Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gingergooner)
    I know its speculation, I was just asking if thats what you meant by giving yes or no options.
    Also what's scientific in what we've said? I've been trying to think philosophically here, its just its difficult to imagine a shared consciousness between people who potentially have completely different outlooks on life. If the consciousness was shared I'd imagine it would drive them insane. But anyway, if you count that as too scientific for this debate then you've already seen my opinions on the initial questions you asked.
    The scientific issue is you're asking how would that be possible, instead you should presume it is possible and it isn't possible and give replies to both scenarios.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The scientific issue is you're asking how would that be possible, instead you should presume it is possible and it isn't possible and give replies to both scenarios.
    Well at the end of the day it all depends whether what you are doing to one version of yourself affects the version that is the here and now.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Why not just go back in time and nab a few rollovers
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    There could be all sorts of reasons. I never seize to be amazed by the way we categorise our sexuality. If we were to finger or be fingered by another female or male (gender respective) it is interesting that we say that it is homo, hetre, or bi sexual.
    But we don't do the same for other things?
    Shape of body?
    Height?
    Hair colour?
    Skin colour?
    Eye colour?


    Anyway, that's perhaps another thread to make. What about the reason that they'd know what you'd like, and you could be thinking of someone or something else as it happens. They wouldn't necessarily seek gratification back. They may get it back automatically by the experience being added.
    I have no idea what you're talking about in the bit I bolded. Are you suggesting that we class an eye colour as gay or straight?

    The point is, I can get all that by myself. I know what I like and I can think of someone else while I masturbate. I'm sure as hell not thinking about myself when I usually do it!
    And 'what I like' isn't always the same each time. My future self would not be able to read my mind, so they wouldn't know exactly what I wanted at that time.
    Just seems weird to me. :dontknow: And you didn't make any mention of the bits I posted about why I wouldn't think of the person as me, you're just defending why you'd as your future self to give you a handjob. :eyebrow:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    I have no idea what you're talking about in the bit I bolded. Are you suggesting that we class an eye colour as gay or straight?

    The point is, I can get all that by myself. I know what I like and I can think of someone else while I masturbate. I'm sure as hell not thinking about myself when I usually do it!
    And 'what I like' isn't always the same each time. My future self would not be able to read my mind, so they wouldn't know exactly what I wanted at that time.
    Just seems weird to me. :dontknow: And you didn't make any mention of the bits I posted about why I wouldn't think of the person as me, you're just defending why you'd as your future self to give you a handjob. :eyebrow:
    Perhaps because I've had a hidden agenda in this thread. Or perhaps because it's already been discussed in the thread.
    I don't believe I'm the same person as the person who started this thread.
    I believe as an entity I'm in constant flux.

    With regards to the masturbation perhaps not at that exact time but they'd be more clued up than other people.

    With regards to sexuality I'm talking about the way we categorise sexual partners. It seems like most peoples sexuality, mine included, is based on social conditioning.
    The whole idea that, we shouldn't fancy our siblings for instance, seems based on social conditioning.
    Personally I think it'd be interesting to break that.
    Another example is hair, how many people who generally date women find women with no head hair, or with leg hair, attractive?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    With regards to sexuality I'm talking about the way we categorise sexual partners. It seems like most peoples sexuality, mine included, is based on social conditioning.
    The whole idea that, we shouldn't fancy our siblings for instance, seems based on social conditioning.
    Personally I think it'd be interesting to break that.
    Another example is hair, how many people who generally date women find women with no head hair, or with leg hair, attractive?
    Maybe, but we're animals. Animals do things based on instinct/genetics and social conditioning too. It's not social conditioning to not fancy siblings. I had no idea what incest was growing up, no one told me not to do it. It's a mental instinct not to be sexually attracted to our family or people we have grown up very close to. It keeps our genes safe from deformities. I can't remember what the instinct is called.
    Also, I don't believe my sexuality is down to social conditioning. I don't believe all my sexual fantasies would be approved by society, yet I still have them. And when I was growing up and beginning to get in touch with my sexuality, men were very hard to find. The media, etc. was pretty much all about women, women's fashion, female models, naked women in the papers, I went to all girls' schools, yet I'm not sexually attracted to women at all. I still managed to find boys and men, from anywhere to think about while masturbating.
    I agree specific attraction details, e.g. hairstyles and the grooming of body hair is down to social conditioning. I still don't see what that's got to do with anything though. Why are we discussing this?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    Maybe, but we're animals. Animals do things based on instinct/genetics and social conditioning too. It's not social conditioning to not fancy siblings. I had no idea what incest was growing up, no one told me not to do it. It's a mental instinct not to be sexually attracted to our family or people we have grown up very close to. It keeps our genes safe from deformities. I can't remember what the instinct is called.
    Also, I don't believe my sexuality is down to social conditioning. I don't believe all my sexual fantasies would be approved by society, yet I still have them. And when I was growing up and beginning to get in touch with my sexuality, men were very hard to find. The media, etc. was pretty much all about women, women's fashion, female models, naked women in the papers, I went to all girls' schools, yet I'm not sexually attracted to women at all. I still managed to find boys and men, from anywhere to think about while masturbating.
    I agree specific attraction details, e.g. hairstyles and the grooming of body hair is down to social conditioning. I still don't see what that's got to do with anything though. Why are we discussing this?
    For how that came up see a few posts back, I'm not willing to fill in every little person who can't be bothered to keep up with the conversation of how it came to be. It happens all too often and at best is a waste of time and bore.

    Moving on you don't seem to understand how social conditioning can work. It's not always obvious at all, and how society is about such things can be very subtle.
    Most of what we think 'wouldn't be approved by society' with regards to sex tends to be close to the norm.

    A few decades back, maybe a whole century, a civilisation was found where everyone raised the children. There were no monogamous relationships. The norm was to have sex with who you wanted (mutual consent obviously was involved).
    Of course what was so 'sick' to the explorers was not only that they had sex with different people so openly, but that they could be ******* their siblings and not knowing it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Masturbation is gay.
    Masturbation is incest.
    Masturbation is rape.
    Masturbation as a child is child molestation.

    So what?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    Masturbation is gay.
    Masturbation is incest.
    Masturbation is rape.
    Masturbation as a child is child molestation.

    So what?
    :facepalm:
    You're Christian right, right?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    :facepalm:
    You're Christian right, right?
    No I'm not, nor do I disapprove of masturbation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Liquidus Zeromus)
    No I'm not, nor do I disapprove of masturbation.
    Just right wing then.
    And I didn't say you did, it's just the way in which you just went through each answer as a definite providing no reasons. But then it's you, what else should I expect.
    I don't think I've seen you use logic once.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Just right wing then.
    And I didn't say you did, it's just the way in which you just went through each answer as a definite providing no reasons. But then it's you, what else should I expect.
    I don't think I've seen you use logic once.
    Can't you tell I was just playing around? :ahee:

    Also, you have it wrong. I'm dead in the centre, between - and beyond - left and right politics. It's rather silly of you if you're trying to imply that having "right-wing" views is a negative thing though.

    Of course you haven't seen me use logic, because logic is impossible to see. /tired comeback
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    For how that came up see a few posts back, I'm not willing to fill in every little person who can't be bothered to keep up with the conversation of how it came to be. It happens all too often and at best is a waste of time and bore.

    Moving on you don't seem to understand how social conditioning can work. It's not always obvious at all, and how society is about such things can be very subtle.
    Most of what we think 'wouldn't be approved by society' with regards to sex tends to be close to the norm.

    A few decades back, maybe a whole century, a civilisation was found where everyone raised the children. There were no monogamous relationships. The norm was to have sex with who you wanted (mutual consent obviously was involved).
    Of course what was so 'sick' to the explorers was not only that they had sex with different people so openly, but that they could be ******* their siblings and not knowing it.
    I'm not little, nor do I see how it came up in our conversation.

    I do understand how social conditioning work. I just don't believe my sexuality has been socially condition. Ok?

    And no, I don't think what I think about sexually is the norm. Try not to generalise to the point that you can't understand that there might be exceptions.

    Yes, if you don't know someone is your sibling and/or haven't been brought up with them, you can still find them sexually attractive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    That doesn't mean they should be swayed.
    They shouldn't, but they do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    I'm glad I'm not the only who has thought about this. I don't imagine heterosexual people could really be attracted to a different version of themselves though, but it'd easy for gay people to also be autosexual.

    Let's put it this way. Here's my fantasy: I spend the next few years instead of dating or having any relationships, focusing entirely on building up an incredibly body. The time I spent building all this muscle would prevent me from gaining any experience and proficiency at sex, so here's the plan. As I'm building up all this muscle, I travel back in time in intervals over 2010/2011 (i.e. every 2 months or so) to sexually enlighten my 16-17 year old self (as I can remember how horny he was "back then" ). It's doubly pleasurable because while I'm having sex with myself, there's the pleasure of that moment and also the pleasure of the memories that are being created in my head. When I'm finished building up all my muscle in the "present", I then travel back in time in intervals over this muscle building period, having sex with progressively more muscled versions of myself. I thus come out at the other end with an awesome body and a wealth of sexual experience. I am suddenly the catch of the city. Disturbing yet very practical and incredibly hot.

    Okay, the kill-a-past self things is just odd. You can't just say "assume no paradoxes would happen", because what the hell would happen instead? I mean, the only thing I can think off would be that all your memories between the age you murdered yourself at and your current age (there's a phrase I never thought I'd say) would just disappear?

    I wasn't saying there wouldn't be paradox's but what would the concepts be, murder, suicide, man-slaughter, etc.
    Because that's what was of interest to me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    That's what you were interested in? Well okay then... far from the most interesting part of this debate but whatever

    It'd be murder. Definitely. It's not a suicide if you yourself in your current state do not die as a result.
    And if you do die?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Then it's a suicide because you're intentionally doing something which kills you. Or if you didn't know it would kill you, it'd be a simultaneous murder and accidental death.

    I'm sorry but, seriously, how is the classification of these at all interesting to you?! Going back and being able to interact with yourself raises far more interesting and thought-provoking issues than simply what such interactions would be categorised as. If you someone else wants to talk to you about that subject specifically then they're welcome to step in cos I'm not gonna keep up a conversation with you on a subject I find intensely boring.
    Because the way language works interests me?
    so you don't find it interesting, good for you?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.