Aaron Anderson72 said:Like I was saying, society treats it as totally normal for guys since they need that outlet, but if a woman even admits she thinks about sex, people immediately label her a nympho... 😕
I have a friend just like that. Back in my 20s, I'm pretty sure she had at least 100 partners. Why should we slap a label like "sick" or "nympho" on her, when a guy doing the exact same thing would just be called a "player" or a ladies' man? Nobody would ever even question him. Honestly, maybe she’s just a girl having fun without wanting to get tied down... Maybe it's perfectly fine, and we've just been raised by our culture to think it's wrong.
Look, it is possible that you or someone with a similar mindset might try to shove someone into the "nymphomaniac" category, but nymphomania is actually a psychopathological term. As such, it has a specific clinical meaning and cannot be automatically equated with someone being sexually active. Theoretically, a person diagnosed with nymphomania could have only one single partner throughout their entire twenties and still engage in sex ten times a day.
While nymphomania as a condition might drive a person to satisfy their impulses through frequent changes in partners, I guess one cannot automatically equate having many partners with the disorder itself. For instance, if your friend has been sexually active since she was 16, she could have had sex once a week until her early twenties and theoretically reached over 100 partners. But that wouldn't necessarily mean she is a nymphomaniac, because once a week is likely too infrequent to meet that clinical definition.
Aaron Anderson72 said:Nah, I think the male version of nymphomania is just being an "average guy."
Everyone knows what nymphomania is, but hardly anyone's heard of satyriasis. It’s because society thinks it's totally normal for men to always want sex, but they don't feel the same way about women.
Look, I don't think we are talking about social perceptions of gender roles here; rather, we should be focusing on specific clinical symptoms. In my view, a man suffering from satyriasis isn't just a "typical guy," but someone dealing with a serious condition that interferes with his ability to lead a normal life.
Ugh... if my memory serves me correctly (and I haven't taken my Ginkgo today... or ever, for that matter 😁 ) shouldn't nymphomania technically be classified as a disorder characterized by constant sexual arousal in women?
Because, if I recall correctly and that's the definition, it doesn't necessarily mean she has to be amoral or unfaithful; it just means she's perpetually on edge. How she chooses to manage that particular issue is another matter entirely.
Then again, if I've misremembered the details, I suppose I really have no idea. 😁
To be honest, I found the first one to be rather foolish, much like most American superhero movies (with a few exceptions, of course). So, I suppose I am not expecting much from the second one either.
goldenhound32 said:Fair enough. I suppose there is some entertainment value in that. 🙂
I've been looking through: Believer, CQ, Delicatessen, Altar Boys, Experiment, Frailty, Hedwig (a fantastic film!), Kind Hearts and Coronets (equally excellent), M (also excellent), Pitch Black, Princess and the Warrior, Simone, Straight Story, Suspiria, 13 Conversations, Scarface, Zardoz, Suspiria, Straight Story, Simone, Pitch Black (though I have no idea why this one is even on the list given how famous it is), Devil's Backbone.
A Face in the Crowd and Emma's Shadow look quite decent, but I don't see myself sitting through those thrillers or documentaries about skaters and rappers anytime soon. 🙂
Has anyone actually sat down with 5000 Fingers of Dr. T? It looks somewhat promising, much like Fubar... and perhaps even enjoyable, given the sophisticated plot: "Two misfit girls meet, become friends, and decide to murder an elderly woman just for kicks." 😁
That is true. I have seen that one too, so I suppose I am at 11, which isn't too bad, I guess.😂
But I still don't quite understand—it sounds like just a modified version of > but with poor acting. I mean, why would anyone bother watching that, honestly? 🤷
Michael Ortiz68 said:Look, you aren't the last one. I actually checked out 11 😢😬
I've only seen 10, and honestly, I'm a bit embarrassed about it.😛
But looking at those 10, I suppose there are a few movies where I'm not entirely sure why they'd be recommended in the first place. Take Toxic Avenger, for example. I mean, I think it's fine to watch total trash every once in a while, but I'm not quite sure I would go so far as to call it a work of art. 🤷
driftingeagle27 said:I’m actually suggesting we don't write off Hollywood just yet—if anything, we should probably be circling back to some of the classics.
The way you're talking puts you at risk of grouping things together that have absolutely nothing in common, like throwing that unfortunate flick Happiness in the same bucket as an Andrei Tarkovsky masterpiece like Nostalghia, or taking a title like The Wind That Loved Me and treating it as equal to something stunning like Let the Right One In—just because they aren't Hollywood doesn't mean they belong in the same pile.
Instead, you take a look at stuff like Gone with the Wind, those Hitchcockian American thrillers, Citizen Kane, Charlie Chaplin, or Steven Spielberg... those are the benchmarks that make everything else make sense, and it keeps you from making those weird, nonsensical comparisons.
Nicholas Walker3 said:Manderlay, definitely more intriguing to me than Dogville! And the whole body of work from Tom Tykwer—plus Jarmusch...
Well, I suppose I have seen some of Tom Tykwer's films (though they can be quite depressing, I guess). You have reminded me that I should probably look for "Antichrist." 😉
Aside from "Ghost Dog" and "Dead Man," which Jarmuschian film would you suggest as the best one?
Reading this thread, I was reminded of a song by a well-known local group, the Rijeka-Kastav vocal instrumental ensemble "shell."
The lyrics go something like this:
Kill yourself, kill them all why bother living without her. Poison yourself, hang yourself since you can see everything is ruined. She’s sleeping with someone richer than you and while she’s with him, it just creates this ache in your soul. How can that pain ever pass? Just cut it off and take some pills.
I know a guy who actually made a real career out of his degree. He finished his studies in Clinical psychology and now he's working as a moderator for Reddit.😛
Edward Flores4 said:Look, I'm sorry, but that isn't what tolerance actually means. That's just being a total Dummy.
Tolerance is basically when we share an office and you’re constantly blasting NPR. Honestly, that kind of stuff just gets under my skin—it really does—but for the most part, I’m cool with it. I’ll let it slide. But... there’s going to come a day when I just can't deal with it anymore, and I’m going to ask you to turn it off. If you don't... well, my tolerance vanishes instantly. It’s pretty simple: if you ignore the request, you’ve essentially disrespected the grace I've been giving you this whole time.
To me, tolerance isn't just some vague concept—it’s about accepting people's differences, their boundaries, and the choices they make. But here’s the catch: it only really works if there’s a mutual understanding—if people actually recognize and respect the grace you're extending to them. Because let's be honest, if I'm out here being patient and accommodating toward some Dummy who doesn't give a damn about respecting that very same tolerance... well, then I'm just being a Dummy myself.
Quentin:
Look, if we’re already cool with something—if it’s just part of our normal baseline—then we aren't actually being "tolerant." We’re just existing. It’s like when you don't even blink at a certain rule because it makes sense to you; there's no effort involved, so there's no virtue in it. In my mind, true tolerance only really kicks in when we encounter something we *don't* agree with, or something that feels fundamentally undeserved. That’s the only time we actually have the opportunity to flex that muscle—when we choose to be accepting despite the fact that, on paper, we shouldn't be. 😉
Like I was saying before—tolerance really has to be a two-way street. If it isn't—if that balance is off—then you’re basically just handing someone a free pass to walk all over you and play you for a fool.
Whether you happen to be a Dummy or not, I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with whether you are being tolerant.
If you won't let a colleague listen to NPR, then maybe you aren't being tolerant. At least not in that specific moment. You might have been perfectly tolerant for the past year, but in that particular instance, perhaps you weren't.
As for whether you've stopped being a Dummy, or if you never were one to begin with—well, I guess that's a completely different matter.
Edward Flores4 said:Anyone who thinks meditation is going to "smooth out" human emotions—or that it eventually leads to some kind of constant bliss or comfort—clearly hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
Besides... why do you assume only an agitated person can be verbally aggressive? Tolerance isn't a free pass; it’s something you earn. It is perfectly normal, even productive, to withhold tolerance from someone who hasn't earned it. Doing that doesn't require being upset—quite the opposite, actually. It requires calmness, calculation, and resolve. You're completely conflating "political correctness" with "spirituality."
Human stupidity... while it can be fascinating and deeply annoying at the same time, it should only rattle those who aren't expecting to run into it. If you go into the day expecting stupidity, its appearance won't shake you—just like you don't get upset when the sun sets in the evening after having expected it to rise in the morning.
Quincy:
what does meditation mean to you? Because clearly, your definition is a far cry from the standard one.
Krishnamurti describes the problem of meditation perfectly, and it aligns exactly with my own view of the matter.
Meditation is a very complex business. The Word meditation implies both in Sanskrit and in English, not only the brain concentrating on a certain subject, but also it implies a great deal of attention. But primarily meditation means, in Sanskrit, to measure. And also in English etymologically, I believe, it is to measure. The whole question of becoming is involved in it, which is to measure: I am this, I will be that. I am greedy, but I will gradually become non-greedy, which is a form of measurement, which is form of becoming. Both becoming in the affairs of the world and psychologically becoming. That is the whole question of measurement. The Greeks were the originators of measurement. Without measurement there would be no technology. And The Asiatics specially in India, said measurement is illusion, measurement means limitation. They didn’t exactly say this, they put it differently. So measurement means comparison, to compare ‘what is’, ‘what should be’, the ideal, the fact, the fact becoming the ideal. All that is implied in meditation.
And also in meditation is implied, the meditator and the meditation. So to enquire into meditation, you have to enquire first not only measurement, but also this constant becoming something, psychologically. Human beings are violent, and the ideal to be in a state of non-violence, which is to become.
So the question is not how to meditate but what is meditation, rather than how. I hope I am making myself clear. And also there is a question involved in that: who is meditating? And most of The Systems of meditation , whether The Japanese , and The hindus, and so on, Tibetan, there is always the controller and the controlled. Right? Are we meeting each other? So there is the controller controlling thought, to quieten the thought, to shape thought according to a purposeful direction. So there is the controller and the controlled. Who is the controller?
Please, all this is implied in meditation, not merely to control one’s thought as is generally understood in meditation, whether it is Zen meditation, or the most complex forms of meditation which take place in India, and elsewhere, there is always the director, the entity that controls thought. SoThey’ve essentially created this psychological split between the one doing the thinking and the thoughts themselves. Because of that, the thinker detaches himself from the actual process of thinking—which leads to this idea that during meditation, there’s some sort of "controller" stepping in to manage and quiet down the thoughts.
It creates this fundamental divide between the controller and what is being controlled. Makes sense, right? But here’s the kicker: who actually *is* the controller? Honestly, hardly anyone ever stops to ask that. Most people are just thrilled to dive into meditation because they’re chasing a specific destination—you know, things like sudden illumination, total enlightenment, a quieted brain, or just some much-needed peace of mind. But very, very few people actually take a moment to inquire: who is this controller I'm trying to use?
------------------
And hey, if there’s anything else that still feels a bit fuzzy... just ask. 🙂
Hmm. I don't think I agree with that. In my view, we can only truly be tolerant toward things that bother us, offend us, or feel unacceptable.
Because, if we are already fine with something, then we aren't actually being tolerant... we just accept it as it is. So, I guess you only really exercise tolerance when someone or something doesn't deserve it. 😉
Second—people dress how they want... it's just that they don't always wear transparent signs broadcasting their sexual orientation, religion, or political views, so they aren't necessarily "asking for it." Though, granted, skinheads don't really need an excuse to be violent.
A friend of mine was actually assaulted without even carrying a sign. And honestly, even in a place like Cleveland, we don't really have any skinhead groups worth mentioning.
feralhound55 said:Not necessarily—you just have to become addicted to something first, and then deal with the withdrawal. Honestly, the worst part is when people glorify someone who "heroically" conquered heroin, quit smoking, or stopped killing people. If they hadn't gotten themselves into that mess in the first place, they wouldn't have to quit. 🙄
As for this whole "positive discrimination" thing... there are definitely people who exploit being different. Like one TV host put it—we straight guys don't parade around with our own flags like gay people do.
A good person is a good person, regardless of skin color, nationality, physical ability, or especially religion. Same goes for bad people.
And yeah, I fell right into the positive discrimination trap myself. Mostly, I've just been disappointed by all these "spiritual" types.
I don't believe that, specifically, gay people are somehow superior to us heterosexuals—but I feel like I've heard that "we don't march" argument a hundred times already, and it’s quite frustrating because I think it's fundamentally flawed.
We certainly march.
Don't we hold hands, kiss, or maybe even be a little affectionate in public sometimes? Isn't that essentially a parade? Though, I suppose if you ask gay people, they can't really do that without police protection.
slypuma17 said:I am. Are you suggesting there’s a subset of people—vegetarians, the LGBTQ+ community, or people with disabilities, for instance—who are somehow genetically incapable of being malicious or spiteful?
Quincy:
No, but what exactly do you mean by "malice"? Are you referring to "spite"—that specific impulse where you wish something bad would happen to someone simply because they stepped on your toes?
We’ve already covered the concept of malice in a previous thread. My view is this: if we look at it as a spectrum—malicious, more spiteful, and then the absolute superlative of "evil"—😁 I’d say "malice" is relatively benign. It’s those small, petty slights, the subtle jabs, the constant undermining, or just throwing a little shade to get a reaction. There’s an element of mischief to it; it’s why we describe a toddler as being "malicious" rather than calling them "pure evil." 🤷
Spite, on the other hand, sits somewhere in the middle. It’s schadenfreude—finding a bit of joy in someone else's misfortune—or actively wishing for someone to fail. Sometimes it involves light manipulation, like spreading rumors or stirring up drama between friends. But when we talk about an "evil person," we’re talking about a total commitment—someone who invests their full energy and will into doing harm. 🤷
I suppose children can actually be quite a bit more "wicked" than adults sometimes. 👎
Oh, I just remembered something! Before I ever started hanging out on internet forums, I used to assume that people who listen to metal or alternative music were, on average, more intelligent, more liberal, and generally more open-minded. Then I actually started using the web and realized I was completely mistaken.
Haha... I wouldn't say that happened to me in quite that exact way (in terms of idealizing a specific group), but I suppose I did try my best to avoid any preconceived stereotypes about a certain crowd, only to run right into someone who was basically a walking stereotype.
It doesn't necessarily mean they are a bad person, but I guess it’s just a bit frustrating when it feels like all my efforts to be politically correct were completely undermined :-)))