dawnofthedeadlift:

progressiveresistance:

angrybisexual:

Saying casual sex destroys your ability to form meaningful romantic relationships is like saying that talking to a stranger at the bus stop takes away the meaning of your friendships.

Without commenting on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of casual sex, this is simply an awful analogy.

How?

Because unless you’re polyamorous (a lifestyle I am neutral toward though I tend to find some its champions a bit tedious) there is a presumption of exclusivity in a committed romantic relationship.  There is no such presumption in platonic friendship.    Also, sex and talking to strangers are two wildly different things, with different emotional and psychological components.  Also, talking to strangers can commonly lead to friendship.  The hit rate on casual sex is a bit lower nowadays, I’m given to understand.

So the analogy, teased out, looks like this:

Saying that casually (ie counter to the idea of commitment) engaging in behavior commonly reserved for committed romantic relationships and replete with attendant physical, emotional, and psychological ramifications, damages your ability to forge those committed romantic relationships is like saying that casually engaging in behavior with usually very slight emotional impact and commonly understood to be the gateway to a deeper but entirely non-exclusive relationship damages your ability to form the very kind of relationship that is often formed through just such an interaction.

In other words, “saying that -1 negates 1 is like saying that 1 negates 1.”  No, it’s not like saying that at all, because the nature of the antecedent principles is different.

Here’s the thing, if people want to do casual sex, cool, knock yourself out.  But please don’t elevate it to the level of exalted (and implicitly more evolved or correct) choice.  It’s a choice.  Not always, maybe even not often, the better one, though sometimes it is.  But in the end it merits no more defense than monogamy, abstinence, or any of a number of choices.

"Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry says it’s a mistake to read the n=1 essay and focus on the question of whether consensual sex is ever immoral. “That’s an important discussion to have these days,” he writes, but he finds a unifying thread in the essay’s sex scenes, the brief descriptions of San Francisco’s poor drug addicts, the revelations about Witt’s personal life, and the portraits of Google yuppies. “What is the thing that binds these things all together?” he asks. “It’s not kinky sex. It is, and the piece screams this at me, an utter absence of love. This piece is a description of what happens when people not only don’t love each other but don’t even have the idea that that is something they ought to do… The thing that all these things have in common is that everybody is treating each other like means and not end in themselves, and not only that, but they don’t seem to even have the concept that there is another way to treat people."

The completely fascinating, and challenging The Ethics of Extreme Porn: Is Some Sex Wrong Even Among Consenting Adults? by Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic.

: thoughtsandsquats: If you’ve been lifting seriously for more than a...

thoughtsandsquats:

If you’ve been lifting seriously for more than a few months, then you are able to move weights with ease that once would not have budged. If you’ve been training for more than a year, then you are lifting weights that once would literally have crushed you. Through…

angrybisexual:

Saying casual sex destroys your ability to form meaningful romantic relationships is like saying that talking to a stranger at the bus stop takes away the meaning of your friendships.

Without commenting on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of casual sex, this is simply an awful analogy.

(via 414294)

532
Reblog post
the-iron-angel:  

"The barrier to enter and attain the title, “fitness professional” (in the colloquial sense) is very low. Distinction in the fitness industry can be attained not just through merit, but also through through viral messaging, sensationalism and appearance.
An industry where the question, “Would you hire a trainer that doesn’t look jacked/ripped/fit/toned?” can actually be considered a valid topic of debate only speaks to the lack of a bare-bones professional standard to which a person CAN actually trust a trainer."

The always excellent and entertaining Bryan Chung in his inaugural post at his new website.

1.5 steaks, a mess of forbidden rice, a glass of Cabernet, and the season finale of Supernatural.

Let’s do this.

fightthefat:
Question time! Some people think owning things leads to growth in character and sense of self while others think it can be detrimental to character others think ownership goes past material things to intangible ideas and this makes you have a better sense of self. What do YOU think?

I think all of these things CAN lead to a greater sense of self, and they all CAN be detrimental to character, but I have to say I’m sympathetic with the idea that ownership is an aphysical thing and the only thing you really own are the thoughts in your head.

Think of it this way: what is ownership?  If I say “that cup is mine,” what does that mean?  Has the molecular structure or composition of the cup changed?  Is it bonded to me somehow so that if it’s taken it returns to me of its own accord?  Does my possession of it physically disallow people from taking it?  Of course not, “that cup is mine” means merely “through means that would be societally agreed upon as acceptable I have come to claim that cup as mine and, as a participating member of society, you agree to observe certain behaviors and strictures vis-a-vis the cup, and furthermore society agrees with this claim to such a degree that non-observance of those rules will have potentially punitive consequences.”

So “ownership” is a game we play with each other and, as long as everyone agrees to it, it’s meaningful.  But it is no more grounded in external reality than anything else.

An idea, thought, or feeling, though…those can be guarded.  You can possess those in such a way as to prevent anyone from having access to them, no matter how much they may try.  

So I suppose those are the only things you truly can own, and recognizing that fact in and of itself, and the true nature of our relationship to physical things, can be a stepping stone to the building of character.

"I’d like you to start thinking of your gym-time less like a strength coach and more like an economist. Don’t simply look at the benefits of exercises – look at the costs as well. Be frugal. Only spend when you must, and even then, only for the best bargains."

A brilliant article at T-Nation by Charles Staley, 3 Questions For Better Workouts
110
Reblog post

allthingsgreece replied to your link: German president: make English the language of EU…

I’m reading the article and can’t figure out the point in him wanting it to be the official language of the EU.

Nor can I…unless he’s really just trying to mollify the UK.  I need to read the whole text of his speech.

fightthefat replied to your link: 10 expressions vraiment insupportables…

Is this talking about new phrases and phrases that are changing meaning?

You got it.  And mostly (near as I can tell) in European French, not so much Canadian or African French.

German president: make English the language of EU

I don’t really know if this would be the most rational or just move, but it’s out there now.

Happy Mother’s Day to all the moms; present and future!