Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,740 - 5,751 of 6,170
Posts 5,740 - 5,751 of 6,170
This one looks like something for Prob http://store.xkcd.com/ scroll to the regex chat skirt (someday I will sit and fix all my bots and play with regex too, or yes. Oh look, something shiny!)
Excellent! That rather inspires me - I think I'll have to print myself an upside-down AIScript reference and Book of AI<0> crib sheet.
Now where did I put those T-shirt transfers...
Now where did I put those T-shirt transfers...
I always thought of seduction as candlelight and steamy looks. I can't equate it with force or coercion. It's as different as chess and war.
Irina, I see "seduction" as being fine if there is a level playing field and everyone is honest. I think it is negative only if the other person is in an particularly vulnerable position or there is an imbalance of power. I also think it shows extreme selfishness to seduce someone who is in an exclusive relationship already, even if that person should be the one living up to the promises he or she made. There is no need to play on someone's weakness just to feel better about yourself. Obviously, I also think deception or withholding information to create a false impression long enough to get what you want is wrong. Seduction is OK, manipulating others is not.
I don't hold with the sentiment "all is fair in love and war". I think fraud is fraud, whether you con someone out of their money or if you con someone into doing something they would not do if they knew the whole truth. "Zeus laughs when lovers are forsworn", but Zeus was a rapist bastard of a "god" who cheated on his wife all the time (whether the other women was into him or not). I don't think it is OK to lie and pressure others unduly just because sex was involved.
I can respect the "ethical slut" ideas, though it's not my thing. I think reasonable, healthy adults should be free to make informed decisions, but that it is right to think about the emotional consequences to all affected (even for those affected indirectly, like someone's kids or family). Personally, I have developed a strong "code" or sense of boundaries as to who I think is "off limits". This is not a moral thing per se, and not a way of throwing stones (I have had plenty of bad judgment calls in the past). I have developed guidelines for myself I feel protect myself and others' emotional well being. Just because I may really be attracted to someone is no reason to ignore my boundaries (or lie to make it seem as if you have no "deal breakers"). Others may have their own guidelines, and that's cool, but it's not cool to disrespect others' limits.
As for the "secretly wanting it" or "your lips say no but your eyes say yes" thing, well to a point, sometimes that's a game people play. However, I think it's better to honor the "no means no" stance and let the emotionally immature learn to say what they really want rather than to have people try to second guess what the other person secretly wants. It makes more sense to go by the clear message expressed and to encourage people to communicate honestly about their feelings than to cater to stereotypes that could damage those who really know what they want and do not want and say so.
I don't hold with the sentiment "all is fair in love and war". I think fraud is fraud, whether you con someone out of their money or if you con someone into doing something they would not do if they knew the whole truth. "Zeus laughs when lovers are forsworn", but Zeus was a rapist bastard of a "god" who cheated on his wife all the time (whether the other women was into him or not). I don't think it is OK to lie and pressure others unduly just because sex was involved.
I can respect the "ethical slut" ideas, though it's not my thing. I think reasonable, healthy adults should be free to make informed decisions, but that it is right to think about the emotional consequences to all affected (even for those affected indirectly, like someone's kids or family). Personally, I have developed a strong "code" or sense of boundaries as to who I think is "off limits". This is not a moral thing per se, and not a way of throwing stones (I have had plenty of bad judgment calls in the past). I have developed guidelines for myself I feel protect myself and others' emotional well being. Just because I may really be attracted to someone is no reason to ignore my boundaries (or lie to make it seem as if you have no "deal breakers"). Others may have their own guidelines, and that's cool, but it's not cool to disrespect others' limits.
As for the "secretly wanting it" or "your lips say no but your eyes say yes" thing, well to a point, sometimes that's a game people play. However, I think it's better to honor the "no means no" stance and let the emotionally immature learn to say what they really want rather than to have people try to second guess what the other person secretly wants. It makes more sense to go by the clear message expressed and to encourage people to communicate honestly about their feelings than to cater to stereotypes that could damage those who really know what they want and do not want and say so.
Bev writes:
I think it's better to honor the "no means no" stance and let the emotionally immature learn to say what they really want rather than to have people try to second guess what the other person secretly wants.
I don't want to shock you or anything, but I agree completely!
I don't want to shock you or anything, but I agree completely!
I disagree with guest 6867 (Message 5744) when s/he says that seduction involves coercion. To my ear, *seduction* involves manipulation, not coercion.
Well, actually, now that I think of it, there might be an area of overlap. There is a kind of coercion which might be called 'emotional bullying.' No overt physical threats are made, but the goal is to frighten the other person into submission. E.g., "Everyone will laugh at you if you don't wear this kind of clothing." To my ear, this sort of thing could equally well be called "manipulation" or "coercion."
Well, actually, now that I think of it, there might be an area of overlap. There is a kind of coercion which might be called 'emotional bullying.' No overt physical threats are made, but the goal is to frighten the other person into submission. E.g., "Everyone will laugh at you if you don't wear this kind of clothing." To my ear, this sort of thing could equally well be called "manipulation" or "coercion."
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar