NationStates Jolt Archive

:headbang: new anthrus must realize where he would be if his mother was locked at the knees. is your life so boring that you must interdict on other's lives? i suppose that you belive that eating animals is beyond humanity and that transendance of body and mind is yet available to us? you sir are either a moron or you must need to be born two million years from now when it might just be possible :fluffle:

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.
I'm not afraid of talking about sex, but I find that it is more physical than anything else, and that has gotten humanity into trouble.
And btw, didn't Freud have children?

Fire is primitive. Do we want to ban fireplaces?
Stones are primitive. Should gravel be banned?
No. They have, however, become tools for humans to use, which makes them essential in my eyes. Sex cannot, and probably will not gain such usefulness, but will retain its harmfulness on the human mind.

And btw, didn't Freud have children?

Wow, you really missed the point there. Suggest you re-read my statement again.

I've never dated in my life.
LOL!
If you have never had sex, then keep your damn mouth shut about it.


Nuff Said.

No. They have, however, become tools for humans to use, which makes them essential in my eyes. Sex cannot, and probably will not gain such usefulness, but will retain its harmfulness on the human mind.
Of course, without sex people will experience an extraordinary increase in energy levels, which will lead to far higher levels of crime, more fighting, and increased tension in the workplace. People will be unhappy. If you have never had to work with an uptight person then you can not understand why sex is important.

This is possible heretical, but: if humanity really wants to become the peak of efficiency, there will be one female (nods to Aliens, assorted insect Hives) whose purpose is to breed. By that point, we will have half-metal nanite bodies, so I am afraid that you will have to use the crude biological method.

Yes, I am probably messed up in the head. I admit it, and embrace my madness as genius, for there is little distinction, and little change in the ideals that make it up.

First off, I have decided that thinking is detramental to humanities collective mental evolution. I am going to remove everones brain now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NOW THATS SARCASM!

I groan at New Anthrus' ignorance.

First off, I have decided that thinking is detramental to humanities collective mental evolution. I am going to remove everones brain now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NOW THATS SARCASM!

I groan at New Anthrus' ignorance.

Hmm… if I weren't so held back by my ethics and morals, I might consider that idea… Anthrus, what would you have in place - something like my "Alien's Queen" idea? I've even drawn pictures - it disturbs my friends no end.

Of course, without sex people will experience an extraordinary increase in energy levels, which will lead to far higher levels of crime, more fighting, and increased tension in the workplace. People will be unhappy. If you have never had to work with an uptight person then you can not understand why sex is important. That's odd. I haven't seen many celibate monks go on the shotgun rampage. Maybe that's an "inner peace" thing.

You know, it is possible to survive without sex. You should try it. Until you get called to service the Queen Breeder…

That's odd. I haven't seen many celibate monks go on the shotgun rampage. Maybe that's an "inner peace" thing.
No. It's the altar boys.

No. It's the altar boys. I know an altar boy who thinks I'm an insane daemoniac (I'm only insane, don't worry…). He's not a psychopath.

You can survive without sex. Many men do, not to mention all the people who haven't actually had sex yet.

I know an altar boy who thinks I'm an insane daemoniac (I'm only insane, don't worry…). He's not a psychopath.

You can survive without sex. Many men do, not to mention all the people who haven't actually had sex yet.
You misunderstood me. :D Monks/priests with young boys.

you all know that you are all crazy right?

You misunderstood me. :D Monks/priests with young boys. For tarring them all with the same brush, letting the few guilty heretics colour thy perception: You shall be burnt and roasted with the foul dæmons in the lowest firey pit, as your once-Godly soul is burnt to ashes before thy disrespect to the many servants of God (wow. It must be the lack of sex that's giving me this incredible energy).

Seriously though. The priest thing was blown out of proportion - the numbers were huge because it was over decades.

Here we go.
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.
Ah, now we see the true nature of the position come to light. It is passion, moreso than sex itself, that you are against. In that case, I no longer think you are out of touch with reality. I do, however, think you are a fool. I will elaborate below.

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.
I contest your assertation that sex is the main conduit of passion. Sex is the main conduit of a certain type of passion. When I have sex, I am not giving vent to anger, compassion, or my drive to create, only the romantic passion that is intertwined with the drive to have sex in the first place. I would also like to remind you that passion remains the foundation of emotion and morality. The most spiritual and religious people are passionate about it. Scientists work toward new discoveries because of a passion for knowledge, or for helping mankind. Artists create to give vent to their passions, of all natures. Passion is a necessary element in any meaningful life; if you are not passionate about the career you have, about the way you live your life, about what you choose to spend your time on, what's the point? Of course passion can go wrong; so can anything. It's a messy, dirty, strange, and often incomprehensible world we live in, and that's not going to change any time soon.

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.
You might not worry about famine, but many people do. I worry about it; not my own, but the famine currently ravaging many parts of the world. Additionally, I would posit that it is the decline, the lack of passion in people's lives in our society that causes so many problems these days. Without a driving force to push us forward, human beings stagnate. Looking to history, stagnation in society begets rot and decline. Passion drives us forward in a way that logic and reason never can; this is because, in spite of your posturing (and an arguable superiority complex), we are all still animals, subject to emotion and instinct like any other. To attempt to "free" us from this is ultimately futile, as total freedom is an impossibility. If you "free" yourself from nature, you are then ruled over by the strict, harsh rules imposed by a life of total logic and reason. There is always going to be something governing your actions and thoughts, like it or not. That's life.

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.
That "waste" stopped the warring. By your own rules (the utilitarian rule of logic), the sacrifice of two to end a war and save many is a desireable, or at least acceptable, solution. By my rules, the rules of nature and what I know instinctively...better to die a Romeo than live forever a robot.

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.
Explosives are similarly dangerous, volatile, and destructive. However, they are required for certain activities. Passion is like fire; dangerous, yes, but without it our power plants would shut down, our cars wouldn't run, our spaceships and jets would never leave the ground. This statement of yours, psychologically speaking, also belies what seems to be a hidden motive for your feelings on this matter; passion scares you. In this computerized, mechanized, sterilized age, that isn't really uncommon, which is unfortunate. It simply belies a lack of understanding and experience. Fire will burn you from time to time, but once you learn to use it for your own ends, the gains far outweigh the costs.

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.
Further evidence of my statement as regards your psychology. Your own outbursts of rage frighten you, thus pushing you toward reason and logic as "the better path." I would, in responce, posit that, though such a life may be safer, it will also be less fulfilling. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You also commit the psychological fallacy of projection, in assuming that since you cannot control your passions (something that is an unfortunate personal problem, which I am glad to see you are getting professional help for), neither can others.

Let me tell you about myself. I am an artist, a lover, an activist, an adrenaline junkie in some respects. I live by passion and compassion every single day; if I am not feeling passion in some way I feel almost numb. Passion pushes my life forward, forces me to try new and uncertain things. Sometimes this leads to a bit of an emotional roller coaster, but more often than not I go to bed satisfied if I have allowed my passion to be expressed in a constructive way. I say "allowed" with purpose, for I also have extremely tight self-control. If you met me socially, you would never think I was the man I just described; I am shy, quiet, and rarely show emotion on my face. Though I act oddly sometimes, and "let myself go" from time to time, completely becoming a different person, I do not have outbursts like you describe. My passion has not led to someone getting hurt since I was a child. Therefore, I am living proof that passion cannot be as inherintly harmful as you think it is.

Back to the original subject of sex...as I said, your stance indicates a lack of both understanding and experience. With time, as you make gains in both areas, your opinions will change. I too tried to kill my emotions once, back in Junior High and High School. I realized later the foolishness and naivety of doing so, and learned to harness my feelings toward a greater good. I suggest you think on that.

New Andrus is too Passionate about eliminating Passion.

I think that he wants to get rid of *sexual* passion, which he views as messy, primitive - and maybe inefficient?

How did you try to kill your emotions? I try to keep mine under strict control - man of ice. It's the way I would like to be. Obviously, I would not like to rid myself of compassion - but to become colder, more logical and calculating. I'm probably mad. People tell me that I am. :headbang:

This is like saying the solution to world hunger is to take away the food.

Sex is natural! IT CANNOT BE IGNORED! No matter how hard you try, you cannot deny a natural trait!

This is like saying the solution to world hunger is to take away the food.
Just the desserts.

I think that he wants to get rid of *sexual* passion, which he views as messy, primitive - and maybe inefficient?
Impossible to do without getting rid of all passion. There aren't clear-cut defining lines, they all blur together. There's an innate sexuality to most moments of passion, just as there's an innate anger, joy, etc. to them.

How did you try to kill your emotions? I try to keep mine under strict control - man of ice. It's the way I would like to be. Obviously, I would not like to rid myself of compassion - but to become colder, more logical and calculating. I'm probably mad. People tell me that I am. :headbang:
I started with that you describe. I then tried to take it further, to the point where not only would I not give them expression, but I would not feel them to begin with. I was successful to a point; then I wound up falling in love, and it all fell apart in rather short order.

has anybody else noticed that the people most interested in banning sex, sexual references, or sexual education tend to also be people who think about sex way more than the average? they seem to place far too much emphasis on sex, and seem to believe that sex is at the core of all human interaction and emotion.

don't get me wrong, sex is great and all, but i just don't see it as being such a big deal. it's sex, people. just sex. so long as you are safe and respectful, it's nothing to be scared of. as long as your partner and you are on the same page, it's something that can be happy and wonderful and a delight to share. but it's not your whole life, it's not your whole relationship, and it doesn't need to be the focal point of your every waking minute.

Sex is a good way to exercise!! You ban my sex and I will raise Cain!!!!! :upyours: :upyours:

Sex while base in a sense is not a major threat to rational human behavior. You might want to start with the peculiar human need to have the illusion of control over their universe through a God. Do you want to ban masturbation too?

Sex is not an immoral thing, just like delicious food or video games. All that is required is a little moderation, and morals are upheld.

i cannot believe this issue is even being brought up. 'sex is primitive so let's not do it?' spoken like a true virgin. ok great idea. chewing food is primitive, lets all take our meals through IVs. can you think of anything else that makes us human that you want to ban?

i sincerely dislike how society today has to bend over to please the noisy minority. don't you have better things to complain about? :headbang:

I started with that you describe. I then tried to take it further, to the point where not only would I not give them expression, but I would not feel them to begin with. I was successful to a point; then I wound up falling in love, and it all fell apart in rather short order.
He's right, It does work. I thought I was the only one to do such a thing.

My nation will never back this, just because you picked up syphillus from your harem and now want to take out your rage by making everyone else's life hell as well doesnt give you the right to take away sex, should you go through with this resolution my nation will be forced to send whores and pimps to your nations seedier districts ASAP

My nation will never back this, just because you picked up syphillus from your harem and now want to take out your rage by making everyone else's life hell as well doesnt give you the right to take away sex, should you go through with this resolution my nation will be forced to send whores and pimps to your nations seedier districts ASAP
this isn't an RP this guy is trying to be serious

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.

What fun would that be? To say sex is evil means you do not understand it/ have never tried it. It comes (no pun intended) highly recommended!!! Maybe.....
You lost your penis in an incident with a chicken and a carving knife didn't you? Or else it's lego man size and women just laugh at you. Or are you a reformed sexaholic? OR you have been watching that film with sandra bullock and sylvester stallone. Or you have been reading catholic propaganda declaring sex to be a sin for giving in to your urges? I recommend a nice course in viagra. Or get laid :fluffle: :eek: :rolleyes:

this isn't an RP this guy is trying to be serious

I some how doubt the seriousness of the thread!

Hmm, sex is primitive, its noisy, messy, and involves a certain loss of control. But then again, what is wrong with that? Many things are primitive. Caring for people is primitive. In a logical scheme of things it doesn't really advance us. If i care for random people and go out of my way to help them it doesn't help me. But i do it. Our primitive acts are really what make us human. And i'm glad i'm a human. I don't want to live a rational life. I don't really want to advance my species. I don't know what would really be an advance, and what would only look like one. If we overcame our primitive side, sure there would be good things. Less war probably, not as many abused children, no overpopulation. But there would also be bad things. Without our primitive desires and pleasures, why would we bother living? WE wouldn't really have a lot to look forward to. Maximizing potential, increasing our output, sure. But where is the fun in that. To me, life is about its more primitive things. It is about fun, and freedom, sex, caring, love, hate, and death. I don't think we should ban such things as sex, or drugs, or any of that. WE need to think more about what we do perhaps. Love can lead to hate, it can lead to violence, and that can be bad. It can also lead to love, and maybe a desire to move beyond just our good and to do something for someone else. We shouldn't fear our primitive side, we should embrace it, and through it find some peace in our lives. Lets try and do something which isn't in our best interests, and help someone else.
:fluffle:

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.

me thinks you have been playing a little too much half-life 2... ^_^

What fun would that be? To say sex is evil means you do not understand it/ have never tried it. It comes (no pun intended) highly recommended!!! Maybe.....
You lost your penis in an incident with a chicken and a carving knife didn't you? Or else it's lego man size and women just laugh at you. Or are you a reformed sexaholic? OR you have been watching that film with sandra bullock and sylvester stallone. Or you have been reading catholic propaganda declaring sex to be a sin for giving in to your urges? I recommend a nice course in viagra. Or get laid :fluffle: :eek: :rolleyes:

lol :)

Hmm, sex is primitive, its noisy, messy, and involves a certain loss of control. But then again, what is wrong with that? Many things are primitive. Caring for people is primitive. In a logical scheme of things it doesn't really advance us. If i care for random people and go out of my way to help them it doesn't help me. But i do it. Our primitive acts are really what make us human. And i'm glad i'm a human. I don't want to live a rational life. I don't really want to advance my species. I don't know what would really be an advance, and what would only look like one. If we overcame our primitive side, sure there would be good things. Less war probably, not as many abused children, no overpopulation. But there would also be bad things. Without our primitive desires and pleasures, why would we bother living? WE wouldn't really have a lot to look forward to. Maximizing potential, increasing our output, sure. But where is the fun in that. To me, life is about its more primitive things. It is about fun, and freedom, sex, caring, love, hate, and death. I don't think we should ban such things as sex, or drugs, or any of that. WE need to think more about what we do perhaps. Love can lead to hate, it can lead to violence, and that can be bad. It can also lead to love, and maybe a desire to move beyond just our good and to do something for someone else. We shouldn't fear our primitive side, we should embrace it, and through it find some peace in our lives. Lets try and do something which isn't in our best interests, and help someone else.
:fluffle:
I love you. :)

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 don't have sex to procriate, i have it for pleasure, therefore, i am not obeying any primitive human instinct, therefore, i don't need that ban :D

this isn't an RP this guy is trying to be serious
He is? Then I believe he needs a good smack upside the head. Sex is a natural desire of humans, not just for procreation, but because its a pretty goddammed social thing to do! Look at Dolphins and Bonobo monkeys (only other animals to have sex for fun) and look how well off their species are they interact well with eatchother, sex removes tensions, helps with retention, and helps you lose weight...sex is good for you!

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.

Fuck off. You've also noticed that they havn't invented guns or bombs or drugs.

Of course, without sex people will experience an extraordinary increase in energy levels, which will lead to far higher levels of crime, more fighting, and increased tension in the workplace. People will be unhappy. If you have never had to work with an uptight person then you can not understand why sex is important.
Then why aren't there higher crime rates among priests, monks, and nuns?

has anybody else noticed that the people most interested in banning sex, sexual references, or sexual education tend to also be people who think about sex way more than the average? they seem to place far too much emphasis on sex, and seem to believe that sex is at the core of all human interaction and emotion.

don't get me wrong, sex is great and all, but i just don't see it as being such a big deal. it's sex, people. just sex. so long as you are safe and respectful, it's nothing to be scared of. as long as your partner and you are on the same page, it's something that can be happy and wonderful and a delight to share. but it's not your whole life, it's not your whole relationship, and it doesn't need to be the focal point of your every waking minute.
But it creates passion, a mere emotional manifestation of physical attributes. Not only are such emotions volatile, but humans are capable of far more sophisticated thought, emotion, and morals. We need these to be based on reason, not physical elements.
P.S.
I single out fear as also producing this effect, and it is important to separate it from mere fright, which is easily overriden by reason. Anyhow, I am only discussing sex because, well, it attracts the most posters.

Then why aren't there higher crime rates among priests, monks, and nuns?
this one's been brought up already, and it's the poor little boys /sarcasm

this one's been brought up already, and it's the poor little boys /sarcasm
That was, however, a minority of priests, probably less than 3% of all who served in the past fifty years. They were probably too weak mentally to be up to the challenge of chastity.

But it creates passion, a mere emotional manifestation of physical attributes. Not only are such emotions volatile, but humans are capable of far more sophisticated thought, emotion, and morals. We need these to be based on reason, not physical elements.
P.S.
I single out fear as also producing this effect, and it is important to separate it from mere fright, which is easily overriden by reason. Anyhow, I am only discussing sex because, well, it attracts the most posters.
you believe passion is bad, so i cannot argue with you on this subject; i cannot agree with your basic premise. i believe emotions are neither good nor bad, and passions of any kind are neither good nor bad, so my evaluation of the values and dangers of sex cannot hinge on emotions as a factor.

you believe passion is bad, so i cannot argue with you on this subject; i cannot agree with your basic premise. i believe emotions are neither good nor bad, and passions of any kind are neither good nor bad, so my evaluation of the values and dangers of sex cannot hinge on emotions as a factor.
I don't classify emotions as good or bad, but simply on how sophisticated they are. Passion is a very good thing, but it can be a very bad thing extremely quickly. Worse yet, we don't need it.

I don't classify emotions as good or bad, but simply on how sophisticated they are. Passion is a very good thing, but it can be a very bad thing extremely quickly. Worse yet, we don't need it.
again, i simply disagree. but hey, what else is new...

Wow, your world must suck Anthrus.

again, i simply disagree. but hey, what else is new...
Not much. My cat came back after eight months in the woods.

Wow, your world must suck Anthrus.
Perhaps if you opened that mental clam shell a bit further, you'd see where I'm coming from.

crazy
nuff said

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.
now that's silly.

i mean, it's like a brave new world without the fun.

i would also like to add that the fact that we can have sex for pleasure, rather than just reproduction is one of the things that distinguishes us from most animals.

most animals don't have sex for non-reproductive purposes (excluding homosexual pairings) because they have a number of worries, food, predators er c. if they're out looking for a mate, they aren't looking for food and they're vulnerable to predators. remember, survival is more important than reproduction. can't do the latter without the former.

however, look at us, we don't have any real predators anymore. the only animal that actively hunts humans is the polar bear and not many people have to deal with those on a regular basis. we've got plenty of food (in the western world at least) thus we can afford to have sex with our partners for fun, to bond, for pleasure et c. and so, as we sit here secure in our survival, we should indeed fuck for the sake of fucking. for the sake of beign human and being able to.

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.

Bollocks. Unless you have non-religious proof, this sounds like utter tripe to me.

'Moral' by who's standards? Morals aren't absolute.

why would anybody ban sex?!?!?! its an enjoyable thing to do between 2 or more ppl. and plus if u use science to produce the babies have a high chance of coming out very bad. kind of like the ppl that look like piccasso's paintings.
and for some1 2 say band all sex..im sry but they had a very bad experience with sex or even a date. :)

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.

You are aware that the human immune system will *always* find something to fight. Removing fairly harmless contagions from our environment, through filters and so forth, can increase your risk of allergies.

Know what allergies are? Your body finding something harmless (dustmites, grass seeds, etc), and freaking out and treating it like it's dangerous.

I'd personally rather have a cold every now and then (and keep my immune system busy), rather than develop allergies and be essentially buggered for life.

Also, there's no reason to 'overcome' sexual urges. Sex is pleasurable. You may view it as 'primitive', but you'll need a better reason before you try to force a life-time of chastity on people who *like* their sex (mmmsex)

hmmm....suppose a man got his private organs completely removed...would he still want to have sex then?

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.
Bullshit, survival is. I'm going to save my own ass before I get laid. Sex is considered a stress reliever, banning sex to a generation that already knows it will spark riot, if not revolution. Even if that didn't happen, imagine enforcing it, you might aswell have vasectomy performed along with circumcision at birth. Might I suggest you read Brave New World, you'd probably enjoy it.

The only other species that has sex for fun is dolphins, and hell if I know why its only them.

i would also like to add that the fact that we can have sex for pleasure, rather than just reproduction is one of the things that distinguishes us from most animals.

most animals don't have sex for non-reproductive purposes (excluding homosexual pairings) because they have a number of worries, food, predators er c. if they're out looking for a mate, they aren't looking for food and they're vulnerable to predators. remember, survival is more important than reproduction. can't do the latter without the former.

however, look at us, we don't have any real predators anymore. the only animal that actively hunts humans is the polar bear and not many people have to deal with those on a regular basis. we've got plenty of food (in the western world at least) thus we can afford to have sex with our partners for fun, to bond, for pleasure et c. and so, as we sit here secure in our survival, we should indeed fuck for the sake of fucking. for the sake of beign human and being able to.
And how is this good for us?

How is watching sports, sleeping, playing games, socializing good for us? Why don't we just become friggin robots?

Bollocks. Unless you have non-religious proof, this sounds like utter tripe to me.

'Moral' by who's standards? Morals aren't absolute.
There is no non-religious example, as it does define morals. I find it a sophisticated institution, and a further refinement of an emotion shared only by humans: spirituality. How did we get that? That's another debate.
Anyhow, this is moral by what humans defined it as, by process of reasoning. An animal has no morals by any standards because it is unable to reason.

And how is this good for us?
well, sex is actually good for us.

it relieves stress, improves circulation, improves the condition of the skin, helps induce sleep, orgasms are powerful things.

i used to have a whole list of things sex does that benefits people. i'll try to find it.

There is no non-religious example, as it does define morals. I find it a sophisticated institution, and a further refinement of an emotion shared only by humans: spirituality. How did we get that? That's another debate.
religion does not always define morals, that's silly.

and some spiritualities involve sex. hell, there's a whole bit in the bible that's all about fucking.

anyways, some benefits..

http://www.tantra-sex.com/ummsummer00.html
http://www.sexinfo101.com/sh_benefits.shtml
http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=2544686&nav=3HvET1Co

so really, it is in your best health interests to get laid here and there.

some of you guys suck on here

well, sex is actually good for us.

it relieves stress, improves circulation, improves the condition of the skin, helps induce sleep, orgasms are powerful things.

not to mention that the life expectancies of married people who report "active" sex lives is higher than the life expectancy for married people who report "low" sexual activity with their partner.

not to mention that the life expectancies of married people who report "active" sex lives is higher than the life expectancy for married people who report "low" sexual activity with their partner.
But I also heard men who have lot's of orgasms will lose their hair. Something to do with hormons.

hmmm....suppose a man got his private organs completely removed...would he still want to have sex then?
with out his private organs he will cease to be a man, so the question is irrelevent

But I also heard men who have lot's of orgasms will lose their hair. Something to do with hormons.
baldness is hereditary.

men who have lots of orgasms suffer enlarged prostates and prostate cancer less often.

which would you rather have? a bald head or prostate cancer?

with out his private organs he will cease to be a man, so the question is irrelevent
you think a penis makes a man?

wow, you poor little boy.

baldness is hereditary.

men who have lots of orgasms suffer enlarged prostates and prostate cancer less often.

which would you rather have? a bald head or prostate cancer?
Uuummmmm.......cancer? Then at least I could say it's the chemo.

you think a penis makes a man?

wow, you poor little boy.
Yeah. What a moron. A penis doesn't make a man. A penis and testicles do!!!

I have a better idea. Why don't we ban those people who try to push their moral/religious agendas on the rest of us?

You are such a fucking retard. You cant BAN sex, you idiot. Just cause either you cant get any, or you personally think its immoral, or you dont like it doesnt mean that you can force your views on me. I may think that all people with blue eyes should be shot, but that doesnt mean we can, or should, do it, you stupid fucking retard. Whats next genetically altering our children, or worse yet, "breeding" people much the same way we breed dogs or horses? To create a desired genetic affect, thus creating a society of Ubermentschen? Thats the most retarded thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Besides, I dont see why so many people view sex as immoral, after all, if God were such a prude, he wouldn't have made reproductive organs, neither would he have said to Abraham "And you shall be fruitful and multiply ..." After all, how can god be such a prude if he COMMANDED us to have sex? After all. when you think about it, sex is a commandment, and by having sex you not only fulfill a commandment, but you are also glorifying God. So, in conclusion, you are a freedom hating "moralistic" retard who should not be taken seriously, And I too agree with the statement "You will only stop me from having sex than I will stop you from breathing" or something like that.

IDIOT.

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.

That made me laugh. There are plenty of works of fiction that depict societies that reproduce in non-sexual ways. Try Marge Piercey's Woman on the Edge of Time for a start.

You're such a fucking retard, dude. You cant BAN sex, it not only is a primary human right, but it was given by God, and therefore can't be denied. Im not saying that you HAVE to have sex if youre SO adverse to sex, but you cant make me stop having sex just because you dislike sex. Also. sex is not immoral, seeing as God gave us the abbilitiy TO have sex, and therefore, it cant be immoral, because God wouldnt give us anything that is immoral, now, would he? Also, God COMMANDS us to have sex "And you shall be fruitful and multiply ..." so by having sex, you are not only fulfilling a commandment, but you are glorifying God's wonder. I say again, YOU are a stupid. fucking, redarded kid. Go eat some more glue.

You're such a fucking retard, dude. You cant BAN sex, it not only is a primary human right, but it was given by God, and therefore can't be denied. Im not saying that you HAVE to have sex if youre SO adverse to sex, but you cant make me stop having sex just because you dislike sex. Also. sex is not immoral, seeing as God gave us the abbilitiy TO have sex, and therefore, it cant be immoral, because God wouldnt give us anything that is immoral, now, would he? Also, God COMMANDS us to have sex "And you shall be fruitful and multiply ..." so by having sex, you are not only fulfilling a commandment, but you are glorifying God's wonder. I say again, YOU are a stupid. fucking, redarded kid. Go eat some more glue.

Opinions exist to be pushed on others. That is the function of government after its primary function of keeping lasting stability. If you believe something is undesirable, you are going to try and spread your views. Therefore, the world will culminate in war. (Yes, I am extremely cynical).

Wow… if I weren't religious, I might go along with Anthrus' arguments… big termite queen human breeder that produces genetically pure offspring… but I am held back by my ethics. Shame.

there's a thread here on Dr Kinsey whose opponents would seem to outlaw sex http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379051

Yuo've been playing HL2 havn't you?

well, sex is actually good for us.

it relieves stress, improves circulation, improves the condition of the skin, helps induce sleep, orgasms are powerful things.

i used to have a whole list of things sex does that benefits people. i'll try to find it.
Everything that sex can help with can also be helped by other means. All of that comes at an emotional toll.
And btw, it is true that we have sex for pleasure, but it still originates from the basic instinct of procreation. Without that instinct, no one would have sex, as they would see it as a boring exercise. Penises can stick into other holes on the woman's body, but why is the best stimulating effect on the vagina? Because we are hardwired to do it.

What if we banned food too? Or art? Or sleep?

What if we banned food too? Or art? Or sleep?
We need the first two to live, but we no longer need sex to live. As for art, it is a purely psychological experience required for the sanity of a culture.

P.S.
If sleep wasn't needed to live, I'd love to get rid of that.

We need the first two to live, but we no longer need sex to live. As for art, it is a purely psychological experience required for the sanity of a culture.

P.S.
If sleep wasn't needed to live, I'd love to get rid of that.

Don't you think sex is a psychological expierience required for the sanity of a culture as well?

Don't you think sex is a psychological expierience required for the sanity of a culture as well?
No, as it is a purely physical feeling that simply disguises itself as an emotional one.

No, as it is a purely physical feeling that simply disguises itself as an emotional one.

But art is emotional?? If you want to define sex as purely physical thats fine but than art should be defined as purely physical as well. An image is inputed through our eyes into our brain and through some chemical process is interpreted thus creating pleasure or some other emotion. Sex is the same way. The sensations are inturpretted by our brain as either pleasurable or some other emotion (as in the case of rape)

What I'm trying to say is that your views are inconsistent. If you want to argue to ban sex alot of people are going to dissagree with you and frankly I do too. But in order to maintain some shread of credibility you at least have to be consistent.

But art is emotional?? If you want to define sex as purely physical thats fine but than art should be defined as purely physical as well. An image is inputed through our eyes into our brain and through some chemical process is interpreted thus creating pleasure or some other emotion. Sex is the same way. The sensations are inturpretted by our brain as either pleasurable or some other emotion (as in the case of rape)

What I'm trying to say is that your views are inconsistent. If you want to argue to ban sex alot of people are going to dissagree with you and frankly I do too. But in order to maintain some shread of credibility you at least have to be consistent.
I am consistent. You see, sex has emotion to it, but it is simply a byproduct of a physical instinct. Art is not like that. The only physical part about it (and most anything in life) is that it requires the senses. It is not based on some obsolete instinct that does far more harm than good to the human psyche.

I am consistent. You see, sex has emotion to it, but it is simply a byproduct of a physical instinct. Art is not like that. The only physical part about it (and most anything in life) is that it requires the senses. It is not based on some obsolete instinct that does far more harm than good to the human psyche.

And why does it do more harm than good? Last time I checked sex between consentual adults brings about good feelings. I acknowledge that sexual obsession and rape are bad things but bad things stem off of good things sometimes. For example would you consider a ripped up carcess of a human body in a glass container pleasurable and huministic art? I wouldn't. I would call that destructive and murderous and the person who did it should be cast from society.

It is not based on some obsolete instinct that does far more harm than good to the human psyche.
Reproduction is not an obsolete instinct. Christianity may be an obsolete religion, but procreation will never become an obsolete concept to life.

Reproduction is not an obsolete instinct. Christianity may be an obsolete religion, but procreation will never become an obsolete concept to life.
Our technology has made it obsolete, and if current trends hold up, such technology, including artificial semination, will spread throughout the world in less than a hundred years.

And why does it do more harm than good? Last time I checked sex between consentual adults brings about good feelings. I acknowledge that sexual obsession and rape are bad things but bad things stem off of good things sometimes. For example would you consider a ripped up carcess of a human body in a glass container pleasurable and huministic art? I wouldn't. I would call that destructive and murderous and the person who did it should be cast from society.
Well it's because of this good feeling that I find it bad. As I've said before, it is purely physical and subject to violent change, yet it also has the quality of completely overriding all reason in thought.

k, i know i'm coming in on the middle of an argument, but i'd still like to have my say

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.

at first i thought it was a joke, but then:

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.

well, if you want to debate it then, fine. i believe that to say that sex is quote-unquote evil is to ignore the basic good that comes out of it. the happiness, the feeling, with the right person there is love, and at the right time, children...

if you're going to start banning primitive things, why not ban sleep, and eating...luxuries that are just as needful as sex. yes, some people can go without it, but even the celibates of this world have their lapses in judgement....stoners go without sleep to get high...and the people who don't eat (voluntarily )just aren't happy people to begin with.

sry if i'm disrupting the line of thought or repeating myself...i just didn't want to read all 333 to get the picture

k, i know i'm coming in on the middle of an argument, but i'd still like to have my say



at first i thought it was a joke, but then:



well, if you want to debate it then, fine. i believe that to say that sex is quote-unquote evil is to ignore the basic good that comes out of it. the happiness, the feeling, with the right person there is love, and at the right time, children...

if you're going to start banning primitive things, why not ban sleep, and eating...luxuries that are just as needful as sex. yes, some people can go without it, but even the celibates of this world have their lapses in judgement....stoners go without sleep to get high...and the people who don't eat (voluntarily )just aren't happy people to begin with.

sry if i'm disrupting the line of thought or repeating myself...i just didn't want to read all 333 to get the picture

No problemo. I'll just repeat my arguement like I have been: sex is an instinct that overrides reason, and it is dangerous, as well as being primative. That's my arguement.

Well it's because of this good feeling that I find it bad. As I've said before, it is purely physical and subject to violent change, yet it also has the quality of completely overriding all reason in thought.

And how would you know that it has the quality of completely overiding reason and thought? You've said yourself that you haven't had sex so I assume you are taking this fact on faith.

I also assume that you have a scientific and logical mind based on your arguments. Taking things for granted and on faith is not very scientific. Yet another inconcistency in your argument.....

Reproduction is not an obsolete instinct. Christianity may be an obsolete religion, but procreation will never become an obsolete concept to life. Can you not bring religion into this, or your desire to get rid of it? The issue is getting rid of sex, not God.

Anyway [changes his tack a bit], I would like to do without sleep or food - food is disgusting (oxygen is okay though…), and sleep is a necessary waste of time.

Anthrus, I must admit a dislike of primitive things - but you are forgetting that sex, while being a purely physical experience at heart, is also emotionally bonding (normally). I do not speak from any experience, so you can prove me wrong if you so wish. (Wow, I'm actually remaining impartial in this! That is NOT normal!)

Can you not bring religion into this, or your desire to get rid of it? The issue is getting rid of sex, not God.
I know...but I can't help myself. I apologise.

Anthrus, I must admit a dislike of primitive things - but you are forgetting that sex, while being a purely physical experience at heart, is also emotionally bonding (normally).
You...you dislike primitive things? The most primitive things are often the most beautiful. Ebola is beautiful, just 7 proteins and one strand of RNA. It is one of the most primitive living (kinda) things on this planet. Cyanobacteria is one of the coolest things around. While progress is good, we can never forget our roots. It is too easy to just say "Eww, primitive!", but it really is just silly.

Reproduction is not an obsolete instinct. Christianity may be an obsolete religion, but procreation will never become an obsolete concept to life.
You are wrong on both counts. Christianity is by no means obsolete, but sex is. I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who loathes sex.

*does a spit take*
WHAT?!?!

Why is sex doubleplusungood? or maybe just bad experiences

I agree... someone woke up with a bad mate after a night of drunkeness. why would we ban sex? primitive? emotions are primitive? since when?

I know...but I can't help myself. I apologise.


You...you dislike primitive things? The most primitive things are often the most beautiful. Ebola is beautiful, just 7 proteins and one strand of RNA. It is one of the most primitive living (kinda) things on this planet. Cyanobacteria is one of the coolest things around. While progress is good, we can never forget our roots. It is too easy to just say "Eww, primitive!", but it really is just silly. Ja, I know, but my mind is messed up. I think so. My friends tell me I am mad - just after I came up with the ideas for the "Human Breeder" (too many "Aliens" films…). Ebola? Isn't that a deadly plague - or is the plague just a variation of the ebola, like ecoli is normally good.?

Excuse by reason of insanity?

You are wrong on both counts. Christianity is by no means obsolete, but sex is. I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who loathes sex.

how do you loathe sex? why do you loathe sex?

It's filthy and disgusting.

It's filthy and disgusting.

how so? sex can be beautiful. in case you havent noticed, thats how you were created.

Why would anyone want to stick their genitalia into someone elses body? Or vice versa? The same things you use to excrete waste you put into someone's body. Think about it.

Ja, I know, but my mind is messed up. I think so. My friends tell me I am mad - just after I came up with the ideas for the "Human Breeder" (too many "Aliens" films…). Ebola? Isn't that a deadly plague - or is the plague just a variation of the ebola, like ecoli is normally good.?

Excuse by reason of insanity?

i agree with the ebola likign person

It's filthy and disgusting. Yeah. I do wish my body was a bit more… metallic, or something. It's all pink. I mean, you can't take anything pink seriously. People should be black (really black. Not black as in dark brown skin coloured). Or something.

Have any people who are against sex had it? You can probably tell with me.

i agree with the ebola likign person
I don't understand what you mean.

Why would anyone want to stick their genitalia into someone elses body? Or vice versa? The same things you use to excrete waste you put into someone's body. Think about it.

I am thinking about it. How old are you, by the way, if you don't mind me asking?

Yeah. I do wish my body was a bit more… metallic, or something. It's all pink. I mean, you can't take anything pink seriously. People should be black (really black. Not black as in dark brown skin coloured). Or something.

Have any people who are against sex had it? You can probably tell with me.

Hmmm...Do I know you? What you said in the beginning is almost word for word what I said about 1 year ago...Do you attend Monte Vista High School?

I am thinking about it. How old are you, by the way, if you don't mind me asking?
15. Why?

Yeah. I do wish my body was a bit more… metallic, or something. It's all pink. I mean, you can't take anything pink seriously. People should be black (really black. Not black as in dark brown skin coloured). Or something.

Have any people who are against sex had it? You can probably tell with me.

they probably haven't, hence thats what they are proving.

Ebola? Isn't that a deadly plague - or is the plague just a variation of the ebola, like ecoli is normally good.?
Ebola has never reached the status of a plague. It is not the bubonic plague, though, that's bacterial and completely different. It is one of the most deadly viruses in existence. Ask any virologist, and they will say that filoviruses (Ebola and Marburg) are beautiful. They're so simply, yet can make the human body, quite literally, come apart at the seams. It is a hæmorrhagic fever, and essentially your body just falls apart. Ebola Zaïre has a 90% mortality rate.

Excuse by reason of insanity?
Yeah...perhaps that would be the best explanation. I'm intending on becoming an entomologist after I get out of school, and all of them are a crazy bunch.

Actually, I find that hormone crazed teenagers who have never had sex are much more excited about it than someone who's been "doing it" for years...

15. Why?

That explains it. I'm arguing with a 15 year old about the beauty of sex, which I happen to teach.

Yeah. I do wish my body was a bit more… metallic, or something. It's all pink. I mean, you can't take anything pink seriously. People should be black (really black. Not black as in dark brown skin coloured). Or something.
Oh, I take Pink Floyd seriously.

Oh, I take Pink Floyd seriously.
Hahahahahah! :sniper:

Ebola has never reached the status of a plague. It is not the bubonic plague, though, that's bacterial and completely different. It is one of the most deadly viruses in existence. Ask any virologist, and they will say that filoviruses (Ebola and Marburg) are beautiful. They're so simply, yet can make the human body, quite literally, come apart at the seams. It is a hæmorrhagic fever, and essentially your body just falls apart. Ebola Zaïre has a 90% mortality rate.


Yeah...perhaps that would be the best explanation. I'm intending on becoming an entomologist after I get out of school, and all of them are a crazy bunch.

yeah. you know what you're talking about. im a biology and health teacher. my fiance is studying medicine to become a geneticist (a type of virologist that studies cures)

That explains it. I'm arguing with a 15 year old about the beauty of sex, which I happen to teach.
Hey! I resent that! Anyway, my hatred of sex is not caused by my youth. In fact, I'm a bit of a freak at my school, which is obsessed with the matter. And...what do you mean, "happen to teach"? Are you a sex ed teacher?

That's weird that a 15 year old would be so digusted by sex in the first place.

I would assume that this person's parents are probably some sort of religious fundamentalists who have made sex out to be a dirty, filthy and sinful deed. It's a shame really.

In any event, I can assure you that this person will suffer many a guilt complex about his/her sexuality.

That explains it. I'm arguing with a 15 year old about the beauty of sex, which I happen to teach. Hey, I'm 15 as well! And I don't binge drink, take drugs, and I can write properly! So don't prejudge me!

Anyway. It is a horrible feeling to be torn between desire and raw revulsion.

Cheese, why are you talking about hormone crazed teenagers at 15? I would have thought that, as a 15-year-old, you would like me view that phrase as a slur on your honour. I'm not a hormone crazed teenager. I'm just a crazed teenager.

Hey! I resent that! Anyway, my hatred of sex is not caused by my youth. In fact, I'm a bit of a freak at my school, which is obsessed with the matter. And...what do you mean, "happen to teach"? Are you a sex ed teacher?

I didn't say it was caused by your youth, I simply implied that the sidgust may be grown out of.
I'm a biology and health teacher, so in a sense, yes I teach sex ed.

15. Why?

I'm 16 - and you have some really strange views on sex tbh matey! Sex is one of the greatest things about being human - it's how we are intimate with the ones we love, how we communicate on a purely physical level! And it's great fun! ;-)

There are absolutely no negative points about sex - I mean, for goodness sake - would anyone SERIOUSLY advocate asexual reproduction? If you do - then may God Help Us All!

Have you ever had a girlfriend/boyfriend? I don't know if you're a guy or a girl, or which way you swing - so I'm being totally general here! But as a guy, being attracted to girls makes up a huge part of why I get up in the morning. If I didn't find girls so damned attractive, then I probably wouldn't turn up for school. With the added bonus of getting an education at the same time, we improve our social skills by mixing, flirting and dating with people we are attracted to.

This attraction, if strong enough, generally leads to sex if both people are willing and want to express themselves in other ways.

Mate - trust me, wait until you experience it before you give your 'expert opinion' on how bad it is!

That's weird that a 15 year old would be so digusted by sex in the first place.

I would assume that this person's parents are probably some sort of religious fundamentalists who have made sex out to be a dirty, filthy and sinful deed. It's a shame really.

In any event, I can assure you that this person will suffer many a guilt complex about his/her sexuality.
That's all too kind of you. Really. And no, my parents are actually a bit disturbed by my loathing of sex.

Cheese, why are you talking about hormone crazed teenagers at 15? I would have thought that, as a 15-year-old, you would like me view that phrase as a slur on your honour. I'm not a hormone crazed teenager. I'm just a crazed teenager.
No, you are. I'm 15 as well, and if you're not hormone-crazed, then there is a physiological problem with you.

Oh, I take Pink Floyd seriously.

heh heh heh... I love Floyd.

did you ever question your sexuality?

That's weird that a 15 year old would be so digusted by sex in the first place.

I would assume that this person's parents are probably some sort of religious fundamentalists who have made sex out to be a dirty, filthy and sinful deed. It's a shame really.

In any event, I can assure you that this person will suffer many a guilt complex about his/her sexuality. Well I can't speak for him - but I managed to get the revulsion all by myself. Wasn't that clever? I know a fifteen year old who is disgusted by sex, but he is… odd. He thinks he's from Vega 3 (a distant planet) and he won't talk to girls. That's a bit extreme. Yeah, it's a bit odd. But lots of people are odd.

That's weird that a 15 year old would be so digusted by sex in the first place.

I would assume that this person's parents are probably some sort of religious fundamentalists who have made sex out to be a dirty, filthy and sinful deed. It's a shame really.

In any event, I can assure you that this person will suffer many a guilt complex about his/her sexuality.

I was just thinking that.

There are absolutely no negative points about sex - I mean, for goodness sake - would anyone SERIOUSLY advocate asexual reproduction? If you do - then may God Help Us All!
Yes there is. Reproduction occurs much slower. And I really do recommend asexual reproduction for those organisms that reproduce via those means.

did you ever question your sexuality?

Me? Yes. Many times over. Sometimes I still do, it's only natural.

And how would you know that it has the quality of completely overiding reason and thought? You've said yourself that you haven't had sex so I assume you are taking this fact on faith.

I also assume that you have a scientific and logical mind based on your arguments. Taking things for granted and on faith is not very scientific. Yet another inconcistency in your argument.....
It's easy to feel what it generates. Sex generates the same feeling on a much higher degree.

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.

What? It's a temptation to overcome?!

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!

Nor do I.

I'm 16 - and you have some really strange views on sex tbh matey! ...Mate - trust me, wait until you experience it before you give your 'expert opinion' on how bad it is!

You do realize that you are not legally an adult until the age of 18. You are 16, and thus shouldn't even be having sex! Besides, it's foolish to be motivated by promises of sexual experience. I am motivated solely by my ambition.

[QUOTE=Gnostikos]Ebola has never reached the status of a plague. It is not the bubonic plague, though, that's bacterial and completely different. It is one of the most deadly viruses in existence. Ask any virologist, and they will say that filoviruses (Ebola and Marburg) are beautiful. They're so simply, yet can make the human body, quite literally, come apart at the seams. It is a hæmorrhagic fever, and essentially your body just falls apart. Ebola Zaïre has a 90% mortality rate.

This is true, but by said definition, only Yersinia pestis spp. would be considered plagues. I also fully agree that filovirii and, well, most viruses that attack humans are fairly fascinating, simply by the fact that was mentioned - their simplicity. Keep in mind that the complexity of the virus is inversely proportional to the complexity of the host (ie, tobacco mosaic virus is more in the range of 100 proteins, if memory serves). However, I'm going to give my nod to prions - one protein, who we didn't know existed until we found they were altered (PrP-Sc, Scrapie-associated fibrils. Go look up BSE, "mad cow', or Creutzfeldt-Jakob's Disease/nvCJD).
Hm? Back to the main topic? How do you think we defeat these diseases? Sexual reproduction. The sole reason that we don't have a '99.9% Lethal' disease agent which eukaryotes and prokaryotes do.

Illeagalize sex? Are you stupid or something? I think we should have compulsary orgies :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :D

Me? Yes. Many times over. Sometimes I still do, it's only natural.
Not me. When you're in love with someone, it really isn't easy to question one's sexuality.

You do realize that you are not legally an adult until the age of 18. You are 16, and thus shouldn't even be having sex! Besides, it's foolish to be motivated by promises of sexual experience. I am motivated solely by my ambition.


Wow, you're a dork.

Ha, i was asking the 15 year old if he/she questioned her sexuality ever. I'm just wondering that because I know quite a few lesbians who can't even imagine having sex with a male, they find it repulsive. So maybe the act of heterosexual sex is what is actualy disgusting to this person.

That's weird that a 15 year old would be so digusted by sex in the first place.

I would assume that this person's parents are probably some sort of religious fundamentalists who have made sex out to be a dirty, filthy and sinful deed. It's a shame really.

In any event, I can assure you that this person will suffer many a guilt complex about his/her sexuality.
I'm not fifteen, but am in my first year of college. My parents aren't fundies, far from it, in fact. My dad died when I was little, so I don't know about him, but my mom attends church only about once a month.

You do realize that you are not legally an adult until the age of 18. You are 16, and thus shouldn't even be having sex! Besides, it's foolish to be motivated by promises of sexual experience. I am motivated solely by my ambition.

That was jsut dumb to say. That's his/her choice.

No, you are. I'm 15 as well, and if you're not hormone-crazed, then there is a physiological problem with you. Excuse me. What hormones? Testosterone? Testosterone leads to more aggression - but I am more inclined towards well sort of rage (which is different) and extreme cynicism. There is a difference between rage and aggression!

What is your definition of "hormone-crazed"? Being attracted (although Anthrus is having great success in making me even weirder) towards girls is normal in men of all ages - not hormone crazed there. I am not unusually aggressive, either.

Ha, i was asking the 15 year old if he/she questioned her sexuality ever. I'm just wondering that because I know quite a few lesbians who can't even imagine having sex with a male, they find it repulsive. So maybe the act of heterosexual sex is what is actualy disgusting to this person.

Heh heh. I live in Cleveland. Everyone here has questioned their sexuality. It's just the atmosphere. That's possible.

I'm not fifteen, but am in my first year of college. My parents aren't fundies, far from it, in fact. My dad died when I was little, so I don't know about him, but my mom attends church only about once a month.


well that's fine but I wasn't referring to you.

Not me. When you're in love with someone, it really isn't easy to question one's sexuality. It is really hard to be in love and at the same time be repulsed by sex. It would make getting married a little difficult.

You do realize that you are not legally an adult until the age of 18. You are 16, and thus shouldn't even be having sex! Besides, it's foolish to be motivated by promises of sexual experience. I am motivated solely by my ambition.

Uhhh...what country are you from?? As a BRITISH citizen, I am able to have sex at 16

The legal age of consent for sex between a man and a woman in England, Scotland and Wales is 16 years.

Please don't presume to tell me that I shouldn't be enjoying myself legally and safely when I can do...

I went through a time when I questioned mine. I was on the birth control needle which almost completely eliminated my libido and I got really into feminism so naturally I thought I was a lesbian (even though i had never had a crush on a female... ever)

You are wrong on both counts. Christianity is by no means obsolete, but sex is. I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who loathes sex.
Hey, I feared I was myself.

Not me. When you're in love with someone, it really isn't easy to question one's sexuality.

I'm entirely in love and I still question my sexuality, I don't question my attraction to my fiance, but I question whether or not other men can be considered attactive to me without me be "bisexual" or whatever that hurtful term is.

I object!! This is just a clear demonstration of those evil Aliens out there trying to deprive the only good in humanity!! :headbang:

If we were to ban sex...as a consequence I will lead the ultimate Revolution, bigger than the American Revolution from the British...harsher then Vietnam!! Sexier than Kristen Kruek!..... :D heh...went too far there but you know what I mean!


:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

This is true, but by said definition, only Yersinia pestis spp. would be considered plagues. I also fully agree that filovirii and, well, most viruses that attack humans are fairly fascinating, simply by the fact that was mentioned - their simplicity. Keep in mind that the complexity of the virus is inversely proportional to the complexity of the host (ie, tobacco mosaic virus is more in the range of 100 proteins, if memory serves). However, I'm going to give my nod to prions - one protein, who we didn't know existed until we found they were altered (PrP-Sc, Scrapie-associated fibrils. Go look up BSE, "mad cow', or Creutzfeldt-Jakob's Disease/nvCJD).
Well, the correct plural of "virus" is "viruses". The Latin word virus meant "poison" in the mass sense, and had no plural. And filoviruses are of the family filoviridæ, if you want to do that.

And yes, prions are even more amazing. But I don't understand them as well, and they don't do nearly the damage that hæmorrhagic viruses do to the host, so I'm gonna stick with Ebola for now. Crazy proteinaceous infectious particles...so confusing...

F1L0V1RU535 R T3H L33T 0WNZ0RZ!!!

You do realize that you are not legally an adult until the age of 18. You are 16, and thus shouldn't even be having sex!
Oh, silly me, I thought it was just you couldn't have sex with someone on the other side of that magical age boundary where you magically become legally mature.

Ha, i was asking the 15 year old if he/she questioned her sexuality ever. I'm just wondering that because I know quite a few lesbians who can't even imagine having sex with a male, they find it repulsive. So maybe the act of heterosexual sex is what is actualy disgusting to this person.
You've got it all wrong. I find any sex to be disgusting, from homosexual to heterosexual to masturbation. While my main hatred is of male homosexual sex, I loathe all forms of it. Geez, can't the guy who started this forum help me out here? I'm being assaulted from all sides!

What is it like to have no libido? It sounds like stability to me.

All men consider others attractive to a certain point (I think so…). But that doesn't mean you are gay.

I went through a time when I questioned mine. I was on the birth control needle which almost completely eliminated my libido and I got really into feminism so naturally I thought I was a lesbian (even though i had never had a crush on a female... ever)

I've dated men before. And I can find men attractive, though I am undoubtably in lvoe with a woman.

You've got it all wrong. I find any sex to be disgusting, from homosexual to heterosexual to masturbation. While my main hatred is of male homosexual sex, I loathe all forms of it. Geez, can't the guy who started this forum help me out here? I'm being assaulted from all sides!

Wow, you're fucked up.

It is really hard to be in love and at the same time be repulsed by sex. It would make getting married a little difficult.
Indeed...

You've got it all wrong. I find any sex to be disgusting, from homosexual to heterosexual to masturbation. While my main hatred is of male homosexual sex, I loathe all forms of it. Geez, can't the guy who started this forum help me out here? I'm being assaulted from all sides!

You find masterbation to be wrong?! That's just sickening.

Whats it like to have no libido?

Lonely and confusing because you KNOW you should be finding people attractive, and you TRY to... but it just doesnt' work. You become repulsed by sex.

Okay.. so what you're following is the old thought that mind over matter is the path to spiritual enlightenment? SEX BAD... MIND good... SEX Bad... Mind good.

You've got it all wrong. I find any sex to be disgusting, from homosexual to heterosexual to masturbation. While my main hatred is of male homosexual sex, I loathe all forms of it. Geez, can't the guy who started this forum help me out here? I'm being assaulted from all sides! You obviously have a sexual instinct, but you are repulsed by it - just like most people have a seriously violent instinct, but are revolted by it and hide it. I admire your iron willpower and mental malleability and control. You should become a Knight Templar. No, really. When my nation sets them up again, that is…

While my main hatred is of male homosexual sex!

Sigh...we have yet another homophobic person...I pity you, I really do.

Also - this talk of how sex is disgusting is actually really, REALLY creepy - are those people who oppose sex complete freaks or something?

You've got it all wrong. I find any sex to be disgusting, from homosexual to heterosexual to masturbation. While my main hatred is of male homosexual sex, I loathe all forms of it. Geez, can't the guy who started this forum help me out here? I'm being assaulted from all sides! You obviously have a sexual instinct, but you are repulsed by it - just like most people have a seriously violent instinct, but are revolted by it and hide it. I admire your iron willpower and mental malleability and control. You should become a Knight Templar. No, really. When my nation sets them up again, that is… tell me - not making accusation here, but - do you avoid girls? Are you open and comfortable with them? If you are - that means that you aren't just being stupid and juvenile. I hope that you are not.

What is it like to have no libido? It sounds like stability to me.

All men consider others attractive to a certain point (I think so…). But that doesn't mean you are gay.

There we go, that's exactly my point.

I went through a time when I questioned mine. I was on the birth control needle which almost completely eliminated my libido and I got really into feminism so naturally I thought I was a lesbian (even though i had never had a crush on a female... ever)
And here, ladies and gentlemen, we are seeing an example of sexual thought. We disregard the person, or who we'd make the best relationship with. Instead, we question only who we should exchange bodily fluids with (no Dr. Strangeglove jokes, please). On top of that, this has so many side emotions that one can get a PhD in a field relating to sex. I find it, naturally, extremely disgusting.
And Lupanzia, if you opposed me, I have to say that your post was far too perfect. You walked right into it.

I've dated men before. And I can find men attractive, though I am undoubtably in lvoe with a woman.
Well, then you're probably bisexual. And I see no problem with that. I found out that one of the student-teachers at my school is bisexual, and there's nothing wrong with her. She happens to be one of the most interesting people there. Just go with how you feel. It may be hedonistic, but as long as you don't make an approach on someone who's uncomforatable with it, there's no problem.

Uhhh...what country are you from?? As a BRITISH citizen, I am able to have sex at 16

The legal age of consent for sex between a man and a woman in England, Scotland and Wales is 16 years.

Please don't presume to tell me that I shouldn't be enjoying myself legally and safely when I can do...
Sorry, I didn't know Britain was as lax as the rest of Europe regarding these things...And I'm not going to force you to stop having sex. It's just that I think it is a disgusting way to "enjoy yourself."

Sigh...we have yet another homophobic person...I pity you, I really do.

Also - this talk of how sex is disgusting is actually really, REALLY creepy - are those people who oppose sex complete freaks or something?

I knew this was coming (or shall I spell it cumming just to be dumb), I just knew they'd end up being homophobic, too.

Sigh...we have yet another homophobic person...I pity you, I really do.

Also - this talk of how sex is disgusting is actually really, REALLY creepy - are those people who oppose sex complete freaks or something? It is disgusting! A fragging part of the anatomy actually invading the woman's body… revolting. Of course, it is pleasurable (I presume. The common consensus is that it is…!), but still revolting. Like eating is repulsive.

I am a complete freak. Well, not completely.

I'm not sure what I would oppose though? It's true... we are geared towards heterosexual sex all the time, it's the norm.

P.S I'm a women's studies major, so I spend a lot of time analysing gender, there's not much you can put past me.

It is disgusting! A fragging part of the anatomy actually invading the woman's body… revolting. Of course, it is pleasurable (I presume. The common consensus is that it is…!), but still revolting. Like eating is repulsive.

I am a complete freak. Well, not completely.
I am utterly unable to tell what level of sarcasm you have in that post...

Well, then you're probably bisexual. And I see no problem with that. I found out that one of the student-teachers at my school is bisexual, and there's nothing wrong with her. She happens to be one of the most interesting people there. Just go with how you feel. It may be hedonistic, but as long as you don't make an approach on someone who's uncomforatable with it, there's no problem.

Oh, I'm completely comfortable with that fact. I'm attracted to the sexuality fo both sexes though to be completely honest, being in bed with another man is a different story completely. But that's my personal opinion of myself, I'm fine with other people. If they don't like sex, don't have it.

What is it like to have no libido? It sounds like stability to me.

All men consider others attractive to a certain point (I think so…). But that doesn't mean you are gay.
Actually, studies have shown that men, like most animals, feel revulsed and threatened by attractive males, since they regard them as a threat for dominance and competition for partners.

Sigh...we have yet another homophobic person...I pity you, I really do.
There's nothing wrong about two men or women living with eachother. It's just a problem when they do it to objectivize eachother. It happens in heterosexual couples as well, but here, it is extremely unnecessary.
Also - this talk of how sex is disgusting is actually really, REALLY creepy - are those people who oppose sex complete freaks or something?
No. We just want humanity to reach the next step of his potential. We can start with every man, woman, and child conquering their minds.

Some of the people here must have had the worst childhoods ever...

Wow, you're fucked up.
You are very polite and gracious. Oh yes, and tolerant of other people's views as well!

Actually, studies have shown that men, like most animals, feel revulsed and threatened by attractive males, since they regard them as a threat for dominance and competition for partners.
It really depends on the man and his personality. Some will become attracted (not sexually), and some will try to compete.

I am utterly unable to tell what level of sarcasm you have in that post... It is digustable. It attracts everyone, obviously - including me, obviously - but, like most biological things, it is revolting. No, I haven't ever.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we are seeing an example of sexual thought. We disregard the person, or who we'd make the best relationship with. Instead, we question only who we should exchange bodily fluids with (no Dr. Strangeglove jokes, please). On top of that, this has so many side emotions that one can get a PhD in a field relating to sex. I find it, naturally, extremely disgusting.
And Lupanzia, if you opposed me, I have to say that your post was far too perfect. You walked right into it.

Excuse me, disregard the person? Where di you get that idea from? brb

Well, the correct plural of "virus" is "viruses". The Latin word virus meant "poison" in the mass sense, and had no plural. And filoviruses are of the family filoviridæ, if you want to do that.

And yes, prions are even more amazing. But I don't understand them as well, and they don't do nearly the damage that hæmorrhagic viruses do to the host, so I'm gonna stick with Ebola for now. Crazy proteinaceous infectious particles...so confusing...!

I know the plural of virus is viruses...but I've always preferred virii...much like cactus/cactii...radius/radii....but then again, my etymology was never that great.

Greek, Latin....it all comes out in the end. I think.

It really depends on the man and his personality. Some will become attracted (not sexually), and some will try to compete.
And some find a wonderful balence of both...brb

For all of you who want to ban sex, read Brave New World . . . (well I never have but I hear it is interesting)

You are very polite and gracious. Oh yes, and tolerant of other people's views as well!

Yes, very.

I must leave now, people. Johaniston - I did not have a messed up childhood. And I probably will be married some day. Doesn't mean I can't feel a bit revolted by the procedure itself. I mean, think about it - it is… waugh (not a real word). I find it a bit so. I am torn in two.

Advance the human race!

I know the plural of virus is viruses...but I've always preferred virii...much like cactus/cactii...radius/radii....but then again, my etymology was never that great.
The plural of "cactus" is "cacti", not "cactii". It all depends on the declension.

You are very polite and gracious. Oh yes, and tolerant of other people's views as well!
That doesn't stop you from being a f**ked up bigot, however.

Sigh...we have yet another homophobic person...I pity you, I really do.

Also - this talk of how sex is disgusting is actually really, REALLY creepy - are those people who oppose sex complete freaks or something?

Just because I find homosexual sex to be repulsive does not mean I'm a homophobe. A homophobe is someone who actively hates and insults gay people. I simply don't like what they do, but I will not interfere with it unless it barges into my life.

. No. We just want humanity to reach the next step of his potential. We can start with every man, woman, and child conquering their minds.
It sounds to me more like conquering our own humanity. Now THAT is revolting.

Just because I find homosexual sex to be repulsive does not mean I'm a homophobe. A homophobe is someone who actively hates and insults gay people. I simply don't like what they do, but I will not interfere with it unless it barges into my life.
Oh...that's not the ideal level of tolerance, but it's not bad and I had misinterpreted what you had said. I apologise.

It really depends on the man and his personality. Some will become attracted (not sexually), and some will try to compete.
Well, I'm talking raw scientific tests that measure natural reaction. In other words, a mix of attractive and unattractive male photos are shown in rapid sequence to a random group of men, and their reactions are measured.

Just because I find homosexual sex to be repulsive does not mean I'm a homophobe. A homophobe is someone who actively hates and insults gay people. I simply don't like what they do, but I will not interfere with it unless it barges into my life.
No it doesn't, it is someone who fears or is sickened by homosexual behavior or homosexuals in general.

For all of you who want to ban sex, read Brave New World . . . (well I never have but I hear it is interesting)
Don't recommend books you've never read. That's disgusting and a betrayal of the literature, in my opinion. You can say that you've heard other people say things about it, and that you intend to read it eventually, but not what you did.

Is it only sex that you find repulsive or is any other sexual behavior repulsive as well? :fluffle:

No it doesn't, it is someone who fears or is sickened by homosexual behavior or homosexuals in general.
Technically, that is what it means. However, it has come to be a negative term applied to those who are intolerant of gays, on par with "racist". I, on the other hand, tolerate them, but do not accept them. That means I let them exist and live their lives without my interference, but I do not accept their behaviour as decent, good, or normal. I have a perfect right to that, just as you have the right to not accept my hatred of sex. You are bound to tolerate it, but not forced to accept it.

Is it only sex that you find repulsive or is any other sexual behavior repulsive as well? :fluffle:

What bahaviors are you referring to?

Well - all I can say is that, to be honest, I don't care if you find sex repulsive.

a) It's your own loss, you'll probably never experience the euphoria that comes when two people share their innermost persons with each other

b) There will be more girls/guys for me (and all the other NON CRAZY PEOPLE) to chase, flirt with, etc

c) You will most likely be ridiculed as being a prude for your life

d) You will die extremely frustrated (ie - your aversion to masterbation) and lonely


I'd rather be me, and like sex, to be honest...

sorry, but why is banning sex a good thing. what you are talking about is removing every aspect of ourselves that makes us human. what is your eventual aim? what do you stand to achive? I think you will find you will be working towards a society of robots, emotionless beings. why would you want that? Anything is better than that

Technically, that is what it means. However, it has come to be a negative term applied to those who are intolerant of gays, on par with "racist". I, on the other hand, tolerate them, but do not accept them. That means I let them exist and live their lives without my interference, but I do not accept their behaviour as decent, good, or normal. I have a perfect right to that, just as you have the right to not accept my hatred of sex. You are bound to tolerate it, but not forced to accept it.

However the arguement involves a banning of sex.

You are bound to tolerate it, but not forced to accept it.
But not tolerating intolerance is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. I am glad you don't want to interfere with homosexuality, but thinking that it's disgusting really is being biogted.

Well - all I can say is that, to be honest, I don't care if you find sex repulsive.

a) It's your own loss, you'll probably never experience the euphoria that comes when two people share their innermost persons with each other

b) There will be more girls/guys for me (and all the other NON CRAZY PEOPLE) to chase, flirt with, etc

c) You will most likely be ridiculed as being a prude for your life

d) You will die extremely frustrated (ie - your aversion to masterbation) and lonely

I'd rather be me, and like sex, to be honest...

a. It's not a loss. I can gain such "euphoria" by achieving political power.
b. Go ahead.
c. So? Most people don't care about my sexual activities (why should they?), and those that do are not worth caring about.
d. I shall not be frustrated, for my satisfaction is gained through political power. And you forget, one does not have to have sex to have friends.

What bahaviors are you referring to?
any other sexual behavior. From finding and expressing attractiveness to snogging to any other extents.

Gnostikos - I agree :-)

Personally, I find Armandian Cheese to be disgusting, and I am afraid of what he/she/it represents...an attack on our expressions and beliefs

No it doesn't, it is someone who fears or is sickened by homosexual behavior or homosexuals in general. Ah, thought police. So he's also a heterophobe? So then, he is a pantosexuaphobe.

But not tolerating intolerance is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion. I am glad you don't want to interfere with homosexuality, but thinking that it's disgusting really is being biogted.

It's not intolerant to think something is disgusting! Are you telling me I have to accept every sick freak that comes along in the name of "tolerance"? So I guess if I dissaprove child molestation, I'm "bigoted"? Tolerance means that I do not interfere with their lives! It does not mean I ACCEPT them. Now, let's move on. If you want to argue about my "bigotry", set up another thread.

To be friendly. My name is Matt. I'm 26. I'm a teacher. I'm engaged. I oppose a ban on sex.

Would anyone else care to be as friendly?

It's not intolerant to think something is disgusting! Are you telling me I have to accept every sick freak that comes along in the name of "tolerance"? So I guess if I dissaprove child molestation, I'm "bigoted"? Tolerance means that I do not interfere with their lives! It does not mean I ACCEPT them. Now, let's move on. If you want to argue about my "bigotry", set up another thread. Actually he's right. Lesbians are often sickened by normal sex - does that mean we should crack down on them for sexual discrimination?

Um… political power? I prefer knowledge that I have spent a successful day cleansing unholiness, doing good deeds, acting compassionately, and winding down with some metal. You're like 'Zakath in David Eddings books (more literary references!)

any other sexual behavior. From finding and expressing attractiveness to snogging to any other extents.

I have absolutely no idea what "snogging" means, but regarding expressing attractiveness, my answer is a yes, to a degree. Let me explain. I find no problem with commenting on aesthetic beauty. Howver, if your comment is linked with lust and want for that beauty, then yes, it repulses me.

a. It's not a loss. I can gain such "euphoria" by achieving political power.
d. I shall not be frustrated, for my satisfaction is gained through political power. And you forget, one does not have to have sex to have friends.

Oh...my...god...

I pity whichever country you currently reside in. With ridiculous views like this, which represent practically NO-ONE (albeit a small and VERY confused minority) - you will NEVER get into power as a political leader.

I'm actually laughing whilst I am considering it.

I mean, they let crackpots like Blair become Prime Minister, and his views are radical - but not THAT radical! If you were elected - good Lord, I'm sure most people here can imagine the chaos and horror that would ensue.

You're a really creepy 15 year old...I was 15 not so long ago (roughly 18 months ago) and I cannot recall EVER having opinions as CRAZY as yours. I have a lot of friends in the years below me, I'm one of those people that the entire school seems to know - and NONE of them are as creepy as you! I've NEVER met someone who opposes sex so strongly - and I've met a lot of people.

My Biology teacher doesn't like sex - she's about 59, and she's had an operation to remove her womb (I know the name of it...hysterectomy - cant spell it though). However - she at least experienced sex before deciding that it was too painful for her personally, and made an INFORMED decision.

You are making no informed decisions that I can see, and your mutterings about 'evil sex' or whatever seem to be nothing more than the delusional self-obsessed ramblings of a remarkably strange child.

Actually he's right. Lesbians are often sickened by normal sex - does that mean we should crack down on them for sexual discrimination?

Um… political power? I prefer knowledge that I have spent a successful day cleansing unholiness, doing good deeds, acting compassionately, and winding down with some metal. You're like 'Zakath in David Eddings books (more literary references!)

But yet, what is normal sex? normal is a term that can be argued.

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?


Why should I want to move away from the primitive?
*goes forth, and butchers a few rabbits to wear their furs*

To be friendly. My name is Matt. I'm 26. I'm a teacher. I'm engaged. I oppose a ban on sex.

Would anyone else care to be as friendly?

Alright. I'm Armand. I'm 15. I'm a student. I am not engaged, and never will be. (unless you're referring to combat) I support a ban on sex, someday.

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.

Has anyone seen the movie Demolition Man. Same sort of thing. No physical contact because its seen as spreading disease. They artificially inseminate. I could never not have sex tho. Its all about the love.

I have absolutely no idea what "snogging" means, but regarding expressing attractiveness, my answer is a yes, to a degree. Let me explain. I find no problem with commenting on aesthetic beauty. Howver, if your comment is linked with lust and want for that beauty, then yes, it repulses me. Yes, women are stunningly beautiful and artistically made. But I find sex just a little bit… revolting. I think that you're working yourself up into a bit of a frenzy here - go and smite the unholy with hammers like me. At least you're not "hormone-crazed" (glowers at whoever called ME that)!

Bye: now.

But yet, what is normal sex? normal is a term that can be argued.

I would have to agree completely; in the 21st century, where people's sexuality is much more casual - normal sex can no longer be described as man-woman relationships. And whilst lesbians may be disgusted by 'normal sex', they are not disgusted by 'sex' itself.

For goodness sake Cheese - get a grip on reality and get a goddamn girlfriend!!

Actually he's right. Lesbians are often sickened by normal sex - does that mean we should crack down on them for sexual discrimination?
If they find heterosexual copulation disgusting, then yes.

Um… political power? I prefer knowledge that I have spent a successful day cleansing unholiness, doing good deeds, acting compassionately, and winding down with some metal. You're like 'Zakath in David Eddings books (more literary references!)
...Do you flagellate yourself, because that is typically what cleansing "unholiness" typically implies. Isn't David Eddings such a good writer? He's certainly not my favourite, but he's pretty damn good.

I have absolutely no idea what "snogging" means, but regarding expressing attractiveness, my answer is a yes, to a degree. Let me explain. I find no problem with commenting on aesthetic beauty. Howver, if your comment is linked with lust and want for that beauty, then yes, it repulses me.

Snogging is a British word for kissing, macking, jocking, busting, making out, etc...

Do I believe that banning sex will every work? No. Here's why.

We are not so far advanced from the animal kingdom as many think. We are and always will be at the mercy of NATURE (or God if thats your prefered terminology). We have been programmed to seek, and have sex for reproduction, that its a nice experience is unique to a few other species than humans. TO deprogram sex from humans means you mess an entire biological system up. A system that if screwed with would ultimatly require artificial wombs; it would also mean the use of artificial milk on ALL children. Yes I honostly believe that A. Sex is a Good Thing, B. Breast Feeding Is a good thing, and C. If you deprogram Sex then it will screw more up than one would think.

Now, if Sex were banned and the masses willingly went along with it, without deprogramming Sex (hmmm its odd I'm using mechanical terms for very non mechanical processes) what would happen? Well lets see Women would be saved the pain of losing their virginity, but oh what are the frustrated men doing??? Oh Guess what I bet the occurense of Rapes would increase (Yes I know rape is a "power" thing...I bet not all cases of rape are power trips). So you'de be unleashing a horrible crime on roughly half the population. What a horid man.

Just remeber, natural "disasters" such as Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Tsunamies, Earthquakes, and locusts do occur and take much of the human population with it. You tell me we aren't any better than animals? I'll tell you we're worse. At least animals don't DESTROY the earth that gives them life.

Oh...my...god...

I pity whichever country you currently reside in. With ridiculous views like this, which represent practically NO-ONE (albeit a small and VERY confused minority) - you will NEVER get into power as a political leader.

Look, what I mean about the ban on sex is that I hope that someday humanity will move away from it. However, that would be nowhere on my political platform, as I believe my personal life should stay out of politics. (That's why I was angry at Republicans during the "Lewinsky Scandal", despite being a Republican) Besides, with no kids or wife, I could be 100% dedicated to serving the people.

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.

As a nation whose economic foundation rests upon the contractual sale of sexual service and the lease of license to access each other's naughty bits, we must object to your entire premise.

Genitally yours (for a price)

His Majesty, Pimpdaddy Bomipol

Oh...my...god...

I pity whichever country you currently reside in. With ridiculous views like this, which represent practically NO-ONE (albeit a small and VERY confused minority) - you will NEVER get into power as a political leader.

I'm actually laughing whilst I am considering it.

I mean, they let crackpots like Blair become Prime Minister, and his views are radical - but not THAT radical! If you were elected - good Lord, I'm sure most people here can imagine the chaos and horror that would ensue.

You're a really creepy 15 year old...I was 15 not so long ago (roughly 18 months ago) and I cannot recall EVER having opinions as CRAZY as yours. I have a lot of friends in the years below me, I'm one of those people that the entire school seems to know - and NONE of them are as creepy as you! I've NEVER met someone who opposes sex so strongly - and I've met a lot of people.

My Biology teacher doesn't like sex - she's about 59, and she's had an operation to remove her womb (I know the name of it...hysterectomy - cant spell it though). However - she at least experienced sex before deciding that it was too painful for her personally, and made an INFORMED decision.

You are making no informed decisions that I can see, and your mutterings about 'evil sex' or whatever seem to be nothing more than the delusional self-obsessed ramblings of a remarkably strange child.
Though I will admit, I was too lazy to read it all, I'm popping back every once in awhile. Try many smaller posts next time...

Alright. I'm Armand. I'm 15. I'm a student. I am not engaged, and never will be. (unless you're referring to combat) I support a ban on sex, someday.

It's precisely the comment on referring to combat that makes me question your maturity...no one here has even mentioned combat in terms of an engagement (fight) - yet you choose to casually drop it in as an in-joke...which is so not funny

I hate dealing with teenagers who have the mental capacity of a mushroom...

If we were to have a poll in the streets of who liked sex, I'm sure that the VAST MAJORITY (!!!!!!!) would say that they love it, and think it's great!!

Good Lord, what is the world coming to when people say that sex should be banned...the day sex is banned by world leaders is the day that Hell itself will freeze over.

At least animals don't DESTROY the earth that gives them life.
Sans the humans. We're still of the kindgdom Animalia.

No problemo. I'll just repeat my arguement like I have been: sex is an instinct that overrides reason, and it is dangerous, as well as being primative. That's my arguement.
Well if sex overrides reason, then if we didn't have sex that lack of reason would ten fold, because like you say, it is a basic instinct

[QUOTE=Matriacal Rule]Do I believe that banning sex will every work? No. Here's why.

We are not so far advanced from the animal kingdom as many think. We are and always will be at the mercy of NATURE (or God if thats your prefered terminology). We have been programmed to seek, and have sex for reproduction, that its a nice experience is unique to a few other species than humans."

Matriacal rule, I'm talking about a distant future. I realize that people are far too obsessed with sex (especially Europe) to give it up right now. Anyway, artificial insemination is still not perfect.

Besides, with no kids or wife, I could be 100% dedicated to serving the people.

With no kids or a wife, most voters would not find you a viable candidate - as you would not be representing the majority of people within your country.

I certainly would not vote for someone who may or may not have on their political agenda the idea of banning sex...

If you think people will vote for you because you will be 'dedicated to serving your country', as you won't have any family ties...think again. In an ideal world, maybe people vote for candidates based on their political ideas alone...but charisma and charm have a helluva lot to do with it.

Get real mate

It's precisely the comment on referring to combat that makes me question your maturity...no one here has even mentioned combat in terms of an engagement (fight) - yet you choose to casually drop it in as an in-joke...which is so not funny
I swear, I'm 15 and I completely agree with you. I took a poll in my school regarding the draft for my journalism class, and this is quite literall what someone said:
No [I wouldn't dodge it], because it would be fun to go to war.

A Cheese - do you come from some backwards country where the Government hasn't yet heard of Democracy?

And I resent your repeated accusations against the 'sex obsessed Europeans'

At least the majority of Europeans are not freaks who have RIDICULOUS views on sex

Matriacal rule, I'm talking about a distant future. I realize that people are far too obsessed with sex (especially Europe) to give it up right now. Anyway, artificial insemination is still not perfect.
You mean it's too much a part of our biological make-up? Well, then yes, you're right that it's not gonna happen for a long, long time.

Ever since Adam and Eve (or the first humans) back in the past Eons of time, humans have reproduced sexually.

I doubt that is going to change.

It's precisely the comment on referring to combat that makes me question your maturity...no one here has even mentioned combat in terms of an engagement (fight) - yet you choose to casually drop it in as an in-joke...which is so not funny

I hate dealing with teenagers who have the mental capacity of a mushroom...

If we were to have a poll in the streets of who liked sex, I'm sure that the VAST MAJORITY (!!!!!!!) would say that they love it, and think it's great!!

Good Lord, what is the world coming to when people say that sex should be banned...the day sex is banned by world leaders is the day that Hell itself will freeze over.
1. It's a simple, harmless joke. Deal with it.
2. You do realize that the vast majority of these "teenagers who have the mental capacity of a mushroom" disagree with me?
3. I know the vast majority still like sex. It's a natural instinct that has yet to be overcome.
4. I'm talking about a distant future.

Why do natural instincts that have served humanity for millennia have to be overcome? You're argument is completely circular, and is based purely on your own individual opinons - of which only one or two people share here, compared to the countless others who oppoose you.

Also - I am a teenager myself, remember? The comment about mental capabilities and mushrooms was aimed solely at you, and no-one else.

Your humour leaves much to be desired, that is all there is to it.

If you're talking about a distant future, then why the hell bring this topic up? It's not relevant, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to support your little theory, and all you are doing is making yourself look like a total prat.

With no kids or a wife, most voters would not find you a viable candidate - as you would not be representing the majority of people within your country.

I certainly would not vote for someone who may or may not have on their political agenda the idea of banning sex...

If you think people will vote for you because you will be 'dedicated to serving your country', as you won't have any family ties...think again. In an ideal world, maybe people vote for candidates based on their political ideas alone...but charisma and charm have a helluva lot to do with it.

Get real mate

1. I can represent people's interests without sharing their background. I mean, look at John Kerry and George W. Bush. Both come from extremely wealthy families, and had priviledged lives. (I'm not faulting them for that, by the way. Just making a point.)
2. As I said before, I hope that someday in the future humanity can outgrow its desire for sex. It would not be part of my platform, and would not even be mentioned.
3. I don't need a family to have charisma. I can't be an objective judge of my charisma, but I don't seem to be that bad of a person. I mean, I'm trying to be polite here, despite being called everything from a freak to a bigot on this board.

I got logged out for some reason... Anyways, this is nuts!

1. I can represent people's interests without sharing their background. I mean, look at John Kerry and George W. Bush. Both come from extremely wealthy families, and had priviledged lives. (I'm not faulting them for that, by the way. Just making a point.)
2. As I said before, I hope that someday in the future humanity can outgrow its desire for sex. It would not be part of my platform, and would not even be mentioned.
3. I don't need a family to have charisma. I can't be an objective judge of my charisma, but I don't seem to be that bad of a person. I mean, I'm trying to be polite here, despite being called everything from a freak to a bigot on this board.
Lets not bring them in... it won't turn out pretty.

xxx

xxx

Sex should be a experience that all poepl should be able to act in when they are in love or when they are commited and sex is human nature if we banned sex the population would decrease troughout the ceturies

If you'd notice, I didn't bring start this topic. I'm simply commenting.

I mean, I'm trying to be polite here, despite being called everything from a freak to a bigot on this board.
And, naturally, you refuse to even consider that it might be possible that you are.

xxx

xxx

Sex should be a experience that all poepl should be able to act in when they are in love or when they are commited and sex is human nature if we banned sex the population would decrease troughout the ceturies
Not if you argue for artificial reproduction.

And, naturally, you refuse to even consider that it might be possible that you are.
While you may not agree with him, he does have a point, I don't agree with him. That comment was just below the belt

And, naturally, you refuse to even consider that it might be possible that you are.
that was just plain rude, lets only critique ideas not people, please.

Cheese - let's put it another way

What you are proposing is a MASSIVE restriction on Civil Liberties, not just in NS terms, but also in RL. How many people would endorse this? Not many.

I find your standpoint to be worth very little, as you are advocating a complete ban on something you have never experienced.

There is very little else to say, imo.

Lets not bring them in... it won't turn out pretty.
Are you referring to Kerry and Bush? If so, I'm just using them as examples to show that you don't need to have to completely relate to someone to get elected. I'm not debating their politics, or anything like that, and I don't want to.

While you may not agree with him, he does have a point, I don't agree with him. That comment was just below the belt
No, it was designed to make him question. I don't think it was below the belt at all. Perhaps in the stomach, though.

Are you referring to Kerry and Bush? If so, I'm just using them as examples to show that you don't need to have to completely relate to someone to get elected. I'm not debating their politics, or anything like that, and I don't want to.
I wasn't directing that only to you, it was for the whole board.

that was just plain rude, lets only critique ideas not people, please.
Ok, ok. I will accept that perhaps that was overstepping the bounds of pseudo-civil discourse. It was designed to provoke him into thought, but apparently, as I have grown up fairly isolated socially, that is not considered acceptable. I will not rescind my comment, but I will apologise for it.

Ok, ok. I will accept that perhaps that was overstepping the bounds of pseudo-civil discourse. It was designed to provoke him into thought, but apparently, as I have grown up fairly isolated socially, that is not considered acceptable. I will not rescind my comment, but I will apologise for it.
heh heh... I accept your appology, just making it clear to remind people to critisize ideas not people or it will jsut be a fight not a debate.

If this is your definition of freak, then yes, I am one.
freak1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frk)
n.
A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular: A freak of nature produced the midsummer snow.
However, I am not a bigot. I resent that term, since I have actually fought (and I mean literaly) to protect the victims of bigotry. So, back off.

How do you propose we enforce this? :fluffle: :sniper:

I am going to bed.

I hope that the 'anti-sex' people in here will see sense, get a girlfriend and realise what they are missing.

mmmm ;-)

I agree, procreation is bad.
But cum on! Ban SEX?
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here! Indeed procreation is probably one of the most destructive things imaginable (along with religon and money) because, lets face it, if it weren't for procreation there would be no war. No famine. Hell TV probably wouldn't have been invented!
But sex is incredible. Why punish everybody for the actions of Zillions? Don't make me stop fucking because the human race hasn't evolved enough to omit procreation!
Seems a bit heavy handed to me.

If this is your definition of freak, then yes, I am one.
freak1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frk)
n.
A thing or occurrence that is markedly unusual or irregular: A freak of nature produced the midsummer snow.
However, I am not a bigot. I resent that term, since I have actually fought (and I mean literaly) to protect the victims of bigotry. So, back off.
I have nothing against freaks. Though the pronunciation key was missing a vowel... But there are different things to be bigots off. In my opinion, it is bigoted to say that homosexual copulation is disgusting. It may not be yours, and I accept that. I may not like it, but I realise that I cannot convince you otherwise.

I am going to bed.

I hope that the 'anti-sex' people in here will see sense, get a girlfriend and realise what they are missing.

mmmm ;-)
heh heh... I must just say, anyone palnning on never having sex, I feel sorry for you. It's definately the most pleasing experience of your life as long as you lvoe the person and are sharing not only sex itself but emotion and yourself (emotionally and physically).

I agree, procreation is bad.
But cum on! Ban SEX?
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here! Indeed procreation is probably one of the most destructive things imaginable (along with religon and money) because, lets face it, if it weren't for procreation there would be no war. No famine. Hell TV probably wouldn't have been invented!
But sex is incredible. Why punish everybody for the actions of Zillions? Don't make me stop fucking because the human race hasn't evolved enough to omit procreation!
Seems a bit heavy handed to me.
I agree.

If this board still exists in awhile I'll be back, but I'm going to make dinner for my fiance. Gooday.

Banning sex is like banning chewing food. We've been doing it since we existed and before then. It'd change everything.

And I have a question for you. Would you make the animals stop having sex, or would you just call them primitive beasts? Or even exterminate them for being too primitive for your 'new world' without sex?

And I think you've been watching Demolition Man too much.

To sum up my criticism of sex:
1. It is disgusting to place your genitalia into someone elses; especially considering these genitalia also produce human waste.
2. It is a waste of time and effort. Other means of pleasure can be provided without resorting to such disgusting actions.
3. It is an exchange of bodily fluids.
4. Humanity will someday perfect artificial inseminatio technology, and should not rely on time wasting and disgusting reproduction efforts when that time is reached.
5. Sex causes vast harm to society. It makes some people obsessed with it, and drains their intelligence. It costs people money. (through many ways: prsotitution, contraception, abortion) It overrides their reasoning instincts. And finally, it leads to many accidents, ranging from unwanted pregnancies to sexually transmitted diseases.