The Case Against Sex

amandalouise · Jun 24, 2017, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarknessIsMyFriend

It's not sex itself that's bad, it's the fact that humanity will face overpopulation issues if people keep having children at the rate they are now. I for one, DON'T want to deal with having to live in a tiny cramped up space with a bunch of people 40 years from now all because people fail to understand how to use protection.

The more I think about this subject the more I think that one should be required to have a license to have a child. Doing so would make sure that only those fit to be a parent have children while everybody else can enjoy protected sex as they see fit. Having a parenting license would also have the added benefit of weeding out these scum child abusers who have children that they are psychologically unfit to take care of.

After all, you have to have a license to own a gun or drive a car, right? When you have a children, you bring a human being into this world that you are responsible to protect. When you have a child, it isn't about you anymore; it's about the child. If somebody isn't ready to take on that kind of responsibility than they don't deserve children, period.

actually there are countries that do require people to have a license/ permission to have a baby. in these countries they actually have a high rate of abandoned children left on the streets, children left at orphanages, children born and bread for sex trafficking, abortions, ... in short each household can only have 1 or two children and when not given permission / the license permit to have children the parents dont seek help for fear of the justice system, they instead have the child and abandon it somewhere or sell the child to the black market/ underground....

as for using protection that is not a guarantee that a person wont get pregnant. short version nothing works 100 percent of the time. not even willful commitment to abstinence if you consider 1 in every 5 people go through or have been though some sort of abuse some of which results in pregnancy.

short version procreation / sex is the building block of life in every species. theres only so much that can be controlled unless you go back to the days when the government forced women to be "sterilized" and even then men who wanted an un sterilized woman did. so again even thats not foolproof. the government would have to sterilize every man and woman. then what would happen? no one would have to worry about over crowdedness because the human race would be extinct/ no more

my point yes sometimes it does get a bit crowded for me living in the city but on the other end of things which one of my siblings should my parents have abandoned/ aborted? me? how would life have been affected if I hadnt been born (ever see the movie its a wonderful life where they actually look at how people are social species and how one person affects everyone else and their environment ) which one of my children should my wife and I have aborted, abandoned or sold...

no Im glad I live in america where each person can decide for their self their own sexual activities and whether they want to have a child or not. yes some people make mistakes but the bottom line is to ask oneself what if I hadnt existed. what if my parents had not had me what would their life and those around me be like, what would my life had been like if my parents had made a mistake that resulted in my being born and due to laws on procreation they had to abandon me in the woods or the streets, or sell me...

I am very glad i was born and my siblings were born and we did not have to be sold or abandoned and no one aborted illegally possibly resulting in my parents deaths.

when I think about the world population problem I dont let it worry me to the point of stress and such, I look at my children and am amazed at what beautiful human beings they are faults, quirks, and health problems included. I would not change things in any way even if I had, had the power to do so.

Jun 24, 2017, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amandalouise

actually there are countries that do require people to have a license/ permission to have a baby. in these countries they actually have a high rate of abandoned children left on the streets, children left at orphanages, children born and bread for sex trafficking, abortions, ... in short each household can only have 1 or two children and when not given permission / the license permit to have children the parents dont seek help for fear of the justice system, they instead have the child and abandon it somewhere or sell the child to the black market/ underground....

I'm not saying this to be rude or condescending, but can you provide demonstrable evidence to support your claim? Because the only country that I know of that restricts procreation in any way is China with their two child policy. Last time I checked, China's rate of abandoned children is no higher than in many other places in the world.

Of course, I could be wrong since I haven't done any considerable research on this subject aside from some research on "less socially acceptable political beliefs" such as communism and anarchy several years ago as a way to rebel against my emotionally abusive family and society in general.

Regardless, a system requiring a license to have a child that is properly enforced (I.E no children being abandoned but instead being properly taken care of by the government or society) would be the most ideal going forward.

Overpopulation is only going to get worse with advancements in medical science continuing to advance human lifespans higher and higher than they have ever been combined with more and more people having children, lower infant mortality rates, and less wars among other factors.

amandalouise · Jun 24, 2017, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarknessIsMyFriend

I'm not saying this to be rude or condescending, but can you provide demonstrable evidence to support your claim? Because the only country that I know of that restricts procreation in any way is China with their two child policy. Last time I checked, China's rate of abandoned children is no higher than in many other places in the world.

Of course, I could be wrong since I haven't done any considerable research on this subject aside from some research on "less socially acceptable political beliefs" such as communism and anarchy several years ago as a way to rebel against my emotionally abusive family and society in general.

Regardless, a system requiring a license to have a child that is properly enforced (I.E no children being abandoned but instead being properly taken care of by the government or society) would be the most ideal going forward.

Overpopulation is only going to get worse with advancements in medical science continuing to advance human lifespans higher and higher than they have ever been combined with more and more people having children, lower infant mortality rates, and less wars among other factors.

there are many countries that limit number of children for example china, vietnam/ hong kong, united kingdom, signapore used to not sure if they still have a 2 child limit, Iranians can only have two children...., the Philippians...my point there are many and many more countries are at this moment have proposals in their legislative processes to limit number of children. as for the actual statistics, you can contact Unicef, they keep all kinds of statistics on the places where they are trying to help and are very helpful to those wanting this information. you can also contact any adoption agency who will have the statistics for those countries that they work with in trying to get these orphaned abandoned children homes and new parents. right now the highest abandoned child due to 2 children limit is china, japan then Iran according to WHO (World Health Organization) and Unicef.

Jun 24, 2017, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amandalouise

there are many countries that limit number of children for example china, vietnam/ hong kong, united kingdom, signapore used to not sure if they still have a 2 child limit, Iranians can only have two children...., the Philippians...my point there are many and many more countries are at this moment have proposals in their legislative processes to limit number of children. as for the actual statistics, you can contact Unicef, they keep all kinds of statistics on the places where they are trying to help and are very helpful to those wanting this information. you can also contact any adoption agency who will have the statistics for those countries that they work with in trying to get these orphaned abandoned children homes and new parents. right now the highest abandoned child due to 2 children limit is china, japan then Iran according to WHO (World Health Organization) and Unicef.

I will have to look into this later when I'm less busy dealing with my own plethora of issues.

It sucks that such things are an issue in the world, but it seems like a choice will eventually end up having to be made: limit the amount of children per family or deal with the consequences of overpopulation.

I watched a documentary awhile back that claimed that by the year 2040, if the human population keeps growing at the rate it is now, our numbers are expected to grow to above 9.6 billion. If we can't figure out how to sustain that many people by then, than it is likely that far more people will suffer and die due to lack of food, clean water, and other necessities to sustain life.

That thought genuinely terrifies me to a big enough extreme that it influences some of my goals in life. One of such goals is to become wealthy well before I'm 50 so if overpopulation and limited resources ever become an issue, I can buy up enough to be well off.

Jun 25, 2017, 04:29 PM

This thread is too long to full read but I agree with the poster with from what I see... is his argument that sex needs to be curtailed.

I suspect that early on.. humanity realized the negative problems that come with sex and used religion to try to put a damper on it. But I feel recently someone (probably liberals and liberal press) is using sex and the over consumption of sex to drive a political agenda and, at heart, get money. Without the slightest concern for the very negative consequences. Such as.

- it is a fact that sex can lead to at least 8 different kinds of cancer. FACT. Not just cervical. In fact some diseases such as an al are almost 70% just sex and HPV related. But recently I have seen a few doctors openly discussing their suspicions backed by more than one study that lung cancer is caused by HPV. You will not see any of this in the press because the press's interest is in "enjoying sex" and they would rather keep you in the dark about this and have "pink" ribbons the you get cancer.

-In terms of having children it does seem we are in serious trouble in terms of population but more... the bad people are having kids and not raising them right. In history past it was hard for the uncouth to produce kids because they had to support them and also, they had to get married. But now... with welfare and other social services and no stigma... well

- I agree there is a real scary problem with society and the way it is today. That on the one hand there is this.. do what you like .. what feels good yada yada yada, anything go liberation attitude... but this leaves many people out (if they are ugly or otherwise) and so entire groups get no sex at all. Historically men could "purchase" a wife or "purchase" a prostitute. But while at the same time having this "do what feels good" attitude... it is only for "some people". A terrifyingly puritanical attitude still exists where it is free love but only if you play the game. If you want a prostitute or if you want something society doesn't think is the norm.. your going down with prejudice. Don't dare be a virgin there is something wrong with you. Don't dare want to have 1 date before hooking up because you are "weird." But you won't be weird if we can label you as something due to your sex preferences, such as DemiSexual because if we can label you we can fight for your rights. But if you don't have an approved label we can't see you or your "weird."

- Personally I also agree sex isn't that great. I have given up on it. Sorry guys but my vibrator gives me a orgasm every time, you don't, with no concern about HPV. All of my friends who got married.. the guy wants sex every day and the woman doesn't. The woman is miserable and the guy is miserable and -- again, sorry, the guy just goes outside the marriage to have it. If that goes on long enough, they just get divorced. This whole thing is fubar.

Krow · Jun 26, 2017, 02:25 AM

Certainly I do condemn humanity's actions in certain respects, but in no respect do I eternally condemn it. When it comes down to it, the claim that "genetics" determine one's outcome has always been an excuse that the accomplished spew against those who have yet to find their vocation. Really, life is merely a genetic lottery when it comes around to one's very species. But once an individual is born human, with the capability to think and speak, the potential is limitless. No human is unintelligent, as the very premise of what has allowed humanity to adapt and evolve has been intellect in itself. And frankly, with the proper dedication and study quota, no human is less intellectually capable than the next. This is something which all men and women share -- the gift of knowledge, humanity's gift and burden, as commonly noted within the story of Eden. Strength, flexibility, and ailment are all bestowed thereafter and each to man's individual capabilities. However, they are balanced thoroughly so that no man ever triumphs within every regard. Still, I assume that this was a hypothetical stance?

As for intimacy, it is difficult for me to interject, seeing that I have no experience in the topic nor any desire for future engagements. Regardless, from an objective perspective, abstinence would assist in the resolve towards overpopulation and parenting roles for the orphaned. Furthermore, intimacy without a stable relationship frequently results in unwanted pregnancies and an interminable bind to either one's partner or the child. Of course, there is still one method for the prevention, but it is not a practice in which I condone in the slightest. Such intimacy is by no means necessary for an individual to thrive and experience a satisfying life, but even still, being a libertarian at heart, I would never accept a mandate upon interactions between beings, so long as they respect the life, liberty, or property of others. But if individuals did practice abstinence, and opted for adoption instead, then perhaps we would see a reduction in disease transmittance, overpopulation, and orphaned children. Unfortunately, we have a bit of a mindset within this world of the "have" and the "have-not". Everyone will receive privileges and downfalls throughout life and upon birth. The best decisions are made upon an individual level, through the analysis of all variables at hand. Access to birth control, a stable relationship, and the contribution of additional children to the world -- these are all variables to which an individual should consider before holding such intimacy with any other person.

eskielover · Jun 26, 2017, 02:30 PM

Hmmmm, isn't that what some psych meds do? Maybe the drug companies are already onto this plan (at least those with mental health issues)???? ( this is just my sarcastic mind at work here putting non-relates things together.....or is it???? Just thinking)

Jun 26, 2017, 06:28 PM

I 100% disagree. As someone with a serious mental illness who wants more than anything to be a mother, it would be extremely unfair to assume that because I have a psychological illness I would be a bad parent and shouldn't have a child. MI does not automatically mean you're not fit. Nor does being poor, or single, or different from other people. Yes, if there's actual evidence you may harm or neglect the child (sadly the one real way to know is when its already happened or been threatened) then they should be taken away but that ALREADY happens, and those kids are usually given to loving families. I've always been anti "parenting license" because everyone should be treated innocent until proven guilty. If you want to predict that I won't be a decent parent because of my MI, you might as well just assume everything else I can't/will do and lock me in an insane asylum.

My theory is that unless it causes direct harm to another person, everyone should be allowed to do as they wish. Only when we finally stop trying to control and regulate others will we find peace. In the end we're all going to realize that we wasted our lives worrying about everyone else's instead of living our own. Seriously, none of this is going to matter-How populated the world is, etc.

PS it's also in the constitution that people have the right to have children and raise them.

amandalouise · Jun 27, 2017, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iPhone

PS it's also in the constitution that people have the right to have children and raise them.

um where does it say in the constitution that a person has the right to have a child... as far as I see there is no constitutional right in the USA constitution that says anything like one of the rights is having children, as far as I know having children and raise them isnt a "right" in the constitution.

Jun 27, 2017, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amandalouise

um where does it say in the constitution that a person has the right to have a child... as far as I see there is no constitutional right in the USA constitution that says anything like one of the rights is having children, as far as I know having children and raise them isnt a "right" in the constitution.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mkg4583...-a-parent/amp/

The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (First) and Amendments 5, 9, and 14. Doe v. Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; U.S. D.C. of Michigan, (1985)

I do know that regardless, I have the right to my body and that includes the right to have children, to not have children etc.

Jun 27, 2017, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amandalouise

um where does it say in the constitution that a person has the right to have a child... as far as I see there is no constitutional right in the USA constitution that says anything like one of the rights is having children, as far as I know having children and raise them isnt a "right" in the constitution.

I guess it could be argued in the way that the right to an abortion was back strapped on an alleged right to privacy maybe, if you can have the right to have an abortion how could you not have a right to actually have the baby.

But I kind of get frustrated to see people going off on the legality of it. Legal or not isn't the question because no matter what there is no good way to enforce it.. but I believe the OP was simply saying it should be a voluntary recognition that our current sex situation is all kinds of messed up. You might have a right to have sex, but shouldn't do it.

Earlier in the thread it someone pointed that everyone needs intimacy. I do not believe that is true. Perhaps we need intimacy from like a mother or a parent figure but plenty of people never have sex and are just fine. It might be your preference but it is not necessary.

Jun 27, 2017, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily Fox Seaton

Earlier in the thread it someone pointed that everyone needs intimacy. I do not believe that is true. Perhaps we need intimacy from like a mother or a parent figure but plenty of people never have sex and are just fine. It might be your preference but it is not necessary.

Actually we as humans are biologically rooted to have sex. I myself have issues with it due to sexual abuse, and maybe some people have a stronger desire than others. I'm not going to recognize that voluntary actions between adults is "messed up."

Some people may NOT need sex, but every person is different and has different needs.

iLLuMiNaTi · Jun 30, 2017, 06:58 AM

There a more people who have no sex and who are satisfied with it than one can think.
However, these don't usually come up with theories according to which sex is the plague of the earth, etc...
In my eyes a person who believes the others should (must) have as little sex/intimacy as they do because 'it would be better for everyone' is disatisfied with his own lack of sex/intimacy. Because all in all we wouldn't have been born if it weren't for sex and intimacy, so it's something one can difficultly argue against...

Jul 10, 2017, 05:08 AM

Just to further add to this.. last night I was doing some research on Alzheimer's and it turns out that doctors are now saying that the prior theory (caused by plaques in the brain) is incorrect. They are now leaning toward a microbe theory (the plaques usually are formed in response to brain invaders to stop them and are harmless) and their number one suspect... sexually transmitted herpes.

They suspect that when you get older your blood brain barrier starts to fail and microbes and viruses that couldn't reach the brain before do. This is also their theory on dramatic brain injury or CTE. The repeated hits to the head causes the blood brain barrier to fail allowing whatever you have in your body to attack you brain.

There is already a correlation on the books between Herpes and Alzheimer's they find it in the brains of patients. I wouldn't even be surprised if HPV could be a factor too.

So.. the more crud you have in your body for life.. the more damage if and when your blood brain barrier starts to weaken.

iLLuMiNaTi · Jul 10, 2017, 06:08 AM

Because it is well known most people who have protected sex have herpes.....
...or not.

Artchic528 · Jul 10, 2017, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iLLuMiNaTi

There a more people who have no sex and who are satisfied with it than one can think.
However, these don't usually come up with theories according to which sex is the plague of the earth, etc...
In my eyes a person who believes the others should (must) have as little sex/intimacy as they do because 'it would be better for everyone' is disatisfied with his own lack of sex/intimacy. Because all in all we wouldn't have been born if it weren't for sex and intimacy, so it's something one can difficultly argue against...

I agree with this 100%. Those who want others to abstain are generally lacking a sex life of their own.

Jul 10, 2017, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artchic528

I agree with this 100%. Those who want others to abstain are generally lacking a sex life of their own.

Pshh when I'm a multimillionaire when I'm 30 I'll have all of the sex I could ever want haha

In the meantime I prioritize making money over spending it on women that would likely betray me later anyways. Plus I don't have to risk a condom breaking or an STD or anything.

Besides, I know I would be the worst father in human history. I can't even take care of myself half of the time let alone another human. I would rather prioritize my own goals in life over having responsibility over another human.

It is lonely at the top as they say.

Jul 10, 2017, 02:37 PM

I get sick of the "Studies show that x might possibly cause y so x is bad" argument. Life is full of risks and if everyone avoided every thing that involved a potential negative side effect we wouldn't be living. It's up to each individual to educate themselves and to weigh out the pro's and con's in order to make a decision they feel is in their own best interest.

Jul 10, 2017, 02:54 PM

I think throughout life it's natural to have changing feelings about sex, and it's quite okay to feel it's not right for us at any given time.

It's quite a different matter for other people however, that is their life and they make their own judgements over their own sex lives (or not).

ScientiaOmnisEst · Jul 10, 2017, 03:05 PM

I agree with some points (sex being an inherent power game, the threat of overpopulation and resource depletion) and disagree hard on others (love as nothing but a "neurological conjob", and solely "mutual selfishness" I think it definitely exists even if it's rare, and the greatest sign of it is the capacity to truly care for someone else). I'm not sure what I think about "control of sex"... could be a good point, and I'd be willing to abstain for the sake of the planet

Jul 11, 2017, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScientiaOmnisEst

I agree with some points (sex being an inherent power game, the threat of overpopulation and resource depletion) and disagree hard on others (love as nothing but a "neurological conjob", and solely "mutual selfishness" I think it definitely exists even if it's rare, and the greatest sign of it is the capacity to truly care for someone else). I'm not sure what I think about "control of sex"... could be a good point, and I'd be willing to abstain for the sake of the planet

Kind of reminds me of a quote from the TV show House of Cards:

A man once said: everything is about sex except sex; sex is about power. - Frank Underwood.

I don't watch a lot of TV these days but a lot of the quotes in shows like that sum up my view of the world and humanity in general.

Retnick · Jul 11, 2017, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OblivionIsAtHand

Should we be striving to eliminate sex more? This falls under psychology. Give it a moment.

Life's a genetic lottery. There's no God. There's no afterlife. There's nothing sacrosanct about sex.

Ok, good. Now that we have those things established. One of the main sources of conflict in life is one person wanting more than another--selfishness, as it were. You've got those who believe we should try to spread the wealth and equalize things for people, and those who believe that they should exploit their genetic "leg up in life" to its full advantage. I agree with the former. However, you'll notice even those who are all about 'sharing the wealth' still use their sexual advantage. Sexual politics leads to a lot of conflict.

Sex, the way I see it - this is coming from an atheist here - is probably the main thing ****ing up the planet. Humans are more or less a bacteria spreading when critical-thinking, self-awareness, etc. goes unchecked, but fortunately we've evolved to transmute sex into something other than for procreation. The urge is still there, but we've learned to conflate it with simply pleasure now, which can still inadvertently lead to more procreation. Sex is, obviously, not about 'love'. Love is a neurological conjob. 'Love' is a form of mutual selfishness, and usually sex boils down to one person being more dominant or submissive than the other. You're not truly experiencing 'love', as you're just releasing impulses. Affection may exist, and you may be more or less on the same page as the person you're showing affection to, but one person is driving that affection more aggressively than the other.

Supposed 'liberals' are still very much about touting the most attractive member of the species over everyone else though, in a similar fashion to the way that certain conservative types are vehemently for taking advantage of 'privilege'. They're not about equalizing things because by its very nature sex excludes others because one person gets more dominion over another. The sexless or those with less, rightfully, feel left out. So, quite obviously there's massive hypocrisy there.

Unless we start eliminating the sex drive of others, we're doomed to repeat the same age-old conflict. Or, let's assume hypothetically, that in the future the technological singularity happens and we've constructed a virtual reality utopia of sorts where most fantasies and needs are simulated. That's the other route we could take. Such a thing should be a major priority.

Or advocate strongly towards de-stigmatizing some kind of nonjudgmental sexual union that distributes it evenly toward...everyone. How would that work for the diseased? How would that work in general? I have no idea. Just food for thought. But until sex is more uhh..democratized, humans will continue to circle the drain.

Any thoughts here?

Since people only have a slightly higher attention span than goldfish, I intentionally left this post glib. I'll gladly elaborate on my position if pressed.

Elliot Rodger, is that you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

Jul 11, 2017, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retnick

Elliot Rodger, is that you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings

He's dead. Derp

Jul 11, 2017, 07:51 PM

I felt the need to say yet more thing: Selfishness is not always a bad thing. Society has painted it that way but the truth is you have to take care of yourself before you do anyone else. There's a reason we were born into this world with only one person and will go out with only one person.

Retnick · Jul 12, 2017, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarknessIsMyFriend

He's dead. Derp

Whooooosh

OP's ideas are more than a little disturbing. I can't get laid so no one
else should too! Is basically what his pseudo intellectual ramblings boil down too.

Menu

The Case Against Sex

My Support Forums