Why are girls so cruel? Fucking arpies

>all these moron saying she btfo OP
She said "ask that question yourself" when OP LITERALLY just asked that question himself.
She's a pseudo intellectual trying to make a clever jab. Fucking idiot.

fuck off chad no one likes you she isnt even mean stoppp

>Chad
>Aristotles
Literally a philosopher for virgins

It's too late, OP already lost. It's like the Jonah Hill thing all over again.

No, Nietzsche is the philosopher for virgins.

>It's like the Jonah Hill thing all over again.

Attached: IMG_0895.jpg (512x512, 57K)

She said "ask that question on yourself", as in directed towards himself instead of her.

synonym for roasties I suppose

Dont talk like such a nerd faggot

You tried to be sexist and she shut you down.

>sexist
How?

she's being cheeky, who cares.

>he doesn't see what's sexist about asking how a woman can claim to be a virgin and masturbate
Nice whore-madonna complex.

This. The metaphysics thing could have been a good joke. Too bad OP can't roll with the bantz.

I agree with your first comment about the inconsistency of watching pornography and the retaining of virginity, but Aristotle's Metaphysics really has nothing to do with the question. Do you mean his Ethics?

It is not women who are cruel but people. Both men and women are cruel.

It's kinda fucked, but it's still not sexist.

>Freud
>current year

Get that shit out of here.

>Aristotle's Metaphysics really has nothing to do with the question
Aristotles believes that pleasure is obtained by imitating situations that created joy by imitation. So watching porn is remenicent of interpreting sex but how can someone enjoy said imitation without having sex first?

Imagination is a thing.

Imaging doesn't create a pleasure on its own

it's not sexist it's just retarded.

How is it retarded? I am well versed in Aristotelian thinking

I'll go along with this nuance - it's possible to have a binary thought process without value judgements - but let's be real, you think anyone on this site isn't a misogynist? Clearly most on thisnsite would find the idea of women masturbating reprehensible.

How about getting that ad hom outta here?

>categorizing people into two binaries with complete disregard for the spectrum of humanity
>not bigoted
k

He says that imitation gives joy in the Poetics, but I don't believe he anywhere says that we must have seen the source of an imitation to enjoy an imitation. The stories of the epic and tragic poets are all fictitious after all; nobody ever lived through them or saw them in real life; and yet we take pleasure in them nevertheless.

A woman who watches and enjoys pornography, is not really a virgin to my mind because she has given her mental consent to sexual pleasure. I don't consider a woman raped to have lost her virginity, because it was done against her will; but to indulge in sexual pleasure voluntarily in any form, to my mind, is essentially a loss of virginity, because mental virginity is infinitely more important than merely physical. That may not be conventional but I think it true and reasonable.

Sure. I'll actually unironically attempt to answer the original question more thoroughly.

From my admittedly limited understanding of various Greek philosophers, Aristotle does seem to hang true to the whole "experience precedes essence" thing which I think manifests itself in so many ways. But before I tangent off too much, my issue is that I think Aristotle is holding on too much to this and treating as an axiom, but I don't think it's all that tenable in this situation.

You seem to be saying that someone can't enjoy any sort of idea of sexual act because they haven't yet experienced said act, but I would say that the entire biological mechanism for enjoying a sexual act is already primed, oiled, and ready to go in the body independent of whether or not a past memory of a sexual act exists in the brain. What I think is that imagination can indeed set this entire mechanism into motion (at least partially), and that past conscious experience of this act is not required.

Attached: meh.ro8209-455x587.jpg (455x587, 98K)

Also to add that a part of the "pleasure" obtained while watching porn is the actual touching of the genitals. Even though the act is being imagined, there is stimulus being supplied to the genitals that does give direct stimulus. The porn is more or less used to start and sustain arousal.

roasties got bantz

No. You issue is that you steer the topic onto aristotelian philosophy when you're talkting to agirl about sex. Which is half a step away from sexting, which is one bus ride away from her sliding her pussy onto your dick

I'm not OP.

Still, intellectual discussion can be erotic as fuck. I love putting my mind penis inside a girl's mind vagina and/or mouth. Hey, maybe mind anus if she's into that shit, but I try not to push too much for that after having experienced a number of bad experiences.

Besides, I'm not that desperate for sex.

Keep telling yourself that Derrida.

>but I would say that the entire biological mechanism for enjoying a sexual act is already primed, oiled, and ready to go in the body independent of whether or not a past memory of a sexual act exists in the brain. What I think is that imagination can indeed set this entire mechanism into motion (at least partially), and that past conscious experience of this act is not required.
I am sugesting that there is a disparity between sex and masturbation. Porn tries to imitate the former not the latter

Aristotle molested little boys.

You guys are fucking nerds.