posted
Feminists want to medicalize a natural male state (the urge to have sex with many women.)
Let's look at the Tiger Woods scenario. Certainly he erred in straying from his wife. But is he guilty of "sex addiction"?
Is having the opportunity to have sex with many hot young women (and doing so) a case of "addiction"? Isn't the only thing separating a lot of normal men from Tiger Woods sexual opportunity?
posted
let's talk about girl scout cookies. clive will hate us talking about that even more, because they are cookies sold by GIRLS (clive hates women)
i bought like ten boxes, mostly thin mints, samoas, and trefoils
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samoas were my favorite as a kid. I love caramel. But I've come to appreciate some of the other kinds as I've grown older.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the women at my work put up a sign saying her daughter is selling girl scout cookies, but I dont know any good flavors other than thin mint.
WHAT KINDA COOKIE SHOULD I GET?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tagalongs are like an appetizer. Their delicousness ensures that you'll tear therough them quickly. I recommend a box of Dos-i-dos for longer lasting peanut buttery goodness.
And Clive, if you're actually curious about real sex addiction, I'd recommend checking out Sex Rehab with Dr. Drew. I've only caught a couple episodes, so I don't know much about it yet but I expect it to be every bit as fascinating as Celebrity Rehab.
Addiction, to me, seems like OCD got together with bipolar mania and had a baby. Watching an addict fixate on something or someone and become immediately convinced that they cannot live without it should convince you pretty quickly that you're dealing with an abnormal behavior, not one on a spectrum of healthy behavior.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samoas have always been my favorite. A girl in one of my classes was giving away samoas the other day, but I didn't find out until the end of class, as I wasn't sitting at her table since it was full when I'd arrived. I learned a harsh lesson that day. Never again will I be late to class when Girl Scout cookies are in season.
By the by, I heard something about a recall of Girl Scout cookies. Hopefully my precious samoas and thin mints weren't affected.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (clive hates women)
No I don't. I hate strident feminists who make stupid arguments.
Then correct your opening statement. Instead of "Feminists want to medicalize a natural male state", say "I hate strident feminists who make stupid arguments, like those who want to medicalize a natural male state. But I don't hate them enough to ignore them, or to reject their ideas as crazy. Instead I'll create a unnecessarily caustic post."
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saaaaaaaaamoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaas.... I haven't been able to buy any cookies this year.
Lyr, the recall I heard was specifically Lemon Chalets. The fats broke down seriously prematurely in certain batches from one bakery (the one that isn't ABC) and those cookies were giving off an odor. No other cookies were affected.... At least, not that I've heard.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the simplist explanation for Tiger is that if he says it's sex addiction he gets much better publicity than if his excuse is I like sleeping with women and I didn't think I would get caught. His PR people probably told him to blame sex addiction.
I like Thin Mints and Samoas but I eat entirely too much at once.
Posts: 856 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thin mints are the best. And like LargeTuna, I eat too many at once. If I don't take some out of the box, close the box, and go somewhere else to eat them, I'll go through a whole stack.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samoas. They are this fat man's kryptonite. If Superman thought kryptonite was delicious and couldn't stop eating it...
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was a girl scout in Texas so all their names for cookies are mashed in my brains. I miss my Caramel Delights! Ooh, and Peanut Butter Patties!
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do-Si-Dos are being seriously under-represented in this thread (save kmbboots, thank you).
The only explanation I can come up with is that you people don't know the proper procedure for preparing the perfect girl scout cookie. It's actually quite simple.
First, put the box in the freezer overnight. Magic flavor-enhancing gnomes will somehow get into the freezer, open the box and cookie sleeve, and magically endow super-flavor to each individual cookie. They close the sleeve and box so it looks like they've never been opened.
This also makes the cookies cold.
The next day for breakfast, you open your magically enhanced cookies, pour a glass of milk, and dip each cookie in the milk for a VERY specific amount of time. Some people only like a half-dip, but there's no way to tell if the cookie has been dipped for the optimal amount of time. Therefore, I recommend a full dip (which yes, requires your fingers to get down in the milk--wash your hands).
And now, the secret. When the do-si-do is submerged in the milk, bubbles will rise from the cookie as milk fills in all of the pockets of air that were previously in the cookie. The optimal time to remove the cookie is exactly 2 seconds after the last bubble rises. The cookie will then be satiated with the perfect amount of milk. Any longer, and your cookie will be soggy and unfit for enjoyment. Any shorter, and the cookie will remain boring and crunchy.
In conclusion, the product of this procedure yields a cookie so delicious that there have been rumors that it cures cancer (but ONLY if you eat the whole box in one sitting).
Or you all can stick with your boring chocolatey cookies and leave the perfection of the do-si-do to me, but I still share the secret out of the goodness of my own heart.
posted
No, no, hear him out. We should not attempt to force modifications on any natural urges, it's unnatural!
Like, say, if I get the urge to have sex with other males (as happens with many, if not most men, and occurs fairly often in the animal kingdom) that's my right and no one should try to "cure" me or make me any different. Yes?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought the simplist explanation for Tiger is that if he says it's sex addiction he gets much better publicity than if his excuse is I like sleeping with women and I didn't think I would get caught. His PR people probably told him to blame sex addiction.
Completely agree. His problem (IMO) isn't sex addiction as much as selfishness and arrogance.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He wouldn't be able to tell whether he was addicted to sex until he started experiencing consequences. Since the consequences came all at once, and he's still reeling, he doesn't know yet.
If he endures a lot of humiliation and hard work to get back into the good graces of his family and the public eye - and that's what he's signaling he wants to do - and then keeps dallying and bringing on more consequences, he'll meet the definition of a sex addict.
Right now he's just a guy who felt entitled and didn't think he'd get caught. (And he admitted as much, anyway. If he's trying to spin it he's doing too little, too late.)
To Clive's point: There is often something pathological about the pursuit of sexual gratification, and it manifests in ways that show the difference between "wanting to get a lot of women" and addiction. Tiger's most likely pretty normal, yes.
The concept of sexual addiction was pretty much invented by men who got sick of their own behavior, btw.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Goody Scrivener: Lyr, the recall I heard was specifically Lemon Chalets. The fats broke down seriously prematurely in certain batches from one bakery (the one that isn't ABC) and those cookies were giving off an odor. No other cookies were affected.... At least, not that I've heard.
We got boxes not affected by the recall, fortunately. Not that I sell too many of the lemon ones anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Samoas. They are this fat man's kryptonite. If Superman thought kryptonite was delicious and couldn't stop eating it...
posted
I'm addicted to girl scout cookies, can we medicalize that before I go through another pack of trefoils at teatime here?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to correct a few of my previous posts defending Clive. I still think he bring up some interesting discussion questions, but he's doing so now in flagrantly inflammatory ways.
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: To Clive's point: There is often something pathological about the pursuit of sexual gratification, and it manifests in ways that show the difference between "wanting to get a lot of women" and addiction. Tiger's most likely pretty normal, yes.
The concept of sexual addiction was pretty much invented by men who got sick of their own behavior, btw.
A, number one, no. Sexual addiction is related to the same class of motivational disorders and syndromes evident in alcoholism and drug addiction. Don't minimize that point just because you don't understand it, or don't intuitively appreciate what addiction is for some people.
Second, you don't know anything much about Woods' problem, whatever it may be, so you are not equipped to judge whether his behavior could be considered well adjusted. Considering that his behavior has led to a major deterioration of his career and family life, assuming it is normal is a fairly long stretch. That he has been exposed to more sexual opportunity in life than the average male is a given, but there are plenty of bartenders who don't get drunk every night, and surely plenty of drug dealers who don't use their own drugs. Abundant opportunity is not an excuse for actions that ruin your family life and career- someone interested in keeping a career and family life finds ways of making that happen, even if it means scaling back his exposure, and not making that extra 50 million a year. For it to reach crisis proportions, you have to be doing something wrong.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: To Clive's point: There is often something pathological about the pursuit of sexual gratification, and it manifests in ways that show the difference between "wanting to get a lot of women" and addiction. Tiger's most likely pretty normal, yes.
The concept of sexual addiction was pretty much invented by men who got sick of their own behavior, btw.
A, number one, no. Sexual addiction is related to the same class of motivational disorders and syndromes evident in alcoholism and drug addiction. Don't minimize that point just because you don't understand it, or don't intuitively appreciate what addiction is for some people.
That's not clear at all. There's an important distinction between biologically-based addictions, like alcoholism or drug addiction and non-biologically-based addictions.
The line on non-biological addiction is a hard one to define, but one of the major criteria that is largely agreed on could be stated as "person with the addiction is sick of their behavior".
I don't know much about the classification of sexual addiction, so this could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it has not been shown to be a biologically based addiction. If that is the case, scifi's description of it isn't off-base, but your equating it to alcoholism in response to this is.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I find many of Clive's posts bordering on clinically paranoid and egocentric. Here he claims Sex Addiction is not a legitimate illness, it is not a construct to deflect the guilt of a philandering fella. Instead it is part of a conspiracy by "Feminists" to attack him personally.
It seems that Clive is worried that feminists are out to condemn adulterous behavior as some plot to stop men in general and Clive in particular, from sluttish behavior. Add this to Clive's earlier rant about woman who claim to get pregnant or who do get pregnant on purpose, and then chose the best paid man to claim patrimony and we have the image of a liberal libertine who is trying hard to justify a lifestyle that is far more dangerous to the sanctity of Marriage than any homosexual liaison.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone please explain the sociological (or psychological, but from the description, it appears to be more of a sociological thing) definition of an addiction? Because, from scifi's description, it appears that any activity that I partake in on a regular basis suddenly becomes an addiction if it results in negative general consequences, distinct from the intrinsic consequences of the action, and I still wish to continue. If this is the definition of an addiction, then it does not appear to be a very useful one. If I decide that the intrinsic positive effects of the action outweigh the negative effects that result, then it appears that I am addicted--yet being addicted is a rational decision.
Clearly there must be something to the definition that I am missing. Someone please explain.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: Samprimary, you are out of line. Discuss/argue the topic, logic, or premise(s), or if you consider it fruitless, leave the thread.
In general, there has been no rule against thread drift; this isn't thread drift. It's hijacking, and you've done it before. Stop it.
Ok, so now thread subject hijacking is officially against the rules?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Papa Janitor: Samprimary, you are out of line. Discuss/argue the topic, logic, or premise(s), or if you consider it fruitless, leave the thread.
In general, there has been no rule against thread drift; this isn't thread drift. It's hijacking, and you've done it before. Stop it.
Ok, so now thread subject hijacking is officially against the rules?
Maybe it's just hijacking with cookies. If you hijack the thread with a discussion of OSC's writing, it might be permissible.
And honestly, PJ, Clive is toxic. Wouldn't you rather have some sociable talk about cookies than an inflammatory thread about one of Clive's pet manias?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it's that black and white, because the difference between drift/derailment and hijacking can be subtle, and revolves around intent. I don't think it was subtle in this case -- there was no doubt to give the benefit of.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I agree. And honestly, Papa, how often do you see me and Sam agreeing about anything?
sheesh lady we agree about things all the time and it's not like you're ever filling the role of Forum's Current Slumlord
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, actually there's another obvious course of action, regardless of whether or not I agree with your premise.
Lisa, yours is a false dichotomy, too. But importantly, what I would "rather have" doesn't always correspond with what I believe my role as moderator to be, nor necessarily with what I believe the intentions of the Cards are for this place. And who agrees with whom on an issue isn't what determines whether or not it's allowable conversation (with a couple exceptions from TPTB).
To paraphrase MrSquicky from earlier this month, why do you (who disagree so vehemently with Clive) insist on playing into his narrative?
[Switch to Moose rather than Janitor, or perhaps a combination -- but nothing below is janitorially binding]
I'm far from agreeing with Clive on a number of things. Certainly my being a stay-at-home dad whose wife is the primary financial provider for the family makes that clear. That doesn't mean he has no right to believe what he does, or to try to convince others of it -- within limits here, which are admittedly vague. I don't think he has crossed those limits. I think the response to him is far more toxic/inflammatory than what he says in most cases. I just think he's wrong, and willfully misinformed (and I should be clear that I don't think "willfully misinformed" applies to anyone who disagrees with me, or even the majority thereof). But I think "willfully misinformed" could be applied to the opinions of many Jatraqueros toward many others on any number of topics -- and so many controversial topics could be dropped there, since those topics tend to stop having new information introduced, and rather recycle the same points over and over.
[back to Janitor]
Stop the personal attacks.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Samprimary, actually there's another obvious course of action, regardless of whether or not I agree with your premise.
I'm not saying there isn't. But as long as Clive feels like putting terrible threads on the front page and trolling up FO with blatantly offensive misogyny, I will feel like criticizing him and telling him that he should stop and leave.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, his blatant silly misogyny is really aggravating and unacceptable. I think I'd rather talk about cookies. Especially the peanut butter chocolate ones I can't buy than so-called feminist conspiracies that do not exist.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really think it'd be more effective if nobody ever replied to his threads than talked extensively about cookies in them.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
yo and I'm also not saying "TA HELL WIT YOU I DO WHAT I WANT" so much as I am noting that what I know by now and what needs to be known is that passive non-response is not a feasible compromise for people who spam trollslum threads. The idea is that they get 'starved out' but it never
quote:* Recurrent failure to resist impulses to engage in a specified behavior. * Increasing sense of tension immediately prior to initiating the behavior. * Pleasure or relief at the time of engaging in the behavior. * At least five of the following: o Frequent preoccupation with the behavior or with activity that is preparatory to the behavior. o Frequent engaging in the behavior to a greater extent or over a longer period than intended. o Repeated efforts to reduce, control, or stop the behavior. o A great deal of time spent in activities necessary for the behavior, engaging in the behavior, or recovering from its effects. o Frequent engaging in the behavior when expected to fulfill occupational, academic, domestic or social obligations. o Important social, occupational, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of the behavior. o Continuation of the behavior despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent social, financial, psychological, or physical problem that is caused or exacerbated by the behavior. o Tolerance: need to increase the intensity or frequency of the behavior in order to achieve the desired effect, or diminished effect with continued behavior of the same intensity. o Restlessness or irritability if unable to engage in the behavior. * Some symptoms of the disturbance have persisted for at least one month, or have occurred repeatedly over a longer period of time.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
