The BDSM lifestyle is popular now with the many online freaks who want to get into something new.
But it's not knew
Be it the S/m r D/s or even some styles of swinging
All of it is surrounded within the confounds of a relationship of some sort.
"Honor Amungst Freaks"
Everything between consenting adults is commited in some way shape or fashionor form.
It's all about what you want, and what YOU will do to have as much of it as you seek
Most times many fall short for the emotion fueled by greed and lust
But trust
Is not as valuable as yur dedication to YOUR WORD and what you say YOU ARE ABOUT.
You can't half step and think that people will treat you nice just because your curious and want to do something freaky with others who take this shit personal
If you want to get into it?
LEARN!
You can find most of ALL you need in your journey into your lifestyle on the FIRST PAGE OF A GENERAL SEARCH on the subject
Print it out
Learn it
And then ask yourself..." Is this something I want to get into?"
If the answer is yes?
Then it is on YOU
To put the work in on what YOU provide to the lifestyle
Because these lifestyles don't OWE YOU shit!
You owe the lifestyles your dedication to what you want to BRING to it...not get out of it.
Selfish people do not enjoy the lifestyle
They survive it!
You first have to understand that the word LIFE STYLE means YOU are willing to effect others lives.
If you do not want to consider that you have that kind of power to distroy or enhance others relationships?
Then you NEED TO BUY SOME SEX TOYS AND GO PLAY WITH YOURSELF...
This is our lives
Our loves
Our Lust
And if we have to fuck you up or over to protect it?
It's your fault!
Because YOU come to people who are IN THESE LIFESTYLES out of greed and lust.
And they can't trust you to be who you say YOU ARE, as you enter these lifestyles
You all need to understand that these lifestyles are for people who HAVE A LIFE too.
If you are a selfish person?
You are gonna have some hard times finding what suits JUST YOU, and only you.
Because this lifestyle is not made for selfish people!
Here's some info on how simple and complex this selfishness reall is and how it effects the lifestyles and even online communites...
....Selfishness:
Selfishness is a subjective term. To some, it implies the concept and/or practice of concern with one's own interests in some sort of priority to the interests of others. To others, being "selfish" just means trying to meet your own needs. There are also those who believe the use of the term can be an attempt at manipulating someone else. What is "selfish" depends, then on one's perspective.
Selfishness regarded as good, or a healthy thing
There are some non-religious philosophies that hold a positive view of selfishness, usually on the basis that it isn't what the common usage refers to, and that the identification of 'promotion of the self' with 'evil' is an unhealthy practice that actually devalues some good qualities such as productivity or the taking of personal responsibility. One view is that since one needs to act in a mainly self-interested way in order to advance in life doing so should not be regarded as wrong, or labelled as harmful or inappropriate.
Similarly, individuals might ask themselves why they ought to choose to act unselfishly anyway if they have no guarantee in advance that others in the world will not act selfishly. One will tend to act selfishly for one's own self-protection, in a world where one mainly encounters others doing the same.
Furthermore, schools of thought such as psychological egoism view every behavior as 'selfish' in nature, even that of a so-called altruist. (meaning the 'atruist' behaves as such out of a personal self-interest, whether that be a desire to be selfless, a joy they get from giving to others, a debt they feel they need to repay to others or even some form of guilt) This is essentially saying that any choice to act is done so for a 'positive net gain' to self. This does not mean that the intended result need be completely 'positive' as far as the individuals' interest is concerned, merely that the intented result is 'better' for themselves than the alternatives. (e.g. going to the dentist may be a negative experience but it beats having a toothache)
Group selfishness (as compared to individual selfishness)
Selfishness usually refers to the self - that is, to the individual. However, in common speech, a group of people can be accused of "selfishness" too, in the sense that members of that group are not concerned with the welfare of anyone outside their group but are only inward-looking: concentrating on the needs of the group. This may in some circumstances be characterized as indirect self-interest.
Use of the term "Selfish" as manipulation
In some cases the use of the term "selfish" may simply be an attempt by one person to manipulate the person they are calling selfish. For example, consider a mother who wants her daughter to stay home and keep her company, or to help her clean the house. If the daughter wants to go out with her friends instead, a perfectly normal and healthy thing to do, the mother might call her "selfish".
General
Based on the theory of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, evolutionary biologists and game-theorists come to the conclusion that selfishness is - besides cooperation among relatives and genetically programmed behaviour - the basis for cooperation among individuals of the same or different species.
While some would characterize selfishness as the opposite of Altruism, a more indepth understanding of the nature of the two ideas (see Dawkin's Selfish Gene and the Prisoner's dilemma) and how they tend to overlap or follow directly from one another, leads others to consider it to be a false dichotomy based on artificially strict definitions.
]See also
Altruism
Egoism
Egotism
Enlightened self-interest
Ethic of reciprocity (the 'Golden Rule')
Generosity
A Theory of Justice (by John Rawls)
Objectivist philosophy
References
Twilight of the Idols, Friedrich Nietzsche Penguin Classics; Reissue edition (February 15, 1990), ISBN 0140445145
The Evolution of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod, Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-02121-2
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins (1990), second edition -- includes two chapters about the evolution of cooperation, ISBN 0-19-286092-5
Here is some info on this selfish gene...
The Selfish Gene is a very popular and somewhat controversial book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins coined the term selfish gene as a provocative way of expressing the gene-centered view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes, and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes. An organism is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness – the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy. The book also coins the term meme for a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such "selfish" replication may also model human culture, in a different sense. Memetics has become the subject of many studies since the publication of the book.
"Selfish" genes
Describing genes with the term "selfish" is not meant to imply that they have actual motives or will – only that their effects can be accurately described as if they do. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests, not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level. Some people find this metaphor entirely clear, while others find it confusing, misleading or simply redundant to ascribe mental attributes to something that is mindless. For example, Andrew Brown has written:
"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word – but "selfish" isn't it.[1]
A crude analogy can be found in the old saw about a chicken being just an egg's way of making more eggs. In a similar inversion, Dawkins describes biological organisms as "vehicles" or survival machines, with genes as the "replicators" that create these organisms as a means of acquiring resources and copying themselves. At the level of organisms, we can see genes as being for some feature that might benefit the organism, but at the level of genes, the sole implicit purpose is to benefit themselves. A related concept here is the extended phenotype, in which the consequences of the genes to the environment outside the organism are considered.
[edit]Genes and selection
Dawkins proposes that genes that help the organism, which they happen to be in, to survive and reproduce tend to also improve their own chances of being passed on, so – most of the time – "successful" genes will also be beneficial to the organism. An example of this might be a gene that protects the organism against a disease, which helps the gene spread and also helps the organism. There are other times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female. Another good example is the existence of segregation distortion genes that are detrimental to their host but nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense. Likewise, the existence of junk DNA that provides no benefit to its host, once a puzzle, can be more easily explained. A more controversial example is aging, in which an old organism's death makes room for its offspring, benefiting its genes at the cost of the organism.
These examples might suggest that there is a power-struggle between genes and their host. In fact, the claim is that there isn't much of a struggle because the genes usually win without a fight. Only if the organism becomes intelligent enough to understand its own interests, as distinct from those of its genes, can there be true conflict. An example of this would be a person deciding not to breed because they'd be miserable raising children, even though their genes lose out due to this decision.
When looked at from the point of view of gene selection, many biological phenomena that, in prior models, were difficult to explain become easier to understand. In particular, phenomena such as kin selection and eusociality, where organisms act altruistically, against their individual interests (in the sense of health, safety or personal reproduction) to help related organisms reproduce, can be explained as genes helping copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. Interestingly, the "selfish" actions of genes lead to unselfish actions by organisms.
Prior to the 1960s, it was common for such behaviour to be explained in terms of group selection, where the benefits to the organism or even population were supposed to account for the popularity of the genes responsible for the tendency towards that behaviour. This was shown not to be an evolutionarily stable strategy, in that it would only take a single individual with a tendency towards more selfish behaviour to undermine a population otherwise filled only with the gene for altruism towards non-kin.
[edit]Acclaim and criticism
The book was extremely popular when first published, and continues to be widely read. It has sold over a million copies, and been translated into more than 25 languages.[2] Proponents argue that the central point, that the gene is the unit of selection, usefully completes and extends the explanation of evolution given by Charles Darwin before the basic mechanisms of genetics were understood. Critics argue that it oversimplifies the relationship between genes and the organism.
Most modern evolutionary biologists accept that the idea is consistent with many processes in evolution. However, the view that selection on other levels, such as organisms and populations, seldom opposes selection on genes is more controversial. While naive versions of group selectionism have been disproved, more sophisticated formulations make accurate predictions in some cases while positing selection at higher levels. Nevertheless, the explanatory gains of using sophisticated formulations of group selectionism as opposed to Dawkins' gene-centered selectionism is still under dispute.
Some biologists have criticised the idea for describing the gene as the unit of selection, but suggest describing the gene as the unit of evolution, on the grounds that selection is a "here and now" event of reproduction and survival, while evolution is the long-term trend of shifting allele frequencies.[3]
Another criticism of the book, made by the philosopher Mary Midgley in her book Evolution as a Religion, is that it discusses philosophical and moral questions that go beyond the biological arguments that Dawkins makes. For instance, humanity finally gaining power over the "selfish replicators" is a major theme at the end of the book. Dawkins has pointed out that he is only describing how things are under evolution, not endorsing them as morally good.[4]
[edit]Editions
The Selfish Gene was first published in 1976 in eleven chapters with a preface by the author and a foreword by Robert Trivers. A second edition was published in 1989. This edition added two extra chapters, and substantial endnotes to the preceding chapters, reflecting new findings and thoughts. It also added a second preface by the author, but the original foreword by Trivers was dropped. In 2006, a 30th anniversary edition was published which reinstated the Trivers foreword and contained a new introduction by the author (alongside the previous two prefaces), and also some selected extracts from reviews at the back.
[edit]30th anniversary celebrations (2006)
For the 30th anniversary of the publication of The Selfish Gene, a festschrift was published entitled Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think. (An anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene was also published as mentioned above.) In March 2006, a special event entitled The Selfish Gene: Thirty Years On was held at the London School of Economics. The event was organised by Helena Cronin, and chaired by Melvyn Bragg. The programme was as follows:
The Selfish Gene: Thirty Years On (1:22:55)
00:00 – Melvyn Bragg – Introduction
02:20 – Daniel Dennett – The view from Dawkins' mountain
18:35 – John Krebs – From intellectual plumbing to arms races
31:55 – Matt Ridley – Selfish DNA and the junk in the genome
46:15 – Ian McEwan – Science writing: Towards a literary tradition?
1:00:00 – Richard Dawkins – Afterword
...
Oh kay!
...
Soooo...
What did you learn here?
If your smart?
You would now understand that these lifestyles are not for the mentally dysfunctional who want a hide'n place amungst freaks
It's real life
And until you learn how to respect each other and this lifestyle in general and how YOU effect IT?
Nobody lives a str8 life...
Everyone is a freak.
But it's all about...
respect
No comments:
Post a Comment