The exploitative nature of relationships

Hey guys. Nice community you got here.

I'll just jump right into it. No matter how I think about it I always seem to get to the same results, mainly that sexual/romantic (they are most of the time intertwined) relationships are exploitative. Just to get the definition out of the way so there's less misunderstanding, exploit meaning to "use selfishly for one's own needs". That is, even when there's consent, sex is inherently and negatively exploitative.

The idea is that in the average sexual relationship there's a list of obligations or rules that both people follow, sex being the major one (usually). Emotional bonds aside, when two people have sex they are both using and reducing each other to mere objects (like sexual machines kind of, especially when the sex is regular and there isn't a coincidence of "needs" - *barf) in order to achieve a personal goal, that is their own pleasure. Maybe their goals also include their partner's pleasure and can seem less selfish, but even so they are allowing themselves to be exploited in an animalistic way - i.e. they consent to being used in a way that diminishes their human quality, if that makes sense.

That's not the only problem. I know some people believe that sex can be "meaningful" but even so, the exclusivity of such relationships brings it all back to the exploitation. The way I'm thinking of it is that if there was no sex in this relationship then, normally, it wouldn't be that much different than a strong platonic friendship, unless it's an asexual romantic relationship (which I'm not talking about in this case). But the exclusivity... something that is not present in friendships since society deems it ok to have multiple friends... emphasizes the sexual aspect of a relationship because both people's access to sex should, ideally, only be the other person. It's almost like this sexual pact people make ("you're mine and only mine") and it seems like the people involved are commodities, or goods in a transaction valued first and foremost for their sexuality. And I say first and foremost because if you take that component out of the picture, then romantic relationships would cease to be.

What do you guys think?

I would say you're right on the money with your statement, especially when you point out how it's acceptable to have many friends, but only one partner (with the exception of polygamists cultures).

That just gives me another reason to be a loner. I rather have no relationship than a toxic, possessive one.

Oh yeah, with the exception of polygamist cultures, although in those cases sex is still involved so while there's no exclusivity, there is still exploitation in a different, but not less harmful, way.

>The exploitative nature of relationships

Yes,exploitative is the nature of relationships,that's why very ugly people can't have a relationship.Because they lack of use value.

>It's almost like this sexual pact people make ("you're mine and only mine") and it seems like the people involved are commodities, or goods in a transaction valued first and foremost for their sexuality. And I say first and foremost because if you take that component out of the picture, then romantic relationships would cease to be.

No,some people want their friends have less friends .

Welcome, error! Feel free to introduce yourself in the Member Introductions board, if you'd like!

I have the same concerns about committed relationships. As I've said in another thread, I used to not comprehend how sex could be a mutual activity, and saw it almost always as one person using the other one-sidedly.

As I became aware that people can want sex with each other and it is mutual, it still seemed like it'd be a transaction due to there being so many rules and obligations in a committed relationship. Those can make sex itself into an obligation, with pressure to have it whether they want it or not, whenever the other person wants it. Even among two people who want sex, they might not want it at the same time, and with the idea of sex being so heavily tied to love, it can lead to feeling guilty, feeling like a bad partner for not wanting to please them at the moment. Abusive people take advantage of that.

If the obligations were simply to show respect towards your partner, and it is the same kind of respect you'd show towards anyone else, then that would be different, but it often seems to be "make your partner happy at all costs, even at your expense".

Generally there isn't that degree of exclusivity, nor obligations with friendships, but Snowflake_ is right that some people are very controlling and don't want their friends to have other friends. That does seem to be glossed over in comparison to committed (mainly romantic-sexual) relationship partners restricting each others' social circles.

>Maybe their goals also include their partner's pleasure and can seem less selfish, but even so they are allowing themselves to be exploited in an animalistic way - i.e. they consent to being used in a way that diminishes their human quality, if that makes sense.

Case by case.

Usually insecure attachment people are more exploitative.I would like to say anxiety attachment people have a kind of black widow spider likely behavior :they are less choosey and attack and consume their partners.

Conjecture:The response mechanism of lack of parental investment.

But I hate the r******d academic society overrated secure attachment people.(Because most of them are this type)

Secure attachment people usually do care and want their partner feel pleasure in sexual behavior,but they do it for a more stable relationship for themselves.Because a stable relationship can breed healthier offspring.

NOT because they are selfless.(Yes,I am sarcasming the "r******d academic society")

Anyway ,in your heart deeply ,I think you know you want to avoid which kind of people.

It just 2 different tactics :black widow spider VS good at breeding.

Admin wrote:Welcome, error! Feel free to introduce yourself in the Member Introductions board, if you'd like!

I have the same concerns about committed relationships. As I've said in another thread, I used to not comprehend how sex could be a mutual activity, and saw it almost always as one person using the other one-sidedly.

As I became aware that people can want sex with each other and it is mutual, it still seemed like it'd be a transaction due to there being so many rules and obligations in a committed relationship. Those can make sex itself into an obligation, with pressure to have it whether they want it or not, whenever the other person wants it. Even among two people who want sex, they might not want it at the same time, and with the idea of sex being so heavily tied to love, it can lead to feeling guilty, feeling like a bad partner for not wanting to please them at the moment. Abusive people take advantage of that.

If the obligations were simply to show respect towards your partner, and it is the same kind of respect you'd show towards anyone else, then that would be different, but it often seems to be "make your partner happy at all costs, even at your expense".

Generally there isn't that degree of exclusivity, nor obligations with friendships, but Snowflake_ is right that some people are very controlling and don't want their friends to have other friends. That does seem to be glossed over in comparison to committed (mainly romantic-sexual) relationship partners restricting each others' social circles.

Respecting your partner doesn't have to mean going along with it, just as me respecting an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean I agree, but rather that I accept that's what the other person thinks. This is a common deal breaker in relationships, I've noticed. You're right, but I'm still concerned about the two people who have sex mutually. They are still using each other for a mechanistic "release". Do you think this is ok?

Some people get jealous if their friend is spending more time with others. This is a type of insecurity and it is often identified as such, yet it is okay in romantic-sexual relationships. How is it that unhealthy reactions are suddenly normal and expected even, when "love" comes into the picture? And why is it that they can be easily dismissed with love-is-irrational type of excuses? Something is wrong here, and that may be due to the twisted perception of love that people seem to have.

Snowflake_ wrote:>Maybe their goals also include their partner's pleasure and can seem less selfish, but even so they are allowing themselves to be exploited in an animalistic way - i.e. they consent to being used in a way that diminishes their human quality, if that makes sense.

Case by case.

Usually insecure attachment people are more exploitative.I would like to say anxiety attachment people have a kind of black widow spider likely behavior :they are less choosey and attack and consume their partners.

Conjecture:The response mechanism of lack of parental investment.

But I hate the r******d academic society overrated secure attachment people.(Because most of them are this type)

Secure attachment people usually do care and want their partner feel pleasure in sexual behavior,but they do it for a more stable relationship for themselves.Because a stable relationship can breed healthier offspring.

NOT because they are selfless.(Yes,I am sarcasming the "r******d academic society")

Anyway ,in your heart deeply ,I think you know you want to avoid which kind of people.

It just 2 different tactics :black widow spider VS good at breeding.

>>but they do it for a more stable relationship for themselves

That's true. I suppose with a lot of things, not just sexual relationships, we do things for ourselves first, and others second. That's not necessarily bad. Are we exploiting each other by discussing anti sexual views on a message board? We all have different goals, some people want to understand, some want to vent, others may want to validate their beliefs. But we all want other people to hear us out because we gain something from it. In a basic sense, how is this different from sexual exploitation? Maybe it's the "perversion" associated with sex or the intense feelings one gets when they have it, almost turned on by a switch and with the purpose of scratching a biological itch, that makes it wrong, so to speak. There are probably better ways of wording it.

error wrote:
That's true. I suppose with a lot of things, not just sexual relationships, we do things for ourselves first, and others second. That's not necessarily bad. Are we exploiting each other by discussing anti sexual views on a message board? We all have different goals, some people want to understand, some want to vent, others may want to validate their beliefs. But we all want other people to hear us out because we gain something from it. In a basic sense, how is this different from sexual exploitation? Maybe it's the "perversion" associated with sex or the intense feelings one gets when they have it, almost turned on by a switch and with the purpose of scratching a biological itch, that makes it wrong, so to speak. There are probably better ways of wording it.

The purpose of people discuss on internet is looking for understanding usually.
But human can't understand each other physically(the "perfect" secure attachment type just good at pretend they can),that's why people often name calling on internet discuss.The freedom of speech of internet (even admin will remove post)intensified this kind of contradiction.

Because internet isn't a good place for matain similarity hallucination.Many people working whole life for similarity hallucination.

Usually the death cycle like that :someone want to be understand>want to use the widespread internet ,because he/she may got more chance by widespread internet (but it's wrong)>post a viewpoint on internet >some people strongly disagree that viewpoint> name calling

Maybe traditional autism people are the group of enlightened,they don't looking for similarity hallucination.

Usually no one give a damn for those people who just want to vent ,because human social interaction is a extreme guarded take advantage system.

>In a basic sense, how is this different from sexual exploitation?

Usually the sexual exploitation is highly related with the good looking appearance.But the internet discussing isn't.

Snowflake_ wrote:
The purpose of people discuss on internet is looking for understanding usually.
But human can't understand each other physically(the "perfect" secure attachment type just good at pretend they can),that's why people often name calling on internet discuss.The freedom of speech of internet (even admin will remove post)intensified this kind of contradiction.

Because internet isn't a good place for matain similarity hallucination.Many people working whole life for similarity hallucination.

Usually the death cycle like that :someone want to be understand>want to use the widespread internet ,because he/she may got more chance by widespread internet (but it's wrong)>post a viewpoint on internet >some people strongly disagree that viewpoint> name calling

Maybe traditional autism people are the group of enlightened,they don't looking for similarity hallucination.

Usually no one give a damn for those people who just want to vent ,because human social interaction is a extreme guarded take advantage system.

>In a basic sense, how is this different from sexual exploitation?

Usually the sexual exploitation is highly related with the good looking appearance.But the internet discussing isn't.

>>similarity hallucination

Haha, I actually know what you mean. On one hand the internet makes it easier to find similar people statistically speaking, but this is more on a belief basis because most of us are anti sexual, but we probably don't have too much in common otherwise. On the other hand, being anonymous tends to bring out people's "true" selves (whether they're lying or not, it's usually the patterns in their posts rather than what they're saying directly) and makes it easier to fight, everyone wants to state their opinion and there is always someone who will disagree. Then you can truly see how different people are, when in real life they act on this similarity hallucination as you call it. Some people keep that up online, too, as a facade or because they like maintaining peace.

About sexual exploitation, yeah, the cheapness and shallowness makes it worse than other common types of "exploitation". That's what I understood from your post anyway. Though I wouldn't say "good looking appearance" as it is damn hideous and most people are below average by my standards, even if that's seemingly mathematically incorrect.

error wrote:

>>similarity hallucination

Haha, I actually know what you mean. On one hand the internet makes it easier to find similar people statistically speaking, but this is more on a belief basis because most of us are anti sexual, but we probably don't have too much in common otherwise. On the other hand, being anonymous tends to bring out people's "true" selves (whether they're lying or not, it's usually the patterns in their posts rather than what they're saying directly) and makes it easier to fight, everyone wants to state their opinion and there is always someone who will disagree. Then you can truly see how different people are, when in real life they act on this similarity hallucination as you call it. Some people keep that up online, too, as a facade or because they like maintaining peace.

About sexual exploitation, yeah, the cheapness and shallowness makes it worse than other common types of "exploitation". That's what I understood from your post anyway. Though I wouldn't say "good looking appearance" as it is damn hideous and most people are below average by my standards, even if that's seemingly mathematically incorrect.

Even you found a place with a lot of real asexual people ,it doesn't mean the reason of they being asexual are same.My observation is even you lucky enough to found a group of people agree with you ,the reasons of they agree with you are very different.

Human just can't understand human.

But difference isn't the major reason of most of name calling.Usually you would found a group of
specific people did most of internet name calling behavior(MBTI:FJ ,insecure attachment).My observation is they are the result of bad parenting(I am talking about the person rant to people first ,not including those fight back cases).They are unbearable for differences.This kind of people can't reproduction well ,because human
courtship is looking for difference partner(gene/personality).The "education" system is creating whole intolerance population by intolerance teachers though.Their reproductive capacity is droping.

Compare internet society and aboriginal uncivilized tribe society.Seem the people happiness of aboriginal "uncivilized" tribe society is higher than internet society.I think one of reason is the human brain just can't handle too much difference on internet(thus name calling),but they can handle it better in aboriginal "uncivilized" tribe society.Just like you send some animals from wild to a captive environment,it's very easy to see 2 different results,they dead or they can't reproduction.

I often talking about $$ and outward appearance is the main point of romantic relationship.

But of course not just $$ and outward appearance ,I mention it just because these reasons are simple and clear,most people have no problem to read it.

The personality part is more complicated ,but important.

The normal human reproduction process is have relationship >marriage>have children.

Some people don't follow this way ,the chance of them get a healthy relationship is quite low ,just ignore them in a while.

No one want to have relationship with a very ugly person,thus they won't start the first step (have relationship),poverty people may pertend they are rich for a chance of  relationship ,but they can't pertend that in long term.

Anyway,when people started a relationship ,they became silly ,irrational ,emotional and childish,they like call their partner baby ,sweetheart (Even in my native language ...I think it's worldwide)...

(When I was a child ,I was confused about if people being silly in relationship ,they will have more difficult to survive ,why they do that?)

Because relationship is a testing process for verify "Can this person treat a stupid baby well?"

If the person mess up in this process(break up) ,he/she can't get marry and having child.Some people try is bypass this process (because they know they must mess up),but want to reproduction.(rapist /gay people who want children/arranged marriages)Trust me ,the result won't be nice .

Secure attachment people always be the winners of this game because they learn how the treat stupid babies well from their parents.

Except zombie virus outbreak.LOL


(Secure attachment people not good at killing)

Note to Admin: I do not mind that this is getting off topic. Let me know if you have a problem with it so me and Snowflake could start a different thread or PM each other.

Anyone else who wants to contribute to the original topic, feel free to do so.

Snowflake_ wrote:Even you found a place with a lot of real asexual people ,it doesn't mean the reason of they being asexual are same.My observation is even you lucky enough to found a group of people agree with you ,the reasons of they agree with you are very different.

Human just can't understand human.

But difference isn't the major reason of most of name calling.Usually you would found a group of
specific people did most of internet name calling behavior(MBTI:FJ ,insecure attachment).My observation is they are the result of bad parenting(I am talking about the person rant to people first ,not including those fight back cases).They are unbearable for differences.This kind of people can't reproduction well ,because human
courtship is looking for difference partner(gene/personality).The "education" system is creating whole intolerance population by intolerance teachers though.Their reproductive capacity is droping.

Compare internet society and aboriginal uncivilized tribe society.Seem the people happiness of aboriginal "uncivilized" tribe society is higher than internet society.I think one of reason is the human brain just can't handle too much difference on internet(thus name calling),but they can handle it better in aboriginal "uncivilized" tribe society.Just like you send some animals from wild to a captive environment,it's very easy to see 2 different results,they dead or they can't reproduction.

Yes, people arrive to the same conclusions through different means. Do you think this matters? I suppose in some instances it becomes way too obvious that you’re not compatible with the person because their reasons and motivations are so different, even if they may be asexual or anti sexual (or both?), that you don’t relate on a fundamental level. In other instances it probably isn’t that important anyway because everyone has different experiences that lead them in the same direction, and the timing is different as well.

Oh, if you’re talking about the MBTI then many of those traits are more nature than nurture, although parenting can be responsible for differences within types. Like introversion and extraversion, those usually don’t change throughout someone’s lifetime and they do contribute to a person’s overall values and tendencies. There can also be healthy and unhealthy people of the same type. But generally, FJs get offended more easily and SJs tend to dislike atypical or nontraditional behavior. Name calling depends on many things, like how blunt you are, it may or may not mean you have insecure attachment.

About the uncivilized society and animals in the wild, is that analogous to our society? And are you comparing captive animals to the internet? I don’t think that’s correct (unless you mean it the other way around in which case I agree), because animals in the wild are ‘free’ to do what they want and this isn’t the case for modern society at all. I think lots of people use the internet to vent their anger and insecurities from living in a very limited system (the “real world” as they say) that, for example, seemingly promotes individualism but shuns anything that strays from the norm. The internet then becomes the ‘wild’ for these people.

Snowflake_ wrote:I often talking about $$ and outward appearance is the main point of romantic relationship.

But of course not just $$ and outward appearance ,I mention it just because these reasons are simple and clear,most people have no problem to read it.

The personality part is more complicated ,but important.

The normal human reproduction process is have relationship >marriage>have children.

Some people don't follow this way ,the chance of them get a healthy relationship is quite low ,just ignore them in a while.

No one want to have relationship with a very ugly person,thus they won't start the first step (have relationship),poverty people may pertend they are rich for a chance of  relationship ,but they can't pertend that in long term.

Anyway,when people started a relationship ,they became silly ,irrational ,emotional and childish,they like call their partner baby ,sweetheart (Even in my native language ...I think it's worldwide)...

(When I was a child ,I was confused about if people being silly in relationship ,they will have more difficult to survive ,why they do that?)

Because relationship is a testing process for verify "Can this person treat a stupid baby well?"

If the person mess up in this process(break up) ,he/she can't get marry and having child.Some people try is bypass this process (because they know they must mess up),but want to reproduction.(rapist /gay people who want children/arranged marriages)Trust me ,the result won't be nice .

Secure attachment people always be the winners of this game because they learn how the treat stupid babies well from their parents.

Except zombie virus outbreak.LOL


(Secure attachment people not good at killing)

Oftentimes people with very similar socioeconomic statuses end up together anyways. I think that applies to appearance, too, where less attractive people settle for other less attractive people. Reasons vary. But I don’t know if the reasons behind relationships are offspring. Yes, this ‘desire’ is prevalent, but I don’t think people consciously make those decisions, you might be giving them too much credit. I think people simply go with the flow and what appears to be a normal lifestyle (i.e. what everyone else does, it’s “safe”). That could also be the reason why so many relationships fail, because people are not very self-aware and they don’t see deal breakers until it is way past break-up time.

So this irrational/silly/emotional/childish behavior you speak of, has to do with the honeymoon phase and keeping up this perfect image of themselves and the other person. I never thought of it as a testing process.

That's okay if it has gotten off-topic to some extent. Here, I made a thread asking about how to handle off-topic posts. There still isn't a formal policy and I don't see a need for one, but I think it depends on both the thread starter's tolerance for off-topic posts, and for how long the off-topic discussion continues. If you're fine with it, you could continue it here, or you could start a new thread.

I've just been kind of busy, so I've been catching up with this thread.

>Oftentimes people with very similar socioeconomic statuses end up together anyways. I think that applies to appearance, too, where less attractive people settle for other less attractive people.

Such a extremely guarded exploitative system lead to european royalty inbreeding r******d members.LOL

>Yes, this ‘desire’ is prevalent, but I don’t think people consciously make those decisions, you might be giving them too much credit.

They don't need to do it consciously ,in fact,the consciousness reduce execution speed,just like you don't need to consciously dodge the heat when you burn yourself in kitchen,you do it unconsciously.Reproduction and survival are too improtant for a animal ,that's why consciousness can't effect it.

>I think people simply go with the flow and what appears to be a normal lifestyle (i.e. what everyone else does, it’s “safe”).

I don't agree that for relationship situation.Relationship shows people who truly they are.

>That could also be the reason why so many relationships fail, because people are not very self-aware and they don’t see deal breakers until it is way past break-up time.

No.If someone keeping to break up,that person messed up unconsciously long time ago already,not because that person just "follow the crowd".

Human hypocritical nature is the biggest barrier of psychology being real
science.

(I have to visit dentist now since my wisdom tooth )

It is usually common for people of similar appearances and socioeconomic status to end up together. Aside from circumstances like arranged marriages among aristocrats and royals, it's hard to tell when it is intentional, or a result of happening to be surrounded by people who are similar. There are some exceptions, though I don't know how common they are, like when someone is in love and wants to be with the other person despite their difference in appearance or socioeconomic status.

Snowflake_ wrote:(I have to visit dentist now since my wisdom tooth )

I hope that removal goes well and you won't be in too much pain from it!

>It is usually common for people of similar appearances and socioeconomic status to end up together.

Because no one want to marry with someone who more ugly and poorer themselves usually.It's a extremely stern interest exchange system.

But royal family have to marry with common people to prevent inbreeding.


>it's hard to tell when it is intentional, or a result of happening to be surrounded by people who are similar.

It's because it's intentional AND the result of happening to be surrounded by people who are similar.

>There are some exceptions, though I don't know how common they are

Follow their heart ,prevent inbreeding.

>like when someone is in love and wants to be with the other person despite their difference in appearance or socioeconomic status.

Like a very rich ugly guy marry with a middle class model?

>I hope that removal goes well and you won't be in too much pain from it!

Will remove it next week...I feel tired today.

>Yes, people arrive to the same conclusions through different means. Do you think this matters?

It's important to know that ,avoid similarity hallucination.


>
Oh, if you’re talking about the MBTI then many of those traits are more nature than nurture, although parenting can be responsible for differences within types. Like introversion and extraversion, those usually don’t change throughout someone’s lifetime and they do contribute to a person’s overall values and tendencies. There can also be healthy and unhealthy people of the same type. But generally, FJs get offended more easily and SJs tend to dislike atypical or nontraditional behavior. Name calling depends on many things, like how blunt you are, it may or may not mean you have insecure attachment.

I just read many posts of those name calling "major players",and then found most of them are 1 of that 3 types.(FJ/insecure attachment/form bad parenting family)

> because animals in the wild are ‘free’ to do what they want and this isn’t the case for modern society at all.

No ,you are "free" to kill people ,but you have to take to risk of under arrest.

>I think lots of people use the internet to vent their anger and insecurities from living in a very limited system (the “real world” as they say) that

They sucks.

>for example, seemingly promotes individualism but shuns anything that strays from the norm.

They sucks.That's why internet isn't a real place for freedom of speech,but more advanced dictatorship.Human hate real freedom of speech.

>The internet then becomes the ‘wild’ for these people.

It's fun to hack them.

Admin wrote:That's okay if it has gotten off-topic to some extent. Here, I made a thread asking about how to handle off-topic posts. There still isn't a formal policy and I don't see a need for one, but I think it depends on both the thread starter's tolerance for off-topic posts, and for how long the off-topic discussion continues. If you're fine with it, you could continue it here, or you could start a new thread.

I've just been kind of busy, so I've been catching up with this thread.

I will just continue it here. Usually topics are connected anyway so there would be a million new threads spanning from 1 if there was a policy.

Snowflake_ wrote:They don't need to do it consciously ,in fact,the consciousness reduce execution speed,just like you don't need to consciously dodge the heat when you burn yourself in kitchen,you do it unconsciously.Reproduction and survival are too improtant for a animal ,that's why consciousness can't effect it.

Right. But reproduction is only 'too important' in a biological sense, not much else. The fact that we can think for ourselves, which is supposed to be what separates us from the average animal, doesn't say much though, since people are not using their brain to a big enough extent.

Snowflake_ wrote:I don't agree that for relationship situation.Relationship shows people who truly they are.

That's not really a separate matter. By go-with-the-flow I just mean they don't question, so they're all similar in that way.

Snowflake_ wrote:No.If someone keeping to break up,that person messed up unconsciously long time ago already,not because that person just "follow the crowd".

Human hypocritical nature is the biggest barrier of psychology being real
science.

Again though, "follow the crowd" is just a term that describes the collective unconscious.
Hypocrisy wouldn't be so much of a problem if people could self-reflect properly.

Snowflake_ wrote:It's important to know that ,avoid similarity hallucination.

Good point.

Snowflake_ wrote:No ,you are "free" to kill people ,but you have to take to risk of under arrest.

Well yes, so technically you're not as free as animals in the wild. They can't think about consequences and they don't have morals.

Snowflake_ wrote:They sucks.That's why internet isn't a real place for freedom of speech,but more advanced dictatorship.Human hate real freedom of speech.

I see what you mean. It's because people can't handle differences, they perceive them as threats to their own beliefs and way of living. The internet is a place for freedom of speech (not 100%), it's just that the speech often comes from anger and hatred - as a reflection of the real world and human condition - so it takes the form of a more advanced dictatorship, as you put it.

>Right. But reproduction is only 'too important' in a biological sense, not much else. The fact that we can think for ourselves, which is supposed to be what separates us from the average animal, doesn't say much though, since people are not using their brain to a big enough extent.

Usually they being stupid and silly in relationship unconsciously ,and then blaming themselves should not be such stupid and silly consciously.They don't want to be such stupid in relationship consciously,but they can't stop themselves to do that.

Free will is illusion.

error wrote:

Admin wrote:That's okay if it has gotten off-topic to some extent. Here, I made a thread asking about how to handle off-topic posts. There still isn't a formal policy and I don't see a need for one, but I think it depends on both the thread starter's tolerance for off-topic posts, and for how long the off-topic discussion continues. If you're fine with it, you could continue it here, or you could start a new thread.

I've just been kind of busy, so I've been catching up with this thread.

I will just continue it here. Usually topics are connected anyway so there would be a million new threads spanning from 1 if there was a policy.

Makes sense, and I think it looks better if there are fewer threads overall, but with more posts in each, than to have a bunch of threads with few or no replies. There were times I made new threads to continue a topic that originated in another thread, because it was very different from what the other thread was originally about.  

Snowflake_ wrote:They don't need to do it consciously ,in fact,the consciousness reduce execution speed,just like you don't need to consciously dodge the heat when you burn yourself in kitchen,you do it unconsciously.Reproduction and survival are too improtant for a animal ,that's why consciousness can't effect it.

Right. But reproduction is only 'too important' in a biological sense, not much else. The fact that we can think for ourselves, which is supposed to be what separates us from the average animal, doesn't say much though, since people are not using their brain to a big enough extent.

True. So many people take the path of least resistance, because they just thought it's what everyone did. Some people even said that's the reason why they married, and had children. And to think people are expected to happily live their lives like that, just going through the motions without thinking about them?

What if some people wanted to not take that path, but succumbed to societal pressure though? Some people might know that they don't want sex, or they don't want to marry, or don't want to have children, but there is a lot more pressure to "justify" not have those things, than to have them. That pressure, combined with a lack of social support, can be too much to handle. It's sad to know there are other options, but still getting pressured into not taking them. Those people know things could've been different, instead of the people who've lived their lives unaware there were other options in the first place.

Snowflake_ wrote:They sucks.That's why internet isn't a real place for freedom of speech,but more advanced dictatorship.Human hate real freedom of speech.

I see what you mean. It's because people can't handle differences, they perceive them as threats to their own beliefs and way of living. The internet is a place for freedom of speech (not 100%), it's just that the speech often comes from anger and hatred - as a reflection of the real world and human condition - so it takes the form of a more advanced dictatorship, as you put it.

Maybe that is why some people feel threatened knowing that there are people who choose not to have sex, or choose not to marry and not have children, because they themselves didn't see any choice in the matter when it came to those things, and didn't become aware those are choices they could've made until it was too late. I could see how they feel threatened by that, but it isn't justified. On the other hand, we're having to defend our choices to never have sex, and risk having to deal with people trying to change us, so feeling threatened by that would be real and justifiable. Some of us haven't told anyone in-person, but some people can just tell without you saying anything.

Snowflake_ wrote:>Right. But reproduction is only 'too important' in a biological sense, not much else. The fact that we can think for ourselves, which is supposed to be what separates us from the average animal, doesn't say much though, since people are not using their brain to a big enough extent.

Usually they being stupid and silly in relationship unconsciously ,and then blaming themselves should not be such stupid and silly consciously.They don't want to be such stupid in relationship consciously,but they can't stop themselves to do that.

Free will is illusion.

Do you mean there is something inherent to committed relationships that makes people a lot less rational, like being obsessed with, and over-idealizing each other, and showing displays of affection towards each other in public that they'd be too embarrassed to do with anyone else? You might know the type; some people just can't keep their hands off each other in public.

There is the infatuation, or limerance phase, which as brain scans have shown, appear as a dopamine rush brought out by the relationship.

>Do you mean there is something inherent to committed relationships that makes people a lot less rational, like being obsessed with, and over-idealizing each other, and showing displays of affection towards each other in public that they'd be too embarrassed to do with anyone else?

No ,this is not what I wanted to say.

But you are right,that kind of behavior is inherent.

What I wanted to say is they are being obsessing and over-idealizing each other unconsciously,when they have more consciousness ,they usually think that's stupid.

>True. So many people take the path of least resistance, because they just thought it's what everyone did. Some people even said that's the reason why they married, and had children. And to think people are expected to happily live their lives like that, just going through the motions without thinking about them?

Se,Si.

>I see what you mean. It's because people can't handle differences, they perceive them as threats to their own beliefs and way of living. The internet is a place for freedom of speech (not 100%), it's just that the speech often comes from anger and hatred - as a reflection of the real world and human condition - so it takes the form of a more advanced dictatorship, as you put it.

You know ,I started to avoid human (even on internet),they sucks.

>Again though, "follow the crowd" is just a term that describes the collective unconscious.

I hate the "collective unconscious" word ,I would like to say it's insecure attachment pandemic.

>I see what you mean. It's because people can't handle differences, they perceive them as threats to their own beliefs and way of living. The internet is a place for freedom of speech (not 100%), it's just that the speech often comes from anger and hatred - as a reflection of the real world and human condition - so it takes the form of a more advanced dictatorship, as you put it.

In a "uncivilized" tribe society ,people can't being too mean to everyone ,because they have to cooperate for survival.They monitoring the "morality" of each others.

You feel "free"on internet just because there's no this kind of monitoring.Thus people name calling terriblely.

It's a extreme strict take advantage from each others system .