Open your mind

dorkly: The Sims Career Ladder

Thu, 23 May 2013 00:20:46 -0400

dorkly:

The Sims Career Ladder

thelandbeforegrime: who smokes the blunts? We smokes the...

Thu, 23 May 2013 00:18:45 -0400

thelandbeforegrime:

who smokes the blunts?

We smokes the blunts

"I want someone who is fierce and will love me until death and knows that love is as strong as death,..."

Thu, 23 May 2013 00:10:31 -0400

“I want someone who is fierce and will love me until death and knows that love is as strong as death, and be on my side forever and ever. I want someone who will destroy and be destroyed by me.”

- Jeanette Winterson, Oranges are Not the Only Fruit (via archaoism)

Just me.

Thu, 23 May 2013 00:10:23 -0400

Just me.

Photo

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:54:30 -0400

jennykitkats: Among The Sleep - Indie Horror Game Among The...

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:51:08 -0400

jennykitkats:

Among The Sleep - Indie Horror Game

Among The Sleep invites you into the mind and body of a two year old child. After being put to bed one evening, mysterious things start to happen.

Being played in first person, the game let its players immerse themselves in a child’s limitless imagination. This is a perspective we all have a distant familiarity with, but few can clearly remember what it felt like.

In the borderland between dream and reality, surreal creatures and diverse environments will present you with both physical and mental obstacles that challenge your creativity.

Download: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/krillbite/among-the-sleep

we-smoke-the-blunts: love

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:50:15 -0400

we-smoke-the-blunts:

love

bitcorn: just saw a guy wearing a nirvana t-shirt lmfao i bet cant even name three noble truths of...

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:31:37 -0400

bitcorn:

just saw a guy wearing a nirvana t-shirt lmfao i bet cant even name three noble truths of buddhism

titytwochainz: you really a bitch if you let the microwave hit zeros while your family is asleep...

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:31:23 -0400

titytwochainz:

you really a bitch if you let the microwave hit zeros while your family is asleep you disrespectful bitch

Someone talk to me. I promise a sexually pleasing conversation of words.

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:30:14 -0400

bobbymaccormack: buttsandsadness: nickmiller: A Haiku in...

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:29:21 -0400

bobbymaccormack:

buttsandsadness:

nickmiller:

A Haiku in English

FUCK

This is fucking dark.

spoiler: the best scene in iron man 3 is where pepper sticks on...

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:22:50 -0400

spoiler: the best scene in iron man 3 is where pepper sticks on some ac/dc and just starts headbanging the fuck out

yeahiwasintheshit: come and play with us

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:22:12 -0400

yeahiwasintheshit:

come and play with us

Photo

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:21:58 -0400

Photo

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:20:51 -0400

Photo

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:20:19 -0400

Photo

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:20:00 -0400

You Broke My T-Shirt: SLUT SHAMING IS NOT BULLYING.

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:18:54 -0400

You Broke My T-Shirt: SLUT SHAMING IS NOT BULLYING. :

dieu-trahi:

theweightofemptiness:

dieu-trahi:

If the goal is to make people happier, why stop at shaming people for having sex? Why not just extract people’s brains and stick them in vats of endorphins? Void argument is void. I simply make casual observations about reality, nothing optimistic or pessimistic about it. Animals have sex. Humans are animals. You talk about exercising restraint as if man is somehow separable from beast when man is beast. I know this is starting to sound like a naturalistic fallacy, but I’m not saying people should go out and have as much sex as possible. I’m saying that as creatures that are literally hard-wired to enjoy sex, sex is not something that should necessarily be scrutinized, especially by people who wouldn’t even know about it if they weren’t somehow affected by it. On a personal level, sex would be ideal with someone I had deep feelings for, but surprise surprise, not everyone in the world feels that way. Sex is nothing more than a physical act, and so long as no one is harmed or taken advantage of, the frequency or number of partners is wholly immaterial to anything involving the quality of an individual’s character. The link you gave me is also inaccesible being that I never attended California State University. No way for me to check the source, but it already seems kind of dubious, gonna be honest.

Again, I’m not saying those things. I blatantly disposed with shaming as a method of encouraging prudent sexual behavior. You disposed with that comment and the others I’ve made that suggest a more compassionate and less adversarial approach to correcting promiscuous sex. I’ll copy the entire abstract, since that is where the quote is from. Don’t be dubious just because you disagree. You also didn’t find a study supporting your position.

While much research has examined sexual problems and dysfunction, far less research has examined intersections between sexual satisfaction and sexual activity, particularly as it relates to social identities. This study utilized secondary analysis of 1,473 women from the National Health and Social Life Survey to examine the way sexual satisfaction and sexual activity are at times misaligned. Using factor and cluster analyses, four groups of women defined by being high or low on satisfaction and activity were predicted by nine demographic variables, including socioeconomic class, racial/ethnic identity, age, marital status, education, sexual identity, geographical ‘coming of age’ location, employment status, and number of children. Results showed that lower status women (women of color, working-class women, younger women, less educated women, women who worked full-time) reported low satisfaction and high activity. Women who reported high satisfaction and low activity represented the largest cluster of women, indicating that more women reported a disjuncture between satisfaction and activity than did those reporting a match between satisfaction and activity. Implications for clinical, sexuality, and social identity literatures are discussed. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

The Title: Social Identities as Predictors of Women’s Sexual Satisfaction and Sexual Activity.

We’re hard-wired to pursue enjoyment and security, if you want to be specific. Yet neither functions as a goal in themselves for members of a society of people that get along and are at peace with one another.

And consider this study as well:

Sex and Commitment

When University of Chicago researchers published Sex in America in 1994, the landmark study revealed that married Americans have more sex, and more enjoyable sex, than do single Americans. The party scene may delude the younger set into thinking otherwise, but a study published in the American Sociological Review unintentionally confirms the bourgeois results of the Chicago study. By detailing how “hookups” represent a raw deal for coeds, the newer study indirectly indicates that marriage serves the interests of young women far better than does the promiscuous life that Hollywood glamorizes.

Not that the researchers set out to quantify the virtues of monogamy. The team of three sociologists from the University of Michigan, New York University, and Stanford University actually set out to identify what might be called “best practices” when it comes to the sexual activities of unmarried college women. Their study, based upon data representing 13,500 undergraduate coeds who participated in the Online College Social Life Survey between 2005 and 2011, as well as in-depth personal interviews with 85 senior coeds at two large universities during the academic year 2007–08, delves into matters that Emily Post would deem unsuitable for dinner-table conversation. Moreover, the researchers seem to believe—against all evidence to the contrary—that raw sexual pleasure is more important to a young woman’s well-being than a stable marriage.

http://www.familyinamerica.org/index.php?nrid=true&cat_id=18

So there you have a study which even disproves the bias of its curators.

“Promiscuous sex” is not a behaviour that needs to be corrected, period. The fact that you use the word promiscuous is pretty telling. How many people exactly would one need to have sex with to be considered promiscuous, or is the definition involved in how often someone has sex? Maybe the idea of promiscuity is completely subjective with no viable concrete definition. The reason why I’m leery is partially because I don’t really innately trust acadaemia on any of the considered Humanities for personal reasons, primarily because what you linked/copypasta’d is the abstract, which includes no sources. It doesn’t list who conducted the study, or how the study was conducted. Just the results. Literally the only thing you have going for you is that the journals these studies were published in are peer reviewed, but you list no critiques of the studies, and no indication as to whether or not the study is current; the second one you linked is based on research that is almost two decades old. The test group on the second study you linked is also hilariously small considering you’re trying to make prescriptions for the entire human population. Also if you want to get specific, yes, humans are literally hard-wired to enjoy sex, hence, you know, sexual organs and stuff. Humans are very obviously not hard-wired to pursue “security” because the definition of that word varies from person to person, just like that P word you like to throw around. There is no “security lobe” or “security membrane” in my body. The primary function of any organism is to pass on its genes, this is basic 10th grade biology. On not linking a study substantiating my claim that humans are animals that enjoy sex, I didn’t realize I needed to link studies for things that are generally considered common sense, but then again I could be making an appeal to common sense fallacy, somehow?

Oh the intellect.

kattygirls:

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:18:01 -0400

kattygirls:

dieu-trahi: tinyb0nes: well FATALITY

Wed, 22 May 2013 22:17:47 -0400

dieu-trahi:

tinyb0nes:

well

FATALITY