Hello, my name is Dusty Smith.
I want to fuck your daughter, and I’m not ashamed to admit it. I want to play with her perky breasts. I want to slap her apple bottom. And while I’m at it, I would also like to fuck your wife, if she is still fit enough to be attractive. In fact, fucking your wife and daughter at the same time would be ideal for me. Kill two birds with one bone, so to speak.
What’s odd is, almost every straight man in the entire world feels this way, and yet few are willing to admit it. The whole point of attractiveness is “fucking”, and when you see someone you are attracted to, that means you want to fuck them. Obviously, you can hold back the urge to fuck everyone you are attracted to if you want. You can weigh the pros and cons and decide against it, which is why I don’t fuck your wives and daughters (especially the ones under 18). “The Risk” versus “The Reward” in our current society is not worth it; but if the risks were lowered, and the opportunity presented itself, I’d fuck your attractive wives and daughter in a heart beat.
There’s a very good reason I am not ashamed to publicly admit this, and that is because my urges are not abnormal or unnatural. They are completely natural, in fact. These urges have been a driving force of evolution in animals for millions of years. The urge for men to spread our DNA on to as many “fit” females as we can is hardwired into almost every single straight man on this planet. Just as finding the highest quality of male they can to mate with is hardwired into almost every straight female on Earth.
These things seem so obvious that it amazes me that I even have to explain this to anyone. It is only in a society as insane about sex as ours that we feel the need to lie to ourselves (and to each other) about this very basic and obvious fact.
Isn’t it time we grow up and just admit to ourselves that nature can not be sinful? After all, what kind of fucked up God would make nature sinful? It doesn’t even make any sense. Nature is so beautiful. And sex is one of the many
- Wanting to fuck girls of “breeding age” is natural.
beautiful things that are a part of nature. By denying the reality of our natural urges and turning these natural urges into something to be ashamed about, we are in essence spitting in the face of the laws of nature. We are admitting that our minds are so fragile that we can not admit to ourselves the truth about reality. We can not accept the truth that this is the way the natural laws of this universe propagate many species, including our own.
Instead we tell each other that when we cheat it is because we are “sinful” or “disloyal”. We are told that lusting after another person is a flaw in our own character. We are taught things that are very clearly natural are, in fact, unnatural.
Well I call bullshit on you, society. I call bullshit on this obvious fucking lie you keep spreading. My urges are not something to be ashamed of. My urges are not unnatural. I am not ashamed of them. I am not afriad to admit it to the world. Hello, my name is Dusty Smith, and I want to fuck your daughter!
You are god and I love you! LOL!
You don’t shy away from the controversy; I like it!
I agree with you on them being natural urges. I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a second… but suppose you could have any woman, any time you wanted. Is it possible that you would grow tired of it? Well… let me rephrase that. There are enough women where I feel that I wouldn’t grow tired of it, but do you think the act of sex would be diminished in some fashion?
I love pizza, but only ever now and then. If I had it all the time whenever and wherever I wanted, for every meal… maybe pizza wouldn’t be as good anymore.
Sometimes I think the pleasures in life are heightened when we receive them after having been denied them.
I agree. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Variety is the spice of life. And any other “cliche” you want to throw in here =)
That’s the fun thing about ignorance. Everything is new.
You know what else is natural? Cracking some fools head open when you find him fucking your daughter or your wife.
That would fall under the banner of “The Risks” as mentioned in my article above. It’s almost like you don’t even read them before you comment.
Maybe Zeus was being humorous about “Cracking some fools head open…”, not serious. Natural urges to kill, we don’t even want to shift focus on that subject. Let’s just stick to fucking
One of the more memorable moments of my life is when my big brother, Dusty, sat me down and told me, “No one buys the cow when they can get the milk for free”. I’d fallen back on this theory many times in my young adulthood and greatly credit my lack of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy scares to this particular life lesson. I joke about it, but, in all seriousness, I took this advise very seriously and applied it to my life.
Your current theory is coming from the perspective of a caveman that has to spread his seed in order to perpetuate the species. We live now in a time which is more logic minded, as you well know, and plentiful in numbers. If fact, the Earth is nearly at a tipping point population wise. This allows us to concentrate on attributes other than the propagation of our species.
Because we no longer have to populate the earth, we are able to appreciate each sex for what it adds to the other sex’s quality of life. This is not to say that man does not desire to spread his seed or have his name live on, but, as with some of nature’s evolutions, it not longer becomes necessity. This allows us not to see women or men on a base level, but as as partners who strengths and weaknesses compliment each other. I am saddened to see my big brother reduce women to a place in which to stick one’s penis.
If we are to consider all subjects logically, then this subject should be the same. We no longer need more people, so sex is not a top priority evolutionarily. It has become a leisure activity. I have no problem with ones desires, but I personally prefer those with a bit of class. I don’t think this particular blog shows that much class, but that’s just one woman’s/ little sister’s opinion.
Yes. Well I suspect the poor advice you got from me has not benefited your life very much. I suspect my poor advice has caused you many lonely nights when it need not have been so. I also fear you might have missed the point of my article. Which was that the urges men feel are not unnatural even though we are told they are. They are hardwired in each one of us. And, as i said, you can weigh the pros and cons about your urges and choose to act on them or not.
I am sorry to hear you are saddened by my opinions. But oh well. It would be intellectually dishonest of me to pretend the evidence does not suggests what the evidence clearly suggests. I did not create the laws of the universe. I am just a helpless pawn to them as we all are. And if you wish to pretend things are not as they are then fine. If you wish to ignore the fact that we are animals and are triggered by chemicals to sexually react to outside stimuli, just as all animals do, that is your choice. It is very obvious we are a polygamous animal. The stats on cheating alone should be enough to dispel the fairy tale that we are not. Like most of our common ancestors, our hard wiring leads us to be a polygamous species. If you wish to tell yourself this isn’t so, despite the evidence, then fine.
As for me, I am swayed more by the evidence then how I wish things were. Be disappointed all you like.
No I read it. I just don’t think the bounty is worth the risk.
Which is exactly what I said.
Brandine,
Some people are so “unevolved” they can’t see passed their own most basic insincts. Especially the carnal ones.
“Man is evil”-all the wisest men have told me to comfort me. Oh if only this were true today! For evil is man’s strength. “Man must grow better and more evil”-this is what I teach. The greatest evil is necessary for the superman’s greatest achievement.
-Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, book four, “Of The Higher Man”
Well, until you can prove that good and evil exist, I put this bullshit in the same category as religion.
Brickhouse,
Sex is way overated anyway….Theres no greater thrill than beating someones ass till they are begging you for mercy and then you deny them it.
LOL….Im joking of course
You really should read this: https://www.msu.edu/user/bradle45/nietzsche.htm
It might help you realign your value system from a Godless perspective
Also it wouldnt hurt for you to familiarize yourself with the Social Contract
“Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states and/or maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order.
Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, an individual’s actions are bound only by his or her personal power, constrained by conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom one has in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.”
Read More
http://books.google.com/books?id=soH6h3x3-wAC&dq=social+contract&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=5VwQSsz0MYvMM9qU3VI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA7,M1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
Dude, do you really need to spam my blog with a thousand posts? Save it all up for one big one.
I understand the social contract. I do not agree with America’s social contract any more then I agree with Iran’s, Iraq’s India’s, etc. I believe all these social contracts are based on obvious, observable lies, and I choose to point these lies out instead of partaking in the fairy tales that most people seem willing to be apart of. I understand my opinion is unpopular. They killed the men who dared suggest the earth was round. Truth is not a popularity contest.
I hope to god your natural “state” doesn’t ever cause you to father a daughter and you still have the same opinion you have now.
That made no sense. Are you trying to say I would commit incest because of my opinion? Or are you simply saying that my opinion would be different if I had a daughter? Be more clear.
These comments are not nesting properly. Damn my lacking wordpress skills! some of what I said was direct replies to comments, but since they didn’t nest. fuck it.
I wanted to thank you for giving me permission to be disappointed in you. I already was so I don’t actually need it, but it’s nice to know I have it. I happened to think your advice from my adolescence was spot on. There are many people with a warm body in bed with them at night who feel far lonelier and more isolated than I’ve ever felt on my very worst day.
I noticed you didn’t comment on the fact that sex for procreation is evolutionarily no longer relevant. In fact, the spreading of man’s seed is now a detriment to its host, Earth. In nature when resources become scarce, animals adjust their behavior accordingly. Grizzly bears will eat baby cubs if there isn’t enough food for the entire sleuth. Man invented contraceptives and surgery to prevent seed planting.
Homosexuals are attracted to each other, but not for the purpose of procreation. Am I to draw the conclusion that their urges are unnatural?
Also, I don’t ever remember arguing that humans are monogamous. I think there are probably humans who are genetically predisposed to monogamy as well as those predisposed to polygamy. We see clear forms of monogamy in nature. Adelie penguins usually keep the same mate all their life, unless the mate dies. Where as, Emperor penguins are monogamous… for a year, meaning they usually change mate every year. Over ninety percent of bird species pair up exclusively. There are considerably less monogamous mammals, but one example is the grey wolf.
At any rate, I doubt any of this will mean much to you so I give you permission to disregard everything I said
I didn’t comment on your comment that sex is no longer needed for evolution for two reasons.
First, it is totally wrong. The fact that we are still replicating and increasing in numbers, every year, proves that we have not yet reached unsustainablity on this planet. Once we have reached unsustainability, other factors will thin the herd that will have absolutely nothing to do with humans hard wired need to replicate ourselves.
And number two, even if we had reached the point where sex was no longer “needed” by evolution (whatever that means) that would not change the fact that men are still hardwired this way. We do respond to pheromones. Our minds do release chemicals when we are attracted to the opposite sex. These things ARE happening. They have been proven. This is science.
Homosexuals are attracted to each other by the same chemicals that were used by evolution for procreation. Just because we are able to separate the pleasure sex brings, from the evolutionary impulse to have children, does not mean that they did not evolve together. The pleasure of sex is absolutely an evolutionary mechanism in order to propagate species. I can’t believe I’d even have to have an educated argument about this point.
So homosexuality is completely natural in that they are only following what the natural chemicals in their bodies are leading them to do. But if you want to say its unnatural because the pleasure of sex evolved in tandem with the need for reproduction, and that by separating the two it is somehow unnatural, I guess that’s your right. I wouldn’t say that. I think that you can separate those parts of nature and enjoy one while leaving out the other. That is a right granted to us by the evolution of our higher mind through the use of reason and logic.
” I believe all these social contracts are based on obvious, observable lies, and I choose to point these lies out instead of partaking in the fairy tales that most people seem willing to be apart of.”
That statement clearly indicates that you have no understanding of the social contract.
The social contract garauntees that we will all agree to give up certain “natural” freedoms or “inclinations” for the sake of order. Soo that we can all benifit and prosper from the foundation of order over chaos.
So’s your face.
It seems rather pointless to say more. Eventually, I will just get the inevitable, “I don’t know how I can take you seriously” line. So be it. Remember kids, wrap that rascal. Brandine out.
It’s just your whole premise seems to hinge on believing that our evolution gives a shit about this planet. I don’t know why you think this. Just like cancer cells are only concerned with self replication and have no concern about killing the host, we too are only interested in the replication of ourselves. It has nothing to do with the host.
Now it is possible that we could evolve as as species in time to reverse this path and actually alter our genes to stop us from replicating the planet to death. But for this to happen, there would have to be someone brave enough to bring these concepts to the public in ways they can understand. =)
I know you have no idea what I’m doing here, but at least hold open the possibility that I do.
Zeus, so you’re saying the social contract says you can never speak out against the social contract? This is like saying the bible it true because it says it is true. I do not agree it’s true. I think it’s based on lies. I feel the same way about many of the points of the social contract. Some of it I agree with, some of it I don’t.
I just don’t see why you can’t speak out against it. Doesn’t free speech, which is also a part of the social contract, give me the right to speak out against the parts of the social contract I believe have baseless foundations?
Dusty ,
Its philosophical theory , it does not present itself as absolute truth , so you cannot accuse of telling lies or fairtails. All you can do is say you are at discorse with it’s prose. But to say it’s full of lies implies that the philisophical concept in of it’self is un truthfull . Which is not the case and leads one to believe that you don’t have any understanding of it.
I like how you back paddled and decided to come back and include the homosexual being natural argument and still have it compare to the nature of man to procreate. smooth moove. Way to cover your trax.
“Now it is possible that we could evolve as as species in time to reverse this path and actually alter our genes to stop us from replicating the planet to death”
I don’t think so. We already have people on this earth tha make a conscience choice not to over populate the planet…People like me and my wife , Middle class professionals who choose to achieve a certain amount of financial stability before having children. And finally when deciding to have children. ONly having one. We are the progressive types that are more likely to “evolve” as you say than the masses of minorities who are soon to be the majority. And the ignornant white trash folks who all procreate like rabbits, either because they cannot afford condoms or they just don’t have the will power or the discipline to pull it before it gets there.
I certainly don’t see us evolving into this perfect being when the most perfect of us are not the ones procreating.
Ever see the movie “idiocracy” tha’ts where human development is going . I don’t think we are evolving. I think we are devolving.
Which brings me to the point that those that can be reasoned with will find reason on their own. Those that can evolve will . Those that can know the truth will find it .
” I climbed the great mountain and looked down at the great city below, A tear came to my eye as I realized that so few are worthy and so many are not” – Some dead guy
So philosophical theories cant have baseless foundations? I will freely admit, I have no understanding of what you are talking about. If you are saying that the social contract is perfect and one cant possibly speak out about it, then I would say you re obviously wrong. I’m speaking out about it. I’m not really sure what your point even is here. You certainly are not explaining it very well.
I think its possible we can evolve as a species before we kill our host. Now I have no idea if that will happen. I do know that some of us would at least like to try instead of just resolving ourselves to eradication. Instead of sitting on our ass and just letting it happen, some of us are trying to bring these concepts to the public in ways in which they can understand.
And even if evolution happened exactly like Idiocrarcy, that’s still evolving. Evolution is only about making sure the greatest number replicate and survive. If idiots can adapt to the environment and keep it going well enough to breed more people, that is still evolution.
And I am living proof that you can be talked out of your beliefs. I am proof you can be reasoned out of your dogma. And it wasn’t like the light of logic just found me. It took other brave men to spread these ideas before me, so that I may discover them. So I dont even know what your talking about here. Someone has to put the information out there for others to find it. There are a lot of people doing this, and I am proud to be one of them.
Once again, I dont even understand your point. You act like if it’s meant to be, reason will just come on you in the middle of the night like an angel. It doesn’t work like that.
“If you are saying that the social contract is perfect and one cant possibly speak out about it, then I would say you re obviously wrong. ”
Certainly you can disagree with philosophical ideals. But to just chalk it off to being “full of lies” like the bible is not doing that.
And I also find it oddly humerous how you equate giving in to your most primal instincts as “evolving” . Thats a hoot.
You have proven to us why you are man. Now what makes you a Super Man?
“Certainly you can disagree with philosophical ideals. But to just chalk it off to being “full of lies” like the bible is not doing that.”
I did not chalk it up to “full of lies” and leave it at that. I am pointing out specific lies. That’s what this article is all about. In fact, that’s what all these articles are about. Whether you agree or disagree with them, to say I am not at least trying to specifically point out things I perceive as lies is totally dishonest.
“And I also find it oddly humerous how you equate giving in to your most primal instincts as “evolving” . Thats a hoot.”
This sentence you just made up whole cloth. I never said anything even remotely like this. Our primal urges are in fact driven by evolutionary factors. Are you saying this is not so? Are you saying that chemicals are not released in our bodies due to pheromones and attraction to the opposite sex? Are you suggesting that these things were not refined and evolved in humans?
The last sentence you put is just nonsensical and does not require a response.
Once again, I’ve gone line by line through your post and commented specifically, point by point. This is generally how someone interested in an actual exchange of information behaves, rather then just ignoring every word the other guy writes.
I don’t know one guy who has worn a condom EVERY time they had sex.
Ha ha.
Somebody was brandishing around the amazing insights of Nietzsche like the Bible…hmmm? Worrying. There is a lot to be said about an introduction to your own beliefs but allow the person to discover further for themselves or explain fully your insight or else they are left bemused and unmoved…it also becomes a doctrine and isn’t that what you guys are trying to avoid.
Dusty is completely and utterly right in his article. Why do you think we get turned on at the mere suggestion of sex…whether you have a partner or not. We are animals driven to procreate! It’s a biological function that all of us, excluding those who’s libido has malfunctioned, have no real choice about.
Coupled with these raw animal instincts is a beautifully complex brain, which in turn (to cut an evolutionary trail short) led us to need societal values and principles. That’s why there is laws against shagging kids and raping…….
Now I know there are academic papers out there which have tried to understand why people do those horrors in our society and I’m not gonna go into them unless asked.
But ask your self the question would you want a 52 year old man shagging your 10 year old daughter? And there are many societies around the world where this is a norm. But even without religion forget religion and it’s idiotic constraints…do you think it’s ‘right’ to shag my daughter because of your biological urge, would she be giving her consent?
Hey ole,
And thanks for your input. If the last question is aimed at me, then I certainly have no interest in fucking a 10 year old kid. I find for me personally, my attraction towards the opposite sex does not begin till it is obvious they are well in to breeding age. The chemicals in my brain do not react unless the females body has developed enough to show signs of fitness for child bearing.
However, the point of my articles was not what I would do. Its simply to point out that these feeling are not unnatural, and in fact, are not within my control. I do not control the chemical reaction taking place in my brain. I can use logic and reason to overcome these chemicals, and do so often.
I also totally understand why society frowns upon such things. And while I believe there are very good reasons for some of these things to be frowned on, societies reasoning seems to not be based on any of these good reasons. Instead it seems to be based on dogma that is thousands of years old.
Seems to me like its just better to admit the truth about things, and then go from there deciding what we as a society consider appropriate or not. Rather than basing these decisions on clear lies.
Again you guys miss the point. Dusty’s article is nothing more than pointing out we are all annimals . True as that may be , we are also the most highly evolved annimal intellectually .
“Our primal urges are in fact driven by evolutionary factors.”
In most cases environmental factors cause evolution to occur. We evolve because we HAVE to . Not because we want to. Our Human evolution has been made possible by our humanity not our primal urges. Our primal urges are usefull of course , but urges should not get in the way of civility. Individuals wheter they are male or female deserve equal respect and compassion regardless if your “urges” dictate otherwise.
My whole argument is not with what makes us simple humans but what makes is more. I think those questions can only be answered when we look higher to a higher man, not a monkey man.
That’s all folks
One more thing.
dusty said ” . I do not control the chemical reaction taking place in my brain ”
Well you can control them if you know how. But your right we cant always control chemicals in our brain. But what we can control is our brain development. Every time you have a thought a your brain grows a pathway. The more you have that thought the more pathways you grow . So the point is. The more you dwell on something , the more power you give it. The more power you give it, the more power it has over you.
So in essence. You really don’t disagree with anything in this article? You admit the urges are natural. You admit they are not controlled by us. You admit, just as I did, we can use logic and reason to overcome these urges?
It just seems to me that you don’t actually disagree with anything I’ve said, you just want to argue.
Specifically, what parts of this article do you disagree with? If its not something directly covered by this article, then you are just making up things to disagree with.
Appolo,
nice to see the family here.
Hey Dusty…
I was just about to say the same thing about Zeus..who quotes Nietzsche but has little understanding of his philosophies….I am merely agreeing with Dusty and highlighting ‘reason’ which doesn’t need nor should have, a Doctrine to support it. Does bring up deeper questions of right or wrong though? Not good and evil…I steer clear of such labels…
And just as an addage there are a lot of girls who are ready to bear children at the age of ten, that’s why I said there are a lot of cultures around the world who’s men take children for their wives!
As for you Zeus you don’t seem to understand your own argument…if indeed you have one! and if you want to play devils advocate do it with some thought process next time?
Hey ole,
I agree that there are some 10 year olds who can bear children. And I would have to admit, if a ten year old looked like the picture of Lily Thai in my article above, I would be sexual attracted to her. I wouldn’t even know her age by looking at her. But if I was told she was 10, my reasoning skills would kick in and I certainly wouldn’t act on my urges.
For the record, I do not think its right to fuck children =). That is not the point of the article at all.
I also totally agree with you about there being a huge difference between “good and evil” and “right and wrong”. I definitely believe in right and wrong, while I totally dismiss the ideas of good and evil for lack of evidence.
Ole,
It’s easier for you to say I don’t understand Nietzche then it is for you to explain your understanding that refute mine. I will admit my wife turned me on to him about 10 years ago. So her understanding is probably far beyond yours or mine for that matter.
And yes I do fully understand my argument cough cough “adhominem” Try to change the subject all you want Ole, YOu have yet to make a case.
Dusty,
Im sorry I just don’t find girls like that attractive.
You really should read the Novel “LOLITA” . See how fucked this poor girls life is after being abused by older men. Talking bout some far out mind fuck. No child should ever be exposed that in a civil society.
“Hello, my name is Dusty Smith, and I want to fuck your daughter!” – dusty smith
What happens if she is an orphan without a Father or a Mother… do you still want to fuck her?
So is there anything in particular you disagree with in this article or not? I’m not really interested in playing 20 questions with you about other bullshit.
Yeah I disagree that you got to let your dick do your thinking for you.
there.
And can you point out in my article where I said “I let my dick do the thinking for me?”
In fact, I say just the opposite.
“The Risk” versus “The Reward” in our current society is not worth it;”
My very words seem to contradict your statement.
So can you just admit you’re just a douche who is here to argue? Even though you actually agree with the points this article makes, you just still want to find something to argue about, so you make up strawmen to argue against.
If you have something legitimate to say about my article then say it. And if you are just here to be a douche, then fuck off.
so your whole point is that man is horny . Ok wow
“The whole point of attractiveness is “fucking”, and when you see someone you are attracted to, that means you want to fuck them”
You make it sound so dirty.
Ok Zeus i completely agree I should always cite…defend…and respond with full argument if I am ever to retort…my aplogies….we shall do that anon …no worries…and it’s ad hominem.
But as we are dicussing this I felt it best to keep on tpoic.
“Zeus says”
so your whole point is that man is horny . Ok wow”
Yes, clearly that’s the whole point of this article. You’ve figured it out. Here is your cookie.
And Zeus I think you are missing the actual point. We are animals and our purpose is to increase the species.
The point is….without reason….why would it be wrong? It’s natural.
And lolita is something that has a lot of depth…and my name sake the play oleanna…is the same. But you may notice that it was a two way discovery. Something that as you would know happens a lot and doesn’t always end in head fucks and disasters.
Take away the dramatic emotion and you are left with two people attracted to each other…right or wrong …it’s biological and can’t be helped.
Oh and I don’t have a wife to help me with my comments…but please if you need her…
my wife has no idea about this board. I was only implying that what I know about Nietzche I was introduced by her.
Well having read your masterpiece “lol” more thouroughly I suppose I do owe you a more valid rejection to your premise. You conclude your article with the statements that you should not be ashamed of your nature, and that your nature is to fuck every living female on the planet that you are attracted to.
I contend that there is a purpose for shame , especially in regards to other peoples wives and under aged daughters.
Shame can be broken down into many types. There is “healthy shame” , which protect relationships between people. “perfectionist shame” that is based on the false self . Shame based on minority status suchas being black or discriminated against. and “toxic shame” that comes from having to create a false public self in order to survive a dysfunctional family.
Shame can be defined as an emotion of self assessment and draws upon an undifferentiated synthesis of psychological and neuropsychological material . Shame has an innate basis in human physiology as an auxiliary affect that is matched by the auxiliary affect of confidence-pride. It provides “discretion” as a custodian of personal worthiness. Not to be confused with “disgrace” that arises from the sense of the whole self being defective , which I think is your point that these “urges” should not cause you disgrace because it is not indicitave of a defect.
However having said that plus my previous post regarding the social contract I find your premise flawed. I also state that you should have shame for wanting to fuck someone elses wife or underaged daughter. I surely don’t assigne guilt to you for your initial urges that are indeed caused by evolutionary factors. However I contend that not showing discretion and dismissing the thought only gives power to it. My previous post about brain development backs up this contention.
So should you be ashamed that you have natural urges? NO
Should you shame yourself into not dwelling on those urges ? YES
Well, your still arguing points not at all covered by the article, but this time you put in a much better effort, so kudos.
I personally find shame to be a useless emotion, but hey if that’s your opinion, you certainly have you right to it.
I personally do not believe you have to shame yourself into not acting on these urges. That’s what you have logic and reason for. As my article states, you can weigh the pros and cons and decide based on those if its worth it to act on your urges. Absolutely no shame is necessary for this process.
But whatever works for you =)
well things get murky “logically” speaking when you start deconstructing neurophysiology and what influences shape your brain. As I have done by explaing “shame” in it’s most logical sense.
“shame
1 a: a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety”
I feel none of these about what is naturally occurring in my body. And I don’t see why I should. I do not feel guilty about the natural chemicals in my brain, and I do not feel it is a shortcoming.
And since shame is not required to control my urges, I just don’t see your point. But its all good. I really think you just want to argue, so it’s sorta worthless to keep going.
Oh and for the record,
Those two bitches you have posted are not even close to being attractive. I am almost repulsed by the lack of curves and femine features. I am hardwired to appreciate women with curves , nice tits and a pretty face. From an “evolutionary” stand point this makes total sense because they appear to more capable of birthing children than some lil boney ass 80 pound ho.
Um.. what two Bitches? That’s Lily Thai and me.
on the other thread not this one
““shame
1 a: a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety”
”
That’s like only the most simplistic defintion you could find. try breaking down it’s entomology
These aren’t threads, they are blog entries. And you might want to post your comments on the correct entries =)
With that said, I never claimed to find either one of the girls on the other entry as attractive. Neither one of them personally does anything for me. However, it doesn’t change the fact that these two girls are incredibly popular on the net. Other guys seem to love them. Which is where my observation for that particular blog entry came from.
That’s the definition of the word dude. If you don’t like it, take it up with Webster.
how concrete of you. !
I want to fuck your secretary and you’re uncles wives sister. I also want to fuck the mail lady coming down the street delivering my mail to me like a good bitch….
I can’t help myself. Im a fuckin animal!
Something that has always bothered me is when some guy says “she’s going to be hot in a few years”. No, dumbass, you think she’s hot NOW and you’re just afraid to admit it.
She IS hot now, be honest with yourself already.
Hey Jesus, and welcome.
Agreed, people just can not be honest with themselves about how they feel because our society has convinced them that merely having those feelings makes them a pedophile. Which, or course, is ridiculous.
By the way, I came across your blog through the video you made on Youtube. I don’t know how active of a user you are there, but the atheist community on Youtube is massive. I guarantee if you keep posting videos of that caliber, you’re going to be a smash hit in no time.
It’s rare that something that high quality shows up there. I’m subscribed to about 130 atheists on Youtube and I can honestly say it’s been a long time since I’ve seen such a well-made video on the subject.
Check out NonStampCollector, EdwardCurrent, and MrDeity if you haven’t already. Those are the only 3 “high quality” channels I know of, and they’re all very popular.
Looking forward to seeing/reading more.
Oops, it’s misterdeity, not mrdeity. You can edit my other post and delete this correction if you want.
Thanks for the kind words. I definitely plan on doing more videos and getting involved in the youtube atheist community. I’m familiar with Edward Currents work. Love his stuff. The others I will checkout. Thanks for the heads up.
“Something that has always bothered me is when some guy says “she’s going to be hot in a few years”. ”
Yeah sorta like the Olsen twins? I remember commentary about how hot they were gonna be and how Great it would be to fuck them when they were around 5 yrs old. People were already fantasizing before they ever turned 10
Go tell it on the mountain,
Over the hills and everywhere,
Go tell it on the mountain,
Our Jesus Christ is a lie.
When I was a seeker
I sought both night and day,
I asked the Lord to help me,
And the flying spaghetti monster showed me the way.
Go tell it on the mountain,
Over the hills and everywhere,
Go tell it on the mountain,
Our Jesus Christ NEVER EXISTED.
He made me a watchman
Upon a city wall,
And if I am not a Christian,
I am the Most of all.
Go tell it on the mountain,
Over the hills and everywhere,
Go tell it on the mountain,
Our Jesus Christ Is a LIE.
heyy i found your site on accident. although i guess that depends on how you look at it. my first two sentences are all you’ll read though because the next words i tell you are gonna make you drown out everything else i say. i happen to love God, Jesus saved my life. Christians are not anywhere near perfect and i’m ashamed to admit that many churches have grown corrupt. but still, real christians do exist and we’re not the strict evil bunch the world has made us out to be. i have a question for you. just because you find one bad asian does that mean you discount all asians as bad??? of course not! than why would you discredit christianity just because some of us are more hypocritical? they say christians are the ones constantly committing hate crimes. this makes me laugh, particularly when i read statements from people like you. just a year ago i was a devout atheist and you know what, i hated myself. i hated the things i did and i was constantly unhappy. now i’m free. i only wish you could understand that. why is it so hard for humans to beleive there’s more out there than themselves?? why is it we think we’re the only ones in the whole universe??? dusty, you say you’re open-minded, i myself strive to be open-minded thats why i read your statements to begin with, ok so if you’re so open-minded think for just one second. if you can find me just ONE missing link thats proven to be true i’ll leave my “crutch.” tell me, dusty, why is it that out of all the explosions ever researched or catalouged not a SINGLE ONE has EVER been shown to CREATE instead of DESTROY??!!! look at nature, even just the simple process of blood clotting has millions of things that have to work perfectly to clot the blood so you don’t bleed to death. how could that evolve? if you miss just one of those things you will die from the first papercut you get!!! and yet we have to beleive it slowly evolved over milions and millions of years!!!!!! thats just like beleiving a intricate DESIGNED pocket watch could create itself from sand over millions of years!!!!if you could only see. it takes sooo much more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.
Hello M Becknell,
I did in fact read every word you wrote, even though you didn’t make it easy for me. Holy God man. Learn what a fucking paragraph is! Look at your post. See that HUGE block of text. That is hard to read. Proper sentence structure is important for people to be able to read your ideas and take them seriously.
Ok next up, how did Jesus save your life? You have to provide me with some sort of evidence before I can believe you. It would be insane for me just to believe everything that everyone said on the Internet. There are a lot of crazy people out there. So why should I believe you over any other nut?
Next question. No I would not blame every Asian for one bad Asian. However I would blame everyone who taught their kids that they would be tortured for an eternity if they did not submit to a book of fairy tales. I don’t care what race they are.
See the difference? Asians are born that way. It’s not a choice. Christians choose to believe in sick, sadistic, ridiculous fairy tales. In fact, that’s exactly what it means to be a Christian. A grown up who believes in fairy tales without evidence.
Then you tell me that you hated yourself when you were an atheist. I’m sorry to hear that. It sounds like you might have needed therapy or something. But instead of going to therapy, you went and joined a cult. That’s the exact opposite of therapy. That’s something you’re now going to need more therapy to get over.
Next you ask “why is it so hard for humans to believe there is more out there than themselves?” My answer is that it’s obviously not hard. At all. Almost every human on the planet believes this. Including every other religion besides Christianity. Atheist also believe the universe is much bigger then we are. So I have no idea what your saying here. I assume you don’t either.
Then you ask for a missing link. This shows a failure in your understanding of evolution. Every fossil is a “missing link” because evolution is a continuing process. But since you promised you would give up your religion if I gave you one, ok here. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html
This is Ida. The latest “missing link” we’ve discovered. If you go to Google.com right now, you’ll notice their logo has been changed to a picture of this missing link. So I’ve provided you a missing link, will you now leave your “crutch”? Or will you use your crutch to find an excuse for why this “missing link” is not valid?
Then you ask how come an explosion has never created anything. I don’t understand where you are getting the idea that I’ve claimed an explosion created anything. The “law of conservation of mass” says in a closed system, matter can not be created or destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
What you’ve done here is misunderstood the big bang theory. I’ll post a link for you so you can fully understand what it is and then re-ask your questions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
Then you talked about blood clotting and how that couldn’t have evolved that way, which shows you do not correctly understand the theory of evolution, so here is yet another link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Evolution is a theory but “theory” does not mean “blind guess”. Gravity is also a theory. But it is one that is backed up by an incredible amount of supportive evidence. Evolution is also backed up by an incredibly large amount of supportive evidence, from multiple branches of science. The theory of evolution has directly led to many advances in science, and, much like gravity, is the foundation of many advanced sciences.
Then you gave me the “watchmaker” analogy made famous by William Paley who died in 1805. As you can imagine, since the time when his theory was introduced, we have had some amazing advancements. And one of those advancements is computer models that allows us to test these theories. The watchmaker theory has now been debunked by computer models as covered in the latest addition of Richard Dawkin’s “The Blind Watchmaker”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Watchmaker
Then you proclaim it takes more faith to be an atheist then a Christian, which proves that you have no idea what an atheist is, so it is impossible that you ever were one (This sounds amazingly like a Christian argument).
An “atheist believes only in things they have evidence for. A “theist” is just the opposite. Faith begins when evidence ends. If you have evidence, you don’t need faith.
Anyway, I expect you will ignore every point that I made, even though I went through your entire post and answered everything you asked. So I’m just preparing you in advance that if you do that, you will be mocked mercilessly from here on out, just as you should be.
Dusty, I am seriously enjoying your responses to these commenters. I don’t have much to contribute other than a hearty “hell yeah” at the moment.
Thanks Killarny. It’s good to know there’s someone else out there actually reading it. I have a feeling the Christians I’m responding to aren’t =)
M Becknell,
I don’t think many athiest attempt to explain the origins of the universe . And the bible doesnt really do that great of a job explaining it either.
I’ve become your stalker Dusty. Honestly, how many pages can I “follow” you on?
I think I have been inspired to write my own blog post (with full credit going to you, of course) entitled: “Hi My name is AGM, and I want to fuck your hot teenage son!”
Also, the fundie above claims he “accidentaly” came across your page. In reading the tags for this post (milf, wife fuck, daughter fuck, wife and daughter fuck), I’d like to know what exactly the bibletard was searching for that this page came up “accidentally” in his search engine.
Hey Gothmom,
You stalk me all you want. I attract nutters and nutters are pretty damn interesting =)
I think your blog idea is great. You can no more help your urges then I can help mine. This is exactly why I don’t understand jealous men. I’m quite aware that there are much better looking men out there than me, so it would be insane for me to believe my woman is not attracted to them. To blame other people for something they have no control over is the height of stupidity.
And your last comment is funny. You’re right, the keywords on this page are very specific. I’ve seen the studies that have found Christians are the biggest consumers of porn. I have no problem believe it.
“well things get murky “logically” speaking when you start deconstructing neurophysiology and what influences shape your brain. As I have done by explaing “shame” in it’s most logical sense.”
Zeus, I think your essential argument is thus: it is not scientifically proven that we neurologically grow pathways whenever we dwell on thoughts, and that these pathways will induce a certain proclivity for more of these types of thoughts, but I will use them for my argument anyways.
I am not an expert on neuroscience, but I have taken some courses in my days an undergraduate on cognitive neuroscience. There is absolutely not scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that certain pathways are strengthened when we formulate thoughts. What you have, instead, is psychological conjecture based on external observations and the logical processing bias from studying these brain waves. In short, neuroscience has a LONG way to go before we can effectively determine these phenomena.
Anyways, what does any of this have to do with the blog in question? All Dusty pointed out was that, in today’s societies, there is no need anymore to hide behind the facade that certain thoughts are “immoral” under any pretentious religious context. Rather, we should just accept these facts of human nature and move on. We don’t need to argue the about pragmatic effects of these ideas or anything else, because they are not within the scope of this blog.
I get some laughs and enjoyment from reading this blog, because I know its intentions. Some people, on the other hand, are either intentionally misconstruing the objective of this blog for some stupid reasons, or are just too obtuse.
Cheers!
Previous response was typed out in haste, so there were some grammatical errors and some ideas were not fleshed out.
Anyways, I want to say that I thoroughly enjoy your writing and ideas, Dusty!
Thanks Quane,
Your posts are very well written and thoughtful. I feel like we should all be reading your blog instead of vice versa =)
Hopefully the time will come when we can move past the need for mocking and actually engage in well thought out debate like you have done. I look forward to that day.
Quane for one thing you miquoted me. Surely someone who has studied as you say you have is familiar with the most basics in nuerophysiology
“The brain is made up of cells called neurons. These cells have nerve endings called synapses and dendrites. Nerve endings release chemical and electrical stimuli to communicate with each other. This brain communication forms neuro-pathways in the brain and is the basis for how the brain works.
When you initially learn something the pathway or connection is weak. The more frequently you think a particular thought the stronger the pathway becomes, forming an automatic habit of thinking. We call this brain training. ”
Now from that we can gather enough information to conclude that if someone thinks excessivly long about their natural urges that indeed these pathways do get stronger. Whereas someone who dismisses urges and tells himself that it is socially unacceptable , and improper to dwell on sexual urges in regards to other peoples wives or underaged daughters will eventually train their brain to not deliver such strong impules or urges.
I will quote a study I read as well without citing its source. A study done in prisons on Rape offenders. The study indicated that people in prison for the crime of rape , spent a great deal of time obsessed with pornography , specifially violent or domineering porn. I assume the same goes for pedophilia or homophilia as well. If someone obesses and give too much thought to something , it’s only a matter of time before thy are acting it out for real. And Rape is also a primal urge too. So is taking a bone and splitting someones skull open. But your right we shouldn’t be ashamed when we have the urge to Rape , Murder , or take something that doesnt belong to us. However we should KNOW that the desire to carry out these actions can be reduced through proper auxillary influences.
Zeus, I don’t believe I misquoted you. In terms of basic neurophysiology, the fact that chemical and electrical synapse that release stimuli which eventually form pathways, is well documented. However, “now from that we can gather enough information to conclude that if someone thinks excessivly long about their natural urges that indeed these pathways do get stronger,” is not true. This is what I referred to, in my previous post, as “psychological conjecture based on external observations and the logical processing bias from studying these brain waves.”
In other words, there is not enough scientific evidence to support the idea that brain training actually exists because of internal stimuli, because we have not separated whether these phenomena exist on the molecular level, or the cellular level. For instance, I can give you a very popular example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Training#Scientific_effectiveness
There are many contradicting scientific studies on this subject matter. The fact these pathways get “stronger” does not necessarily imply that they induce a predilection for the same kinds of thoughts.
I would argue the nature of the stimuli being either internal or external and the auxillary influences in the same light. For both sides of the argument but I suppose it boils down to conjecture .
And I never said there was anything wrong with natural urges. But for an example let’s analyze what Dusty says and here is where my case is. He says: ” I WANT to fuck your daughter” .To me that implies something beyond a natural urge. To have an urge to do something is much different than to “want” something. I think it’s possible for me to have an initial urge to fuck someones wife especially if she is Hot , but to Want her after knowing that I should use discretion and adhere to social constraints . Dusty also implies that if were not from the risk he would do it. Which I find also disturbing , meaning that his only motivation for adhering to social constraints is fear . Fear , Desire , Shame what other emotions can we pin this on?
Complete horse shit. When you have an urge to do something, that means you want to do it. When you have the urge for something sweet. That means you want something sweet.
You are grasping at straws to find some tiny thing you can argue about. It is so fucking transparent.
It is futile to argue against metaphyiscal and philosophical propositions, such as “to have an urge to do something is much different than to ‘want’ something.” Let’s just leave it at that.
Anyways, I fully support this blog, Dusty!
Cheers.
Thanks Quane,
Coming from someone as bright as you clearly are, that means a lot.
I just had an urge to tell you to go fuck yourself . But I choose not to because I really don’t want you to.
What’s transparent to me is your “want” to intellectually justify you being a lazy ass porn peddler profiting off the sadistic obssesions of weak minded primates.
Well between the two of us, I guess you’d be the one to know how I feel
It’s called natural observation.
But anyway . Dude I shouldn’t judge you. I surely disagree with the way in which you present yourself. but I suspect a lot of that is theatrics and drama.
I would like to know what software you used for that faith is retarted video.
“but I suspect a lot of that is theatrics and drama.”
Well that’s mighty astute of you, since I told you this exact same thing at least 3 times already =)
I used After Effects.
Here is a video that I recently found. A different perspective, but very interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvDgnVSxQvw&feature=channel_page
Good video. I’m glad there are some people out there trying this type of tactic. I have personally had very little success with the “reasoned debate/educate” method. The problem is, the theists do not even read what you write. They just ignore every word you say and every point you make. You may find the odd theist who will actually consider what you are saying, but in the many debates I’ve been in with theist, I have yet to personally witness this.
Normally, the debate starts with them writing their thesis, and then me going line by line through their thesis and refuting each point they make. Then they come back and ignore every single word I’ve said, not even acknowledging any of it, and continue repeating many of the same points I’ve already debunked or altering their original thesis to include even more insane bullshit.
Then one day I just stepped back from it. I decided there had to be a better way. So I begin to look at the word logically to see what was working for other people. I looked at all the major “opinion” makers out there, Hannity, Rush, Olberman, Savage, Beck, Alex Jones, Bill O’reilly, and even the successful theist speakers like Kent Hovind; and I noticed one thing they all have in common, mocking. They are all bullies who ridicule their opponents mercilessly, and the more they engage in this tactic, the more followers they get.
It seemed terrible to me at first. Could our society really be this fucked up that mocking and ridicule work better than reasoned debate? Well I set out to find out. I would engage Christians with reasoned debate at first. I would refute their first post, point by point as I always have, and then the moment they come back and ignore every point I’ve made, I began to mock them. The results were astounding.
They began to respect me more. I know this sounds stupid, and I can hardly believe it myself. But I found that after I began mocking people, they would actually send me messages and tell me how much they liked me. They began to work hard to befriend me, and in their efforts to befriend me, they began to listen to the points I was making instead of just ignoring everything I said. I’ve repeated this dozens of times, and although the results are not always the same, they are much better then I ever received with “reasoned debate/education” alone.
Not only that, but as soon as I began mocking, people began to gather around to watch the show. People who never paid attention when I was reasonably debating were now lining up to listen to what I had to say. People really respond to someone who is confident enough in their beliefs to mock the opposition. The results were far greater then I imagined they would be.
So anyway, I appreciate there are people out there like this lady who are forming teams to reasonably debate, and I sincerely hope they have great success.
However for me, I have to go with what I have personally observed works. I think both tactics have there merit, but for those who don’t want to bother organizing with other people, or who don’t want to depend on others to back them up, mocking is so much simpler.
Anyone can do it. It doesn’t take an in depth understanding of the issues. Once you understand a few basic insults, you can pretty much put the theist on the defensive the entire conversation, until they give up and flee.
My favorite current question to ask it “Have you or have you not ever participated in a ritual where you pretended to drink blood and eat flesh?” and then I mock them incessantly about it. It doesn’t even matter if they answer or not. You know they have, so there are all types of things you can say about this obviously bizarre ritual.
Anyhow, I’m eventually planning on putting my twitter debates on here as an example of how to properly mock a theist. I suggest people try out both tactics and see which one the have more success with.
Dusty,
For future reference. When you cite studies or say things like “The evidence prooves it” You really have to provide the source. Anybody can just sit there and talk about evidence and studies , but without a way for others to verfiy it than it really cannot be taken seriously.
Thank you for informing me on the correct way to run my own personal blog. Much appreciated.
You can run your blog anyway you want. But in pretty much any respectable debater backs up his claims with source. I know I’ve been called out on it way too many times. Besides 99% of statistics are made up.
It’s almost like you have no ability to retain the information I’ve told you over and over. I’m just going to start ignoring all your posts, because you keep talking about shit I’ve answered over and over. It’s completely pointless to keep typing the same exact shit to you repeatedly. You clearly can’t be bothered to read and remember what other people say, or you lack the capability.
Either way it’s pointless to even respond to you because you will just say the exact same shit again tomorrow.
way to change the subject and not answer the question at hand. Your skills and Bull Shitery are getting stronger grasshopper
A man’s sisters and mothers often have the same bodies as other women and I often wonder if they have these same thoughts about their relatives as they do for every other women. It seems most would except for a little programmed message that stops it for completely forming. Likewise, if a man can stop this message from forming, subconsciously most likely, he can also program himself to not really form a complete thought of this nature about other women, too. It just seems to be a possibility.
Good question Thinkacouple.
I can’t speak for all men, but I know for me that the attraction “magically” turns of for my siblings. I have two very pretty sisters. But the only reason I know they are pretty is because other people have told me so. I just don’t see it.
That’s not a put down of them at all. I just look at them in the same way I would look at another man.
However, incest stuff is incredbily popular on the internet. I don’t know if other men really have a thing for their relatives, or if it’s just the taboo nature of watching other people get it on with their relative that they are attracted to.
I wish there were some in depth Scientific studies of this stuff. But taboo subjects are hard to get funding for.
I’ve known of some families who seem to becmissing this automatic/nearly automatic repulsion. As terrible as it sounds, it does seem more honest in a way. If an attractive woman’s/girl’s face were covered and a man was exposed to her naked body, it would most likely illicit an obvious respond but then if he found out it was actually his mother/sister/daughter, would the attraction turn to immediate repulsion? Just things that make you ‘hmmm’ a bit. It seems a way to train one’s mind, though, if it is deemed necessary for various reasons.
Yeah I dunno. It’s possible that the chemicals they give off are close enough to our own where our bodies don’t respond to them in the same way as they would strangers. However, that’s just speculation. It’s a good question that I don’t have the answer for.
Dusty,
LOL!!! I am glad that I’m married to a man who understands these things too. I don’t think either of us would ever cheat on one another because we are very much so attracted to each other, but we will not hesitate to express our attraction towards other people to ourselves.
If he ever did cheat, I would look at the entire situation before I made any final decisions:
1. Was it because he cared for this person, or was it purely a sexual encounter?
2. If I let this one go, would he repeat this bahavior? Would I end up being lied to at every turn?
3. Does he even love and respect me at all? Do I him?
All of these questions must have answers that directly benefit me. If not, au revoir!!! But unfaithfulness, to me, is not about sex…it’s about betrayal. The ultimate question shouldn’t be “Did he make a mistake?”…it should be, “Did he intentionally betray me?”
Is this line of thinking dangerously lenient, still ever-so-slightly controlling, or a good attitude to have? I understand our animal nature…we are, in fact, animals…but would society, technology, science, infrastructure, etc, be what it is today without people wanting to reproduce with someone they feel is not only physically attractive, but is also intelligent, artistic, imaginative, or resourceful?
Luv ya!
Hi Kim,
I don’t think I disagree with a single word you said. These animal urges, once properly identified, are easily controlled by our higher reasoning skills as they allow us to assess the pros and the cons of an action and then determine if it’s worth our own personal “risk vs reward” ratio.
And in determining that ratio, you definitely have to take into account things such as “betrayal” and “love”. I see nothing at all wrong with that attitude. It sounds like you and your husband have a very realistic outlook on sex, and thus a healthy attitude towards it.
Your last paragraph basically asks, “Isn’t it better for society if we selected for a variety of genes instead of strictly for physical attraction?” At least that is what I understood your question to be.
That is also my position on a larger scale. However, on a smaller scale, until you can get people to understand that they are animals and it is this that is affecting their behavoir, and not some satanic, evil force working against them, it will be impossible to make them understand higher concepts such as the one you brought up.
Anyway, this blog entry is just a precursor to a later blog entry I’m planning on doing about this very subject, so I’m glad you brought it up. Well said.