NationStates Jolt Archive

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.
Sex doubleplusungood.

Romance is evil?

You must of had a bad date... :)

Sex doubleplusungood.
I have to be honest that 1984 was part of my inspiration, if only because that anti sex league had cool sashes. But think about it: isn't sex primative? Do we ever want to move away from the primative?

Romance is evil?

You must of had a bad date... :)
I've never dated in my life.

*does a spit take*
WHAT?!?!

Why is sex doubleplusungood? or maybe just bad experiences

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

You shall ban my sex not a day before I ban your breathing.

In fact, let's go all the way: forget "natural" reproduction altogether and begin working on the axlotl tanks. Hopefully they will be perfected before everyone is dead.

You shall ban my sex not a day before I ban your breathing.
Then I am a martyr to a glorious cause.

sex0rz is good!

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.


I have enough trouble standing the company of people who refuse to enjoy good food.

I must say that if you have a genuine aversion to sex then I dislike you personally.

You guys should know by now that I am not a crank, nor am I saying this for fun. I say it because I believe it. I just don't want to give a rationale right now, as I want to see what debate comes forth first. Sex has only briefly been debated this way, and never on this forum.

You guys should know by now that I am not a crank, nor am I saying this for fun. I say it because I believe it. I just don't want to give a rationale right now, as I want to see what debate comes forth first. Sex has only briefly been debated this way, and never on this forum.
Dude dont take this the wrong way but proposing to ban sex is gonna put you into most peoples filing systems under "C for Crank".
(or "P for Prank" ;) )

God gave sex to mankind as a gift to be enjoyed AND as a means to reproduce. I don't feel like telling God that what he did was "primative" nor do I wish to stop having it!

God gave sex to mankind as a gift to be enjoyed AND as a means to reproduce. I don't feel like telling God that what he did was "primative" nor do I wish to stop having it!
Well, God also made us able to go to hell. He made us imperfect for a reason, and that was to see what humanity could overcome. Sex is a major one. He knows we'll overcome it, and it'll begin in my lifetime.

Dude dont take this the wrong way but proposing to ban sex is gonna put you into most peoples filing systems under "C for Crank".
(or "P for Prank" ;) )
I'll probably be a crank for now. But I think that this may actually gain traction one day.

Well, God also made us able to go to hell. He made us imperfect for a reason, and that was to see what humanity could overcome. Sex is a major one. He knows we'll overcome it, and it'll begin in my lifetime.


Whats more naive and hopelessly unrealistic than an anarchist?

An anti-sex whackjob!

Whats more naive and hopelessly unrealistic than an anarchist?

An anti-sex whackjob!
I believe that it is possible in this age of technology.

I believe that it is possible in this age of technology.


That what is possible? that people will voluntarily take up absolute chastity?

if you've read 1984 then you may have read Brave New World in that book everyone is genetically modified and grown in test tubes, but even they haven't completely gotten rid of sex, remember the children playing the erotic games?

Well, God also made us able to go to hell. He made us imperfect for a reason, and that was to see what humanity could overcome. Sex is a major one. He knows we'll overcome it, and it'll begin in my lifetime.
Well then what to do is become celibate by choice rather than wanting to force your morals on people and stop everybody else having sex.
Perhaps you also plan to overcome your "base instinct" to eat and drink?Or to shit?
Why would you think people would seriously consider giving up sex because of your own almost Cathar stance on what sex is.

That what is possible? that people will voluntarily take up absolute chastity?
Hey, maybe. Once upon a time, people were once voluntarily moral. They will be again, as I believe that society is heading off a moral cliff, and will feel a need to bounce back to a high very quickly. It's happened before. It'd be interesting to see how it plays out again.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.
Banning sex is blasphemy against nature! Humans have not yet evolved to the point where copulation is too base. Humans are not yet rational beings, if you haven't noticed. That's an outdated idea--if it was true, propoganda wouldn't be nearly so effective. The "mob mentality" wouldn't exist. We are still organisms of nature, and will remain so for quite a while yet.

For Sex
- Look around you. All 'cause of reproduction, the natural way. Pretty big system to thumb your nose at.
- Feels Good.
- Hard-wired into us.
- Helps genetic diversity.

Against
- Bad for those who can't get any. They do desperate things.
- Genetic diversity also = some genetic problems.

Well then what to do is become celibate by choice rather than wanting to force your morals on people and stop everybody else having sex.
Perhaps you also plan to overcome your "base instinct" to eat and drink?Or to shit?
Why would you think people would seriously consider giving up sex because of your own almost Cathar stance on what sex is.
I don't. I think that this instinct is far too ingrained right now to ever come out, and it is the main thing polluting this society.
BTW, my idea of banning sex was biologically impossible 100 years ago, as eating and drinking is today. When the time comes that they are obsolete, however, we may deal with that then. We may have a need to ban it. Doesn't famine and drought cause a lot of nasty wars?

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

retard alert

Hey, maybe. Once upon a time, people were once voluntarily moral. . No volunrarily moral is people who choose to be celibate even then its only moral from their personal perspective, banning sex isnt voluntarily moral its legislating personal morality. Dude I mean this with complete seriousness if you actually think the act of consensual sex in and of itself is immoral you need the kind of help that nobody can give you on the net .

Although sex is the most basic instinct of the human race, it is becuase we would not reproduce without there being a benifit. Also, without sex people woudl go absolutly crazy! Their hormones would get to them and not only that but we tried to ban drinking in USA....IT FAILED. If we try the same thing that nature urges us to the, we will lose respect with teh law and without that crime will go sky high :headbang:

For Sex
- Look around you. All 'cause of reproduction, the natural way. Pretty big system to thumb your nose at.
- Feels Good.
- Hard-wired into us.
- Helps genetic diversity.

Against
- Bad for those who can't get any. They do desperate things.
- Genetic diversity also = some genetic problems.

Like make absurd proposals such as this one.

I don't. I think that this instinct is far too ingrained right now to ever come out, and it is the main thing polluting this society.
I'm gonna get flamed badly for this, but I think the main thing polluting society is religion. Though I believe the worst pollutant on this planet are humans, for trying to destroy the very environment that gives us life. We haven't yet reached the point where we are separate from our ecosystems yet, either.

This is a joke right?

Banning sex is blasphemy against nature! Humans have not yet evolved to the point where copulation is too base. Humans are not yet rational beings, if you haven't noticed. That's an outdated idea--if it was true, propoganda wouldn't be nearly so effective. The "mob mentality" wouldn't exist. We are still organisms of nature, and will remain so for quite a while yet.
But we are so far advanced from mere animals. Can a squirrel build a skyscraper? Can a whale preform calculus? No. We are becoming less and less like our animal ancestors by the day, and one day, we will be totally liberated from them.

Hey, maybe. Once upon a time, people were once voluntarily moral. They will be again, as I believe that society is heading off a moral cliff, and will feel a need to bounce back to a high very quickly. It's happened before. It'd be interesting to see how it plays out again.



Hey, maybe. Once upon a time space aliens fed the masses. They will again, I belive that the world is heading back into the invisible alien cloud and hunger will soon be eliminated by these benevolent aliens. It has happened before. It'd be interesting to see how it plays out again.


Note, people have never been voluntarily moral, nor have space aliens fed the masses. It has not happened before, both are fantasies.

I'm gonna get flamed badly for this, but I think the main thing polluting society is religion. Though I believe the worst pollutant on this planet are humans, for trying to destroy the very environment that gives us life. We haven't yet reached the point where we are separate from our ecosystems yet, either.
Again, we are reaching that point. We are biologically and intellectually superior to the environment, and because of this, we ought to learn how to dominate it.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

you're mad ... i think that you don't know the meaning of "sex"...is not just physical attraction...is something metaphysical... :cool:

Hey, maybe. Once upon a time space aliens fed the masses. They will again, I belive that the world is heading back into the invisible alien cloud and hunger will soon be eliminated by these benevolent aliens. It has happened before. It'd be interesting to see how it plays out again.


Note, people have never been voluntarily moral, nor have space aliens fed the masses. It has not happened before, both are fantasies.
Then why did the rule of law develope? Why do I consider it immoral to kill you? Because I know that you contribute greatly to this world. A mere animal cannot comprehend that.

You may as well cut off your arm!

Yeah, we're so biologically superior to the environment. Except for the slight fact that in your house there are bacteria and viruses that could kill you were your immune system even slightly weaker. And another influenza pandemic is coming. "Superior".

But we are so far advanced from mere animals. Can a squirrel build a skyscraper? Can a whale preform calculus? No. We are becoming less and less like our animal ancestors by the day, and one day, we will be totally liberated from them.
That's bullsh*t. We are actually becoming more like them "by the day", though evolution does not work that quickly for organisms that have a mere several generations per century. I suggest you do some research on social insects. I recommend Empire of the Ants by Bernard Werber. It's an intriguing pseudo-novel by a French entomologist on ants. Of course, you'll then argue that we should try to emulate ants, since all workers and warriors are asexual. But the difference is that humans all have sex drive and the need to reproduce, and we'd be going against our very human nature to ignore it.

Then why did the rule of law develope? Why do I consider it immoral to kill you? Because I know that you contribute greatly to this world. A mere animal cannot comprehend that.


The proximate causes of morality do not imply that there was ever a time when, like you claim, people voluntarily lived morally.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.


Did daddy touc yer bum in naughty ways or something? Cant get it up? Got a weird burning itch from some shank you did at a bar?

Yeah, we're so biologically superior to the environment. Except for the slight fact that in your house there are bacteria and viruses that could kill you were your immune system even slightly weaker. And another influenza pandemic is coming. "Superior".
But with every passing year, we are getting better at fighting these viruses and bacteria. Right now, we need them more than they need us. Soon, however, it'll reverse, as we learn to live without bacteria.

Good luck enforcing a ban on sex.

Engaging in consensual sex is NOT immoral.

If you want to use religion as a basis for determining morality, use the 10 commandants. Sex is not involved.

If you want to use logic as a basis - look at those activities that cause pain and/or suffering to people. Consensual sex is not one of them.

Murder, greed, polluting and stealing top my list of immoral behaviors.

Slender Goddess

Again, we are reaching that point. We are biologically and intellectually superior to the environment, and because of this, we ought to learn how to dominate it.
Oh my dear f**king god, I don't think I've ever read something so inflamming as that statement. That proves your complete and total ignorance of ecology. We are inextricably tied to our environment. Christ f**king Jesus, I can not express my contempt for that in mere words, and I am a voracious reader with above-average vocabulary and linguistic skills (I know, I'm very humble). That statement is fallacious in such a terrible way that if there are a measurable quantity of other humans who agree with you, we're doomed beyond belief. We are completely reliant on our environment, as well as local, alien, and our global environment.

And I now realise why you made such a completely ridiculous statement. You have absolutely no understanding of biology. I pity your damned soul.

Aside from neglecting to explain why sex is bad, you've neglected to explain how a 'ban on sex' is going to be enforced, and by whom.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

Sounds like somebody's not getting any.

Your going too far, though I do have the ultimate reson for your proposal:

AIDS.

Firstly, if you have never been on a date, then you have no right making such a statement. I wonder what will happen when you actually get a date and fall in love? Of course, with such a b******t superiority complex, I find it very hard to believe that will ever happen to you. Humans are not superior to animals and the environment, and they are what is natural. If you go on believing such things, you will ever be immoral, no matter what, because nature and what is natural are the best of all things. It is for this same reason that I am against vegetarianism... that and I'm of German descent, so I love meat!

As few comments:
1. Your basic assumption seems to be that we must "liberate" ourselves from the natural world due to being somehow above it. I would challenge you to prove that we are, indeed, above it. The idea that our cognative abilities, the only thing separating us from any other animal, remove us from the world which created us, is absurd. Do you count the mentally deficient as less than human? I would also pose the question, even if we are somehow above nature, why must we impose a separation? There seems to be no need.

2. The idea of a ban on sex is quite frighteningly authoritarian. Human society, in extremely general terms, has moved toward libertarian values over the past centuries; such an idea, I believe and fervently hope, will not be able to take hold. Bear in mind also the implications of reading 1984 and agreeing with The Party; it would seem that you have entirely missed the extremely obvious point of the book.

3. Sex is good for you. It helps to balance hormones, provides exercise, lessens risks of certain types of disease (such as heart disease, if I recall correctly--bear in mind I refer only to safe sex here; if you don't take precautions and get an STD, it's your own fault), helps to strengthen emotional ties between lovers, creates strong family bonds, releases a truly astounding quantity of endorphins, reduces stress, and it just plain feels good. These are just the benefits I can recall offhand. You would desire to ban all of this, for the sake of imposing a needless barrier between humanity and the rest of the natural world?

In short, I find your proposal rediculously naive.

if sex goes so does the humen race

Although it would help in ending STDs, I dont think Banning sex is the way to go. I mean, Sex is a natural human emotion, in my opinion.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

It is called becoming a monk. Now go join a monastery, take a vow of silence, and do not bother the lusty crowd. :)

Next thing you know, we'll be worshipping Henry Ford and growing babies as in a farm. Then we'll be teaching them that flowers are bad. Then we'll be giving them drugs which you can overdose on, but you can't get a hangover from.

By the way, I happen to like sex. It does wonderful things, it's a great way to get exercise, and it increases endorphin levels.

Someone has a really strang superiority complex.

Oh, and by the way, whales can't do calculus, but dolphins can do algebra. How's that?

in the first page of the posts someone said God made us inperfect thats why we go to hell. but we made ourselves imperfect. The first humans where made perfect and God did give us sex to reproduce and have fun. So I wont go against God and will keep having sex

Why is it that you belive that we are superior to nature? So what if a squirl can't build a skyscraper? Perhaps that they are superior to us, After all for a race superior to nature why are we the ones destortying it. You don't see squirls building nukes that can destroy the world. Suprisingly for a race that is superior to all others we are the ones that suffer from destorying our world. The other people who have posted are right you have no grasp of Biology.

undefinedundefined

YO!!! whens the last time u got some u Elton John lil skank..... ease up, are u even from america u big head lil pile of stiks..... go back to germany u piece of crap..... tryin to outlaw sex is like outlawing hamburgers in a McDonalds..... ease up..... take a pill.... for gods sake if that dont work get R Kelly to pee on your face

I think that that those of you siding with banning sex have good arguements for it. I won't claim to have read all of the posts regarding this subject, because I haven't...How do you plan on reproducing? Are you all advocating "test tube children"? I think that sex is a bane on society only when it infiltrates every aspect of society. I think as far as being used as a means of procreation and fulfillment by a married couple it is ok. It's when it is used to sell things and is a major selling point for merchandise or as a means of revenue...

-President of Lymonious

I suppose if sex was outlawed, it would do measures to rehabilitate the romantic aspects of it.

Next thing you know, we'll be worshipping Henry Ford and growing babies as in a farm. Then we'll be teaching them that flowers are bad. Then we'll be giving them drugs which you can overdose on, but you can't get a hangover from.
That occured to me, except that you must have forgotten the sexual aspect of the book. Do you recall the children's requisite sex play? That's just one of sundry examples.

By the way, I happen to like sex. It does wonderful things, it's a great way to get exercise, and it increases endorphin levels.
Well, sex is actually the foremost way of getting endorphins. The only way to get more would to bypass the endocrine system and ingest it in large amounts or inject it directly into the bloodstream. That's the biggest reason that sex feels so good--it's kind of like taking some opium.

That's the biggest reason that sex feels so good--it's kind of like taking some opium.

Like opium? Opium is an illegal drug! Oh no! Ban sex! Ban sex! When you have sex your doing drugs!

How do you plan on reproducing? Are you all advocating "test tube children"?
Well, first of all, not many agree with him. Second of all, he advised artificial insemination. I'm sure he wouldn't oppose in vitro fertalisation and birth, but we don't have that down well enough for the continuation of our species.

Oh, I didn't forget tha aspect, I simply bypassed it. The feelies were my favorite part of the book, followed by the barbaric lands.

I think I'll keep having sex to get my endorphins.

I mean, Sex is a natural human emotion, in my opinion.
I have to do it:
Is running an emotion too, in your opinion? Sex is an action in Webster's opinon...

Sex was given to us by God as a way of reproducing. It was not given to become a pass time.

you realize that not getting sex drives you crazy right?and we have no damn way of messing with human brains yet(and prolly never will for a REALLY long time)

I think I'll keep having sex to get my endorphins.
I think I'll stick to jogging. Less chance of contracting diseases and creating children I'm not ready to support.

I have to do it:
Is running an emotion too, in your opinion? Sex is an action in Webster's opinon...

Sex was given to us by God as a way of reproducing. It was not given to become a pass time.


Oooh, a religious maniac

I'm gonna get flamed badly for this, but I think the main thing polluting society is religion. Though I believe the worst pollutant on this planet are humans, for trying to destroy the very environment that gives us life. We haven't yet reached the point where we are separate from our ecosystems yet, either.

That is so true, I will support you if anyone flames you for it

Oooh, a religious maniac
If believing sex out of mariage is wrong makes me one, then yes, I am a religious maniac.

I think I'll stick to jogging. Less chance of contracting diseases and creating children I'm not ready to support.

if you take the proper precautions you wouldn't have children either.

Look this issue can be argued untill everyone is blue in the face lets get real here. people are NOT gonn stop having sex like it or not. It feels to good *ten times more so when in love* and we don't NEED it to reproduce but it is definatly a preferred method. The thing is you can press these views all you want there are people that have smart sex there are people who think with organs far distant from there brain. I am not a player/cheap wh0re or however you wish to word it. I use sex as ONE of many ways to express love. if you guys can't handle that then too bad. I'm not going to change no matter how hard you try to push chastity on me.

I have to be honest that 1984 was part of my inspiration, if only because that anti sex league had cool sashes. But think about it: isn't sex primative? Do we ever want to move away from the primative?


You are using the word primative in completely the wrong context. Primative would indicate old, and less new. Doesn't mean it's bad. If your logic is "sex is primative, so we should get rid of it" then we'll have to start cutting off opposable thumbs. Those are primative as well.

I have to do it:
Is running an emotion too, in your opinion? Sex is an action in Webster's opinon...

Sex was given to us by God as a way of reproducing. It was not given to become a pass time.
Yes, but sex also stimulates the pleasure parts of the brain, and gives what feels mainly as a metaphysical experience. The same way that religious experiences are really just, basically, a seizure. There is a physiological explanation for both. And yes, sex did evolve as a means of disease-resistant reproduction (genetic variation is very useful against pathogens). But since humans have evolved for sex to actually be an extremely pleasurable activity, supposedly the best experience a human can have (that's for a reason). So there is meant to be fairly constant copulation, as there is no specific "time" for reproduction like there are in less developed organisms. Menstration is the closest thing to œstrus that humans have, which is characterised by irritability, not intense need to copulate.

Running does not release huge amounts of endorphin into one's system. It raises your endorphin levels slightly, but it doesn't feel nearly as good as sex.

I think a few of you guys may be forgetting that the society of Brave New World had nothing against sex per se, it was simply opposed to the idea of natural birth on the basis that one could create a far more stable society from Bokanovskified individuals. The World Controllers appear to heartily accept that widespread sex can be extremely useful in keeping a society happy, they just don't think natural reproduction is a good idea when there are more "reliable" methods at hand.

I think I'll stick to jogging. Less chance of contracting diseases and creating children I'm not ready to support.

...And in year or two his girlfriend is pregnant with twins.

If believing sex out of mariage is wrong makes me one, then yes, I am a religious maniac.


That also depends on what your definition of wrong is. Every one has a different opinion on what wrong is. Hannibal the cannibal thought it was okay to eat people unfortunatly for him no one else saw it that way. I see it as wrong to limit yourself to only having sex after marriage. if your partner is of the same thought then it is the blind leading the blind. experiece as much as people won't want to admitt it is a key factor in sex. I mean come on I probably won't egt married untill I'm 29 or 30 or somewhere aroudn that age. Men are in there sexual prime before then. Women howeever are a different story. If you love the person and are willing there is no harm done. the end.

I think we should create a world line in Brave New World.

If believing sex out of mariage is wrong makes me one, then yes, I am a religious maniac.

Believing that "god gave" sex to people makes you one.

Stay away from public transportation or I'll call up the department of homeland security.

I'm gonna get flamed badly for this, but I think the main thing polluting society is religion.
The religion that pollutes society is the corrupted one that people try to use as a weapon. I am a Christian, but I don't go out and declare crusaids on everyone who doesn't belive what I do. I like to think my personal religion doesn't corrupt anything.

Do yourself a favor and get a girl (or a guy depending)

Now, now. This is getting a little extreme. How about moderating a little, and limiting sex between a man and a woman who are both married to each other. That´s better than just ridding of sex all together! The Lord saith "be fruitful..." etc. but we now very well He never meant go be whoremen and sluts. Sex should be limited in such a manner, and nothing further. Oh, and all rapists, are "sex offenders" should be castrated or put to death.

Oh, and sodomists should be forced to drink a gallon of prune juice and three glasses of Metamucil everyday. That should teach them! :p

I forgot nothing about Brave New World, it's just that that is the only literature which has anything about non-sexual reproduction in humans.

There are pretty effective methods used in the prevention of STDs and pregnancies. I'm in a monogamous relationship with a man I love very much. I'm not religious, so I don't need to be married in order to have sex.

Sorry to those who are missing out because of their morals. They are really missing out on a lot.

I have to suspend disbelief to browse this forum. The sheer stupidity and moronic opinions on this forum are just...bad.

Oh, and sodomists should be forced to drink a gallon of prune juice and three glasses of Metamucil everyday. That should teach them! :p


sod·om·y noun
1. Anal copulation of one male with another.
2. Oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. Copulation with an animal.

are you sure?

I forgot nothing about Brave New World, it's just that that is the only literature which has anything about non-sexual reproduction in humans.

There are pretty effective methods used in the prevention of STDs and pregnancies. I'm in a monogamous relationship with a man I love very much. I'm not religious, so I don't need to be married in order to have sex.

Sorry to those who are missing out because of their morals. They are really missing out on a lot.

Indeed, using risk of pregnency or STD as an argument against sex between responsible people is ludicrous.

Condoms are extremely effective at preventing STD , and the choosing of a partner is more effective yet.

As far as pregnency is concerned, there is a wide range of female contraceptives which, when combined with a condom, are nearly one hundred percent effective.

Believing that "god gave" sex to people makes you one.

Stay away from public transportation or I'll call up the department of homeland security.
I'm a Christian you moron. There was no mention of Allah (although it must be said that not all Islamics are terrorists).

Uneducated idiots like you are the reason Bush got re-elected, I swear.

I'm a Christian you moron. There was no mention of Allah (although it must be said that not all Islamics are terrorists).

Uneducated idiots like you are the reason Bush got re-elected, I swear.


Pissant, fundementalists are fundementalists.

Christian history proves that christians have no less an affinity for savage violence than muslims

Racist dog.

As far as pregnency is concerned, there is a wide range of female contraceptives which, when combined with a condom, are nearly one hundred percent effective.

Yes, some are 99.9% percent effective. Thats why I say, do it 1,000 times, and your screwed.

Now, now. This is getting a little extreme. How about moderating a little, and limiting sex between a man and a woman who are both married to each other. That´s better than just ridding of sex all together! The Lord saith "be fruitful..." etc. but we now very well He never meant go be whoremen and sluts. Sex should be limited in such a manner, and nothing further.
A little? And how do you propose you moderate sex? And if married couples had limits on their sex, you'd have quite a few seriously pissed off people. And not everyone who has sex is a whore. In fact, most people aren't. Sex is a natural occurance in humans, as soon as an individual is capable of reproduction, they are ready for sex. For girls this is when menstration begins. What God didn't mean when he said to "be fruitful and multiply" is to do so like rabbits and overpopulate the entire Earth. That's what He didn't mean.

Oh, and all rapists, are "sex offenders" should be castrated or put to death.
1) What is your problem with simple incarceration? Were you aware that sexual abuse can occur because of mental issues, which can later be reolved?
2) If castration or execution are the only two punishments, than that would mean that all female "sex offenders", as you so eloquently put it, must be put to death, seeming as that is the removal of the testes. What you mean is neutered.

wow so many things to respond to.
first id like to ask for your reasons behind this wish. you've mentioned morality a couple of times in this discussion, if this is your reasoning then i think your argument is pointless.
morality is an invention created in order to exert control over the populace. the concept of morality involves the chastity, in most cases, of women. this idea is strictly in order to control reproduction and inheritance. it is not a natural instinct of human evolution, it is a construct. what do you mean when you say that people once voluntarily behaved morally. i would like to point out the many times throughout the history of civilisation that rulers have felt it necessary to legislate on morality to prove that this argument simply doesn't hold. if by morality you are speaking about a lack of rape, incest, paedophilia, sexual abuse and harrassment, i'm sorry but telling everyone that sex is banned will actually increase the instances of these crimes, or haven't you ever heard of the black market.
you seem to believe that we are above animals and nature and that by banning sex we will finally reach some kind of ultimate goal. i find this argument very confusing. first of all as someone has said we are biological organisms with biological drives, while i'm not certain sex is quite as necessary as water or food, it is still a biological drive. if you are in fact heading towards an argument that suggests we have outgrown our need for our biological existance i suggest we wait until we can be uploaded onto the net or some other form of virtual reality and let the sex drive become obsolete rather than banning it before we no longer want it anymore.
and if humanity really is so far above animals and nature why are we depleting our environment, destroying its natural resorces, and polluting the very air that we breathe? if we are so superior then why are we so bloody stupid?
in conclusion. please explain!!!

I have to suspend disbelief to browse this forum. The sheer stupidity and moronic opinions on this forum are just...bad.


This forum is an advanced form of performance art. Didn't you know that already.

It's because of Human that think that they can rule everything that world is in such a terrible state. When humans learn to embrace nature and other forms of life, NOT dominate it then we shall see the world no longer being destroyed by moron human who think that they are able to dominate everything (i.e. Ban Sex)

Yes, some are 99.9% percent effective. Thats why I say, do it 1,000 times, and your screwed.


The contraceptives are 99% effective and *so are* the condoms.

There is some sort of compounded effect here, I would do the numbers but I'm genuinely not in the mood tonight :p

Pissant, fundementalists are fundementalists.

Christian history proves that christians have no less an affinity for savage violence than muslims

Racist dog.
I like to seperate fundementalists who massacure inocents (from whatever religion) from those who would simply like peaceful reform.

This is very true, I misspoke and I apologise to the Muslim community.

You could be called a "fundementalist atheist," you know...

I'm a Christian you moron. There was no mention of Allah (although it must be said that not all Islamics are terrorists).

Uneducated idiots like you are the reason Bush got re-elected, I swear.
He was mocking religion with that statement, not Christianity or anything like that. And I don't think you can say that religion is not the reason Bush was reëlected, because it was from Christian moral values that he was elected from. I'm not saying all Christians are bigots, but enough to reëlect President Bush.

You speak of us reaching a point where we transcend our environment and our nature? I find this statement to be fundamentally flawed. I am an optimist toward scientific advances, and I must admit that I am of the belief that we will eventually have the ability to overcome our nature, but I believe the cost of doing that would be far too much to even approach.

Banning sex, and to be specific, sexual copulation, not sexual reproduction for without sexual reproduction our genetic diversity will dwindle and we will likely die off quickly, will only decrease our ability to understand and in turn control ourselves.

If you're quoting from 1984, note the random surges of violence and absolute insanity that is required to keep people in line. That catharsis has been known and understood to be essential from the days of the ancient Greeks and long before I would believe. What would you do if a social insurrection rises because of sexual tensions masked behind a fear of repression?

The best bet I would give you for banning sex is within a small microcosm. Humanity at large would never sacrifice passion, emotion, care, and the most direct physical act of love for any reason.

-J

you people are all freeking nuts. how do you ban sex? lol.

Thought #1:
According to Freud, all thoughts, emotions, and behavior are motivated by two basic drives - sex and aggression. If we are no longer able to be motivated by the potential of getting laid, the only thing driving us will be the desire to kick some ass.

Thought #2:
If you think there is a prurient fascination with sex now, attempting to ban it will only make the fascination greater.

you guys really need to get laid

you can't ban sex...just like underaged drinking, smoking, all that stuff is ban, people still do it... pots banned, people still do that. banning sex isnt gonna do a thing. now quit your bitchin and go use your dick what its there for.

The religion that pollutes society is the corrupted one that people try to use as a weapon. I am a Christian, but I don't go out and declare crusaids on everyone who doesn't belive what I do. I like to think my personal religion doesn't corrupt anything.

Lemme throw a few random points in here. (Note, I'm Non-religious)

In a way, you're right. Religion as a whole doesn't pollute mankind, it's those radicals who think that 'only they're right and Jesus loves them for their holy work against [insert group here]', etc. It's the Religious Zealots who pollute mankind, not the average church goer who just needs something to believe in.

However, the people who proclaim that only they're right because they just are, aren't helping at all. Some religions seem to support this concept of "Only we're right!" in fact. I was recently in IRC with a person who simply couldn't accept that their opinion (Christianity is "right") is only an opinion, as is everything else (yep, including secularism). Neither is "right", nor will either ever be proven right. The people who can't accept that other people have their own opinions need to get back in touch.


Oh, and to the guy who wants to ban sex: Have some first, and report back about your opinion.

you people are all freeking nuts. how do you ban sex? lol.
Indeed, see the poll
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378447

You speak of us reaching a point where we transcend our environment and our nature? I find this statement to be fundamentally flawed. I am an optimist toward scientific advances, and I must admit that I am of the belief that we will eventually have the ability to overcome our nature, but I believe the cost of doing that would be far too much to even approach.
We may be able to eventually slightly overcome human nature, but we will never be above nature. It is biologically and ecologically impossible.

Banning sex, and to be specific, sexual copulation, not sexual reproduction for without sexual reproduction our genetic diversity will dwindle and we will likely die off quickly, will only decrease our ability to understand and in turn control ourselves.
Just so you know, sexual copulation is redundant. Copulation is necessarily sexual. You don't see too many coital bacteria, I must say. And we would die off quickly if we suddenly began reproducing asexually, since our generations are not rapid enough to counter diseases without variation. But that is also impossible and will never happen. I'm not even sure why you brought that up, since it such a far-fetched idea that it shouldn't even be thought of.

And I don't think you can say that religion is not the reason Bush was reëlected, because it was from Christian moral values that he was elected from.
I don't think you can say that either, that's why I didn't. I am eager to hear where you got that statement out of my ealier post.

Lemme throw a few random points in here. (Note, I'm Non-religious)

In a way, you're right. Religion as a whole doesn't pollute mankind, it's those radicals who think that 'only they're right and Jesus loves them for their holy work against [insert group here]', etc. It's the Religious Zealots who pollute mankind, not the average church goer who just needs something to believe in.

However, the people who proclaim that only they're right because they just are, aren't helping at all. Some religions seem to support this concept of "Only we're right!" in fact. I was recently in IRC with a person who simply couldn't accept that their opinion (Christianity is "right") is only an opinion, as is everything else (yep, including secularism). Neither is "right", nor will either ever be proven right. The people who can't accept that other people have their own opinions need to get back in touch.
All of that is very true.

Thought #1:
According to Freud, all thoughts, emotions, and behavior are motivated by two basic drives - sex and aggression. If we are no longer able to be motivated by the potential of getting laid, the only thing driving us will be the desire to kick some ass.
Well, Freud was obsessed with sex. If he were to be asked "What is the motivation for x?", he would invariably answer "Sex." Why do humans have religion? Sex. Why do people enjoy literature? Sex. What about classical music? Sex.

So yeah, as revolutionary as Freud was, he has been partially disproven, just as Newtonian physics has.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.




Yes, ban all sex. Thats is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I don't want anyone watching me in my goddamn bedroom, being little peeping toms and perverts.

You know what? This is really stupid!

Here we are arguing about when sex should be allowed, if at all. It all boils to an individual's morality. Someone's morals are like their religion: it matters to them. My morals say not to have sex until after marriage. Therefore, for me, it is immoral to have sex out of marriage. Many of you feel it is moral to have sex whenever, whoever. Therefore, for you, it is moral to do so. I am astounded that this thread has reached eight pages in length, yet acomplished nothing. It doesn't matter what we say here, everyone will walk away with the same opinions they had when they went in. I'm going to sleep now, I beg all of you to do the same (depending on your time zone).

But sex is really, really good fun.

I didn't say that sexual copulation was the only way, but, biologically, we'd die as a population of interbreeding individuals without it. We have no way to reliably adjust our gene pool to match and be prepared for changing environments beyond sexual reproduction. By combining genetic code, we ensure that our populations adjust to our environment -and- that favorable adjustments will be preserved.

Ban Sex?
get laid and then see if you change your mind

You have to admit, this is a refreshing change to the gay marriage threads.

You know what? This is really stupid!

Here we are arguing about when sex should be allowed, if at all. It all boils to an individual's morality.
Yes, I agree, but some people want to impose their individual morals onto the rest of society. Celibacy is a perfectly fine life choice (not biologically speaking, however, but if someone is content with their life, that's what matters), but compulsory celibacy is disgusting and arrogant.

I didn't say that sexual copulation was the only way, but, biologically, we'd die as a population of interbreeding individuals without it. We have no way to reliably adjust our gene pool to match and be prepared for changing environments beyond sexual reproduction. By combining genetic code, we ensure that our populations adjust to our environment -and- that favorable adjustments will be preserved.
I'm glad you're not a creationist, but this demonstrates some ignorance of biology. You have the concepts partially right, but you're saying some things that make no sense at all. And, again, sexual copulation is a redundant phrase, as all copulation is sexual by definition.

He was mocking religion with that statement, not Christianity or anything like that. And I don't think you can say that religion is not the reason Bush was reëlected, because it was from Christian moral values that he was elected from. I'm not saying all Christians are bigots, but enough to reëlect President Bush.


Somone likes The New Yorker

Could you correct where I am inaccurate then?
Thank you.

I've never dated in my life.

Now there's a shock.

no :fluffle: means lots of :headbang: followed by :sniper: and :mp5: all aimed at the government officials that deem a sex ban a good idea. besides, havent you seen that movie, i think it is called demolision man or somethign like that. they have a ban on sex and every is a crazy lunatic. let people legally enjoy their :fluffle: and be :D . i mean, sure, it might reduce some of the diseases, but why dont you work on a cure or prevention instead with all that $ you would have to fork over to pay to enforce such a mental law.

Why ban sex? I'm a highly religious Christain, but I don't believe in a ban of sex. True, I wouldn't have sex with my girlfriend just yet, as of our ages, but once we reach of proper age (mainly her, I'm old enough, but she's 3 years younger than me, so 13 months before we can legally), we will probably have it regulary. I don't believe in sex without love, but if love is present, and the sex is consensual, there is no problem with it as a means of both reproduction, and a way to be intimate and have an enjoyable time with your one and only.

That is a good question, how would this be enforced if it were in place?

Mutilation? Doubt that'd go over.

Keeping track of... every human being over the age of 13?

I skimmed some of the earlier posts, so perhaps methods of enforcing were mentioned that I missed.

wow. are you kidding me?! NO SEX MAKES JACK A DULL BOY. you sicken me, you obviously have....difficulties. or you just can't get a date. or maybe its just an act. just for this game, but. either or, that sickens me and i would have to either kill myself if Canada ever did that or hurt anybody who deemed that idea a good idea.

Could you correct where I am inaccurate then?
Thank you.
I'll try, but I don't know if I'll be able to explain very well.

I didn't say that sexual copulation was the only way, but, biologically, we'd die as a population of interbreeding individuals without it.
Well, interbreeding is synonymous to crossbreeding, which certainly is relative to copulaiton. And without copulation, we would have asexual reproduction, which is impossible given our extremely complex makeup and qualities.

We have no way to reliably adjust our gene pool to match and be prepared for changing environments beyond sexual reproduction.
Besides the fact that we would have no way of perpetuating our gene pool without sexual reproduction, it is not mainly with environmental changes that sexual reproduction is advantageous, but in respose to pathogenic complications. Asexual reproduction makes a species much more vulnerable to disease-causing viruses, bacteria, protists, and fungi. That is the huge advantage of genetic variation.

By combining genetic code, we ensure that our populations adjust to our environment -and- that favorable adjustments will be preserved.
Adjusting to a changing environment is primarily bright about through mutations. Genetic variation helps, but, again, is most useful against disease. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "combining benetic code", since all DNA is constantly being combined and separated in your body via meiosis. I'm guessing you're referring to mixing the genetic material of two individuals, as well as crossing over. I'm sorry I didn't really add much, but I don't think I am a good choice to teach biology over the internet...hopefully I managed to kind of express what I wanted to...

He was mocking religion with that statement, not Christianity or anything like that. And I don't think you can say that religion is not the reason Bush was reëlected, because it was from Christian moral values that he was elected from. I'm not saying all Christians are bigots, but enough to reëlect President Bush.Somone likes The New Yorker
I'm not sure what you mean this...I use diæreses because I prefer more antiquated styles for some odd reason. A diæresis (two dots above a letter) means that two consecutive vowels are to be pronounced separately, like in naïve (to be differed from the Germanic umlaut). I extrapolate from your statement that The New Yorker uses this diæretic format as well, but I most certainly did not gain that typographical paculiarity from said source.

In contemporary print I believe i've only seen it in the New Yorker.

Why ban something that if well done is not harmful?

Say I am married to a woman I love (hypothetical situation, I am not married). When we have sex, it makes her feel good, it makes me feel good. It puts both of us into a more calm, relaxed state. It also bonds us more tightly together and clears our thoughts, making us both more sane. And besides, they call it "making love" for a reason. Is love "too primative" as well?
So, benefits of me and my hypothetical wife copulating:
1. Real good feelings for both of us
2. Relaxation
3. bonding
4. a bunch of others that I don't feel like listing.

harm done by us having sex:
1....

So, again, why ban something that benefits both me and my hypothetical wife (hopefully someday the word "hypothetical" will not be needed) and harms no one?

Sex is not immoral. If it does no harm and does much good, how could it possibly be wrong?

harm done by us having sex:
1....
1) Women are stealing our precious bodily fluids! You can't give them to those thieves!

I agree with the originally poster of this topic that sex should be banned, but once your married you should be able to do it, but only with your wife of course... That's the way i feel... To many cheating people these days

This is such a stupid thread,

i'm assuming our friend who started it hasn't had sex or else they wouldn't have said it.

Environmental factors include and are focused on biological factors like pathogens, sorry for being inspecific.

And thank you for stipping down my vocabulary a little, sexual copulation is a little redundant. :)

And while mutation is extremely important to adjusting to environmental (pathological) variations, microevolution is faster, more stable, and more often incurred, which was what I was refering to.

Microevolution, simply, is the change in allele frequencies in a population. This occurs through 5 processes, one of which being mutation. This process does not create new alleles, genes, or phenotypes. It simply changes the ratios of currently existing ones.

Combining genetic code does refer specifically to the exchange of genes during sexual interaction, though, ideally, your genetic code remains stable in somatic cells (though accumulated mutations do build up as you age). Though, crossing over isn't even necessary as simply exchanging genes for the next generation will change the allele frequency if an equilibrium is not met (for instance, through selective breeding).

Part of the reason I brought it up was actually removed from the post on accident. As the act of sex was proposed to be banned and replaced by methods like artificial insemination, there would still be biological impacts as it would impact the natural mechanisms for deciding how genetic material is mixed in the next generation, for instance, creating more-random mating.

EDIT: Apologies for rambling, poor word choice, and unclear objectives. I'm getting quite tired.

it's radicals like you that give the bible belt a bad name. Think about it. If god or whatever had meant for us to only have sex to procreate, in retrospect, making it feel so damn good was a poor choice, now wasn't it?

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

Had, screw you pal, you go ahead and s have no sex, I'll keep screwing the ladies.

1) Women are stealing our precious bodily fluids! You can't give them to those thieves!


No no no! Women are stealing our essence! The Communists are contaminating our bodily fluids.

Ummmmm.
In theory wouldn't this lead to the end of the Human Species?
>.< I didn't read 9 pages. But it seems to me that if the man who started the thread, wanted to be a one man army and stop having sex himself, he's free to do so. But personally...

1) Women are stealing our precious bodily fluids! You can't give them to those thieves!

Ummmm... Just wondering. Do you masturbate and then bottle your semen? Because otherwise your technically wasted bodily fluids too...

Um hi there =)
I just came to say that, well if you are serious its silly actually. I don't see how sex is possibly an imperfection, for the way we were created, its a good and efficient means of natural breeding. and you don't need to even have sex now, a woman can just go to a sperm bank and bang theres her way of conception. Now maybe you wish to take away the whole breeding process, but before you do note this. Babies etc, although not concious, are still affected by their mother during her pregnancy, I actually saw somewhere that if you have sex during pregnancy (which is perfectly acceptable and won't hurt the child) and the voices of both parents so close actually comfort the child. Though of course, that depends on the stage at which the child is at, but basically being grown inside a parent gives psychological enhancements in ways we are still finding out. It would be plain stupid to take away our whole breeding process and make it mechanical or what not, we are playing with things that could theoretically affect our species quite negatively. The system doesn't need to be changed, so don't change it because its a damn good one.
So, if you only mean just stop sex, well, there are already other options, but why take away peoples freedom? and for any further crazy argument on it, don't try, will probably wind up giving children unexpected sever mental issues if grown in glass tubes.
I give your proposal a thumbs down, sorry to say, but have a nice day and keep trying =)
(oh and pardon any spelling errors... im known for how bad they can be =P )

Actually, since semen is designed to create offspring, wouldn't doing anything besides sex be wasting bodily fluids?

Why ban something that if well done is not harmful?

Say I am married to a woman I love (hypothetical situation, I am not married). When we have sex, it makes her feel good, it makes me feel good. It puts both of us into a more calm, relaxed state. It also bonds us more tightly together and clears our thoughts, making us both more sane. And besides, they call it "making love" for a reason. Is love "too primative" as well?
So, benefits of me and my hypothetical wife copulating:
1. Real good feelings for both of us
2. Relaxation
3. bonding
4. a bunch of others that I don't feel like listing.

harm done by us having sex:
1....

So, again, why ban something that benefits both me and my hypothetical wife (hopefully someday the word "hypothetical" will not be needed) and harms no one?

Sex is not immoral. If it does no harm and does much good, how could it possibly be wrong?


No offense, but I just realized that this whole thread is people saying this exact same thing, if not worded different. Pretty much anythikng anybody says from here on out is pointless, because the idiot who started this thread originally isn't signed in. It also seems that nobody has any arguments in favor of this crackpots idea for one of two reasons, One they don't support the concept (I don't), Two they are afraid of getting the hell flamed out of them and a slashing any reputation they may have had. I fell this guy should be congratulated on his courage, then immediatly shot down by that have common sense.

To bad men can't give birth.... I don't really want to get married but i want to have kids of my own genetic information... *cries*

1) Women are stealing our precious bodily fluids! You can't give them to those thieves!

Ummmm... Just wondering. Do you masturbate and then bottle your semen? Because otherwise your technically wasted bodily fluids too...
That's a quote from the movie Dr. Strangelove. It was reference humour. I reccommend it, it's quite entertaining, though it's really only truly funny in a subtlely satirical way.

I think sex should be banned. Everyone knows forbidden fruit is more appealing than a hard-to-reach apple, and instead of antiwar rallies, we'd have giant orgies. We could live in a society akin to Cat's Cradle, where everyone practices the banned religion and gets that kinky zing nothing else would bring.

To bad men can't give birth.... I don't really want to get married but i want to have kids of my own genetic information... *cries*

I have a Two word one Meaning for you.
Sperm Banks.
Use them. Adopt them. Love them.

And although I'm not sure, I saw something that said they pay you. But I doubt it. :headbang: Too bad. Otherwise I'd make my living off it.

I think sex should be banned. Everyone knows forbidden fruit is more appealing than a hard-to-reach apple, and instead of antiwar rallies, we'd have giant orgies. We could live in a society akin to Cat's Cradle, where everyone practices the banned religion and gets that kinky zing nothing else would bring.
Hear, hear!

How does a sperm bank help me cause i actually want to be able to keep my own kids which i cant do if i am just giving away my sperm at banks even though i have highly considered that to disperse my genetic info to higher the success of my genes in the future, however i would like to raise a couple of my own...

I am not sure if someone has pointed this out or not yet, but by your using the word "evil" you brought the issues of morality into this.
Morality is most often ingrained by religion.
Most major religions today are against artificial insemination, heck the Catholic Church is against CONDOMS. While they may say sex should only be for procreation, they still think it should be handled the 'good ol' fashioned way'.
And yes, many religions are not as uptight as the Catholics, but that is the religion I am most familiar with.

Sex is what makes us human. Its as natural as breathing.

Its like you might as well put a ban on sex for all living creatures, cuz basically all living things go to Heaven or Hell. So basically, a Dog might as well be sinning for having sex. Then again, a Dog doesn't have Logic. But we do.

But sometimes, this logic can be used unwisely. I think there should be stricter sex, not a ban on sex. Just to crack down on rapes and raise the Sex age. Perhaps try to start some sort of dress codes at school, stop Sexual Behaviors early in its tracks.

But a all out ban is just dumb. We have had sex even sence the dawn of man, and it will always be here. What movie was it again though that banned all sorts of Romance.....cuz you have been watching it a bit TOO much.

I really think that if people don't want to have sex, then they have Sperm extracted from there Testies and put in the Uterus of there spouse ( cuz these ppl who hate Sex might think it would be wrong to have a child with someone who isn't married to you )

And then let those who want sex...well have sex.

-_-

Yes that was my opening/closing statement. Now I sleep...BUZZ OFF!

I really think that if people don't want to have sex, then they have Sperm extracted from there Testies and put in the Uterus of there spouse ( cuz these ppl who hate Sex might think it would be wrong to have a child with someone who isn't married to you )

And then let those who want sex...well have sex.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

I really think that if people don't want to have sex, then they have Sperm extracted from there Testies and put in the Uterus of there spouse ( cuz these ppl who hate Sex might think it would be wrong to have a child with someone who isn't married to you )
That is called artifical insemination. And if anyone wants a child without having sex, than there's something seriously wrong with them. Though surrogate mothers are becoming more and more common... Also, it is spelled "testes", the plural of "testis". It might just be easier to use the term "testicles", since it is English with English singulars and plurals. I personally prefer the Latin term, as it's shorter and I get to use a foreign plural (which I love), but if I ever hear anyone say "teste", I'm gonna slap 'em. ;)

No offense, but I just realized that this whole thread is people saying this exact same thing, if not worded different. Pretty much anythikng anybody says from here on out is pointless, because the idiot who started this thread originally isn't signed in. It also seems that nobody has any arguments in favor of this crackpots idea for one of two reasons, One they don't support the concept (I don't), Two they are afraid of getting the hell flamed out of them and a slashing any reputation they may have had. I fell this guy should be congratulated on his courage, then immediatly shot down by that have common sense.

[timid little voice] I don't think we should really confuse... psychosis... for courage in this instance... though maybe his thesis is psychotically brave... whatever the case... he's not being very realistic [/timid little voice].

I agree that they should ban sex it would make it kinkier and more exciting. I am a little bored with it now.

Has anyone noticed that the original creator of this topic has ceased to reply whatsoever? Lets go over the evidence.

Facts
1: Controversial topic created.
2: Further controversial material added on in the first few pages, primarily dealing with supposed human superiority and the "primitiveness" of physical reproduction.
3: Person has ceased to reply once the board gained significant activity.

Prognosis:
The person has a high probability (90%) of being a troll.

Conclusion:
Said person has done one of the following:
1: Scared off by the sheer number of negative responses.
2: Left this board to find more "enlightened" human beings to share said "wisdom"
3: Disgusted by the posters "barbarism" and swore not to return.
4: Laughing at how foolish we are for responding to something like this.

Recommendation:
Ignore the thread and let it die.

We are biologically and intellectually superior to the environment
I want you to prove this statement by having a death match with an erupting volcano.

A squirrel may not be able to build a skyscraper but a good eathquake will easily level one

Nature and the enviroment have our number

You shall ban my sex not a day before I ban your breathing.

*hooha*

[timid little voice] I don't think we should really confuse... psychosis... for courage in this instance... though maybe his thesis is psychotically brave... whatever the case... he's not being very realistic [/timid little voice].

Hey if I went around telling everyone they should die, That would be the same type of courage this guy has. The only reason I don't is because then I would get thrown in therapy, whether I meant it or not

Oh my dear f**king god, I don't think I've ever read something so inflamming as that statement. That proves your complete and total ignorance of ecology. We are inextricably tied to our environment. Christ f**king Jesus, I can not express my contempt for that in mere words, and I am a voracious reader with above-average vocabulary and linguistic skills (I know, I'm very humble). That statement is fallacious in such a terrible way that if there are a measurable quantity of other humans who agree with you, we're doomed beyond belief. We are completely reliant on our environment, as well as local, alien, and our global environment.

And I now realise why you made such a completely ridiculous statement. You have absolutely no understanding of biology. I pity your damned soul.
Has there been any other organism that has made a tool? How about having advanced linguistic skills? No, not one exists, except in our genus. Other organisms can barely think beyond what their instincts tell them, nor do they feel emotions, nor even reason. We are better than them, and must seek to break free from their dominance. For it is true that we need them now, but it is less true than, say, before the neolithic revolution.

P.S: Don't be arrogant with me, and tell me how much more enlightened or sophisticated you are. Why? Because I can be just as cocky.

As few comments:
1. Your basic assumption seems to be that we must "liberate" ourselves from the natural world due to being somehow above it. I would challenge you to prove that we are, indeed, above it. The idea that our cognative abilities, the only thing separating us from any other animal, remove us from the world which created us, is absurd. Do you count the mentally deficient as less than human? I would also pose the question, even if we are somehow above nature, why must we impose a separation? There seems to be no need.
The ability to think is far more important than anything developed in the past few billion years. It's time we start acting like it.
2. The idea of a ban on sex is quite frighteningly authoritarian. Human society, in extremely general terms, has moved toward libertarian values over the past centuries; such an idea, I believe and fervently hope, will not be able to take hold. Bear in mind also the implications of reading 1984 and agreeing with The Party; it would seem that you have entirely missed the extremely obvious point of the book.
Okay, I admit banning it is not even near what I want to do. I just said that to attract posters. But I want a move away from sex.
3. Sex is good for you. It helps to balance hormones, provides exercise, lessens risks of certain types of disease (such as heart disease, if I recall correctly--bear in mind I refer only to safe sex here; if you don't take precautions and get an STD, it's your own fault), helps to strengthen emotional ties between lovers, creates strong family bonds, releases a truly astounding quantity of endorphins, reduces stress, and it just plain feels good. These are just the benefits I can recall offhand. You would desire to ban all of this, for the sake of imposing a needless barrier between humanity and the rest of the natural world?

All sex does is create the fickle emotion of passion. It only bonds us to other humans so long as we are physically dependent on them. After a while, the sex looses its appeal, and one can kiss his lovelife goodbye. That's why I favor relationships based on mutual cooperation and understanding, not sex or passion.

it's radicals like you that give the bible belt a bad name. Think about it. If god or whatever had meant for us to only have sex to procreate, in retrospect, making it feel so damn good was a poor choice, now wasn't it?
It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the state of emotions. Humans would be far better off emotionally if sex wasn't the issue it was at the instinctual level. Why? Because it'd help eliminate such primative and harmful emotions, like passion, and would help reason prevail.

Has there been any other organism that has made a tool? How about having advanced linguistic skills? No, not one exists, except in our genus. Other organisms can barely think beyond what their instincts tell them, nor do they feel emotions, nor even reason. We are better than them, and must seek to break free from their dominance. For it is true that we need them now, but it is less true than, say, before the neolithic revolution.

P.S: Don't be arrogant with me, and tell me how much more enlightened or sophisticated you are. Why? Because I can be just as cocky.

Monkeys use sticks and rocks as tools. Otters use rocks to bash clams open, I'd call that a tool, and my friend the dictionary does too.
Any instrument of use or service.
Dogs, wolfs, and coyotes use a series of barks and growls to communicate with each other

Dolphins, whales, owls, cats, dogs, etc all show signs of emotions. Whales if their mate dies or leaves them will beach themselves. Owls, if their mate dies, will never have another mate. Large cats, will only tolerate one or two people handling them if they are domesticated. Cats feel a sense of ownership and relay this by giving gifts to their owner aka dead mice.

Don't try to argue this as I have a much better base knowledge then you could ever have based on your statements.

simply put- dont knock it til you try it.

Monkeys use sticks and rocks as tools. Otters use rocks to bash clams open, I'd call that a tool, and my friend the dictionary does too.

And I don't, because none of these are sophisticated enough. Do they sharpen them, weld them, or anything of that nature?
Dogs, wolfs, and coyotes use a series of barks and growls to communicate with each other

All of which are primative communication systems. They can't convey emotion, or anything else other than the location of prey and mates.

simply put- dont knock it til you try it.
That is an unreasonable statement. I have seen and felt the dangerous, intoxicating effects of the emotions it generates, and feel that the human race is far better off without them, as well as well on our way to a new height in morality.

That is an unreasonable statement. I have seen and felt the dangerous, intoxicating effects of the emotions it generates, and feel that the human race is far better off without them, as well as well on our way to a new height in morality.

?????????

How is a show of love and affection dangerous? Rape or unconsentual sex is certainly wrong ,but my dear, sex is just a part of nature. I cant imagine the world without sex. How exactly would you police that anyway? LOL

If sex is taken away, then we would be mere robots or vessals following one linear path. Where's the diversity in that?

?????????

How is a show of love and affection dangerous? Rape or unconsentual sex is certainly wrong ,but my dear, sex is just a part of nature. I cant imagine the world without sex. How exactly would you police that anyway? LOL

Exactly, I agree with Peechland.

To New Anthrus: Dude, you are one strange freaky... =P

?????????

How is a show of love and affection dangerous? Rape or unconsentual sex is certainly wrong ,but my dear, sex is just a part of nature. I cant imagine the world without sex. How exactly would you police that anyway? LOL
Like I said, the "ban" part was to attract posters. Anyhow, sex is a part of nature, but purely instinctual. The love is not emotional or psychological, but purely physical, and therefore fickle. If you do it at all, I say you must be really, really intimate with the one you'll procreate with. However, society has forgotten how to do that.

I concur. A world rid of sex is a world I might better tolerate living in.

I have seen and felt the dangerous, intoxicating effects of the emotions it generates
What exactly have you felt that you class as dangerous?

Like I said, the "ban" part was to attract posters. Anyhow, sex is a part of nature, but purely instinctual. The love is not emotional or psychological, but purely physical, and therefore fickle. If you do it at all, I say you must be really, really intimate with the one you'll procreate with. However, society has forgotten how to do that.


It is indeed emotional! I love my husband with all my heart and sex between us and those who love each other stirs our emotions and celebrates our/their love. It is a feeling in your heart, not just your loins.

What exactly have you felt that you class as dangerous?
Passion. It manifests itself in far more things than sex, though sex is its main conduit. It is often physical, entirely inconsistent, and basically, it was once a crutch for all other emotions and morals to lay on. Now, in many corners of the globe, humanity has life that has transcended the physical. For example, do we worry about population declines and famine more than we worry where the next paycheck may come from? As the physical becomes less important, so must passion. However, passion has not been rooted out at the same pace that our lives rely less on the physical environment.

well I guess all you people against sex haven't had it or had a very bad first experiance.

I've never dated in my life.

You actually are somewhat intelligent.

Many people just thought this was spam.

-----------------------------------------

Anyway, I think that's what this whole thing is about. That quote.

Think of all the love stories you ever heard (Romeo & Juliet ect...).

Almost all have sexual content.

It is an important part of relationships, and to eliminate it would cure a lot of problems (AIDs would be almost eliminated), but people with become hungry for it, because Romance and socialisation is neccessary in life to feel good (one or the other or both).

Also, if around 60% of people have illegal/underage sexual intercourse, this would be almost impossible to enforce.

It is indeed emotional! I love my husband with all my heart and sex between us and those who love each other stirs our emotions and celebrates our/their love. It is a feeling in your heart, not just your loins.
I will not play marraige conselor, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, that you do have a marraige that is more of a working partnership, and not much of a physical one. However, the physical manifests itself as the emotional, as is the case with all instinct. Thought and reason, however, are less reactive, and far more rational for human beigns.

Romance is evil?

You must of had a bad date... :)

Well sex does not = romance or love. That is a very common misconception. A guy can have sex without having any feelings for the person hes copulating with, there are some women that are the same way. Despite the fact that such a ban would be both impossible and impractical, I would have to say I would be against it even if it were. Sex is a good thing in the proper context, which is marriage. I see it as God's marriage gift. I am definitely in favor of abstinance only programs and against any kind of "safe sex" programs. Also, there is the issue of rape. I believe that rapists should be AT LEAST emasculated, and perhaps also tortured and killed. Rape is a serious problem and I am in favor of brutal reprisals for it.

But with every passing year, we are getting better at fighting these viruses and bacteria. Right now, we need them more than they need us. Soon, however, it'll reverse, as we learn to live without bacteria.
Ok..... Did you faill Bio or something?? Without bacteria we would all DIE!!. Those little cells that help you when your sick. Those are bacteria. There is good and bad bacteria. And there is no chance in hell we would be able to live without bacteria!!!

Passion.
Ok, Why do you class the passion you felt as dangerous?

You actually are somewhat intelligent.

I'd probably seem more intelligent if I let this thought develope more.
-----------------------------------------

Anyway, I think that's what this whole thing is about. That quote.

Think of all the love stories you ever heard (Romeo & Juliet ect...).

Almost all have sexual content.

It is an important part of relationships, and to eliminate it would cure a lot of problems (AIDs would be almost eliminated), but people with become hungry for it, because Romance and socialisation is neccessary in life to feel good (one or the other or both).

Also, if around 60% of people have illegal/underage sexual intercourse, this would be almost impossible to enforce.
Remember, the ban part was just to attract posters.
Anyhow, sexuality was always part of relationships. But citing that same play, I can say that it was a warning by Shakespeare against passion. The two barely knew eachother, yet they married, and committed suicide for it. It was truely a waste. Worse yet, the story existed centuries before he wrote it, albeit in many different settings. One ancient was extremely wise.

Ok, Why do you class the passion you felt as dangerous?
See my last response to Peechland and the Great Sixth Reich.

Well sex does not = romance or love. That is a very common misconception.

But that's not what I was talking about.

It elminates a good deal of romance with it. (As I said, it's hard to find a classic romance novel of the early ages (where people were moral about marriage for the most part) without finding sexual content.

I'd probably seem more intelligent if I let this thought develope more.
-----------------------------------------


Remember, the ban part was just to attract posters.
Anyhow, sexuality was always part of relationships. But citing that same play, I can say that it was a warning by Shakespeare against passion. The two barely knew eachother, yet they married, and committed suicide for it. It was truely a waste. Worse yet, the story existed centuries before he wrote it, albeit in many different settings. One ancient was extremely wise.

I never suspected that answer.

You're good...

This is definitely not spam.
-------------------------------

But it really was not their falt. It was the plague that caused the message not to come, and their romance stoped an entire war between the two large families.

did the poster of this thread happen to grow up around a lot of lead paint? :headbang: we, as humans, are mammals...sex and it's euphoric sensations are a chemical reward for the brain because you have a sense that you served your purpose, to procreate :fluffle: ...I am a strong advocate of "safe sex" or otherwise protected sex (condoms etc) sex is a natural instinct and I believe that a worldwide ban on sex could possibly cause the decline of our race. Now growing humans in tanks or via artificial semination, that's all well and good. Now I think we should act more like the society in the book Brave New World (aldous Huxley, george orwells french teacher) I am a strong advocate of sex and believe that it is a privledge and a reward to have it

See my last response to Peechland and the Great Sixth Reich.
Your responses didnt cover why you class your own feelings as dangerous- for one thing passion is something all human beings feel, and sometimes act on, however we are thinking beings and can take actions contrary to what our "feelings" suggest we should do.

To take the example of Romeo and Juliet, it was not a warning against passion, it was a warning against letting passion govern your actions to the exclusion of reason.

I never suspected that answer.

You're good...

This is definitely not spam.
I'll take that as a compliment.
-------------------------------

But it really was not their falt. It was the plague that caused the message not to come, and their romance stoped an entire war between the two large families.
Still, the reader can suspect that something would happen under different circumstances. It did end war between the families, but it was for an extremely hefty price. It was very melodramatic, mind you, but it conveyed that it truely was "a gloomy peace".

Your responses didnt cover why you class your own feelings as dangerous- for one thing passion is something all human beings feel, and sometimes act on, however we are thinking beings and can take actions contrary to what our "feelings" suggest we should do.

To take the example of Romeo and Juliet, it was not a warning against passion, it was a warning against letting passion govern your actions to the exclusion of reason.
And that is why I consider it dangerous. Passion can never be overriden by reason unless the passion ceases. The only way it can cease is if the environment changes. That is why I consider it dangerous: its volatile and destructive nature.

And I don't, because none of these are sophisticated enough. Do they sharpen them, weld them, or anything of that nature?

But they still are tools none the less. Did humans sharpen rocks to kill other things in the beginining? No

All of which are primative communication systems. They can't convey emotion, or anything else other than the location of prey and mates.

No, you are wrong, they do show emotion, as a matter of fact that is 90% of how they communicate. When a dog growls and his fur stands on end, that is a pretty clear emotion. Every animal shows emotions. Try getting near any animals young, If they are big enough they will attack you, if not they will still freak out and do what they can. That is emotion if do say so myself

And that is why I consider it dangerous. Passion can never be overriden by reason unless the passion ceases.
You feel unable to override your feelings(passion) with reason?

No, you are wrong, they do show emotion, as a matter of fact that is 90% of how they communicate. When a dog growls and his fur stands on end, that is a pretty clear emotion. Every animal shows emotions. Try getting near any animals young, If they are big enough they will attack you, if not they will still freak out and do what they can. That is emotion if do say so myself
But it is instinctual emotion, based primarily on a physical environment. Human emotions, morals, et alia, are not necessarily that way.

While I respect your right to an opinion or belief,I dont agree at all, and I want to say that if you ever fall in love and become involved in a loving caring relationship- I think you will feel a lot differently than you do now.

And I hope that you do fall in love so that you may experience the happiness that it brings..................and the good sex.

You feel unable to override your feelings(passion) with reason?
I can never do it alone. I have outbursts of anger all the time based on little things, triggured by either being too tired, too traumatized, etc. I need the help of others to calm me down, but I can never calm myself down. This is only a very light example of what passion can do. Others have suffered it with worse effect than I have, and it has been far more destructive. Actually, in some of my outbursts, I have nearly hurted people. Of course, my friends and family know that I'd never try to hurt a soul in my rational state. That's not me.

But it is instinctual emotion, based primarily on a physical environment. Human emotions, morals, et alia, are not necessarily that way.
And Human emotions aren't the same thing? How so?
The only reason we fall in love is because of our hormones. Instinct. Look at eunuchs, they don't feel love. It is also because of a set of standards we have ingrained in our heads from birth, love your parents, love your children.

I can never do it alone. I have outbursts of anger all the time based on little things, triggured by either being too tired, too traumatized, etc. I need the help of others to calm me down, but I can never calm myself down. This is only a very light example of what passion can do. Others have suffered it with worse effect than I have, and it has been far more destructive. Actually, in some of my outbursts, I have nearly hurted people. Of course, my friends and family know that I'd never try to hurt a soul in my rational state. That's not me.

Have you had any counselling? You seem to have some deep emotional issues after reading that statement^^^. You have outbursts of anger and cant calm yourself down and have almost hurt people ? I'm not being mean but it sounds like you need to talk to a professional.

While I respect your right to an opinion or belief,I dont agree at all, and I want to say that if you ever fall in love and become involved in a loving caring relationship- I think you will feel a lot differently than you do now.

And I hope that you do fall in love so that you may experience the happiness that it brings..................and the good sex.
I don't plan on being a hypocrite, and indeed, I will have sex one day. But I have a feeling that it'll reinforce my opinion. But, of course, I do experience love for my family. I think that, however, if passion wasn't involved in your relationship (and thus sex), the relationship would be a mix between the feelings of a parent and a close friend, although your husband obviously isn't, and will never be your father. Of course, that type of love must feel good, with the exception of the inlaws :).

Have you had any counselling? You seem to have some deep emotional issues after reading that statement^^^. You have outbursts of anger and cant calm yourself down and have almost hurt people ? I'm not being mean but it sounds like you need to talk to a professional.
Pretty much what I was about to type but Peech beat me to it.
NA seriously man, go and see a professional.Before you do something you will regret.

Have you had any counselling? You seem to have some deep emotional issues after reading that statement^^^. You have outbursts of anger and cant calm yourself down and have almost hurt people ? I'm not being mean but it sounds like you need to talk to a professional.
Don't worry, I have been. My outbursts are far less frequent than before, but it seems that most everyone has them. It's the epitome of passion overriding reason.

And Human emotions aren't the same thing? How so?
The only reason we fall in love is because of our hormones. Instinct. Look at eunuchs, they don't feel love. It is also because of a set of standards we have ingrained in our heads from birth, love your parents, love your children.
Tell me of one other species that has a grasp of psychology, philosophy, science, math, or art that is equal to or greater than humans.

I don't plan on being a hypocrite, and indeed, I will have sex one day. But I have a feeling that it'll reinforce my opinion. But, of course, I do experience love for my family. I think that, however, if passion wasn't involved in your relationship (and thus sex), the relationship would be a mix between the feelings of a parent and a close friend, although your husband obviously isn't, and will never be your father. Of course, that type of love must feel good, with the exception of the inlaws :).


LOL @ IN LAWS.......a very important factor when/if you do marry. I suggest doing interviews first and screen all in-laws.lol.......i got lucky and got some pretty good ones

Don't worry, I have been. My outbursts are far less frequent than before, but it seems that most everyone has them. It's the epitome of passion overriding reason.

good for you. hmm...i do have to admit, i gave my copy machine at work a good tongue lashing the other day. THAT BASTARD!

Tell me of one other species that has a grasp of psychology, philosophy, science, math, or art that is equal to or greater than humans.
none, i will agree to that, but does that matter, are superior because of that? no
The only reason we are so advanced is because of opposable thumbs. Yes the thumb. It has allowed us to record data, and pass it on. If on were to raise a child with out teaching them anything but the basics of life they would be no different than animals. If the child were able to figure out all of lifes mysteries by themselves, then yes we would be better. We can teach animals just about anything, but can they express knowledge of that? no. one of my cats can read a little we have a three cats three cat doors we put his name on one and the other cats names on the others. we never specifically showed him to use the one with his name on it, but he does. It could be coincidence but I doubt it

LOL @ IN LAWS.......a very important factor when/if you do marry. I suggest doing interviews first and screen all in-laws.lol.......i got lucky and got some pretty good ones
Ditto for my mom. My dad unfortunatly died about a decade ago, but my in-laws didn't really fade into the woodwork. Even though they live two hours from us, they retain an active role in our lives, which is difficult when my dad had nine brothers and sisters.

Perhaps this is too simple, but I say if you want to stop having sex, and want to tell others to do the same... thats fine.

And others will keep having sex and telling others to also.

That is the beauty of free speech.

none, i will agree to that, but does that matter, are superior because of that? no
The only reason we are so advanced is because of opposable thumbs. Yes the thumb. It has allowed us to record data, and pass it on. If on were to raise a child with out teaching them anything but the basics of life they would be no different than animals. If the child were able to figure out all of lifes mysteries by themselves, then yes we would be better. We can teach animals just about anything, but can they express knowledge of that? no. one of my cats can read a little we have a three cats three cat doors we put his name on one and the other cats names on the others. we never specifically showed him to use the one with his name on it, but he does. It could be coincidence but I doubt it
Well, other advancements could have come without thumbs, like language.

It's Evolution, and the day we evolve from our current Reproductive ways, is the day Armageddon shall be emplaced on Mankind. If we weren't suppose to have Sex, we wouldn't have the reproductive organs we do...People are blind, doesn't mean they get rid of their eyes, deaf people don't get their ears remove, nor do they stop from using them. The fact that we have these organs, is testiment to what Human Beings are, and what our HUMAN Nature is, Without Sex, We wouldn't be human.

This would cause a great number of Problems, so I'll save us all time and just roll a few off the top of my head

#1)Shows you have no faith in your Health&Welfare Programs, showing desperate means to escape its debts.
#2)You should try and Actually DEVELOP these Stasis Cells and other means to produce embryos BEFORE Banning Sexual Intercourse.
#3)How would you go about deciding when a child should be Created?...Wouldn't seem fair to limit the ammount of fertilizations per unit-of-time, and it would be unethical to keep pumping the things out..
#4)You are denying people NATURE-GIVEN RIGHTS!!!...Once again, it'd be like having ears, and then your government says you must get them removed, along with any other contributers to sound-recieving. Sure, you might be cutting back on paychecks to give to Doctors, but you would also be met with riots/protesters, and the overall number of Jobs Decline.

If by some faint, cold blizzard chance in hell this is passed, do not count on this ban to follow through in the Sovereignty.

Thank you for your Time.

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.

Lets make laws that say youhave to have sex every night

Well, other advancements could have come without thumbs, like language.
not necessarily, the main reason language happened on a large scale was because we could write it down and teach that to others without a large hassel. Twins have special body languages that they understand and most others don't, the same with families. the only reason others don't understand these special languages is because it is too impractical to teach them to others due to a lack ways to express them in a way that others might understand.

I side with that Soviet Sovereignity commie. (For once)

Oh, and sex is just Übercool anyways.

not necessarily, the main reason language happened on a large scale was because we could write it down and teach that to others without a large hassel. Twins have special body languages that they understand and most others don't, the same with families. the only reason others don't understand these special languages is because it is too impractical to teach them to others due to a lack ways to express them in a way that others might understand.



you're patently wrong there about language and writing.

Writing is a relatively rare phenomenon, the percent of languages which developed a writing system is miniscule and practically insignificant.

Additionally, language isnt learned through writing, or else illiteracy wouldnt exist.

you're patently wrong there about language and writing.

Writing is a relatively rare phenomenon, the percent of languages which developed a writing system is miniscule and practically insignificant.
I wasn't talking about after they had become well established, I was talking about the impracticality of spreading it without the heavy support of the ability to write. After it is well established it will spread easily

not necessarily, the main reason language happened on a large scale was because we could write it down and teach that to others without a large hassel. Twins have special body languages that they understand and most others don't, the same with families. the only reason others don't understand these special languages is because it is too impractical to teach them to others due to a lack ways to express them in a way that others might understand.
Even so, such communication is based on a grasp of thought most organisms don't have. The only ones I can think of that are remotely siimilar to humans are gorillas, for their ability to feel some emotions, show intellectual work, even learn a bit of sign language. However, it has been a long time since we started experimenting with any primates, and while they are better than most other organisms, they do not have nearly the capacity of humans.

I wasn't talking about after they had become well established, I was talking about the impracticality of spreading it without the heavy support of the ability to write. After it is well established it will spread easily


You're forgetting that every language was "establishmed" *before* it was written.


The great vast majority of the languages in the world have no native writing system.

Writing is somewhat useful when teaching additional languages to people, but in no way necessary.

Ok fine i'll let you have the language one, but i'm still miles ahead of you.

Ok fine i'll let you have the language one, but i'm still miles ahead of you.
It's not just language. Take a hundred gorillas, and let me know if they have a talent on par with humans. I know I will not be disappointed.

It's not just language. Take a hundred gorillas, and let me know if they have a talent on par with humans. I know I will not be disappointed.

WTF!?!?!? this has nothing to do with anything we discussed so far of course they wouldn't have as much talent as humans

WTF!?!?!? this has nothing to do with anything we discussed so far of course they wouldn't have as much talent as humans
But if we have them from birth, they can be taught human ways, right? They are intellectually and emotionally capable of it, right? That's your arguement. This is my response.

Well, to use that stupid old idiotic joke I have to live with:

I'm a cunning linguist, so I have to have sex to pass on those genes to my kids.

And cunning lingualism is a trait conducive to sex, so i'll not have you be banning it.

But if we have them from birth, they can be taught human ways, right? They are intellectually and emotionally capable of it, right? That's your arguement. This is my response.
No, you just said take 100 gorillas, you never said what to do with them. But you said it yourself
The only ones I can think of that are remotely siimilar to humans are gorillas, for their ability to feel some emotions, show intellectual work, even learn a bit of sign language.
They would be able to able to learn just like a Human if they were taken from birth.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_animal_rights

This essay says it better than I do. Please note that I am not an objectivist, for if her philosophy was carried out with total consistency, it would be like the toltalitarian states she so opposed. However, I do have lots of respect for many of her views, with this one being no exception.

sorry, my computer is acting pissy, so i gotta go, I do want to continue this argument sometime, if you come up with a decent response

No, you just said take 100 gorillas, you never said what to do with them. But you said it yourself
You're right. Sorry about that.
They would be able to able to learn just like a Human if they were taken from birth.
I highly doubt it. If they could, then the ones in the wild would be smarter and more emotionally capable, do to their interaction with humans and the natural environment. Besides, while gorillas come closest to possessing reasoning powers, they are not quite there yet.

Are you guys serious? Damn, I just got a hot new Betty Page lookin' girlfriend, and now you want me to go back to jerkin' off? :confused:

Several things before I go
1. I'm not an animal rights activist, as a matter of fact I don't care what people say or do to animals

2. I never said animals had morals, I just said they can have a basic language, can show emotion, and can use tools.

3. i'll be back later tonight, or tommorrow night, i'm not sure

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.
How about we enforce castration. Just for you?

I don't agree with your proposition. First of all, humans have made sex into a recreational sport/activity. It isn't simply procreation or a gift from god, its fun to some people. With the present media, that won't be changing very soon. The sexed-and violenced-up media has made people crave sex and violence. Why would they change for someone who'd like to ban it? In addition, I assume you realize that sex isn't only a human thing, other living creatures do it too. Would you try to bar the animals from having sex and procreating? How bout dogs and cats? And how would you do that?

Then why did the rule of law develope? Why do I consider it immoral to kill you? Because I know that you contribute greatly to this world. A mere animal cannot comprehend that.

I don't think you contribute to the world, infact... Someone should kill you, all of you. If you're saying sex is primitive why not go as far as emotions are primative, nay.. Free will is primative. Well, the fact remains that it is and we remain primitive in our own faults, it matters little however. We are imperfect beings in this life and shall remain as such. Rethink you're entire "idea" and come back, I'll be here to put it down. And all of you "oOooh god did this and that"... shut up. "God" didn't do shit for me, and if you think he did, shut up nobody wants to hear from you, well, you're lunatic friends might but I don't. I belive that's all for now, you can close this thread now. Infact, close every thread... Free will is just so primative.. why should we even have opinions hehehe.

Do you really believe that sinful people are tormented forever in hellfire? Think about it... if God is a loving God that cares for us, why would he subject his people to so much pain and suffering?
Cause he get's off on it. God's own snuff entertainment network.

perhaps we are dragging religion into the debate a bit too much? the fact remains that humans and other animals, because we are animals, have sex for procreation. media takes it a step further to promote sex as recreation. god and hell and sin has nothing to do with it. your religious arguments dont persuade the agnostics and the anti-religious or anti-monotheistic religions. what about the polytheistic religions? a lot of them are based on sex. you are going to take away their sacredness?

what about the polytheistic religions? a lot of them are based on sex. you are going to take away their sacredness?
They will burn in HELL!!!!!!!!! Where the air is pungent with the smell of roasted behinds!!!

... so can I still fly solo or what?

New Anthrus - You have problems. No offence, but you are not a healthy, normal human being.

normal human beings are rational enough to control themselves even at great peaks of passion.

This is why tempory insanity only reduces a sentance, not absolves guilt.

I've never dated in my life.

Well, we can see why.

"I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals."

This is where I stopped reading that essay out of shock. This here is proof that evolution is completely false. If it were true, this person's genotype would've been killed off thousands of years ago.

I've never dated in my life.
Now theres a shock. :D

If this were the UN, this insulting would not be tolerated. You don't have to tell him he's stupid. tell him why hes stupid. say it in the most conniving way imaginable. prove him wrong!

If this were the UN, this insulting would not be tolerated. You don't have to tell him he's stupid. tell him why hes stupid. say it in the most conniving way imaginable. prove him wrong!
But this isn't the UN. Is it?

If I had a penny for everyone who responded to the original post by impugning the sexual character of the poster I'd be rich. Such a total dearth of imagination, when there is so much to discuss here!

Adjusting to a changing environment is primarily brought about through mutations
This is not true. Mutations only introduce NEW variation...and in species where generations are prolonged, such as Homo sapiens, mutations do not have a large effect on selection and evolution. Most mutations are either neutral (in which case they have no effect), or they are deleterious (and result in the death of the individual before they can pass the mutation to children, or the children are so affected THEY die without reproducing). It is mainly through the sexual recombination of existing genetic variation that the amount of genetic diversity in modern humans is manifested.

All of the talk here about sex in relation to morality, religion, etc. is moot. Sexual reproduction has been around for billions of years...early Eukaryotes were reproducing this way when all life on earth was mostly single-celled. Sexual reproduction was favored by natural selection because the more genetic diversity in a species, the more variation that species presents to the environment for selection. Period. Protists have "sex lives", but that does not mean they go out on dates or form lasting attachments, nor do they sit in web forums discussing the romantic nature of sex. Natural selection has made it favorable for even these most primitive of species to reproduce by recombination of DNA, in the absense of even rudimentary organs, no less a centralized brain.

Sex as morality was only introduced with the advent of Christianity after the 1st century AD. I believe it was St. Augustine in De Civitate Dei who first argued that because of the whole apple in the Garden of Eden thing, all humans were somehow polluted at the moment of conception. At any rate, this has NOTHING to do with the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction. If this method was not a good one, almost all plants and animals on Earth would not have this as their method of propagating the species.

With ever increasing medical advances, it is clear that we now can procreate in the absence of any direct physical contact between male and female. Why we'd want to do this is not clear--all sci-fi literature on the subject implies that the sexual instinct is subjugated for ulterior (and often nefarious) purposes. In 1984, the sex drive is directed towards hate; in Brave New World, it is directed towards infantile pleasure. I agree with many posters here that the "sex drive" is so strong it cannot be ignored, and all sci-fi literature seems to agree by putting all of this energy to other uses. But I can't imagine a scenario where this energy could be put to better use than two consenting adults having a bit of hot, sweaty fun.

Also, claiming to want to ban Sex purely to get people to read your post, (and keeping up the pretense for several pages) is a clear and flagrant case of Trolling.

How do you propose enforcing the ban on sex?

it isnt the un, but it isn't a lets-insult-people forum either. it's tragic how a debate can be degraded in this fashion

it isnt the un, but it isn't a lets-insult-people forum either. it's tragic how a debate can be degraded in this fashion
Here is the problem with that view.

This isn't a debate. This is one absolutely absurd argument brought forward, that really does invite ridicule with the sheer insanity of the idea. If an argument is ridiculous, why legitimately debate it? You can't!

you aren't familiar with the model un are you? the crisises deal with homer simpson being kidnapped by mr. moustache who holds him for the ransom of every person in the US to grow a moustache. you must then debate ways to fix the problem. how rational is that?

Regulating procreation is not only impossible, it creates too many problems. Whats next a lisence to have a child, or a wait list to procreate? Also this looks like fun! :fluffle:

im gone for the night... laterzz

banning sex would never happen. not only would it NEVER pass in any sort of legislation but it would be impossible to enforce without intruding on "inalienable human rights" which is specifically stated in the constitution.

and enforcing it would be about as expensive as Iraq is right about now. and just because you say that something is illegal does NOT mean that people would abide by it. look, piracy (burning CD's, downloading, etc.) is entirely illegal, but when you think about it, more than 50% of the population is still downloading. look at Kaaza, last time i saw it had 180 Million people registered and "sharing" music files and that was years ago.

but really how far is too far. in terms of controlling a population, banning sex, no matter how "primitive" it may seem, is the final act before a government tells you how to breathe, crap, eat, sleep, etc... which would basically lead to a hitler :sniper:

besides the general populace would INDEFINITELY rebel agains the government that passed these laws. i sure as hell know that i wouldnt stand for it. Would you?

the question of sex, especially banning it, would never come up in the political arena. sex and culture (no matter where you are on the planet) are as intertwined as economics and politics.

and starting a thread that merely discusses the question of banning sex is entirely obsurd to 99.99% of the planet's population

-Gemeni

Banning sex is pretty much impossable. Humans today still have a gland our brain of basic things that we learned as primates. The biggest part is power, humans naturally want to be the most power, the biggest, the best. It is not shown always in crime or guns but sometimes in just a plan insult. The second biggest one is repurducing(I know I spelled that wrong). Do you know why we do it? Its to keep humans domant in numbers, It was the only resion we became so smart. The human geno path has a natural growth pattern that cannot be changed. Thats why clones today have problems, it is not part of the natural geno path. You cannot control the geno path because humans do not know how it works and tampering with it could cause many bad things. Cells change and alter themselves to adapt to there surroundings. That is how evolution works, cells changing to fit their surroundings better and humans cannot and well never find quite how it works. It's a mystery of life, Therefor banning sex cannot be done.

And please don't tell me I suck at spelling because I have been told that my whole life.

Apparently people are responding without reading all posts..in which case I reiterate my contention that we are all descended from an unholy union of the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and Jesus. Yes, they had a threesome! Jesus went first! Which is clearly described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I did not just give a plausable scientific reasoning for evolution at all! In fact, I will predict that 4 of the 5 responses after this are knee-jerk reactions to the original post. All the more reason why I should not be making well-informed arguments in a forum where most posters respond by saying "Sex0r--you suk!"

But geniticly creating people does make a good science fiction story, thats how all of this came about, But I could be wrong. How did any of you think of this, just wondering.

Banning sex is pretty much impossable. Humans today still have a gland our brain of basic things that we learned as primates. The biggest part is power, humans naturally want to be the most power, the biggest, the best. It is not shown always in crime or guns but sometimes in just a plan insult. The second biggest one is repurducing(I know I spelled that wrong). Do you know why we do it? Its to keep humans domant in numbers, It was the only resion we became so smart. The human geno path has a natural growth pattern that cannot be changed. Thats why clones today have problems, it is not part of the natural geno path. You cannot control the geno path because humans do not know how it works and tampering with it could cause many bad things. Cells change and alter themselves to adapt to there surroundings. That is how evolution works, cells changing to fit their surroundings better and humans cannot and well never find quite how it works. It's a mystery of life, Therefor banning sex cannot be done.

Ok, this attempts to be right, but is mostly wrong. Please don't take this wrong but if this is what you are being taught is is no wonder you fail my classes.

We share glands with our primate cousins, but that is all that is right about your statement. Power is behavioral and implies volition--and evolution does not work that way. We live in an environment and behave--the combination of behavior and environment is what natural selection works on. If you have some variation in physical appearance or behavior that works well with the environment you live in, you will reproduce more. In that way, you pass those genes on to the future.

Evolution does not work to allow dominance in anything. We are the only species alive from the genus Homo, which is unusual. There are hundreds of butterflies, but only one species of human.

The human geno path has a natural growth pattern that cannot be changed. Thats why clones today have problems, it is not part of the natural geno path.
I won't even go into the wrongness that is that statement.

Is there anyone here with even a modicum of knowledge about basic biology? I fear for our future with this scary level of non-knowledge about basic biological principles. Actually, keep being ignorant--I get paid by the hour.

I say, we let people have sex, we just don't let them ejoy it.

This is where I stopped reading that essay out of shock. This here is proof that evolution is completely false. If it were true, this person's genotype would've been killed off thousands of years ago.
You do know that he attributed it to animal activists, right? Anyhow, this is another debate entirely, but I will say that you're statement is probably false. Intelligence is part of evolution, but only how one thinks, not what one thinks. I, of course, oppose how one thinks. Anyhow, humans still have reasoning abilities, and no matter what logic there was to back up the statement, it was logical, nevertheless, although far from objective.

How about we enforce castration. Just for you?
I can see why you hate me. You live in the Netherlands, if I'm correct. Dutch society is by far the most polluted by physical elements, as we saw after the killing of Theo van Gogh.

I can see why you hate me. You live in the Netherlands, if I'm correct. Dutch society is by far the most polluted by physical elements, as we saw after the killing of Theo van Gogh.
What? What phisical elements? And I just plain hate you.

What? New Anthrus thinks he's the Pope or something?

:confused:

What? New Anthrus thinks he's the Pope or something?

:confused:

He could be the Pope... you never know.

Can somebody check his IP address to confirm it? :)

you aren't familiar with the model un are you? the crisises deal with homer simpson being kidnapped by mr. moustache who holds him for the ransom of every person in the US to grow a moustache. you must then debate ways to fix the problem. how rational is that?

I am.

And there are a lot of wierd problems.

Like, at CMUNCE 2004, a delegate who was the Governor of South Carolina was gay, and they had a testimony from his wife to confirm that he wears his wife's clothes!
-------------------------------------------------

But you could always motion for a "suspension of the rules" and then beat the creator of the issue up! :)

I have to be honest that 1984 was part of my inspiration, if only because that anti sex league had cool sashes. But think about it: isn't sex primative? Do we ever want to move away from the primative?

Fire is primitive. Do we want to ban fireplaces?
Stones are primitive. Should gravel be banned?

The need to procreate is next to fear as the most evil of the primative human instincts, and is, indeed, the most basic instinct. I say we enforce a worldwide ban on all sex, and reproduce using artificial semination only.


There are 4 reasons I can think of as to why New Anthrus has said this:
1. He/ She can't get laid so he/ she thinks no one else should. (Solution: we start a fund to get New Anthrus a "pro" and hope things work out.)
2. Had a really bad experience with sex. (In which case everyone has one of those at least once.)
3. Actually experiences pain mentally, or physically during sex. (I suggest you seek help from a doctor, or therapist.)
4. Just plain detest sex. (Again your not alone in this Sigmund Freud disliked sex too; then again he was very possibly a closet case.)

No matter what I suggest you New Anthrus and the like to get out more and have more open discussions about sex with people whom have experienced it; not just a close circle of family and friends. Maybe you need to experiment a little, or time to get over your doubts and fears.

ummm

all other ways of reproducing humans are being struck down by the same people you want to support your cause

oh, he didnt JUST have a bad date, he nearly had her nude then she slit his **** off