Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What, many married women don't do this? Calling out unacceptable behavior in my view is not gender bashing no matter who.
So I guess to these women sex is no longer a basic need which is the point being made but you decided to discuss and use shaming language to steer away from that. Try again!
and I am as I don't sweat it.
Added edit: Oh by the way I said "many" which means "NOT ALL". I didn't paint all women.
Your post generalized and stereotyped "many" married women, which is bashing IMO, but I concede there is a gray area. Interesting that you do not address the role of married men though. BTW, most married women I know (and I know a lot) have plenty of great sex in their marriage, despite you trying to perpetuate gender stereotypes.
You said I "misused" the word "universal" - now you are changing it to "used" and still not giving a specific reference quote to back up your attack.
I have repeatedly indicated that I am referring to the majority and recognize there are always outliers (perhaps yourself?), but conveniently, for your argument, you are choosing to ignore this.
AGAIN, I believe that a basic need does not have to be something that can be life-threatening. I agree with Maslow's definition. I recognize and accept that you disagree with us. I am usually quite agreeable to well-written, opposing viewpoints, just not disrespectful argument, lies and personal attacks from you, like you calling me delusional. Now that is a first.
Oh, and I seldom get mad, and never on C-D. I am a very relaxed and happy person because, well you know, my basic need is met. These exchanges are fun for me - bring it on. But try to avoid the personal attacks.
Yes because you're flat out denying that you were speaking on an individual level. I never even said the word "misused" until now. You did misused it though. You misused it if you are speaking for the majority. That means you are leaving people out but the word universal is inclusive of everyone. You can't exclude anyone from something that is truly universal. Do you want me to spoon feed what you said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1
I think there is a universal, basic human need to perpetuate the species and avoid extinction.
Happy? Nice, you didn't even bother to go back and look at what you said.
No there isn't otherwise there wouldn't be asexuals and childfree people (I'm the latter). There you go. I just proved your misuse of the word "universal".
Where have I lied? I can't help if you think I've been disrespectful or believe what I sad has been a personal attack. If you are too sensitive that you deem it as such then whatever. I'm actually a reasonable and tranquil guy. I've had many cordial and friendly private conversations about topics. At the same time, I don't tolerate hogwash from spewed by the haughty. Yes, you are haughty if you dare to speak for everyone which you did when you used the word "universal". That set the tone for your entire all-inclusive argument.
Yes, I called you delusional because you are imposing a misguided belief on the whole. If you find sex to be a basic need for you then maybe that says more about you than me. I'm too advanced mentally to think of sex as necessary as eating or having a glass of water.
Your post generalized and stereotyped "many" married women, which is bashing IMO, but I concede there is a gray area. Interesting that you do not address the role of married men though. BTW, most married women I know (and I know a lot) have plenty of great sex in their marriage, despite you trying to perpetuate gender stereotypes.
See but I didn't say "all" that's the huge difference and if I said "all" then I would be so wrong and I would be against the T.O.S. unless I said "all born girls/women have a vagina" which is only a fact.
I never heard of men (not taking sides here) that withdraw sex to their wives. If so, shame on those men - it's really very simple as they should be held accountable like the many women that withdraw sex from their spouse especially as a weapon. The argument here is that if it's such a basic need then other than cheating on them the sex being a basic need is then "hogwash" imo.
That's the point of my initial point and post to this. No more, no less.
Some women get a tad too touchy imo when some/many of their gender gets called out and make it to be bashing and of all women when it's not. I've been very good at saying "some", "many", "a percentage" and variants of such when making an argument.
If someone (or a percentage of) is wrong so what's the problem of calling them out on it/them? I'm not here to bash "ALL" just a percentage of only if the argument applies.
Root for the Cubbies - they need the luck for once.
Yes because you're flat out denying that you were speaking on an individual level. I never even said the word "misused" until now. You did misused it though. You misused it if you are speaking for the majority. That means you are leaving people out but the word universal is inclusive of everyone. You can't exclude anyone from something that is truly universal. Do you want me to spoon feed what you said?
I was speaking on BOTH the macro/societal level and the individual level. And at the the individual level, I allowed that there are exceptions (e.g. asexuals, those with physical limitations/psychological associations that prevent sex from being beneficial).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
Happy? Nice, you didn't even bother to go back and look at what you said.
I don't need to look up your argument points. You have the burden to back up your assertions about me with the evidence, which you finally have, so I can now address it... You're right, you did not specifically use the term "misuse," instead you wrote this which implies misuse of the term "universal"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
It's not hard to misinterpret your words when you clearly use the word universal (you obviously need to look up what that means)
So now that you have provided the evidence, we can now address it. The word "universal" has multiple meanings including the following from Merriam-Webster:
3a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) <a universal state> <universal practices>
b : comprehensively broad and versatile <a universal genius
As I keep using the term "majority" in this thread, I believe the term "universal" (a "major" part of humankind) is appropriate. I have allowed for the small percentage of those for which sex has never been a need during their lifetime. I should have also qualified that sex may not be a need for a 95 y.o. man/woman, but would likely be a need for "the greatest portion" of 20-something demographic, but I thought that was rather obvious. It is a "comprehensively broad" need for a great portion of humankind at some point during their lifetime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
No there isn't otherwise there wouldn't be asexuals and childfree people (I'm the latter). There you go. I just proved your misuse of the word "universal".
No, you did not, because you are not using the correct (Merriam) definition which I intended. You made a misassumption, attacked me, called me names, and did not ask any questions to clarify my intent. You have not even asked me the most basic question of how I define sex. You made an assumption on this as well. Do you think this is good argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
Where have I lied? I can't help if you think I've been disrespectful or believe what I sad has been a personal attack. If you are too sensitive that you deem it as such then whatever. I'm actually a reasonable and tranquil guy. I've had many cordial and friendly private conversations about topics. At the same time, I don't tolerate hogwash from spewed by the haughty. Yes, you are haughty if you dare to speak for everyone which you did when you used the word "universal". That set the tone for your entire all-inclusive argument.
I am often accused of being the opposite of sensitive, and even a reasonable and tranquil gal. You have consistently name-called (review your own posts to me) and called me delusional. That one made me outright laugh as no one has ever called me that before. I feel like writing some whacked-out, psychedelic, delusional post just for grins (I know, you already think I have). I really have a very thick skin though. Other posters would probably get upset by your personal attacks though.
I indicated what I believed was a "comprehensively board" need, which is one definition Merriam gives for "universal." I believe I correctly used the word to reflect my point. But I will be on my toes with word choice now that I know that you are on the prowl. I do not always pick the most precise terms on quick C-D replies, though most readers get my intent. But you want to nit-pick on that one word. Hopefully the above definition will better illuminate my views, which of course you disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
Yes, I called you delusional because you are imposing a misguided belief on the whole. If you find sex to be a basic need for you then maybe that says more about you than me. I'm too advanced mentally to think of sex as necessary as eating or having a glass of water.
Not the whole, a major portion. In my experiences, those who proudly proclaim they are "too mentally advanced" on things, tend to be those who are not.
I was speaking on BOTH the macro/societal level and the individual level. And at the the individual level, I allowed that there are exceptions (e.g. asexuals, those with physical limitations/psychological associations that prevent sex from being beneficial).
That was your first mistake.
Quote:
I don't need to look up your argument points. You have the burden to back up your assertions about me with the evidence, which you finally have, so I can now address it... You're right, you did not specifically use the term "misuse," instead you wrote this which implies misuse of the term "universal"...
So now that you have provided the evidence, we can now address it. The word "universal" has multiple meanings including the following from Merriam-Webster:
3a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) <a universal state> <universal practices>
b : comprehensively broad and versatile <a universal genius
As I keep using the term "majority" in this thread, I believe the term "universal" (a "major" part of humankind) is appropriate. I have allowed for the small percentage of those for which sex has never been a need during their lifetime. I should have also qualified that sex may not be a need for a 95 y.o. man/woman, but would likely be a need for "the greatest portion" of 20-something demographic, but I thought that was rather obvious. It is a "comprehensively broad" need for a great portion of humankind at some point during their lifetime.
Not according to Merriam.....
1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially: available equitably to all members of a society <universal health coverage>
Oxford.....
"of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases"
The Free Dictionary......
" 1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: "This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness" (Ellen Key). 2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers."
Dictionary.reference.com.....
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
You were including everybody and then by allowing exceptions you were talking out of two sides of your mouth. You were telling certain people you will never meet what their needs are when it really isn't. Not all people are made with a cookie cutter. You didn't want to look but the evidence was already provided. You provided it.
Quote:
No, you did not, because you are not using the correct (Merriam) definition which I intended. You made a misassumption, attacked me, called me names, and did not ask any questions to clarify my intent. You have not even asked me the most basic question of how I define sex. You made an assumption on this as well. Do you think this is good argument?
I didn't make a mistake. I attacked you? Well I can't tell you how to perceive things (so much for thick skin) I called you names? I didn't ask questions to clarify my intent. I did but your intent was pretty obvious and very much misguided. My definition of sex is sexual activity.
Quote:
I am often accused of being the opposite of sensitive, and even a reasonable and tranquil gal. You have consistently name-called (review your own posts to me) and called me delusional. That one made me outright laugh as no one has ever called me that before. I feel like writing some whacked-out, psychedelic, delusional post just for grins (I know, you already think I have). I really have a very thick skin though. Other posters would probably get upset by your personal attacks though.
I indicated what I believed was a "comprehensively board" need which is one definition Merriam gives for "universal." I believe I correctly used the word to reflect my point. But I will be on my toes with word choice now that I know that you are on the prowl. I do not always pick the most precise terms on quick C-D replies, though most readers get my intent. But you want to nit-pick on that one word. Hopefully the above definition will better illuminate my views, which of course you disagree with.
You prove that I called you names. How about you go prove it because you were too lazy perhaps to go read what you put. Why should I not give you the same courtesy?
Quote:
Not the whole, a major portion. In my experiences, those who proudly proclaim they are "too mentally advanced" on things, tend to be those who are not.
Not according to what I posted and there are far more definitions supporting my definition of the word than yours. I dare say it is actually incorrect because if it was truly then the word majority would list universal as a synonym. Plus, no one realistically uses the word universal with the understanding of exclusion. You're not going to weasel your way out of this one.
You don't know me so I'm not bothered with what you think. Your experiences don't apply to me.
See but I didn't say "all" that's the huge difference and if I said "all" then I would be so wrong and I would be against the T.O.S. unless I said "all born girls/women have a vagina" which is only a fact.
I never heard of men (not taking sides here) that withdraw sex to their wives. If so, shame on those men - it's really very simple as they should be held accountable like the many women that withdraw sex from their spouse especially as a weapon. The argument here is that if it's such a basic need then other than cheating on them the sex being a basic need is then "hogwash" imo.
That's the point of my initial point and post to this. No more, no less.
Some women get a tad too touchy imo when some/many of their gender gets called out and make it to be bashing and of all women when it's not. I've been very good at saying "some", "many", "a percentage" and variants of such when making an argument.
If someone (or a percentage of) is wrong so what's the problem of calling them out on it/them? I'm not here to bash "ALL" just a percentage of only if the argument applies.
Root for the Cubbies - they need the luck for once.
I already said it is a gray area. I found your post distasteful nonetheless. I am not particularly touchy. I just think the whole "many married women withdraw sex" is an inaccurate stereotype. I think you should stop using that cliche, as well as "Try Again." Maybe I'll start a thread about it someday, when I'm done arguing with all of you.
I rarely have found it to be true in my group, where some of the married women complain they aren't getting it enough from their hubbies (e.g. due to kids, schedules, travel, etc)... I think it can be a problem for both genders. Maybe it varies by age. Most of my friends are 35-45, with many saying they are at sexual peak and can't get it enough.
I already said it is a gray area. I found your post distasteful nonetheless. I am not particularly touchy. I just think the whole "many married women withdraw sex" is an inaccurate stereotype. I think you should stop using that cliche, as well as "Try Again." Maybe I'll start a thread about it someday, when I'm done arguing with all of you.
I rarely have found it to be true in my group, where some of the married women complain they aren't getting it enough from their hubbies (e.g. due to kids, schedules, travel, etc)... I think it can be a problem for both genders. Maybe it varies by age. Most of my friends are 35-45, with many saying they are at sexual peak and can't get it enough.
Many men reading our back and forth "debate" will draw their own conclusion(s) from their past experiences.
No offense but I'm not the only one you didn't quite understand in which a back and forth has taken place, again no offense intended.
However it's your opinions and I'll leave it at that.
Many men reading our back and forth "debate" will draw their own conclusion(s) from their past experiences.
No offense but I'm not the only one you didn't quite understand in which a back and forth has taken place, again no offense intended.
However it's your opinions and I'll leave it at that.
Have a good one.
It's only you and Yellow Jacket that I don't quite understand - 2 people. But at least you have been relatively respectful and well-written while presenting your argument. I have never seen specific evidence that many married women don't want sex - just anecdotes like yours about complaining men. And these anecdotes contradict what I see with my friends. Anyway, have a good one also.
Not according to Merriam.....
1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially: available equitably to all members of a society <universal health coverage>
Oxford.....
"of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases"
You see, you don't get to decide which of the acceptable definitions I get to use in my writings. If you were confused about the intent of the word, you should have just asked me for clarification. You don't get to dictate to the author what their word intent must be - sorry.
I indicated "majority" in most of my posts and you are zeroing in on the one time I used "universal" and tell me which particular definition I intended. I am done with this tedious nitpicking and you telling me my word intent - boring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
Not all people are made with a cookie cutter. You didn't want to look but the evidence was already provided. You provided it.
You did not provide scientific evidence that sex is not a basic need, while I and others have referenced studies (e.g. brain scans, animal studies, antibody levels, Maslow law, etc.). How can I look at your evidence that isn't there?
Does needing food make one cookie cutter? Then why would needing sex make one cookie cutter? Just as there are many varieties of food, there are many varieties of sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow Jacket
You prove that I called you names. How about you go prove it because you were too lazy perhaps to go read what you put. Why should I not give you the same courtesy?
Ok, additional proof above of your name-calling - you just called me "too lazy" in the same sentence where you deny you name call. Hilarious. You most recently called me delusional.
I do love that you use the terms "weasel" and "hogwash" in discussion though. You get points for that. Those are creative, underused terms. Are you going to call me a "whippersnapper" next? Or just lazy and delusional again?
BTW, read lol-its-good4U's last couple of posts.... He was able to respectfully disagree with me in a logical manner without name-calling. Are you, "Man of Great Mental Advancement" capable of argument without name-calling?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I am 
) I called you names? I didn't ask questions to clarify my intent. I did but your intent was pretty obvious and very much misguided. My definition of sex is sexual activity. 
