.</p><p></p><p>The few more well-adjusted women out there who adhere to sex-positivity are able to reframe casual sex as more of a process of mutual <strong>giving</strong> of pleasure and not simply <strong>taking</strong> pleasure and running away, a net gain, not a loss. This is not an easy mental shift, but since these sorts of sex-positivity figures tend to come from the porn industry <a href="https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a40596/nina-hartley-porn-late-50s/" target="_blank">(like Nina Hartley)</a> you can think of them as psychological survival tactics. They're also probably freaks of nature anyway in the first place (like Harltey being bisexual). But these women tended to have never gotten married or at least never had kids. You just can't lead a freewheeling swinger lifestyle and be a soccer mom at the same time. So there are still tradeoffs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="questor70, post: 564736, member: 12560"] [b]brain rewiring[/b] OK, enough of the semen DNA casuses female brain damage. Here's my own autist's take: There are studies that show how soldiers need to short-circuit their empathy in order to function on the battlefield. This is why basic training involves dehumanizing the enemy (think Full Metal Jacket). Seems like a terrible thing but it's necessary and that mental switch is actually baked into the human animal (at least with men). It flips on and hopefully flips off again, but this is why veterans have trouble readjusting to civilian life and keep anguishing past memories. That's just an extreme case, but something similar to that is at work when you engage in a lot of casual sex. Guys are more adapted to be able to screw without emotional connections, but even guys can [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyMMEmwFQUE]"fool around and fall in love"[/url] as it were. You go into a sexual encounter purely for physical gratification and during the process, hormones are released that attempt to rope you into more lasting commitment. The reason why I used the analogy of soldiers in wartime is that I feel women who enter into the cock carousel are trying to short-circuit that automatic bonding impulse. But just as it doesn't feel good for men to repress their empathy...it doesn't feel good for women to repress their ability to pair-bond. It's a tradeoff that has negative downstream consequences. Men associate casual sex as a notch whereas women associate no-strings casual sex as a net loss, that the guy somehow took something away from her. Women see sex as transactional where the mutual pleasure doesn't count. There has to be something else extracted otherwise she got "used". Today's culture may be trying to teach women otherwise, but biologically, that's what her body tells her each time she executes the walk of shame after a ONS. This also explains a lot of cognitive dissonance of #MeToo, that women are on the cock carousel while simultaneously demonizing men. They may [i]say[/i] they don't care about shame but they sure as hell [url=http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/110506-slutwalk-hmed-330a.grid-8x2.jpg]spend a lot of time trying to convince everyone not to shame them for being sluts[/url], so down deep they still care a great deal. The hamster is on constant overdrive. The few more well-adjusted women out there who adhere to sex-positivity are able to reframe casual sex as more of a process of mutual [b]giving[/b] of pleasure and not simply [b]taking[/b] pleasure and running away, a net gain, not a loss. This is not an easy mental shift, but since these sorts of sex-positivity figures tend to come from the porn industry [url=https://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/a40596/nina-hartley-porn-late-50s/](like Nina Hartley)[/url] you can think of them as psychological survival tactics. They're also probably freaks of nature anyway in the first place (like Harltey being bisexual). But these women tended to have never gotten married or at least never had kids. You just can't lead a freewheeling swinger lifestyle and be a soccer mom at the same time. So there are still tradeoffs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
The relationship between unprotected sex, brain damage, and the thousand cock stare
Top
