Well it is obvious that vanilla is better than chocolate.

Because if you do that you won't get any Sky Cake when you die.

It doesn't 'turn them into it' thats what they already are.


And damn, this thread took off. I'd have to read 3 pages of posts to catch up with it...And I'm not going to do that, so, NIMN did you ever answer as to why you feel its okay to purchase things from China and Hong Kong etc?

You are wrong. Vanilla is better for adding **** to it though.

like hot liquid ass? omnomnom

No u.

Which is one of the reasons it is superior. Adaptability ftw.

Yeah but that doesn't count. There is a bowl of vanilla and a bowl of chocolate. You can't add anything. Chocolate clear winner.

lifeboat scenario imo.

also, vanilla ice cream goes awesome in coffee ftw.

No. Not clear winner. Clear runner up.

You've had too much childhood trauma. Seek treatment.

I think I'll go and become a prostitute instead.

Fair enough. How much?

i turned down a milf that was gonna **** on my chest for $100 before

'bout Tree fiddy

The fact that all members of a group exhibit a particular trait does not mean the trait "isn't something that has to be explained." Universality is not a reason for canceling out an important factor. The reason traumas can be ruled out as the primary reason for the existence of human sexual drive is that the primary purpose of sexual activity in the evolution of any species is reproduction, regardless of whether this drive succeeds in explaining all aspects of actual sexual behavior (and I agree with you that it does not). I'm not rejecting your explanation, merely saying it seems implausible to me to call it the "hallmark" of human sexual behavior when there is a much simpler drive common to all sexual behavior. I may merely be misunderstanding what you were initially driving at in calling reenactment of childhood trauma a "hallmark" (a distinctive feature, especially one of excellence), though. Your claim is that the distinctive feature of adult human sexual behavior is A; I took you to be saying that the distinctive feature of adult human sexual behavior was A, which seemed strange to me, because the impetus to sexual behavior at all is libido.

Right, this is clear to me now, but, to extend the analogy, it seemed to me that you were saying that the distinctive feature of chicken noodle soup is the kinds of vegetables the chef selects. I responded by saying, well, I suppose that plays a role in determining the soup in each specific case, but really what's central is being a broth-based substance containing noodles, chicken etc. This is, again, the conversation as it seemed to me. Obviously it looked differently to you.

Nah, what I might by "overemphasis" here was what I outlined in my refashioned analogy above, though perhaps "overemphasis" was a poor choice of words on my part. I don't actually know enough about the relationship between childhood experiences and adult sexual preferences to make the kind of argument you're describing here, as might have already been evident from my asking questions about what you meant by "trauma."

This might very well be true, but your first sentence vindicates my point about the inaccessibility of technical jargon - the clause "as it relates to psychology" is doing all the work there. It's easy enough for me to say "well, I'm using a fairly ordinary English definition of the word 'debtor' as it relates to bankruptcy," but if any layperson hears me talking about non-debtor co-debtors, confusion is sure to abound. Obviously "trauma" in this case is not quite as egregious because it isn't defined only with reference to a particular document (a statute), but that doesn't mean it isn't a term of art. I'd refer you again to "minor trauma" - this appears bizarre in the same way as "calm devastation" to someone whose guide is ordinary language.

Well, O.K. Do you have a truly marvelous proof?

I wasn't asking how you in particular came to this understanding, I was asking for a citation, some explanation of how we know this is the case, some research. Clearly I fall into the category of people who haven't spent much time thinking about how sexual preferences are formed, and I have no reason to accept the "childhood experiences" story other than you saying "well, some smart people are down with it." I suppose that is a reason - I definitely depend on the judgments of experts in a lot of everyday applications - but I'm not actually convinced unless I see it and understanding it for myself.

Lame caricatured version of the conversation as I understood it, recast as an AIM chat:

PB: yo, dawg, the main reason grown-ups have sex is they're reenacting ****ed-up stuff from their childhood.

DM: butnaaaaaaah mainly they wanna get it on - it's only natural. also not everyone has ****ed-up stuff happen to them.

PB: "****ed-up stuff" includes ordinary stuff that's a little bit wack, ldo newb. also wtf obv this is why they do the particular weird stuff they do.

DM: um that's not what you said imo, and i'd like to know why you think that. also that's a weird way of talking.

PB: it's not that weird to non-n00bs. and yes that is what i said ldo. it's true because look at what all these smart people think.

DM: aight, kewl, i guess? still would like some evidence.

A+++++

A+ If only all moral arguments ended this way, the world would be a better place.

This is a strange form of reductionism. Seen this way, the primary purpose of eating is also reproduction. Or any other human behavior. It's like I'm trying to describe a game of baseball in terms of different types of pitches, pitching mechanics, swinging mechanics, positioning, etc, etc, and you're going like, well, this is all just quantum mechanics. QM is an absurd framework for analyzing baseball, even if everything that happens in baseball follows the rules of QM. The same can be said of reproduction and human sexuality. The connection between human sexuality and reproduction, as obvious as it is, is largely unimportant in explaining the diversity and specificity of human sexual behavior.


Saying that the impetus to sexual behavior is libido is completely uninteresting, because that is true by definition. But what explains its existence? How does it vary? Why does it vary? How is it triggered? How is it expressed? I have a computational explanation for libido and it fits the childhood trauma narrative.


Do you agree that traumas vary in magnitude in terms of their emotional impact? Then minor traumas are, among those events significant enough to be considered traumas, those with less emotional impact.


Whether you can see it and understand it has nothing to do with the completeness of my textual explanation, but with your ability to tap into your own life experiences. That is, in the absence of any clinical experience, which can add clarity.

I voted other, but not because other jobs can be harmful.
I think that if sex can be engaged in for free, the mere act of paying should not define whether it is legal or not.

It's about personal freedoms. A prostitute should not be lacking the protection of the state in her financial and personal wellbeing just because others find her activities immoral.

Plus Spitzer should have been able to visit his local brothel every Saturday night and still be able to be governor.

I'm torn on this. There would certainly be benefits. The women would certainly have safer working conditions. They could unionize. They could be forced into stringent std testing. On the other hand, there is so much human trafficking that goes on in the world because of prostitution, and I would think it would increase with the traffickers now able to tap the American market so much easier.