I thought about that and I was wondering, is virtual happiness as good as the real thing? I never go around to answering that because then I thought, are born again virgins as good as the real thing? ;)
Better, actually- the tissue in question, if generally 'undisturbed,' will over enough time revert to its original dimensions and elasticity (assuming no serious trauma eg. childbirth, and that the individual is not significantly advanced in age.). I say better because she's got some experience for all of it.
Look at the context of the statement; I am referring to the tissue in question going generally undisturbed for an extended period of time- as in after the events that disturb it in the first place.
A born again virgin wouldn't be undisturbed regardless of the surgery- the concept of being a 'born again' virgin implies that the tissue was in fact disturbed at least once, otherwise we'd just call them virgins.
Look at the context of the statement; I am referring to the tissue in question going generally undisturbed for an extended period of time- as in after the events that disturb it in the first place.
I am saying that there is no reason to believe it is "extended.
A born again virgin wouldn't be undisturbed regardless of the surgery- the concept of being a 'born again' virgin implies that the tissue was in fact disturbed at least once, otherwise we'd just call them virgins.
I am saying that a surgery wouldn't make it undisturbed.
My point was that the tissue won't be restored to the feeling you are expecting.
I am saying that there is no reason to believe it is "extended."
That's why I specified 'If.' There isn't any reason to assume that it wouldn't be either, individual cases would vary. It would seem to defeat the purpose of doing the whole born again virgin thing if you were only a born again virgin briefly, except cases of women doing it right before they got married. Which itself seems rather.... meh. Actually all of that seems to imply there is a purpose to all of this at all.
I am saying that a surgery wouldn't make it undisturbed.
I'm not using undisturbed in a sense of never having been disturbed in the first place- I'm using undisturbed to mean introducing no further disturbances post-surgery.
My point was that the tissue won't be restored to the feeling you are expecting.
There really isn't a given feeling to expect. They're all different- some subtley, some significantly, and unless you personally took the girls actual virginity you wouldn't have a basis for comparison.
In terms of narrowness of the canal and firmness of the tissue, barring major trauma these can be restored to 'near new' levels simply by not touching it for a year or two. The texture would likely still be different, but again- what are you comparing it to?
Personally, I find virgins in general to be overrated- the merits are completely overshadowed by the drawbacks in my opinion.
In my mind born again virgins are just lying sluts that couldn't go 2 years without sex. I think a lot of them are doing it just before marriage. I think a woman who does go without sex for 2 years wouldn't call themselves a born again virgin. I don't know any born again virgins, though.
I can't speak to any of that, as I'm lacking even anecdotal experience with them as well.
I would say that I have a problem with lying, but not a problem with sluts. I think it's stupid to criticize women for what men are applauded for. I don't think either should be applauded either; if somebody wants to sleep around, let them do so, and let them deal with any consequences of their actions.
STDs and pregnancy are big enough deals, nobody needs public ridicule over top of it. Which isn't to say that I believe you're doing so, mind you.
I don't have a problem with sluts, I was just trying to illustrate that the woman in question will probably have been around quite a bit if they think they need virginity back.
I think born again virgins deserve ridicule because it is a silly concept.
I don't have a problem with sluts, I was just trying to illustrate that the woman in question will probably have been around quite a bit if they think they need virginity back.
It's likely, but it's also entirely possible that they had a single experience, or just a small handful before opting for this.
I think born again virgins deserve ridicule because it is a silly concept.
I agree wholeheartedly. The concept is absolutely ridiculous on the surface, and that's without even touching on how ridiculously overvalued female virginity is, especially as contrasted to male virginity.
I always thought that the saying should be "You Don't Need Money to find Happiness", rather asserting flat-out that it can't bring it to you. Money CAN bring joy, but if that's the only method you have of getting happiness, I feel sorry for you.
I believe that money CAN buy happiness. For example: if there was something you desired, you would use your money to buy it, right? Having bought that thing you wanted, you would most likely be happier than not buying it at all or not being able to buy it.
Also ask yourself this. Would you be happy if you were penniless? I certainly wouldn't. The thought of being bankrupt is a terrible thought. I can't imagine how or why someone would be happy with having absolutely no money. With no money, you cannot buy even basic necessities to survive.
True happiness is contentment. Being satisfied with what you have.
In a society that necessitates consumption in order to increase profit, businesses need to convince the population that they are discontent with what they have. They need to convince them that they are unhappy.
Most marketing strategies consist of convincing the audience to buy based on superficial desires and appeals to emotion; they rarely focus on the actual need for the product or service. A soda company that sells a product using a billboard of a beautiful woman in a bikini and a slogan that says “you know you want it,” has little to do with the product itself and instead uses a clever appeal to biology to entice an audience.
Marketing has become so dishonest that it resembles a scheme. This reflects the nature of the business that uses such techniques, but in a culture that associates making money with an attitude of earnings, it is not realized for the immorality that it is. We are continuously bombarded in societies such as these with advertisements encouraging us to consume exponentially. This creates waste and directs the flow of wealth back to those who distribute it.
A lot of people may not recognize the name of Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, but he played a pivotal role in marketing and propaganda which shifted a frugal standard of life to one that necessitated over-consumption. As a result we have a society which consumes for the sake of consuming rather than as a means to an end, a lower and middle class with less disposable income and savings, a disproportionate distribution of wealth, and an excessive amount of unneeded waste.
I've seen you debate on this site; you seem adept in your ability to reason intelligently, but if my position presents too much of a challenge to you, I ask that you show some self-control and refrain from trolling.
I think you are miserable. I described what I felt was your position based on your argument and I said someone like that would be miserable. I think it sucks to be miserable. Therefore, what I am getting at is that it sucks to be you.
Quite the opposite but you can think what you want.
I described what I felt was your position based on your argument.
And you clearly didn’t understand. No big deal.
I said someone like that would be miserable.
I agreed. It is certainly a somber way of thinking.
Therefore, what I am getting at is that it sucks to be you.
I suppose it would suck if I were the person you describe, but the only thing you seemed to illustrate is that you don’t understand my position and lack the interest to approach it seriously.
No worries, I have no interest in engaging in discussion that wont be taken seriously anyway.
I don't see how your argument is anything other than corporations have tricked us into believing we need money to be happy.
It’s not really an argument, but yes I suppose that’s the gist of it put into your terms.
Although, I would say that the perceived need is not money itself but the products and services. There are a few, but most ads don’t focus on convincing people that they need money outright, it is more of a conditional requirement for the products and services that they do convince people to desire.
I would suggest that the reason any evidence would propose that the more wealth a person has the more happy they are (like the chart, although satire) is because a person with more wealth has more of the conditional requirement (money) to grant the ability to consume in order to achieve contentment.
It’s entirely unnecessary to buy things in order to achieve contentment; in fact it is counter intuitive. But people continue in this trend.
Although, I would say that the perceived need is not money itself but the products and services. There are a few, but most ads don’t focus on convincing people that they need money outright, it is more of a conditional requirement for the products and services that they do convince people to desire.
Ok, so your paranoia about a corporate conspiracy is centered around products and not money. Still seems crazy to me.
I would suggest that the reason any evidence would propose that the more wealth a person has the more happy they are (like the chart, although satire) is because a person with more wealth has more of the conditional requirement (money) to grant the ability to consume in order to achieve contentment.
Yes, that is true. That is exactly what it is. How does that change anything? Did you think the graph was describing Scrooge McDuck swimming in money?
It’s entirely unnecessary to buy things in order to achieve contentment; in fact it is counter intuitive. But people continue in this trend.
I fail to see how it is counter intuitive. Products are created to fill some "need" that consumers have. Most stuff people buy has some sort of use to them. It totally makes sense that having more things can make you more happy.
Ok, so your paranoia about a corporate conspiracy is centered around products and not money. Still seems crazy to me.
I wouldn’t say I’m paranoid… just observant.
Yes, that is true. That is exactly what it is. How does that change anything? Did you think the graph was describing Scrooge McDuck swimming in money?
If you seek only to be argumentative and insulting, I have no interest in debating with you. Please try to exhibit some self-control.
I fail to see how it is counter intuitive.
I’m sorry to hear that, but I don’t know if I can do anything to help if it is your intention to be confrontational.
If contentment is being satisfied with what one already has, then desiring more then what one already has is counter intuitive to contentment.
Happiness is not something to achieve. It is a state of mind; a perception.
Products are created to fill some "need" that consumers have.
I find that products are created and advertised to fulfill more for the producer than the consumer, but ok. explicit
Most stuff people buy has some sort of use to them. It totally makes sense that having more things can make you more happy.
My point is that it is not required to perceive happiness.
And just because something has a use does not make it desirable or needed.
In my eyes, a person who is content to washing his dishes with a sponge is happier than a person who is not content because they don’t have the classic deluxe custom designer luxury prestige high-quality premium select gourmet combination dishwashing glove and soup dispenser that he saw on TV.
If you seek only to be argumentative and insulting, I have no interest in debating with you. Please try to exhibit some self-control.
There wasn't an insult there, grow up. Did you think the graph represented people actually having fun with the money?
I’m sorry to hear that, but I don’t know if I can do anything to help if it is your intention to be confrontational.
How is failing to see your positional as truthful confrontational? You claimed it was counter intuitive without reasons. I claimed I didn't see how and explained it.
If contentment is being satisfied with what one already has, then desiring more then what one already has is counter intuitive to contentment.
Happiness is not something to achieve. It is a state of mind; a perception.
It is easier to accomplish this when you already have a bunch of stuff. This position is harder when you have less stuff.
I find that products are created and advertised to fulfill more for the producer than the consumer, but ok. explicit
You just proved me right. When you use the word more that implies that the consumer does get something out of it.
My point is that it is not required to perceive happiness.
It isn't required, but for everyone it makes happiness easier.
And just because something has a use does not make it desirable or needed.
I disagree with the desirable part. It is desirable to anyone who wants to use the product. But, the needed part is irrelevant. I put need in quotes for a reason.
In my eyes, a person who is content to washing his dishes with a sponge is happier than a person who is not content because they don’t have the classic deluxe custom designer luxury prestige high-quality premium select gourmet combination dishwashing glove and soup dispenser that he saw on TV.
Which again proves me right. The guy who has products is happy and the guy who doesn't have products is unhappy.
It was condescending… much like telling me to “grow up.”
Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. It was the only example I could think of where "someone" enjoyed money.
It’s not. I’m saying that I don’t know how I can help you to succeed in understanding my position if it is your only intention to be confrontational.
Ok, well I hope I made it clear that I wasn't being confrontational.
Proves you right? Or proves that you didn’t necessarily disagree with me after all.
Happiness is contentment. Being satisfied with what you have.
And that is easier when you have money to have the things to be satisfied with. It is easier to be satisfied with what you have when you have more things.
And that is easier when you have money to have the things to be satisfied with. It is easier to be satisfied with what you have when you have more things.
Yes. For someone who only finds contentment after they've accumulated enough material possessions, it would be much easier for them to have a lot of money in order to do so.
It’s not required, but unfortunately, most people are convinced that it is.
Yes. For someone who only finds contentment after they've accumulated enough material possessions, it would be much easier for them to have a lot of money in order to do so.
It’s not required, but unfortunately, most people are convinced that it is.
I don't think this is necessarily the case. I'll acknowledge that you can't buy happiness per se, but if you're lacking the resources to secure necessities, you aren't going to be happy. Perhaps we could say that happiness cannot be bought, but a certain amount of money/resources is required to make happiness possible?
if you're lacking the resources to secure necessities, you aren't going to be happy.
I realize the graph in the OP and many people who support the view are referring to the expression in a literal sense, but I think in doing so they are forgetting the underlying message of the phrase “money can’t buy happiness.” The old adage is meant to refer to people who see happiness as a procurable commodity, who place reverence on outward material possessions instead of an inward state of mind.
It’s not meant to be taken so literally, I think that what it’s meant to refer to is an issue that ought to be addressed with sincerity considering the overall zeitgeist in the marketplace. We cannot sustain a world that encourages people to consume exponentially on the pretext that they can attain happiness in this way.
But is anyone communicating that happiness is a commodity that can be bought? I mean, most of us hear 'money can't buy happiness' in one form or another on a regular basis.
Who is telling the world that they can buy happiness? Is it something that is being inferred from other things being said, in advertisements or something?
Am I just missing the message through some quirk in the particular assortment of advertisements I'm exposed to?
Who is telling the world that they can buy happiness? Is it something that is being inferred from other things being said, in advertisements or something?
This is probably the most apparent source of the misconception, though there are others. Education, politics, news, social media etc.
Am I just missing the message through some quirk in the particular assortment of advertisements I'm exposed to?
I’m not sure what types of advertisements you’re exposed to, but I’m almost certain that it doesn’t matter. The ‘message’ is so pervasive that I’m sure you’ve been exposed to it in one way or another.
Its no secret really, like a subliminal message; its actually blatantly obvious, its just that we’ve been conditioned to accept it as commonplace and fail to recognize the immorality and danger involved.
I'm genuinely curious here.
Then I would recommend you watch “Ethos” narrated by Woody Harrelson (there may be a better quality version then the one attached)
This is just one reference off the top, if you’re interested I can list a few more to take a look at.
In my research of the documentary I found a few things I don’t agree with entirely, but nothing that takes away from the overall message. Which can be summed up as “spend your money wisely, be informed, and don’t be manipulated.”
Anyone who's happiness is based on how much money they make, doesn't really know what true happiness is. You could be homeless and still be happy. Money just gives you a false feeling of happiness. And there are plenty of rich people who are unhappy. Just look at Hollywood.
Money cannot buy happiness. Think of monks- studies show that they are the happiest people in the world, though they receive little. They live simple lives, and feel content with themselves Why, may you ask?
For one, without much, you are more grateful when you receive something. When a child receives carrots at the dinner table, many may throw a fit over eating the vegetable. But if a monk receives the veggie, they will be grateful for the freshly grown produce.
When you have much, you develop a sense of greed; you always will want more than what you have. I honestly have a lot, and sometimes may feel greed, but I try to stop myself.
Many people want to keep spending and spending, but the monks survive with little. They are happy. Rich millionaires are probably more down than happy because of greed. I'm not saying that all people have greed; just that greed is a poison most of us will experience.
I have to agree though that people do need a little money for food, shelter, and water; three of the four necessities of life.
Ok, first of all, monks make and drink lots of beer and wine. I would not be surprised if they smoked a little weed on the side. You have to remember that these monks are also celibate (probably due to a mistranslation with should have been celebrate). ;)
