Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


How to avoid Masturbating

Reply
- Mon, 11 May 2020 08:30:33 EST OVzfPfy6 No.902892
File: 1589200233283.jpg -(313528B / 306.18KB, 675x1000) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. How to avoid Masturbating
Hey guys

I am doing nofap but recently got a hold of some LSD. Trouble is i remember the last time i was doing LSD and i would always masturbate like 4 times in one trip.

Anyone know how to avoid masturbating while tripping?
>>
Thomas Murdwill - Mon, 11 May 2020 09:03:37 EST VtcsO3sJ No.902893 Reply
>>902892
Just don't touch yourself? Jesus doesn't like it when you do that.
>>
Polly Chubbleman - Mon, 11 May 2020 09:11:42 EST OVzfPfy6 No.902894 Reply
>>902893
Yeah but like its like just all fuzzy and intense. do you actively avoid touching yourself while tripping?

I should also note that i trip alone.
>>
Ernest Smallstone - Mon, 11 May 2020 09:17:42 EST Jw4087Th No.902896 Reply
>>902892 yeah be with someone
or go to some public park or lake
>>
Polly Chubbleman - Mon, 11 May 2020 09:31:01 EST OVzfPfy6 No.902897 Reply
>>902896
I was thinking about going camping alone and taking it. But i will have to wait until after all this corona stuff.
>>
Hedda Chonningwell - Mon, 11 May 2020 13:55:56 EST ol3lKwZ/ No.902906 Reply
>>902892
I have tripped great many times and never did I want to masturbate, so I have no idea. But while sober I do masturbate sometimes. What helps me to reduce the frequency is setting aside a particular day of the month so that if I want to I can masturbate, but only on that day of the month.
>>
Wesley Gibberman - Mon, 11 May 2020 21:40:50 EST cXwFO1Tm No.902911 Reply
Think about why you are nofapping on a deeper level?
>>
Charlotte Lightcocke - Fri, 15 May 2020 01:49:03 EST zOZos08p No.903009 Reply
1589521743481.jpg -(143576B / 140.21KB, 1020x1535) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
just chemically castrate yourself with spironolactone and estradiol, i haven't been masturbated in like a week and a half. I went from touching myself every single day to really doing it like once or twice a week at most and never because I felt like I had to, only because I kind of wanted to. And a lot of times I'll just get bored before I even cum. And never since I started have I ever gotten the urge to do it on psychedelics. Even on stimulants a lot of times, I read or play an instrument or draw or watch a documentary or something and won't even feel the urge the entire time, or only feel it in passing.

Honestly I used to make fun of it, but i legitimately understand the power of nofap now, even though this is basically cheating, guys have it a lot worse i will admit. I might even just stop altogether because there's more to life than that shit to me now. But some people will still call me a degenerate sex pervert, who doesn't have sex and doesn't masturbate, somehow, however that works.
>>
Hannah Nickleman - Fri, 15 May 2020 11:22:00 EST zCS5uZfH No.903014 Reply
>>903009
>But some people will still call me a degenerate sex pervert, who doesn't have sex and doesn't masturbate, somehow, however that works.
Well, yes. It's just how anorexia is an eating disorder. A perversion is a significant divergence from norm.
>>
Charles Hosslesodge - Fri, 15 May 2020 22:03:29 EST zOZos08p No.903030 Reply
>>903014
That's why the treatment for anorexia is therapy to change the behavior and the treatment for gender dysphoria is gender affirming therapy, they're exactly the same thing.

You know, if you get the extended edition of the dictionary, you'll actually see that words have multiple definitions and that people use words to mean different things depending on the context, this is actually the one I was using:

>2. sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.
>>
Thomas Noffingstone - Sun, 17 May 2020 22:04:25 EST 9JchIYMz No.903055 Reply
>>903030
Yes, not wanting to have sex is an abnormal sexual behavior, in the same way that not wanting to eat is an abnormal alimentary behavior. It sounds like you meant to contradict me, but I don't think you did.

Also, there's arguably no effective treatment for gender dysphoria. Very few transgender people reach old age, even if they've received any treatment.
>>
Shit Pockbanks - Sun, 17 May 2020 22:09:36 EST 8sI8ChYC No.903057 Reply
>>903055
"The asexual are perverts" has to be one of the better 420chan hot takes even after all these years
>>
James Croffingbanks - Sun, 17 May 2020 23:24:25 EST jZGKACJh No.903059 Reply
>>902892
You have a different sexual center than mine because my pee and gonads literally go inside my abdomen when I am "actually tripping" on LSD
>>
Oliver Bellerchuck - Mon, 18 May 2020 00:27:45 EST jnM39ZBD No.903060 Reply
>>903057
It's true in the objective sense of the word. Perverted is not always synonymous with kinky.
>>
Ebenezer Gannerway - Tue, 19 May 2020 21:45:26 EST zOZos08p No.903112 Reply
>>903055
>Very few transgender people reach old age

That might have to do with the fact we've only been doing it at the rate we have for the last 10-20 years or so, I don't know what the fuck that means or how you can back something like that up

>Also, there's arguably no effective treatment for gender dysphoria.

HRT is pretty effective at it, almost immediately and it gets better from there if you're right. Most people are, it's not your business to challenge them about it, but the cherry picked testimonials from people who regret transitioning aren't actually trans women, clearly, because if they were they would respond to HRT in the overwhelmingly net positive way trans people are known to respond to it. Your other problems don't just go away and you're confronted with having to deal with issues of body image all over again, but the right way, so it's actually doable. The reason why this can be a difficult time isn't because of something inherent to the process, it's because other people make it difficult for them. If the response to someone coming out was always support, there would be a much lower incidence of mental health problems. If people could just shrug their shoulders and move on with their life it wouldn't be a big deal at all. And yet, this is the hill reactionaries want to die on these days for some reason. After losing every single other culture war they ever fought, they think maybe this time. Not likely.
>>
Alice Doffinglure - Wed, 20 May 2020 09:32:38 EST 9JchIYMz No.903125 Reply
>>903112
>the cherry picked testimonials from people who regret transitioning aren't actually trans women, clearly, because if they were they would respond to HRT
That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy. You're defining your terms in such that that it's logically impossible for the treatment to be ineffective.

>it's because other people make it difficult for them. If the response to someone coming out was always support, there would be a much lower incidence of mental health problems.
Yeah, and if only hugs and rainbows were effective in treating pancreatic cancer, people wouldn't die so much from it. Unfortunately we have to live in reality.
>>
Nicholas Ponningwud - Thu, 21 May 2020 04:18:41 EST 8XXOxVGM No.903148 Reply
>>903125
Are you saying that being a cunt to someone and not being a cunt to someone are the same thing? You're clearly being an antagonistic cunt. Cunt cunt cunt.
>>
Nell Smallman - Thu, 21 May 2020 05:37:32 EST zOZos08p No.903149 Reply
1590053852821.jpg -(16750B / 16.36KB, 246x180) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>903125
>That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy. You're defining your terms in such that that it's logically impossible for the treatment to be ineffective.

Nope that's not what that is. Anybody can just take insulin, but it's catastrophically harmful to your body if you don't need to take it. A lot of the time you can tell almost immediately after starting if you were right or not. There are plenty of stories of people who start HRT and very quickly realized they were wrong. There's no shame in it or any lasting damage, you just stop, because the psychological changes happen first. The problem would go away if we could just let people freely experiment socially, but we don't, which is why HRT is necessary in the first place. It wouldn't be needed and maybe won't be in the future once people come to understand that sex and gender are different things, and most of the things we associate with biological sex are actually associated with gender identity.

Men feel comfortable being men and women feel comfortable being women. If you don't feel comfortable being a man and you transition into being a woman and all of us sudden you feel like your life is finally starting to make sense and every day just keeps getting better and better, you're probably a woman.

>Yeah, and if only hugs and rainbows were effective in treating pancreatic cancer, people wouldn't die so much from it. Unfortunately we have to live in reality.

Incredible. So you're saying that you're like a disease? Hard agree. Yep, the world as it is to you is truly the natural, immutable order of things. Nothing has, can or should change over time. You have cracked the code.

It truly marks a turning point in my life that I can read something like this and genuinely feel nothing but bemused contempt. You have worms in your brain dude.
>>
Shit Trothall - Thu, 21 May 2020 10:00:16 EST 9JchIYMz No.903152 Reply
>>903148
I have no idea what you're saying, but name-calling isn't non-antagonistic.

>>903149
>Nope that's not what that is. [...]
I don't see how any of that addresses my point. Do you think that there may actually be some people with gender dysphoria for whom the treatment doesn't work at all, or do you think that such a sentence is nonsensical?

>Yep, the world as it is to you is truly the natural, immutable order of things. Nothing has, can or should change over time.
That's not what I said. I mean, "should"? Pfft. What I said was that merely wishing for things to be different is foolish. When trying to solve a problem you should be pessimistic, not optimistic.
>>
Nell Smallman - Thu, 21 May 2020 14:40:04 EST zOZos08p No.903161 Reply
1590086404821.png -(351102B / 342.87KB, 1156x649) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>903152
>Do you think that there may actually be some people with gender dysphoria for whom the treatment doesn't work at all

Not "not at all". Obviously it doesn't in every case completely cure it, but it almost always at the very least helps, which is the goal of medicine.

>or do you think that such a sentence is nonsensical?

As nonsensical as saying that insulin isn't working for a diabetic whose blood sugar levels are well maintained. I get that it seems tautological but it isn't. When we started to differentiate between sex and gender, two different concepts emerged, and that's just what happened. You can't get any deeper than that. We didn't create something and give it a name, we gave a name to something that always existed but previously we never recognized in the way we do now.

>What I said was that merely wishing for things to be different is foolish

Who said anything about merely wishing? You're clearly trying to present it in a way that it's just "the way things are" when it's just not the way things are. The denial of reality isn't coming from trans people, who alone can know their inner experience and even then only in part, it's coming from people who think that there is something to be done about a group who have existed in one way or another for all of recorded history. Gender affirming therapy is just the modern equivalent of gender nonconforming traditions that stretch back millennia
>>
Nell Smallman - Thu, 21 May 2020 14:43:23 EST zOZos08p No.903163 Reply
>>903152
>I mean, "should"? Pfft

do you think it's impossible to make ought claims in general?
>>
Shit Trothall - Thu, 21 May 2020 15:37:38 EST 9JchIYMz No.903164 Reply
>>903161
>As nonsensical as saying that insulin isn't working for a diabetic whose blood sugar levels are well maintained.
The difference being that diabetes and the interaction of sugar and insulin are comparatively simple chemical reactions. At its core, gender dysphoria is a discrepancy between the expected body image and the actual body image. In very simple terms, the sufferer's appearance causes them to be unhappy. Unfortunately unhappiness is a far more complex phenomenon than diabetes.

>Obviously it doesn't in every case completely cure it, but it almost always at the very least helps
However, you previously stated that testimonials from people who regretted starting the treatment were cherry-picked and that those people weren't really transgender. Do you think that someone who definitely is transgender will necessarily experience a net positive, and/or that it's impossible to have certain (perhaps unreasonable) expectations of the treatment and later go on to regret starting it?

>Gender affirming therapy is just the modern equivalent of gender nonconforming traditions that stretch back millennia
Do you think such traditions stretch back further or are more universal than intolerance, bigotry, and distrust of the strange?

>do you think it's impossible to make ought claims in general?
Not at all. It's just not the sort of thing I would say. My words were in my opinion misinterpreted and I was clarifying them. That's all.
>>
Priscilla Trotlock - Thu, 21 May 2020 20:00:09 EST zOZos08p No.903182 Reply
1590105609425.jpg -(14449B / 14.11KB, 300x182) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>903164
>In very simple terms, the sufferer's appearance causes them to be unhappy.

see: wildly inaccurate terms, gee if you make all the rules up yourself you win every time. that's just not what it is or at the very least not what anyone is claiming, how the fuck can you say something so wrong so matter-of-factly?

>Do you think that someone who definitely is transgender will necessarily experience a net positive, and/or that it's impossible to have certain (perhaps unreasonable) expectations of the treatment and later go on to regret starting it?

Let me answer those two completely unrelated questions separately.

>Yes
>obviously no.

Very strategically placed "and/or" there. I feel like you legitimately do know what your doing though and you're intentionally arguing in bad faith or at the very least learned everything you know from charlatans like shapiro and jpb
>>
Archie Fummerfoot - Thu, 21 May 2020 21:00:32 EST 9JchIYMz No.903183 Reply
>>903182
>see: wildly inaccurate terms, gee if you make all the rules up yourself you win every time. that's just not what it is or at the very least not what anyone is claiming, how the fuck can you say something so wrong so matter-of-factly?
See, you've put me in the position where I can just answer back "no, you're wrong and I'm right". Just saying "that's wrong" is not a response, unless you just want to stop the discussion right there.

>Let me answer those two completely unrelated questions separately.
They only seem unrelated if you didn't understand the question.

>>Do you think that someone who definitely is transgender will necessarily experience a net positive
>Yes
>>it's impossible to have certain (perhaps unreasonable) expectations of the treatment and later go on to regret starting it?
>obviously no.
That's a contradiction. You only regret a decision if it was overall to your disadvantage. Nobody goes "oh, that was alright but I wish I hadn't done it".

>I feel like you legitimately do know what your doing though and you're intentionally arguing in bad faith
I guess that's a comfortable way of looking at it. It's much easier to accept that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a gibbering idiot, and that therefore anyone who doesn't seem like one either vocally agrees with you, or vocally disagrees with you but secretly still agrees with you.
The alternative is to accept that there are tenable positions that don't align with yours, and that's much more difficult.

>learned everything you know from charlatans like shapiro and jpb
I don't know who those people are and I don't feel compelled to speak for anyone else but me. I'm hoping that you're going to address the points I made (or none at all), and not try to imagine what views I might hold and address those.
>>
Mr_Shawmeen - Fri, 05 Jun 2020 03:57:27 EST O61PecZf No.903553 Reply
GUISE GUISE GUISE shut up and smoke a doob dood then agree to disagree. Fucking a why am I always breaking up fights with smart people that I love.
>>
Augustus Blytheson - Tue, 16 Jun 2020 01:23:07 EST X5ewdaU8 No.903696 Reply
>>903149
>If you don't feel comfortable being a man and you transition into being a woman and all of us sudden you feel like your life is finally starting to make sense and every day just keeps getting better and better, you're probably a woman.
This has been my lived experience. I transitioned about 4 years ago. HRT is how I made certain.
>>
Augustus Commlekere - Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:35:17 EST zOZos08p No.904317 Reply
1595968517893.jpg -(4355169B / 4.15MB, 5811x5517) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>903551
you're a dumbass then who can't comprehend that the meanings of words change over time then

You're clinging to a lie that is necessarily falling apart. To kids being brought up today, this isn't even a contentious issue. It's glorious and in a generation you'll be nothing but a bad memory.

The usefulness of a word lies solely in its ability to describe things that appear to be the case, which is why a distinction was made between sex and gender in the first place. It proved to be a better construct to describe an apparent reality that would be the case regardless of how or if we describe it.

There is obviously such a thing as objective reality but all of our interpretations of it are constructs, no matter how sure we think we are, no matter how much we know and how advanced we become as a species, we will never be able to directly observe the universe as it is or see the "thing-in-itself" in Kant's terms. There is no "thing" that directly corresponds to the words we use to describe the world as it appears to us. The definitions of words are based on families of resemblance and their relationships to other words. That's it. There is no such thing as intrinsic meaning. Try to think of a comprehensive definition of the word "game" (or any word) that is true in all instances. I'll save you some time and clue you in that you can't. In essence the only way to define words is to list examples and explanations of those examples and say "and things like that".

There are and probably always will be two distinct camps in terms of gender presentation, and it does correlate strongly with sex, but it's a bimodal not a binary. No one is exactly as male or female as anyone else both in terms of gender AND sex, but people tend to fall close enough to one side or the other that they can be categorized as male or female (in terms of sex) and man or woman (in terms of gender).

Gender is actually a behavior not a trait, the enduring desire to act in accordance with one's perceived gender identity, which is an internal experience that can't be examined beyond what people say they experience, is the "thing" people refer to as their gender. Gender comes from the way one desires to be seen by others, and the word refers to the things that one does in order to be seen as such. All that is required to "be" one gender or the other is the enduring desire to do so. It correlates strongly with sex, which is why transitioning is seen as necessary to begin with, but it isn't inherently related to it and doesn't even really need to exist. I can't imagine a world where it doesn't, but that's because of the time I live in. Transitioning is seen by many people as a temporary solution to a temporary problem and ideally we would live in a society wherein people did not feel it was necessary to conform to the physical appearance associated with the gender they identify with in order to be seen as such.

>no one wants to be a woman

Clearly they do, and some women would prefer to be seen as men and some people in general would prefer to be seen as both or neither. To reiterate, 1-2% of the population are not neatly classifiable into male or female in terms of sex, not even talking about gender. What do you think chromosomes do? They aren't indicators of some innate quality, they contain instructions for how cells are to multiply. Cells very often to not follow the instructions precisely though, and that in fact is exactly what causes us (who are systems of these cells not discrete entities) to grow old and die. If you buy an end table from Ikea but use those parts to build a stool instead, it's not still a table because the instructions say it is. If you put a fish in a measuring cup it becomes a fish bowl.

The desire to act is the thing itself. Gender is a beetle in a box (https://youtu.be/x86hLtOkou8). One's experience of gender is inherently unknowable outside of what we can observe, which is that 1. the desire to transition or to not conform to one's typical gender expectations is formed in the womb and endures for a person's lifetime. 2. the vast majority of those who do, view transitioning in general as an overwhelmingly positive experience in spite of people like you. Those are the only two things that can logically matter. "That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent." Reality as it is inherently unknowable and so for the rest of time the only thing we can do is continually update the constructs we use to describe the apparent world in light of new information and continue to formulate and reformulate our theories about everything.

The majority of trans people never even consider detransitioning and 60% of those who do stop shortly after starting, affirmed that they're happier as their desired gender and their only regrets come from lack of societal acceptance. After transitioning and strong community support the likelihood that a trans person will have attempted suicide in the last year goes down from ~30% to just 2-4%. The problem is clearly solely people like you.

Again, I cannot stress enough that the difference between sex and gender is recognition with-in our current culture (the majority of non-Western Christian cultures have had a place in their societies for homosexuality and gender nonconformity btw, and the motivations for people to act in those ways in their own societies are clearly based in the same biological truths that motivate trans people to transition today, "being" "trans" is just how they cope with the brain and body chemistry of it today.

>They want to [...] have the role of a woman

You are so fucking stupid that is literally what gender is.

This is a little hard to read but I'll never get tired of posting it. I'm so chuffed someone on /b/ took the time to make it. Just gloss over the parts you happen to agree with coming from the same academics who are explaining the realities of the world you're in denial of.

I'll give you or anyone else massive props if you even respond to this post or this infographic with more than a deflectionary remark. It's mind-boggling to me that people on the psychedelics board who eat acid like candy can be positivist stooges like you. I think it just goes to show that personal biases can lock you into flawed thought patterns no matter how much of a "free thinker" you think you are. You think trans women are icky and built your entire worldview around it. Do better.
>>
Augustus Commlekere - Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:41:03 EST zOZos08p No.904318 Reply
>>904317
")." got included in that hyperlink, people can just take that bit off if they actually want to watch the video
>>
Ebenezer Brennermud - Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:53:58 EST 9JchIYMz No.904321 Reply
I am >>903183. >>903551 is not me.

>>904317
>The majority of trans people never even consider detransitioning
Oh, so now it's only "the majority"? Let me quote you once again:
>the cherry picked testimonials from people who regret transitioning aren't actually trans women, clearly, because if they were they would respond to HRT
Which is it, dude? Is it that some trans people come to regret the procedure, or that anyone who regrets the procedure is by definition not trans? You can't have it both ways, they're mutually contradictory statements.

>After transitioning and strong community support the likelihood that a trans person will have attempted suicide in the last year goes down from ~30% to just 2-4%. The problem is clearly solely people like you.
The world is full of "people like me", whatever you think that means. They're not going to disappear by just wishing really hard they did. If you're strange or somewhat weird-looking, people are going to distrust you, at least by default. It's a universal human trait. Maybe you think "but I can't help being being the way I am"; well, those people also can't help being the way they are, so what do you want to do?

>the majority of non-Western Christian cultures have had a place in their societies for homosexuality and gender nonconformity btw
Yeah, and that place was generally the same one reserved for weirdos and outsiders. If you think any past culture treated sexual non-conformity better than any of the current ones then you're just deluded.
>>
Fanny Brummerserk - Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:39:22 EST zOZos08p No.904340 Reply
>>904321
Look up what "cherry-picked" means. You wouldn't have to if there was this huge phenomenon of them regretting it. Also the minority who DO regret it, regret it from lack of acceptance not because it isn't their material reality. Again 60% of people who start to detransition stop shortly after.

>The world is full of "people like me"

It is not lol. At least in the developed world. You think you have your finger on the pulse as some channer computer toucher? Why do you think /pol/acks are so perpetually butthurt about """cultural Marxists"""? Because education is legitimately how you influence society, and educators tend not to be reactionary retards.

>If you think any past culture treated sexual non-conformity better than any of the current ones then you're just deluded

It wasn't "non-conformity" though that's the point, they had an actual place in society. Just do a cursory Google search. Do you genuinely believe that the ethics and morals of today always were and always will be? That's insane.

But you're right in that now is the best time to be alive as someone who doesn't "conform" because there very quickly is becoming nothing to conform to, which is the zeitgeist, and it's cool as shit. Most people are coming around to the idea that live-and-let-live is the only way we can exist in a world where everyone lives in a different universe. There's just a very loud opposition by people who are still desperately clinging to the lies of the past and can't let go of the idea that the narrative they use to guide their own lives is not universal.
>>
Phoebe Chendlewick - Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:12:33 EST iaeEwxT9 No.904341 Reply
>>904321
I think "people likeyouu" could be the same kind of people that really believe they are better than black peoplle or something. possibly ignorant people who are araid of things they dont know. but idk i didnt read the whole thread but who gives a shit about what other people decide to do because it truly doesnt affect you unless you try to make it affect you
>>
Caroline Bardfoot - Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:24:50 EST voRZ/oD+ No.904345 Reply
>>904340
>>904317
Say what you will about this line of argument, and I disagree on some points and could say a lot but I can't be arsed, but I have never seen a more devoted student of postmodernism, they know their shit and know what they think about, and this kind certainty of belief about it being impossible to have any certainty of belief is at the very least an interesting perspective, and in a bizarre sort of way seems to be coming from a pretty actualized person. This level of confidence is staggering. Maybe we really are living in the end of history.
>>
Lillian Perringmodge - Wed, 29 Jul 2020 16:25:55 EST 9JchIYMz No.904347 Reply
>>904340
>Look up what "cherry-picked" means. You wouldn't have to if there was this huge phenomenon of them regretting it.
It seems you still don't understand what the problem with your statement was. If you say "if someone doesn't respond to HRT then they're clearly not trans", then you're defining HRT to be an effective treatment for gender dysphoria. You're logically negating the possibility of it being ineffective. By definition, HRT is the theoretically best possible treatment for gender dysphoria. Therefore there's no point in continuing to look for any possible better treatments, because by definition they don't exist, at least in terms of effectiveness alone.

>Do you genuinely believe that the ethics and morals of today always were and always will be?
What are you on about? Who the fuck said that?
>>
Rebecca Bovingridge - Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:04:20 EST oxn9wvux No.904350 Reply
>>904347
>"if someone doesn't respond to HRT then they're clearly not trans"
>1 out of 1 match
Attacking a strawman, post disregarded
>>
Augustus Cullybodging - Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:34:17 EST 9JchIYMz No.904351 Reply
>>904350
I'm sorry, but how is that a strawman? That was the actual statement.

>the cherry picked testimonials from people who regret transitioning aren't actually trans women, clearly, because if they were they would respond to HRT
>if they were [trans] they would respond to HRT
>if someone is trans they'll respond to HRT
P = "someone is trans"
Q = "they'll respond to HRT"
P => Q
¬Q => ¬P
>if someone doesn't response to HRT then they're not trans

Where's the fallacy, dumbass?
>>
Rebecca Bovingridge - Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:43:21 EST oxn9wvux No.904352 Reply
>>904351
>here's the actual statement
It's a strawman, glad you can at least course correct.
>>if they were [trans] they would respond to HRT
Doesn't flow from the original statement. From a third party perspective, you come off as rather obnoxious and unconvincing.
>>
Rebecca Bovingridge - Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:46:54 EST oxn9wvux No.904353 Reply
>>904352
Also, your reliance on insults further diminishes any convincing power you had. I expect more logical fallacies and insults from you in further posts, and thus am even less willing to consider your side in this debate. I suggest doing more psychedelics, myself. : )
>>
Archie Drossleford - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 00:32:49 EST zOZos08p No.904354 Reply
>>904347
>You're logically negating the possibility of it being ineffective.

No, I'm logically negating the possibility that it could be effective for people who aren't trans, which follows naturally and doesn't make much sense to say. HRT (like treatments for the majority of mental conditions) can be and typically is to some extent not completely effective in treating gender dysphoria, at least for the first couple years, but it is the only known safe and effective treatment for it. On the other hand, if one starts transitioning into a gender they actually aren't, then they START experiencing gender dysphoria. Usually VERY quickly after starting, and so they just stop, and there isn't even a need to detransition. There are many such cases of that but yes by definition those people are not trans. If someone is actually happier transitioning back into the gender they were assigned at birth, then they are that gender and therefor not trans.

Not to mention the kind of logic you're using here >>904351 is almost useless in describing many things in the real world and it's incredibly reductionist to think that you can necessarily put everything into such simple terms. And again, it's insane to me that someone on the psychedelics board thinks you can in the first place. You must be holding on really tight to this worldview.
>>
Augustus Cullybodging - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 01:39:59 EST 9JchIYMz No.904355 Reply
>>904354
>Not to mention the kind of logic you're using here >>904351 is almost useless in describing many things in the real world
If you're going to reject propositional logic then having a debate with you is simply impossible. I'm not going to bother arguing with someone who at any time might go "yeah, but logic doesn't matter man, what matters is how you feel about it", or some bullshit like that. I only wish you'd said sooner that you don't care about reasoning.

>it's incredibly reductionist to think that you can necessarily put everything into such simple terms
Saying that something is "reductionist" is simply a way to dodge an argument by accusing the other person of oversimplifying something without having to explain how the simplification is inappropriate. Frankly, it's lazy and disrespectful.

>And again, it's insane to me that someone on the psychedelics board thinks you can in the first place.
It seems people on this board, for how supposedly enlightened they fancy themselves, fairly consistently assume that anyone who's interested in psychedelics must share their opinions and think like they do. Y'all must live in echo chambers IRL or something.

>You must be holding on really tight to this worldview.
Uh-huh. And pray tell, what is my worldview?
>>
Fucking Tootworth - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:15:14 EST urA8jk3r No.904356 Reply
>>904355
>hah! I used logical variables in an ill-constructed argument, that means I don't even need to bother debating to own you stuck-in-an-echo chamber libs *sniffs own fart*
if only psychedelics worked to cure cretins like you and Rogan. sadly, any asshole can do any substance.
>>
Augustus Cullybodging - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:47:02 EST 9JchIYMz No.904357 Reply
>>904356
>I'm a retard who's too stupid to understand the most basic of syllogisms and the language of propositional logic, so instead trying to understand the argument I'm going to dismiss it out of hand and hope nobody calls me out on it.

And the fact you think I'm not liberal is fucking hilarious. I'm sorry to have failed your purity test, even though you know literally nothing about me.
>>
Fucking Tootworth - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 04:06:05 EST urA8jk3r No.904358 Reply
>>904357
>durr retard
the sure sign of an advanced logician is clearly to resort to 4chan-style shitflings once his transphobic spiel falls on deaf ears. Reported, thread hidden, go back to where you belong.
>>
Augustus Cullybodging - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 04:35:09 EST 9JchIYMz No.904359 Reply
>>904358
>resort to 4chan-style shitflings
Because it's not like it's frustrating to carefully construct an argument and have it be completely ignored and dismissed with some greentext bullshit by some idiot passer-by who didn't even bother to read it. You threw the first insult man, and now you're complaining to mommy because I payed in kind.

>his transphobic spiel
I challenge you to find anything that's even mildly transphobic in anything I've said here. Hell, find a single opinion I've expressed about trans people, in favor or against.
You just show those windmills who's boss, buddy.
>>
Archie Drossleford - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:24:34 EST zOZos08p No.904367 Reply
1596133474560.jpg -(359494B / 351.07KB, 918x1188) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>904355
>And pray tell, what is my worldview?

The kind of person who thinks you can reduce infinitely complex real world phenomenon into math problems

and the kind of person to be particularly bothered by this specific issue you actually know nothing about to keep replying with the same wrong thing over and over again, why are you dying on this hill? are you really just such a dyed in the wool pedant that you get this way about everything or do you care about this cause specifically for some strange reason?

take more acid

>>904359
>transphobia is only when you curb stomp trans people and call them slurs

let me guess: you don't hate them but you think they're wrong?
>>
Archie Drossleford - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 14:33:58 EST zOZos08p No.904369 Reply
>>904367
Actually looking back at your posts you legitimately could only care about the logic side of this only using it as an example

in which case this is just an interesting conversation that doesn't have to be emotionally charged
>>
Mr_Shawmeen - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:12:47 EST Ci+sJLQF No.904372 Reply
1596136367027.jpg -(8001B / 7.81KB, 204x247) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
This whole thread pic very much related
>>
Ian Pablingfudge - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 15:32:29 EST voRZ/oD+ No.904374 Reply
>>904372
Nofappers, transes, and debate nerds duking it out instead of just not giving a shit like everyone else
>>
Augustus Cullybodging - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 16:56:17 EST 9JchIYMz No.904375 Reply
>>904367
>The kind of person who thinks you can reduce infinitely complex real world phenomenon into math problems
So you're saying you're a science denialist? At the very least a physics and chemistry denialist. If real world phenomena are not expressible, even in principle, as mathematical models then making predictions about reality is completely impossible. You hear about Kepler's laws of planetary motion and you scoff at the notion that the movement of the planets might be approximated by such a simple equation. Yet, even when there's no solution to the n-body problem, eclipses can still be predicted thousands of years into the future.

Look, I know there's an assumption in culture where if something is reducible to mathematics then it's somehow less exciting or something, but what you need to understand is that one of the underlying assumptions of science is that real world phenomena are reducible to elementary processes that can be modeled, and that if you compose those elementary models you can model the entire phenomenon.
The alternative is that if you look at a phenomenon closely enough it's driven by pure magic. The planets are drawn through space by unicorns, electricity is gnomes running very fast through wires, and brains run on pixie dust instead of chemical reactions.

>let me guess
Exactly. You've spent this entire thread drawing conclusions about what unvoiced opinions I must hold supported only by association fallacies. "9JchIYMz has said X. Transphobes often say X. Therefore 9JchIYMz is a transphobe."
Whether I'm a transphobe or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, but if anyone is going to call me that they better fucking have something to back it up beyond their own unfounded assertions.

>>904369
>in which case this is just an interesting conversation that doesn't have to be emotionally charged
Which it is, except when some asshole accuses me of strawmaning or of non sequitur without saying where the logical gap is. I try to be as careful as I can when I respond, so as I said it frustrates me when some minimum-effort, flyby troll goes "lol strawman".
Go through the thread again; I don't think I was ever rude to you.
>>
Archie Drossleford - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:32:57 EST zOZos08p No.904379 Reply
1596148377560.jpg -(17039B / 16.64KB, 252x393) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>904375
>So you're saying you're a science denialist

No. I just don't subscribe to Scientism or the sort of fundamentalist materialism capital-A Atheists do. Which is a huge difference. It is a valuable way of gaining degrees of certainty, but like any other belief system is unable to attain absolute truth truth, since we are beings-in-the-world who can never know it as it actually. This is not to say any idea is as good as any other, yada yada, any other strawperson argument you want to use against postmodernism is also bullshit I'll save you some time but I'd be more than happy to explain anything so I can justify having studied it at university.

All we can ever know is learned through observations of things that appear to be the case, be it some physical thing or some reasoned logical argument. Science is a very valuable tool in building this sort of knowledge, but it necessarily cannot be our only source of apparent truth.

Also, if you take a gander here >>904317 you can see that "science" (which is an almost useless term to begin with, considering the vast methodological differences between the domains typically classified under that umbrella) is almost incontrovertibly on my side anyway.

Also don't take the vitriol with which I'm arguing to mean that I think you're somehow a bad person. I don't know you and I'm of the opinion that the vast majority of people are alright. I'm just also a bitch.
>>
Archie Drossleford - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:36:50 EST zOZos08p No.904380 Reply
>>904379
lol there are a couple points i just forgot to finish and words I doubled on accident, I gotta chill on this until I come down a little bit more
>>
Ian Pablingfudge - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 19:00:19 EST voRZ/oD+ No.904381 Reply
>>904380
>wasting your trip having pointless arguments online

Salute
>>
Phineas Femblelit - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 20:10:39 EST 9JchIYMz No.904384 Reply
>>904379
>I just don't subscribe to Scientism or the sort of fundamentalist materialism capital-A Atheists do.
Fine, but then, how do you account for the fact that science mostly appears to work? I mean, yes, there's no possible way to know that there aren't invisible intangible elves fucking with experimental results (and in fact it's an assumption that the universe is unaware that a scientist is conducting an experiment), or that the universe sprung into existence in its current form as I was typing this sentence, but don't you find any value in parsimony and falsifiability? Is there any point in considering that reality might have a very complex true form that's very different from what it appear to be, without any reason to think it is that way, without any way to test if it is that way, and with there being far, far simpler alternatives?

>Science is a very valuable tool in building this sort of knowledge, but it necessarily cannot be our only source of apparent truth.
What other source is there? Supposing for the sake of argument that there's a source of truth that doesn't involve performing an experiment, how could you possibly know if the answer you got is correct without testing it in an experiment? Or, in Popperian terms, how could you know if it was wrong?

>which is an almost useless term to begin with, considering the vast methodological differences between the domains typically classified under that umbrella
I'm personally of the opinion that the methods of a lot of things that are classified as science are so sloppy that they degrade those fields to quasi-science at best, and to pseudo-science at worst.

>Also don't take the vitriol with which I'm arguing
I never found you vitriolic, I just felt you leapt to conclusions too eagerly.

>>904381
Yeah, what a trooper.
>>
Emma Chillerforth - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:36:47 EST zOZos08p No.904388 Reply
1596163007335.jpg -(103849B / 101.42KB, 960x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>904384
>how do you account for the fact that science mostly appears to work?

With the word "mostly"

>I mean, yes, there's no possible way to know that there aren't invisible intangible elves fucking with experimental results

Little bit of a reductio ad absurdum there. To say that we can't know that would be a technicality. It almost certainly isn't the case, to the point we can reasonably assume it isn't, without claiming to have arrived at certain knowledge. There are still things that actually appear to be the case based on observation, like (certain aspects of) gender identity*, emotions, pain, religious experience, etc., that can't be comprehensively explained in scientific terms.

*There are also things that can be, like the overwhelming evidence suggesting that on average trans people have brain structures more closely resembling that of their identified gender, not their biological sex.

>but don't you find any value in parsimony and falsifiability?

I do.

>Is there any point in considering that reality might have a very complex true form that's very different from what it appear to be, without any reason to think it is that way, without any way to test if it is that way, and with there being far, far simpler alternatives?

No there is not. Not to me at any rate. I'm only saying that those "far, far simpler alternatives" are constructs we've made to explain what appears to be the case and they are subject to radical change. See: the difference between classical and quantum mechanics, two branches of physics that right now seem incompatible, but are both useful in describing the world and predicting future events. So in the example of gender, we've only used the word as we do now for the last 50 years or so. We differentiated between sex and gender to better describe something that is a natural phenomenon that would be the case regardless of how we described it or if we described it. The only thing that can be said to be "real" is that certain people feel as though they would prefer to behave in a way typical of the opposite sex.

We can't change the nature of something by how we describe it, which is a common misconception (or deliberate obfuscation) about the idea of "the social construction of reality", but from now until the end of time our understanding of all phenomena will be continually updated, clarified, debunked, etc. Some things are more sure than others. It seems as though I can be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I drop something it will fall to the ground, however with our current methods, there is no way to understand a whole lot about the self. Like what makes one person grow up to be a philanthropist and another person grow up to be a killer? We have scientific theories that explain a great deal about this, we know that there are mental conditions like sociopathy and psychopathy where a person seems to experience no emotions, conditions like ADHD in which parts of the brain believed to regulate behavior and emotions are impaired, conditions like BPD which make an individual impulsive and more subject to their emotions, and so on, but only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of these people will go on to kill another person in cold blood.

So there's clearly more going on there than we can adequately explain using scientific reasoning. Whether that means we can't adequately explain it at all in the here and now is a matter of opinion, because explaining it by saying it's because of the alignment of the stars or because they're possessed by a demon is still an explanation, it just is one that I and most people nowadays find to be ridiculous, and no longer a particularly useful construct for explaining the world. In fact, it's a very harmful one given it follows from that that if you believe there is something observable about a person that makes them "evil", then the logical course of action is to eliminate that group of people. But it's still an explanation.

So I generally think that right now at least but probably forever, that we don't have enough empirical evidence to concretely and comprehensively say what makes someone a killer, or a philanthropist, or homosexual, or a woman. I tend to believe that "whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent". Does that mean we'll never have a better idea of what goes into making a killer to keep using that example? I don't think it necessarily does, and even now we can use these indicators that we've observed to give psychological support to these people (maybe instead of putting them into a tiny cage where their choice is kill or be killed) before they have the inclination to kill another person, then on average we could lower the rate of murders, but we don't have certain knowledge of what makes someone capable of murder and so we can't entirely eliminate it. Even if we rounded up all the people who fit our current profile of "murderer" and locked them up for life, there would undoubtedly be people who did not meet the criteria but still have the capacity to kill another human being.

>What other source is there?

To a varying degree, anything that someone can come up with to explain a phenomenon. I think that conjectures supported by empirical evidence are the only ones that can be said to explain phenomena that are true for all people, but there is a huge realm of experience that that doesn't encompass, i.e. religious experiences, love, sexual attraction, identity, etc. Those things are part of internal experience and the only tangible definitions those things lies in how we explain those experiences to each other in our language. It's part of being human to wonder about them, to discuss them, to be inclined to agree with one idea over another, but it can never be explained further than that. Science is of no help here. If one has the belief that that which can't be empirically demonstrated must not exist, or cannot be said to exist until it is, or at the very least doesn't matter (my camp more or less), then that's fine and generally you can live you're life like that perfectly fine, a lot of people do. But that still is leaving the realm of science and reason, because you can't prove a negative.

>Supposing for the sake of argument that there's a source of truth that doesn't involve performing an experiment, how could you possibly know if the answer you got is correct without testing it in an experiment? Or, in Popperian terms, how could you know if it was wrong?

You can't. Which is why these are all experiences of internal truth that can't be binding to anyone else, because again I believe the only things which can be said to be potentially true for all people are things which multiple individuals have empirically demonstrated. I just think there's no reason in particular to stop there when it comes to how one conducts their own life. All theological, supernatural, and otherwise non-scientific explanations of these things which are beyond the realm of science are basically people going "woah wouldn't it be cool if", and then believing it or not believing it themselves to varying degrees and telling other people about it who then judge if it makes sense in light of their internal experiences. Really the only problem with this is when non-pluralists fundamentalist types kill or oppress everyone who says "nah that wouldn't be cool and i think you're dumb".

>I'm personally of the opinion that the methods of a lot of things that are classified as science are so sloppy that they degrade those fields to quasi-science at best, and to pseudo-science at worst.

Me too, which is why I'm of the opinion that a lot of these things should be explored outside of that realm, and a live-and-let live mentality is the only position that we can take on them in a secular society, so long as they aren't empirically demonstrated to be legitimately harmful to society at large (i.e. religious fundamentalism, fascism, authoritarian communism, etc.)
>>
Emma Chillerforth - Thu, 30 Jul 2020 22:37:16 EST zOZos08p No.904389 Reply
>>904388
lmaooo i hit the character limit

I guess in essence, my point here is there are a lot of aspects to existence that can't really be approached from the perspective of rigorous scientific reasoning (such as ought claims in general, the why questions, love, pain, etc.), but it's still important for (most of) us as humans to approach them, and there's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, however anyone wants to.
>>
Mr_Shawmeen - Fri, 31 Jul 2020 01:26:41 EST O61PecZf No.904391 Reply
1596173201886.gif -(856698B / 836.62KB, 498x280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>904374
I think the irony is that they don't give a shit either ubless it's about their own point.

>I'M NOT RUDE OR WRONG YOU'RE JUST TOO FUCKING STUPID TO SEE THAT FAGGOT

Would you say all their "debating" boils down to something like this?
>>
Emma Chillerforth - Fri, 31 Jul 2020 05:43:20 EST zOZos08p No.904394 Reply
1596188600335.jpg -(16396B / 16.01KB, 720x405) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>904391
I mean I do this primarily for myself so I can refine and better understand what I believe and gain a better understanding of the world, and I can be the same to him. It's abundantly clear that me and our friend here can't possibly reach any resolution or synthesis of our beliefs. I'm a misandrist postmodern neo-Marxist seeking to destroy the West and build the matriarchy and he's the kind of guy to do the Data from Star Trek logic and reason shtick while also making absolutely incredible statements like

>Very few transgender people reach old age

and intentionally miss the point when people misspeak because he's looking for anything he can sink his teeth into build a case for what he'd believe anyway no matter what, until some whim of his own takes him in a different direction, which I mean to some extent or another is what we all do, because we're automatically biased towards any theory or conjecture we come up with and depending on how strongly you believe it, that can make you see almost anything in anything, even if you're cognizant of this and try to take that into account, it's impossible to be a completely detached observer of the world as beings that were thrown into it in medias res. Not to mention there's a lot you don't simply need to reason out. You don't need a theory of truth to know it's wrong to tell a lie.

people just love to play with words, none of this shit actually matters

"Very few transgender people reach old age" is still fucking fantastic though on so many levels lls, I had totally forgotten that was what he led with, amazin'
>>
Fanny Bapperfire - Fri, 31 Jul 2020 06:37:13 EST oxn9wvux No.904396 Reply
>>904394
It's pretty funny how someone can go into the whole "le 40% echo chamber purity test" shit while claiming to be on ~your side~ all along. Stormfags invariably use the same tired old dog whistles everywhere they go and they wonder why people call them out on it.
>>
Mr_Shawmeen - Fri, 31 Jul 2020 13:13:10 EST O61PecZf No.904400 Reply
>>904394
"I'm a misandrist postmodern neo-Marxist seeking to blahblahblah"
Do you really mean any of this or are you being facetious?
>>
Thomas Nonningdin - Mon, 03 Aug 2020 14:27:31 EST i98PJOhd No.904427 Reply
hey so this thread is fucking trash but I'll put my 2 cents on the OP
I've never masturbated on acid, I've had sex and that was a wild experience, I find that I'm not so horny while tripping but do have an affinity towards being very close to people, human contact is always nice but the thought of watching porn while tripping has never come to my mind
>>
Jack Gettingfitch - Mon, 03 Aug 2020 19:48:41 EST CYiQ58KL No.904431 Reply
>>904425
Good call, that was clearly actual advice and not just meant to poison the well and immediately derail the thread
>>
Jack Gettingfitch - Mon, 03 Aug 2020 19:55:42 EST CYiQ58KL No.904432 Reply
>>904431
which I mean more power to them by the way, it immediately made this thread a million times more interesting than if it had just revolved around a bunch of guys who don't fuck telling each other not to cum
>>
Jenny Greenbanks - Mon, 03 Aug 2020 21:17:28 EST +V4PCUpr No.904433 Reply
>>902892
Every 5 or so years, I go through a 2 year period of my life where I jack off to everything until I don't think anything is hot anymore.
>>
James Sommlewon - Thu, 06 Aug 2020 09:50:40 EST SpR2Smnp No.904490 Reply
>>902892
I dunno about you my dude, but tripping usually helps me to see the "truth" in matters.

One time, while coming down from a trip, during the final two or three hours when there's still a lingering sensation but it's mostly gone, I decided I wanted to watch some porn. Not really jerk off, as when I'm tripping I don't usually get sexual urges, but I just wanted to watch some porn and really get into what's really going on, really grind my brain, really think about this stuff.

So I went to my favorite porno place, 4chan's /gif/ board, and opened a bunch of threads from the porn I enjoy most, and spent the next 40 minutes simply watching porn. From thick cum blasts dripping on a cute but heavily made up grill, to big fucking tatas exploding out from tight blouses, to hardcore deepthroats on black cocks.

Of course, I got hard, but I resisted the urge to jerk off and force myself to just watch, as if I was watching a youtube video or a tv show or whatever. I just watched. At first, I just enjoyed the aesthetics of it all. I saw these women as these beautiful goddesses, their perfect skin and plump bodies, their lascivious gaze, their moans and squeals of pleasure. I could've been content with that, but I wanted to go further.

I realized that, even though I was hard, I didn't really want to jerk off. While watching facial cumshot videos I realized that, yeah it was fun to watch, but what I really wanted to do was release my load in some girl's face myself. When I jerk off frequently, I don't cum buckets like those dudes do. After the second time the amount of sperm coming outta my dick is minimal. Even when I jerk off just once a day, it's not as impressive as those dudes. So I thought "why I am I not saving my jizz for when I have a sexy encounter?". I didn't have a girlfriend at the time, and months had passed since the last time I had gotten lucky, but I felt like jerking off and wasting my seed just like that when I could be saving it for a grandiose explosion was, well, a waste.

You were expecting me to tell you that looking at porn while tripping made me horrified of what I was looking at? Not at all. It was actually very enjoyable. But entheogens provide a unique opportunity for enhanced self-reflection, and it gets you to asking the real questions if you really want to. "Why do look at this? Why do I enjoy it so much? What's there about this that makes me so horny?".

So I ask myself, "why do I want to jizz on a girl's face so bad?". First response was "Because it's hot as fuck". But when I really saw the act for what it is, I saw it as a domination/submission act, fetishizing the girl's oral features mostly. I have an oral fixation, I smoke, I constantly bite my fingers, and the porn I enjoy most is related to blowjobs and cumshots: oral related sex.

That was the beginning of my no-fap efforts. Contrary to common psychotherapeutical beliefs, I believe that in order to get rid of these morbid twistings of sexuality, one must give into the dark desire and fulfill the fantasy once and for all. So I restricted my masturbation to only once a week. How about that, spending 6 days without jerking off and then edging makes me cum buckets.

After that, when I finally encountered my next partner, I realized my sexual stamina was greater than before, and I enjoyed sex way more.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that the issue is not so much forcing yourself not to jerk off through sheer willpower. That will accomplish nothing. You can force yourself to do-not do many things. Change comes from understanding. So I encourage you to think about this the next time you're tripping and want to jerk off: "Why do I feel the need to jerk off? Is it just pleasure, or is there something else?".

Who knows? Maybe even get comfortable and watch some porn for an hour without jerking off, appreciating the beauty of it.

Or don't, I don't give a shit.
>>
Molly Chungergold - Fri, 07 Aug 2020 06:19:11 EST gJgnO+97 No.904509 Reply
I post onto this board from a higher plane as a pure being of light. What is masturbation?
>>
Phineas Doshfield - Sun, 09 Aug 2020 21:35:17 EST qyYr2+PS No.904564 Reply
>>904490

Not op but thank you for this post. I'll come back to it when I am tripping. I will try to understand the why.
>>
Cornelius Drobberspear - Sun, 09 Aug 2020 22:20:34 EST /YrP9whW No.904565 Reply
>>904490
>>904490

Like what? gee dude what did you realize?
That you had some oral fixation? You are congratulating yourself on not masturbating every single day? Like what is the retardation that is this post lol.

Bro it's fucking nothing.
You have not ascended in any fucking way whatsoever.
>>
Barnaby Dremmermed - Thu, 20 Aug 2020 12:27:50 EST gSC7vZBU No.904750 Reply
>>902892
>>902892
OP, what you do is get some DMT, watch porn while smoking that and you'll never want to watch porn under psychedelics again. You'll see firsthand how much it can damage your psyche and soul, realize that sex is sacred, and will align yourself in such a way that you'll stop wanting to masturbate to porn, find a nice girlfriend, and the two of you will have hot tantra sex
>>
James Sellystore - Fri, 21 Aug 2020 02:22:39 EST voRZ/oD+ No.904757 Reply
>>904565
Lmao I know, people ITT seem to think that not rubbing one out 12 times a day is an accomplishment and not just shit most people can handle.

Masturbation addiction is completely psychological, literally just find something else to do people, get professional help if that doesn't work. If we were going to go just by this thread I'd guess the only two solutions to touching yourself too much is to either become a sanctimonious trad asshole or a girl, and the latter was obviously a joke to begin with, I don't think they legitimately were suggesting that as a solution or saying that's why they chose to switch teams
>>
Jack Sashwodge - Thu, 27 Aug 2020 17:46:23 EST arjZTCZG No.904858 Reply
>>904814
Nah but to be real I got heavy into psychedelics at a pretty young age before I got heavy into porn/girls and since becoming an "adult" I've become much more of a simp so 7 years ago I would've totally agreed with you but nowadays I feel like I could maintain full wood throughout the most harrowing psychedelic experience.
>>
William Brongerlock - Sat, 29 Aug 2020 12:13:45 EST gSC7vZBU No.904871 Reply
1598717625659.jpg -(428366B / 418.33KB, 860x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>904858
>nowadays I feel like I could maintain full wood throughout the most harrowing psychedelic experience.
one time i went to a haunted house (one of the ones that advertises "if you get through the house we give your money back!!") with some friends and we all took about 4-5g of mushrooms each.
i don't know why but i was horny as fuck the whole time and the monsters looked like psychedelic versions of pic related (it wasn't all wolf monsters, but every monster there grew a big pair of tits and wide hips) and, while my friends thought all the monsters were out to kill us, i thought they were all trying to come onto me and fuck.
>>
William Cezzlechork - Mon, 31 Aug 2020 09:45:07 EST IV1Ntd36 No.904902 Reply
>>902892
nofap is just as much of an addiction as porn. youre a faggot. enjoy being gay. nb
>>
Ernest Blathercocke - Mon, 14 Sep 2020 08:10:48 EST SJ5fUkOC No.905119 Reply
>>902892

I can't fathom how someone would waste good tripping time masturbating.

What.
>>
John Dublingfot - Wed, 16 Sep 2020 20:36:54 EST KZ4fglxj No.905173 Reply
Trip with other people

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.