Atheistic viewpoint

March 3, 2007 at 12:58 pm (ethics)

If I was offered the chance to get a million dollars(or whatever is most valuable to you, maybe you get a 1st class honours degree, a high paid job,a loving wife, the ability to have children when you were barren,another day with a deceased loved one etc), all I had to do is press a red button and I would recieve my wish, but instantly a child in China, who would have otherwise lived, dies. There are no consequences, in the sense that it is untraceble, garanteed, and no prison sentance or punishment etc, you do not know who the child was, so you have no emotional losses.

If you were completley convinced of an atheistic viewpoint, no afterlife, no God, that the universe is big cosmic accident, etc etc,
should you press the red button?

The only issue you could possibly have is guilt in this life.
But from this atheistic viewpoint is guilt not simply just a social construction imposed on you, by your unpbringing, by western societies current viewpoints (just like years ago, you would have felt guilt for pre marital sex, if you were immersed in a fully christian fundamentalist society etc), just a kind of moral relativism.
So reducing morality to this, should you not then simply transcend it, and discard it completely?

Advertisements

48 Comments

  1. reverant said,

    I think certain gross actions that violate most everyone’s sense of empathy would dictate that most would feel some guilt for doing as you described. The ability to empathize is built into us, it is what makes it possible to connect with others. I think from an evolutionary perspeetive empathy is what helped the human race do so well.

  2. h0dgey84bc said,

    I would agree that the CAPACITY for empathy, is innate, and indeed yes, arose quite naturally from an evolutionary point of view (as many studies have vindicated, since survival chances of altruistic socieities vastly increase, for obvious reasons)

    But I see it as certainly something that is not compulsory (in the sense that you have to follow the empathatic emotion inescapably) since you could for example feel empathy about a homelesss person, but just walk on by and put it out of your mind, and if you had two competing emotions say for example you had some money on you, but were very very hungry, and you could either satisfy your hunger and buy a cheeseburger or satify your empathy and give the money to the homeless person(in the red button example, the reward versus the empathy and guilt of the child in china) it becomes even more easy to just ignore the empathy.
    Secondly, isnt the way empathy and guilt are directed, just a product of the particular society,you grew up in, viewpoints of the time, just like today you would feel very guilty about a racist act, but if you were brought up a century or more ago, you would typically not think twice. Similarly in other tribes, all kinds of rituals such as cannabolism, etc, take place.

    My viewpoint, is that although the capacity for guilt etc, may well be intrinsically wired in to the human brain. The direction of the this guilt(i.e. if you feel guilty about pre-marital sex, or if you feel guilty about pollution from your car, or murder, or if you feel guilty about nothing at all) is vastly just a psychological implant, grafted onto you by the belief system you have adopted about the world, and the society in which you were brought up

    For example, throughout childhood, you were likely punished for acts such, as “stealing” or some other immoral thing, thus pyscholically reinforcing, the way you feel guilt about western moral issues.

    I would think, if you were brough up, in a society say, that endorsed social darwinism, and you rewarded for your exploits of the weak, taking from them for your own ends, then you would as an adult be left with no sense of guilt about such things we may call “immoral” typcially in western society

    I believe, guilt’s foundation rests heavily on your viewpoint/beliefs about the world and universe.
    And the direction of guilt is a heavily relativistic concept.

    Thus I ask, from an atheistic point of view, surely all there is is cosequencialism?
    The rest is psychology, that can be shed off and transcended, upon the reception of higher reason

  3. h0dgey84bc said,

    I am not actually an atheist, but I find the same problems arise, just as equally with theism

    only the consequences could be something to do with the afterlife, rather than just prison, or social rejection etc

    it doesn’t really make a difference, so I’d rather argue from an atheistic stance

  4. tabac said,

    It is a typically theistic belief that the only reason humans conform to standards of behavior is because they believe themselves to be either piously obeying the will of God or to be that they will be punished by God for violations.

    People who do not believe in the various god-propositions have values that guide behavior just as theists do. One main difference is that atheists don’t claim that their values are transcendent and necessarily universal, the way theists do. Nonetheless, they are values that guide behavior.

    The vast majority of our values are norms learned and accepted in the context of the family and society we grow up in. In our society, we place a very high value on human life. Though indeed we are willing to take any number of human lives rather regularly. And as your problem has included–closer lives are generally more valuable than more distant lives. Closer tends to be “us” whereas distant tends to be “them.”

    So irrespective of whether one is a theist or an atheist, we are not likely to exchange the life of a kid in China for something we want. We are not likely to do so, but I’m sure there are cases in which most people would exchange the life of a kid in China for something–such as the life of one’s own dying child (or parent or lover or friend–someone emotionally and physically closer than the kid in China.) But in any case in which someone would agree to exchange what they want for the life of the kid in China, this would reflect that the value of the life of the kid in China, though very high, is worth less than whatever it is that it was exchanged for. I would hardly think that many people would exchange it for a degree or a successful career, for instance.

    In any case the issue is one of values, not one of atheism vs. theism. In general in our society, the set of values held by atheists are very congruent with the set of values held by theists.

  5. h0dgey84bc said,

    I am aware that it is not a question of atheism versus theism, as I said in my second, the same problems arise with theism really, only we exchange the consequences such as prison or social rejection/stigma, with that of heaven/hell etc

    The reason I posted from an atheist perspective, was to avoid, the option, of not pressing the button, because it had a consequence of hell. I tried to arrange the example of the red button, so that the only conseqeunce was guilt (no prison, no one knowing you did it, no hell, nothing but guilt)

    It seems to me, there is no real sense of morality at all, all there is are people, weighing up consequences and rewards. As well as emotions that are just norms, traditions, remnants of once religoous societies. That all these norms are relative, and different between different socities, and to even finer detail different between individuals in those socities. Also the direction of these emotions such as guilt is vastly to do with beliefs about the world(for e.g. the terrorist bomber feels, no guilt abt the lives of countless innocents, because in his eyes he glorifies god), or the fundamentalist christian, feels extreme guilt about pre-marital sex, whereas most don’t.

    Where I would agree that a capacity for guilt is universal between cultures, and an evolutionary trait, I think the direction of that guilt is vastly a social footprint of the society you grew up in.

    And reducing our guilt to such a thing, I find it quite easy to discard.

    I am ashamed to admit, that if I could prove without doubt 100%, no afterlife, no retribution, no God, just a ceasing to exist, with biological death. As well, aswell as a certainty in my logic

    I would press the red button, for just about anything, maybe even the smallest of rewards

  6. dclemens said,

    If I get one wish, I’d wish for another million wishes where one of those wishes is peace on earth and the secound is that that child that died comes back and leads a happy and healthy life.

    (I’m not sure what I would do with the all the other 999,998 wishes..) maybe a night with miss rott, here…

  7. soniarott said,

    You may not realize it, h0dgey84bc, but the question you ask is essentially the same question that Glaucon and Adeimantus ask of Socrates in Plato’s The Republic (though actually they present an even stronger challenge). In (very) short, is doing the right thing worthwhile even when society/the world punishes the good and rewards the evil? Socrates has a long and convoluted answer, and I won’t go into any details, but essentially he says that it is worthwhile because being the sort of person who does the right thing is itself worthwhile.

    Anyway, from that point on in the history of thought you can see developing two camps of people — those who think there is something intrinsically worthwhile to doing good (or being such that one does good), and those who do not think that doing good is intrinsically worthwhile. Ironically, theists who pose the sort of question you asked are in the latter camp. When they ask of an atheist “If there is no ultimate justice, why not do evil?” they are essentially saying “I cannot see how doing good over evil is worthwhile unless doing good is eventually rewarded and evil eventually punished”. For such a theist to accuse atheism of undermining morality is delightfully ironic, and for such a theist to accuse atheism of “consequentialism” is irony of the highest order…

    Another point:
    My viewpoint, is that although the capacity for guilt etc, may well be intrinsically wired in to the human brain. The direction of the this guilt(i.e. if you feel guilty about pre-marital sex, or if you feel guilty about pollution from your car, or murder, or if you feel guilty about nothing at all) is vastly just a psychological implant, grafted onto you by the belief system you have adopted about the world, and the society in which you were brought up

    I think you are incorrect here — our empathy and guilt emotional reactions are not so plastic that society can bend them to anything it wants. Empathy is hardwired to react when we see people being harmed, and guilt is hardwired to react when we see people whom we have harmed. Society can moderate these reactions, but generally only with strenuous effort — for example, by making it so that we don’t identify with some people (e.g. of a different race, class, religion, or nationality), and thus in a sense making it so we don’t regard them as fully fledged people (i.e. not worthy of our empathy and guilt). If we were to be upset over society ‘imposing’ some sort of artifical perceptual structure on us, and if we were to “shed” that structure, I can only suspect that it would make us more moral, not less (e.g. because we would no longer ignore someone’s plight merely because they had a different skin color than us).

    Moreover, why does “higher reason” require us to only “shed” and “discard” our selfless desires? Why doesn’t “higher reason” require us to “shed” and “discard” our selfish desires too? Why only discard guilt? Why not discard ‘love of money’ too?

  8. h0dgey84bc said,

    I am not familiar with The Republic, it is on the reading list , hehe
    Anyway, from that point on in the history of thought you can see developing two camps of people — those who think there is something intrinsically worthwhile to doing good (or being such that one does good), and those who do not think that doing good is intrinsically worthwhile. Ironically, theists who pose the sort of question you asked are in the latter camp. When they ask of an atheist “If there is no ultimate justice, why not do evil?” they are essentially saying “I cannot see how doing good over evil is worthwhile unless doing good is eventually rewarded and evil eventually punished”. For such a theist to accuse atheism of undermining morality is delightfully ironic, and for such a theist to accuse atheism of “consequentialism” is irony of the highest order…

    I totally agree with this, but what I seek is to find a morality that does not depend on consequentialsim, for that is no morality at all (theist or atheist), BUT at the same time a morality that does not depend on personal individual emotion
    I think you are incorrect here — our empathy and guilt emotional reactions are not so plastic that society can bend them to anything it wants. Empathy is hardwired to react when we see people being harmed, and guilt is hardwired to react when we see people whom we have harmed

    I disagree here completley, I know my own personal experiences have led me to various stages when I was younger, were these emotions of guilt and empathy tugged at me, but the more I began to regard these things as just a product of family/upbringing/socites psychological impact on me, the less and less the emotions had any effect whatsoever, until they mostly faded away, no guilt no shame etc, this happened in correlation with the amount of science I learned the more I learned of evolution and the origin of the universe from a scientific point of view, the more i began to despise religion, and saw it simply as an archaic control device of the masses, then I realised at a later age, that all was not so certain in science, and realised my error, in assuming science could categorically rule out any form of God, rule out any form of afterlife, and I began to arise an interest in metaphysics and the like.

    The point I am trying to make is that although my reasons may have been incorrect for abandoning morals, and emotions such as guilt…the point is it was possible! through reason alone it was possible, to negate the footing of such emotions as guilt. To such a magnitude that these no longer exist essentially.

    Therefore, it follows that these emotions are not innate, they are not like hunger, or lust, in the sense that they are primal and immutable, they are very much footed on reason and belief, wether religious or philosophical or simply socialogical.

    Reason can assinate guilt, love, empathy (i’m not saying ultimatly it should or will, but only that it can), to see this you only have to look at various examples, such as the terrorist bomber who justifies his killing with reason, and eliminates guilt

    Could you elimanate hunger, simply by religious belief or philosophical persuassion? absolutley not, because hunger is truly innate, empathy and guilt, stand on the footing of reason, and can be shaken quite easily (of course the capcacity for them is innate, everyone CAN feel guilt, but not everyone does, it is a matter of the mind state and beliefs of that individual what they will feel guilt about)

    To me it has become almost like a choice, I ask myself what should I feel guilty about? but I know if were to believe certain things, that guilt and empathy could easily vanish

    what i seek, is a true footing to base, morality upon, not just this emotional one, for that isn’t really morality it is just emotional behaviour if no reason is involved

    If empathy/guilt is really so innate, there would be no problem, it would be inescapable, just like hunger, or the pain of someone sticking a pin ur side, you can choose against these things, but there effects would be inescapable

    empathy/guilt are very much conscious choices almost, inherently footed on your idealogy about the world, and easily escapable, if one adopts different idealogy

    I wish for a solid footing of reason, for morality

  9. soniarott said,

    I’ve got to run soon, so I’ll respond to the rest of your post later. But very quickly, I would add Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics to your reading list, as well as a good book outlining Kant’s deontological system of ethics (which utterly rejects consequentialism, and purports to be founded purely on reason). Both Aristotle and Plato are in what is now called the ‘Virtue Ethics’ school of thought, which stands equally with Deontology and Consequentialism as one of the major systems of normative ethics. If you want something shorter and faster than books, try some internet resources, like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy….

  10. soniarott said,

    All right, back from my errands….

    As for the rest of your post, h0dgey84bc, I should note that what you are describing sounds very much like therapy — i.e. where people confront and subdue some emotion they don’t want through the use of the intellect, by examining the historical foundation of it (i.e. where your emotional reaction came from, such as a childhood event or whatever), and then working through mental exercises to designed to change how we regard the emotional reaction and its cognitive foundations. This is also similar, in a way, to how Nietzsche and Marx and others undermined various social institutions (be it moral norms, or capitalism, or whatever) — i.e. by examining where it came from you change how you see a thing, and can thereby undermine it.

    You may have ‘therapied’ yourself out of your own moral sentiments! Congratulations…

    The point though is that through ‘reason alone’ you can nullify the “footing” (as you put it) of virtually every emotional reaction and desire you possess — yes, even hunger, though such basic drives are extremely difficult to eliminate entirely (just ask celibate monks). In other words, the process doesn’t just ‘unfoot’ your selfLESS emotions, it can ‘unfoot’ selfISH emotions too. Reason can undermine hatred just as readily as love, greed just as easily as charity, gleeful remorselessness just as easily as guilt. If you were to be rationally consistent, and wanted to not base your actions on any emotions except the bare residuary that you could not entirely eliminate, then you ought to shuck off greediness and malice and all those other things in addition to empathy and guilt.

    But I see no way to base a moral system on pure, uninformed reason. I say “uninformed” because I have a specific notion about the place of reason in our minds: reason is the facilitator of desires and emotions, Our desires and emotions set the agenda –the goals as it were– and our reason tells us how to accomplish those goals. Reason alone can do nothing and goes nowhere — it has to be “informed” about where to go before it can work out how to get there. Indeed, there’s this whole big problem in the philosophy of meta-ethics called the Fact/Value distinction (also called the Is/Ought problem) which (as I see it) stems pretty much entirely from this arrangement of how reason, as the facilitator of emotions and desires, can go nowhere without their guidance.

    So rather than uprooting your empathy, and your guilt, and your sense of moral outrage, and your desire for justice, and all the other emotions and desires that provide the foundation for moral judgments, perhaps you should be cultivating them, and then using your reason to work out principles and methods that best fulfill these desires.

  11. stephane sednaoui said,

    I would push it for a million dollars. Not because I’m an atheist, but because I’m a skeptic. I don’t believe that pushing a red button would cause some child in China to die — at least without someone else being directly responsible for that death, rather than me.

  12. h0dgey84bc said,

    Thanks Sonia, that’s the best reply I’ve had so far.
    I largely agree with what you say.

    We could probably undermine the footing all emotions such as hate, greed, malice, anger etc as well as love,guilt empathy,

    but I’m not so sure we could eliminate emotions such as hunger, thirst, sex drive, these seem to me to be irrespective of what your beliefs/values/intelluctal stance are, they almost seem to be agents outside the conscious, continually knocking, what I mean by this is you can be a celibate monk, you can denounce lust, and reject temptation, but lust will never stop tempting you (maybe it will get less as the years go on, but never vanish completley) no matter how much you may wish it never existed. Also you can choose not to satisfy your hunger by eating, but that hunger won’t go away completley, it will always keep popping up no matter how much you meditate or distract your mind, so you can never assasinate it via reason alone.

    It seems to me that these primal emotions, lust, hunger, thirst, (urge for sleep?), are almost independent of the conscious, they are of a completley different class, to the “higher conscious emotions” of love/guilt/empathy/hate/anger.

    But I agree, that the “selfish” emotions, of anger/hate/greed etc, can be equally unfooted by reason alone also (for example by adopting a christian belief system/worldview this could be possibly achieved), just as much as the emotions of guilt/empathy/love can be unfooted by a different worldview/belief system.

    So the question becomes, if it is possible to therapy yourself, as you put it, via the intellect out of these “higher conscious emotions” (hate/love,guilt/empathy/anger etc), we have a few choices:

    1)get rid of them all, so we all left with the residary immutable primal emotions(lust, hunger, etc), and then take them as our footing, and let reason guide, us into fulfilling these emotions from that point on

    2)get rid of just the selfless ones (love/empathy/guilt), and take the selfish ones combined with the primal ones, as our footing, and then let reason guide us from that point on, into how to fulfill these best

    3)get rid of just the selfish ones (greed/anger/hate etc), and the selfless ones, love guilt, empathy, combined with the primal immutable ones, as our footing, and let reason guide us from that point on unto fulfilling them best.

    So if we essentially have this pick and mix of higher emotions, how do we essentially choose which ones to keep, and which ones we throw out?

    The only basis for choosing must be on pure reason alone, for we have not yet adopted any emotions, but I think a good axiom would be that we should always adopt the system that maximises our happyness and fulfillment in this life.

    Thus by taking (1), many who have experienced true love, may argue, that this person, would be missing an amazing experience, dizzying heights, that something like sexual fulfillment could never match, thus by choosing to dismiss these emotions would be leading a less fulfilled life, which seems reasonable to me. but on the other hand you would also never feel the pain of losing someone you loved etc etc, so maybe it balances it. But I think most would rather ride the rollercoaster.

    Simarly by taking (2), you are going to be consumed by hate most of the time, or anger, or whatever, so obviously not the most fulfilling life
    So people would probably argue for (3)?

    So I think choosing (3) would be a good choice, my only issue is:

    This all kind of works if we make it rigid, i.e. you choose (3) you have to stick to (3) forever, choose (1) you stick to it forver etc , I think nearly everyone would choose (3) in that case…..but the problem is what if you don’t have to stick to it

    what if you choose 3 for a while, experience love, but then if tradgedy strikes, and you lose the person you love, you then resort to 1
    thus you experience all happyness, but without the lows

    I know I am trivialising, changing your whole emotional framework a bit here
    , but nevertheless, I think the intellect can be very powerful, in doing just that

  13. derren said,

    Just a quick note. Although we all have the capacity for certain emotions and attitudes, the exact content seems to be largely contingent on the particular society/culture we are brought up in. Thus, for instance we all have the capacity to feel guilt, but what we feel guilty about is a function largely of what we have been taught to feel guilty about. Therefore, some people feel consuming guilt about premarital sex, while to others such guilt is incomprehensible. There was a time when people felt consuming guilt about having eaten meat on Friday, which would strike vast numbers of other people as incomprehensible.

  14. h0dgey84bc said,

    well yeah, that’s the point I was trying to make earlier

  15. h0dgey84bc said,

    So far I can’t see any other than a simply emotional basis for morality.
    I mean OK let’s assume that these benevolant emotions are innate, maybe we could assume there is a single gene(just to simplify things) which has evolved because of recipral altruism theories evolution has given us.
    Then Morality becomes easy, we choose to do “good” because we just intrinsically want to, because it satisfies us to a greater degree than not doing good, to press the red button wouldn’t really be in ones self interest, because of the inescapable innate nature of the guilt emotion. We may gain some other benefit, but the cost would outweigh it. So really we are just making a cost-benefit analysis.
    But then say we genentically engineers a child, and switched off this “guilt/empathy gene”, what reasons could then be possibly given to that person to persuade them not press the red button then? (remember there are no consequences, no heave/hell, prison, social rejection, stigma, or anything like that)

  16. danielle said,

    God is not the only possible foundation for morals.

  17. kelpin said,

    Why do you group morality with religion? Why is it that an afterlife should dictate whether we act good or evil depending on our society?

    First of all, aside from being an atheist, I’m also chinese. But setting that aside, if you tell me that a kid in china is going to die, that’s probably enough to make me stop and think about pressing the button.

    I’ve seen variations of this question before, and I always fail to see the purpose behind it. What are you trying to prove, what is your point, and what revelation should I, as an atheist, be getting from the answer you are expecting of me, that would cause me to question my stance on god?

  18. the boss said,

    Kelpin: if you respond to any other post on this blog, a kid in China is going to die.

    Stop. Think. Respond

  19. soniarott said,

    Look, I regret calling the title of this post ‘atheistic viewpoint’, because I completley agree with the sentiments above. It doesn’t make you moral to do something just because of the fear of Hell(or whatever you would choose to call it), infact it is no different from an atheist not doing something for no other reason than he knows he’ll go to prison (i.e. he’s about to steal the old ladies purse but then decides not to because he sees a police man, but would have otherwise). They are both just forms of consequentialism, and in my eyes both don’t constitute true morality(whatever that may be).
    All i was trying to do was elimante someones reply, that might have been “i wont press the button because I’ll go to Hell”, just as I tried to elimante atheistic consequentilism by saying no consequences such as prison or social stigma.
    So I admit yes, it was stupid title.

    I was just trying to eliminate all irrelevant consequentilist reason(either theistic or atheistic), to see if there was anything deeper.

    But yes if a “true morality” exists, it must exist surely with or without the presence of a supreme deity, I agree.
    Just because something is an imposed social construction doesn’t mean it isn’t real. In fact in some schools of thought imposed social constructs are regarded as the only level of reality that is relevant to us. I tend to agree with this viewpoint.

    This is interesting. I mean yes I tend to agree with this. So let’s say ok all morality is founded on the presence of emotions(some of them innate(such as hunger,lust), some of them a product of the society/family that we grew up around or whatever other social conditioning that occured.
    I don’t have a problem, that just becuase they may have come to be in this way, they are not ‘real’. But I certainly know that given this knowledge of there origins, it begs the question should I reinforce these emotions (like guilt) or would I live a happier life I i just let them fade away?

    It almost becomes an emotional pick and mix, to choose from to me.

    It’s like, well should I feel guilt about stealing? Ok stick that one in the bag, Should I feel guilt about cheating on my wife?ok I’ll take two of those.
    Should I feel guilt about drinking, or lieing. Should I feel guilt about exploiting someone weaker, for my own ends, etc etc etc

    Becuase I know, that given a set of “reasons/beliefs”, I could reinforce or destroy, any of these class of emotions.

    So, the problem is, emotions to me are not firm things, they are not solid objects, I can reinforce certain ones, and easily take my mind of and let fade out until I don’t feel them again. So this is why I can’t form my morality on the basis on emotions, it’s not a solid platform(maybe it is for other people, but it certainly is not for me).
    I know I can exist in a selfish state, with no guilt/empathy etc etc if I so choose, and just eliminate these things completley, as i discussed in a post a little bit further up.

    So if your emotions are as solid as hunger or thirst, as biologically inescapable as these. If you know that if you stole something you could never escape the guilt, even despute there being no consequences in this life or the next, then I salute you. But I have a hunch that if you we’re a little more introspective then you could.

    or maybe I am just evil incarnate.

  20. rabeldin said,

    Morality doesn’t have to do with the behaviors, but how we judge them. A “true morality” would have to be universal to merit the adjective true. Since we don’t all make the same judgements, there is no “true morality”.

    It isn’t about one’s emotions, its about one’s judgements. Some of us rarely make judgements about the behavior of others. Others are all about judgements. We choose to praise or condemn, that is morality.

  21. kelpin said,

    what the hell is kylie minogue doing answering stuff on this blog, anyway? DON’T YOU HAVE A SUPERCOMPANY TO MANAGE? A FRENCH FUCKER TO BEG TO CAME BACK? A LAME CAREER TO RESUSCITATE?
    JUST FUCK OFF, WILL YOU?

  22. the boss said,

    why are you using caps lock?
    could i possibly enquire whether you suffer from obssesive-compulsive behaviour?

  23. the boss said,

    i’m just here tu quarrel with stephane sednaoui

  24. kelpin said,

    i’m just here to impress sonia rott and get a date with her.
    and hopefully…fuck her

  25. the boss said,

    oh, sorry. you got be here. mu lesbian tendencies stagnated at kissing gerri halliwell. au revoir. dream on.

  26. the boss said,

    oh, sorry. you got me here. my lesbian tendencies stagnated at kissing gerri halliwell. au revoir. dream on.

  27. grabber said,

    kelpin-you…fuck…sonia? i’m very sorry, but unfortunately i don’t think she’s into simpathy sex.

  28. jean amond said,

    simpathy sex? no. i think she’s not into sex at all. she goes for the intelectual type. i bet she’s a virgin.

  29. jacko said,

    i’ve actually met her once. she was in berlin for the film festival and i was there for an rtl videoconference. anyway, i just said hi, cos she had this big-mean-sex machine guy with her. i guess she’s taken. and she’s not a virgin either.

  30. kelpin said,

    you’re kidding! describe him

  31. kelpin said,

    he was like 1,90m, long black hair, muscles, ,tatoos, “i can kick your ass all day long” look on his face, he was holding her in his arms and had that “i can fuck her all night long” look on his face.

  32. kelpin said,

    ?

  33. grabber said,

    you know the guy? that’s exactly how he looks like. maybe a bit shorter.

  34. grabber said,

    judging by his pants, i don’t think she’s into intelectuals. i don’t know whether he had a hard on or not, but he was BIG.

  35. jean amond said,

    what exactly do you understand by BIG? i want an answer from a girl.

  36. the boss said,

    i couldn’t help noticing the topic.
    ahem!
    very large-more than 25 cm
    large-20-25 cm
    big-18-20 cm
    average-14-18 cm
    small-10-14 cm
    tiny-5-10 cm
    now, please excuse me.

  37. kelpin said,

    and how shoud it be?

  38. tigerlily said,

    Big, because I want to feel it even when i’m super wet, but don’t want to be hurting too much to not be able to enjoy the fun.

  39. gerri said,

    I don’t want to be in alot of pain so I chose average.

  40. ihmuria said,

    There is such a thing as too big (somewhere above 20, depends on the girth), but I do like the sensation of being stretched and filled.

  41. sparr said,

    I would say that more than 20 is too big. Around 16, 17 it’s great.

  42. cobbra said,

    I don’t really care how long they are, length has never done anything for me. Thickness and style can mean the difference between a pleasant tickling sensation and being airlifted into another dimension by tiny pink hippos.

  43. vulva queen said,

    some of the best sex I’ve had was with a guy who kinda resembled a blown up marshmellow. he had very small length but amazing girth, so in my experience girth counts for more. ideally it would be average length, or a bit less than average, whichever, but nice girth.

  44. soniarott said,

    dammit…. why didn’t I think up an awesome nick like “Vulva Queen”?
    My boys, the truth is a penis is a penis. Honestly, if you’re into pleasing a gal the size is a non-issue.

  45. argyle said,

    good – 16-18 cm

    better -18-20 cm

    best -20-25 cm

  46. kelpin said,

    I have a tiny cock

  47. the crooner said,

    But big dreams.

  48. grabber said,

    i say who cares as long as u can shoot a big load in the girls mouth for her to swallow down. Thats all that matters!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: