[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.

[Artchic528]

I happen to have a very strong libido. A person's libido is part of who they are as a person. Should I be eliminated because of who I am at my very core? Sex is a fundamental need, a drive that helps us to thrive as a species. Take that away and we all die. If not immediately then eventually, because no one will be having babies and our species will then go extinct.

Some species actually use sex to resolve conflict and deepen bonds. It's not necessarily about passing on genes, but to be closer as a species. I'm of course, talking about our close evolutionary cousins, the bonobo chimpanzee. They use sex as a tool, a means to deepen their social bonds and resolve conflict. They are the epitome of "make love, not war". In fact, sex for them goes as deep as females engaging other females, males engaging other males, brothers engaging sisters...so on and so forth. If you took sex away from the bonobo chimps, they'd die as a species because they wouldn't know how to communicate and resolve conflicts.

On a side note, considering a goldfish can pay attention, learn things like going through mazes, and recall that information at will later on, I believe I'll take the notion that my attention span is as lengthy as theirs a compliment. Thanks.

[OblivionIsAtHand]

I happen to have a very strong libido. A person's libido is part of who they are as a person. Should I be eliminated because of who I am at my very core? Sex is a fundamental need, a drive that helps us to thrive as a species. Take that away and we all die. If not immediately then eventually, because no one will be having babies and our species will then go extinct.

No no, I'm not saying you should be eliminated. I said sex drive should very conceivably be eliminated. It helps us thrive as a species, sure. But the species isn't really headed toward anything productive. We're not a great deal closer to resolving issues yet. We're pretty inert actually. We're better than, say, the days when we burned witches at the stake and thought there was such a thing as bodily humours, but we're still barely out of the ****ing jungle.

Anyway, as for perpetuating the species since we'll need them to construct the VR utopia (if such a thing could exist)..this is where I believe selective cloning, should we ever perfect it, could come in handy.

Some species actually use sex to resolve conflict and deepen bonds. It's not necessarily about passing on genes, but to be closer as a species. I'm of course, talking about our close evolutionary cousins, the bonobo chimpanzee. They use sex as a tool, a means to deepen their social bonds and resolve conflict. They are the epitome of "make love, not war". In fact, sex for them goes as deep as females engaging other females, males engaging other males, brothers engaging sisters...so on and so forth. If you took sex away from the bonobo chimps, they'd die as a species because they wouldn't know how to communicate and resolve conflicts.

Oh I know it's not just about passing on genes anymore. See where I talked about us tricking ourselves into turning sex into merely a pleasurable thing now. I've heard about this interesting mentality in bonobos quite a bit, but as for resolving conflict--I'd have to see more statistics and evidence for that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not saying you're right either. Unless there are less attractive bonobos that just get really excited from the idea of watching the other bonobos in some form of cuckoldry, otherwise I can't imagine the negation of pleasure for certain bonobos not causing a kind of envy. But also bear in mind we're talking about apes.

On a side note, considering a goldfish can pay attention, learn things like going through mazes, and recall that information at will later on, I believe I'll take the notion that my attention span is as lengthy as theirs a compliment. Thanks

That wasn't directed to everyone. There's exceptions, I'm sure. I'm sure you could tell I was speaking hyperbolically there. But largely I find that people have a very poor attention span. Statistics I've heard about just how little people listen, on the whole, exacerbates my depression.

Also, I have to ask--on a side note, looking at your signature---why are women using this 'empowered' word so much? Assuming you're for egalitarianism etc. etc., which you may or may not be, power should be the last thing anyone should aspire to. To feel intoxicated by power. Maybe the word should be amended to 'invigorated' or something.

[kecanoe]

My understanding is that oxytocin is released when a woman has an orgasm. Oxytocin is the hormone that helps mothers and babies bond. So I do believe that sex can be about love. IMO it is best when it is about love. Love and pleasure actually do go together well.

[OblivionIsAtHand]

What do you consider love?

Again, to me, it is a neurological conjob. It doesn't exist in the way most people mean it. I'm certain it's pleasurable. No disputing that. But it's pleasurable for a selfish reason.

This sounds very 1984-ish. My answer to your posed question would be "Absolutely not".

I understand democratizing sex to mean to make it available to all people equally. But how can you make that happen? Sex is about intimate bonding between two persons. In all the animal kingdom with few exceptions where the male gets pregnant instead of the female like the sea horse, the male try to impress the female to bond and eventually have sex with the female. This may sound strange to us humans, because we humans think we are separate from animals. But we are animals, and do what other animals do, but in a covert and civilized way. Based on that, males don't have the same chance to have sex, especially with attractive females. So, the the whole idea of democratizing sex isn't feasible by nature, unless they decriminalize sex work. But even then, not all people can afford it as our sex drive is relatively high to pay for it every time we feel the urge. Even among animals, not all males have sex the same, say, as the alpha male.

That leads us to the second point. If you cannot democratize sex, then what? Sexual urges are ingrained deeply in our genes. You cannot just switch this urge off. Our brains, especially males, are programmed to have sex at any opportunity (females are more careful because of their high investment if pregnancy happens).

In some societies sex outside marriage is forbidden culturally and legally, and males and females don't have sex until they are in their late 20s when it is time for them to get married, and once they are married they are stuck for good or bad, and a divorced person has a slim chance to get married again because of the stigma. It is so frustrating to both sexes. But of course those cultures maintain several myths about sex outside marriage to keep it that way. Many people who cannot have sex feel frustrated and depressed. We cannot deny it is a powerful force. But I cannot see another way other than making sex legal between adults, at which point it is up to the individuals to find mates, by letting nature plays its role.

I agree about selfishness and love is a mutual selfishness. But people like to idealize the concept of love by thinking it is more of a divine thing than mostly a biological response and some chemicals released in the brain for bonding and eventually having sex. Maybe it is not clear now, but in kingdoms and empires in the past, it wasn't unusual for the daughters and sons of different kings and emperors to get married to diffuse conflicts and have peaceful relationship. Even these days, it is called "make up sex" between couples. So, I think sex is used for procreation, pure pleasure, and diffusing conflicts among humans.

[OblivionIsAtHand]

This sounds very 1984-ish. My answer to your posed question would be "Absolutely not".

Absolutely not to striving to eliminate the sex drive? Striving to eliminate the sex drive does not necessarily mean enforced sterilization or anything like that. I'm talking about educating about the inherent dangers of it. Get the ball rolling on advocating its extreme progress-hindering hazard to the world. To no longer consider sex 'a beautiful and natural' thing as it is often touted, except by fundamentalist Christians (perhaps the only thing I'll ever have in common with a fundamentalist Christian, as a militant non-believer.) and other fringe groups.

Sexual urges are ingrained deeply in our genes. You cannot just switch this urge off. Our brains, especially males, are programmed to have sex at any opportunity (females are more careful because of their high investment if pregnancy happens).

Yes, but humanity has also made progress in delaying gratification over the years; we don't operate purely out of the reptilian brain anymore. There is medicine that more or less destroys the sex drive. Sex drive destroys rational thought (because it's based on pure gratification, and for all intents and purposes there really is no 'rational' need to pump out more human beings at this juncture of overpopulation), as do a great deal of other very strong emotions. I've always had my best insights when I've had no inkling of a desire for sex.

So, I think sex is used for procreation, pure pleasure, and diffusing conflicts among humans.

Diffusing conflicts? Perhaps if all other parties are satisfied with their sexual partners. I see this as being incredibly rare if this were the case. Often, a 'beautiful' female causes so, so much unwanted conflict among males that it's laughable. Just two days ago I saw it in its most pure state. Men more often vie for the attention of partners, and there's a lot of crime due to this.

Again, I don't see this age of the sexual free market as a good thing at all because it's just alienating more and more people (men especially, but not exclusively men. This may be why you're seeing more MRA groups and rampant misogyny appear) in the process. It's not at all progressive, and it, again, treads the line of the very thing progressive types bash--'privilege'.

More than anything we should aim toward decriminalizing sex work first; let's start there. But more importantly, simulating sex in the best way possible minus the human element for those who absolutely feel compelled to experience the urge. We've been headed that route, but due to societal lamentations against 'weirdos' these goals suffer.

But people like to idealize the concept of love by thinking it is more of a divine thing than mostly a biological response and some chemicals released in the brain for bonding and eventually having sex.

Of course. I was insinuating this above in my original post. That's another huge problem marriage and rampant baby-making perpetuates. This idea of it being sacrosanct or divine, in some warped way. Utter nonsense.



Anyway, it's strange that there's still a societal expectation to have more sex, despite that it's more often just associated with pleasure now, when sex is like playing with fire. Society's real ****ing bizarre. I suppose maybe the stigma of those who receive less sex exists as a byproduct, carried over and still perpetuating for unknown reasons, of our genetically imprinted, but previously more fervent, need to carry the species forward. I guess. I don't know. Speculating there. Inversely, and thankfully, there still exists shame for the overtly sexual though. It's being tempered at least, thank Christ.

And more thankful, men are starting to catch on to this stupid Cro-Magnon 'alpha male' mentality **** that skews toward make believe and is vaguely defined. Machismo and societal expectations of men are really ****ing things up. Men have rightly become more feminized in ways (not quite enough though). More civilized. I say that as a vehement anti-feminist.

In your model, would I have the choice? I wouldn't take any medicine to destroy my sex drive if I have the choice. There is a movie called Equilibrium that tells a close model to human societies, where humans are taking medication to kill their feelings and emotions, because presumably emotions are the basis of all misery in the world, until a revolution is started to overthrow the governing elite and restore humanity as it is naturally. Sex drive isn't something bad in itself. It is how you use it and express it in legitimate channels.

Bear in mind that you are talking to social emotional animals, not to rational humans. The rationality of humans is a misconception. You can lecture humans about not having children all you want, but few people would lesson. There is a philosophy called anti-natalism that advocates for not having children. You can read about it. In opinion it is not a feasible option to stop procreation. We are stuck in life. Humanity has functioned well all these millennia with their high sex drive. Yes, sex drive can cause conflicts, but also can cause beautiful love stories, romance, creativity in terms of painting, songs, ... etc.

[Entity06]

It's not about eliminating sex, that's now what you should plead against. Everyone needs intimacy, touch, sexual pleasure and that's ok, we should all be able to get it.

What would "democratize" sex would be if we all as cultures ,as a society, would take a good long look at ourselves and our mentalities and realize that we're stereotyping gender, beauty, value, etc to a ridiculous extent and discriminating against people who don't fit some narrow definitions that were set by society not nature.

If we all stopped influencing people's taste, what they identify as beautiful and worthy, by promoting some traits and demeaning others, if we eliminated sexism and gender roles and expectations and allow people to be like they naturally end up being and teach both genders to be equally socially adept and emotionally aware, people would have much more diverse tastes and truly everyone would be attractive to enough people to find partners.

There is something missing in your topic which is emotions. We have evolved complex emotions around sex, and you cannot separate the two, and emotions are developed by interaction and socialization between the sexes. You can have strong attraction to a female, but without her voluntarily choosing to engage with you emotionally and sexually, it is not going to happen without hurting someone. The same is true for a female with a male she is attracted to. I think the whole idea of equalizing sex isn't realistic without violating some personal freedom and human rights. Life is a game with rules, if anyone wants to win he/she must play withing the rules. Life isn't fair because different people have different skills and traits, but there is no way around that.

Sex is power! I was dating others when I met my H but he was the one who I couldn't resist having sex with (and there was a lot of it with him--it was a factor that influenced the relationship). He can still win me over through his powers of seduction. (Sex sometimes feels like love but you get that loving feeling from something that's partly chemical, cultural, a habit, a basic drive.) Love and sex make people's emotions emotions spin up and down and all around. It can motivate people to be altruistic or suicidal. There have been romances that have greatly influenced historical events in both good and bad ways. Sex creates life and each and every new person that enters this world can cause a change in another person or effect an event......

[OblivionIsAtHand]

In your model, would I have the choice? I wouldn't take any medicine to destroy my sex drive if I have the choice. There is a movie called Equilibrium that tells a close model to human societies, where humans are taking medication to kill their feelings and emotions, because presumably emotions are the basis of all misery in the world, until a revolution is started to overthrow the governing elite and restore humanity as it is naturally. Sex drive isn't something bad in itself. It is how you use it and express it in legitimate channels.

Depends. I'd be against forced sterilization, and as someone who's for freedom of choice, I'd be against any mandatory pill-taking. But as for the future, I cannot say. We may conclude that, in the same way that we NEED certain laws enforced (yes, I'll admit this much even as someone who would preferably skew anarchistic), that forcing others to take the pill would be for the collective good of society. Of course, this won't even begin to happen any time soon lest, as someone said, we become sort of Orwellian society. But, without risking sounding like every other religious zealot, I do believe that sex has been one of the core causes of conflict. So, I would not care how it's handled. Altruism's generally about putting others' needs before your own, and sex does not generally fuel altruism. Altruism needs to be championed above selfishness to create a more sustainable egalitarian society--which we may find to be impossible, but we've certainly inched closer to egalitarian over the years.

Anyway, maybe I should rephrase. Perhaps it's not the drive that should be eliminated, but rather how we condition others to use the drive.

Bear in mind that you are talking to social emotional animals, not to rational humans. The rationality of humans is a misconception. You can lecture humans about not having children all you want, but few people would lesson. There is a philosophy called anti-natalism that advocates for not having children. You can read about it. In opinion it is not a feasible option to stop procreation. We are stuck in life. Humanity has functioned well all these millennia with their high sex drive. Yes, sex drive can cause conflicts, but also can cause beautiful love stories, romance, creativity in terms of painting, songs, ... etc.

Social emotional animals that are indeed capable of rational thought, however scarce. Functioned well? Oh I'd highly, highly disagree, but that discussion could be reserved for another day. Those beautiful love stories, paintings, songs etc. are indeed fueled by passionate emotions, but not necessarily by sex drive.

I can tell you personally that I've been privy to truths I'd have never otherwise gleaned had I been bogged down by the high of 'love' etc. etc. I'm not sure if it bears any mention, but I've never been in a relationship. 28 years I've not been in one. Only occasionally sexual transactions which I hypocritically surrender to. As a result it has kept me more objective in certain respects. I believe I used to experience 'love' when I was younger---or maybe it was some kind of passive affection due to society's pressures, I'm not sure...but that was only affection towards my parents. Quite literally, after a while I started getting a cringey feeling over the idea of relationships and would never pursue any dates/reject any of the opportunities. It elicited a kind of schizoid discomfort toward affection, and the overtly serious nature of it just weirded me out further. I can connect with people and even occasionally 'like' someone, but certainly never feel what I'm guessing many of you are referring to when you say 'romantic feelings'. But this has kept me more detached and objective--based on a consensus idea of what's considered objective, which admittedly still stems from an initial subjective assertion.

It's not about eliminating sex, that's now what you should plead against. Everyone needs intimacy, touch, sexual pleasure and that's ok, we should all be able to get it.

SHOULD be able to get it, but won't be the case. Let's take severe burn victims, cripples, those that are far down the attractiveness scale, those with diseases nobody would even get close to et cetera...as examples.

If we all stopped influencing people's taste, what they identify as beautiful and worthy, by promoting some traits and demeaning others, if we eliminated sexism and gender roles and expectations and allow people to be like they naturally end up being and teach both genders to be equally socially adept and emotionally aware, people would have much more diverse tastes and truly everyone would be attractive to enough people to find partners.

That's a beautifully optimistic thing to say, and it actually kind of elicited a serene feeling in me because of its tolerance. If more people thought like this it would be great, however, how are you going to get this to happen? How would we influence peoples' mindsets like that to reverse their strongest, greedy impulses? I have none of the answers myself. That's the problem. I know what's deeply wrong with society, but I have few of the answers as to how to fix it. It seems this is the case with most people, so we remain in a state of inertia. Nobody really wants to think these utopic ideas through to implement them.

Sex is power! I was dating others when I met my H but he was the one who I couldn't resist having sex with (and there was a lot of it with him--it was a factor that influenced the relationship). He can still win me over through his powers of seduction. (Sex sometimes feels like love but you get that loving feeling from something that's partly chemical, cultural, a habit, a basic drive.) Love and sex make people's emotions emotions spin up and down and all around. It can motivate people to be altruistic or suicidal. There have been romances that have greatly influenced historical events in both good and bad ways. Sex creates life and each and every new person that enters this world can cause a change in another person or effect an event......

It seems that you're kind of repeating what other people said on this thread already.

"Sex creates life and each and every new person that enters this world can cause a change in another person or effect an event......"
Sure. Could. And conceivably for the worse, as is often the case. More than likely they'll add to the failed game of humanity.

Let me put it this way. Let me assume some of you have offspring for a second, though you may very well not have any. Your offspring has terrible luck attracting any kind of 'mate' (I shudder to even use that word) and for whatever reason are experiencing a deep depression because of it. But that doesn't stop you from having, 'wonderful', 'wonderful' sex with your wife/husband, even though your son/daughter is mentally fried. I.E. you're opting for the selfish drive no matter what. The opening scene of Antichrist sort of brilliantly sums up the seductive evil of sex. Sort of:

[OblivionIsAtHand]

Originally Posted by Mr. Stranger

Life is a game with rules, if anyone wants to win he/she must play withing the rules. Life isn't fair because different people have different skills and traits, but there is no way around that.

This would probably be the exact antithesis of the type of mindset I believe we should aspire toward. If everyone kept at that conservative 'life isn't fair because we have different skills and traits' mentality we'd have had zero social change and diversity.

Life isn't fair in its current state, yes of course. But we should aim to make it as fair as possible for the collective. Unless you believe we're slaves to biology - which I'd submit that we're not, in the way that we've altered our thinking dramatically over the years. In the way that we've exercised control over animalistic impulses, have used critical thinking, abstract reasoning, etc. etc.

You cannot achieve absolute equality without taking liberty. People having different capabilities doesn't mean that societies aren't changing. Societies are in a constant flux all the time. But there are principle and contradicting things you need to keep in balance. I think the best you can do is to give people equal opportunities (in terms of education, health care, ... etc) to compete by their own effort and freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

[OblivionIsAtHand]

Originally Posted by Mr. Stranger

There is something missing in your topic which is emotions. We have evolved complex emotions around sex, and you cannot separate the two, and emotions are developed by interaction and socialization between the sexes. You can have strong attraction to a female, but without her voluntarily choosing to engage with you emotionally and sexually, it is not going to happen without hurting someone. The same is true for a female with a male she is attracted to. I think the whole idea of equalizing sex isn't realistic without violating some personal freedom and human rights. Life is a game with rules, if anyone wants to win he/she must play withing the rules. Life isn't fair because different people have different skills and traits, but there is no way around that.

I guess that's pretty much the libertarian philosophy in a nutshell there, isn't it? An individual is free to rise or fall on his own merits etc. You can't really give people equal opportunities when the playing fields are rigged to begin with however. Explain what you would mean by 'taking liberty'. As far as I'm concerned, my liberties are already taken by the enforcement of laws forbidding me not to murder etc., but I learned to adjust - and realized it's for the overall good of society. True liberty is really an illusion anyway. ((America's slogan may as well be changed to 'land of the free, for some.')) As an essential, we always have to pander to someone or something. True freedom requires a lot of responsibility. I like this quote by Viktor E. Frankl "Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast."

If you believe that, why stop at 'as long as it doesn't harm others.' That seems almost like a cop-out, and arbitrarily tacked on because it fits a preference. And anyway, doing whatever one wants (even if it didn't involve murder) could very well in fact harm others in the process. It has to be kept in check. Regulated. Not even saying a shadowy government institution would have to intrude. Let people form their own committees. Others' idea of liberty gets taken too far and ends up psychologically damaging another. Sure, we could have the RIGHT to do that, but fortunately democracy is pretty bullet proof (for the most part) and the people end up taking matters into their own hands and public opinion turns the tide, deals out justice through social means. Unfortunately not nearly enough. That's the problem, and that's the plight as of late. Extreme moral apathy. As much as I want to see empathy, paradoxically I find it hard to find within myself to contain much empathy for anyone given their predilection for amorality (morality as defined by what normally constitutes consideration for human dignity; not morality in any kind of spiritual sense) in recent years. Or, it could be that people are no more amoral than before, and I've just sobered up to it in my infinite pessimism that has sharpened with age.

[Thelost1ssoul]

You are extremely intelligent I can tell. Your posts are intriguing, and I'd love to converse with you. Before panic and anxiety I could break all of this down with you. But these days I say what I want, and get to the point. I'm past that time in my life, unless were talking face to face. Anyways... to the point.
I was sex trafficked for over 10 yrs. I have no idea what real "sex or love" feels like, or looks like. To me, It's a bunch of BS that causes to much hurt and pain to children both male and female, and same with both genders of adults. I have tonsto say about this,but triggers and flashbacks are a biotch

[SgtRock]

Sex is like Calgon, it takes me away. I am and never was into one night stands. Therefore, the sex was something more than 'cheap'.

[OblivionIsAtHand]

Originally Posted by Thelost1ssoul

You are extremely intelligent I can tell. Your posts are intriguing, and I'd love to converse with you. Before panic and anxiety I could break all of this down with you. But these days I say what I want, and get to the point. I'm past that time in my life, unless were talking face to face. Anyways... to the point.
I was sex trafficked for over 10 yrs. I have no idea what real "sex or love" feels like, or looks like. To me, It's a bunch of BS that causes to much hurt and pain to children both male and female, and same with both genders of adults. I have tonsto say about this,but triggers and flashbacks are a biotch

I am very sorry to hear that. Can't even imagine such a thing. However, I'm sure words are empty.

If it's any reassurance - and indeed it may not be - I don't believe there's real love. Not how most conceive of it or intend it. At this point I feel like a broken record repeating it, but many people believe that some human beings can simply be respected, and as a result of shown love, simply by existing. If people were even one iota serious about 'every human deserves love' then they wouldn't be so quick to condemn criminals, those who eschew compassion in favor of bitterness, etc. In short, people are emotionally driven and don't think things through entirely. Stating the obvious of course. They will continue, for years and years and years to be swept up by appeals to emotion.

[OblivionIsAtHand]

Sex is like Calgon, it takes me away. I am and never was into one night stands. Therefore, the sex was something more than 'cheap'.

Takes you away in the same way in which a drug takes you away, sure. Which is fine.

But my point to everyone is, sex is not as great and healthy as everyone makes it out to be. Natural urge--sure. But a lot of urges are 'natural'. For instance, if left to our own devices minus conditioning we'd be unfiltered beasts satisfying every conceivable whim.

The ability to delay instant gratification is a huge part of what separates the civil from the not so civil.

It's just incredibly baffling to me how these liberal-minded (I say this as someone who could probably be filed under 'radically left/apolitical/anarchistic/blah blah blah') individuals who are so vehemently anti-selfishness: anti-the 1%, pro - 'human rights' (supposedly), anti-privilege etc. fail to consider that sexual politics are at the heart of conflict. They're all just about being free; to stifle sexual agency is oppressive, sure. But they go beyond that. They in fact tout 'sex-positivism' as a prime virtue; sexual privilege is indeed what separates many criminals from non-criminals. The short answer is that they're full of **** and not, in fact, progressive.

I'm not suggesting a kind of sexual McCarthyism, yet. I'm saying that sex, if it's going to be around, needs to be made more available in a, as I reiterate, democratized fashion (not mandated by some shadowy institution or what have you) for everyone if we want less turmoil, or more satisfying artificial means for those not privy to such so we can keep all ******* parties happy. Or if not then anti-sex sentiment needs to get a toehold in the public consciousness. The cultural dialogue needs to change vastly. So long as you have kids being lambasted for being 'virgins' and all that, and women and men being attracted to the completely wrong types of individuals - sometimes subjective taste is quite clearly wrong - for all of the wrong reasons...then I'd say some kind of upheaval is called for. Rioting sound absurd? Quite possibly. I'm finding more and more that people respond very poorly to actions that aren't extreme. I, for one, do not give the average person the benefit of the doubt. Again, I think they're stubborn (nor am I exempting myself from said traits) and locked into a set of patterns/reflexive beliefs that broker hate (I will concede that I am very hate-filled, but my hate stems from the hatred of bias, prejudice, and a lack of narcissistic fulfillment that varies in severity) need to be challenged and subverted at every possible turn.

Ah, a fellow futurist. I consider myself a futurist as well but I'm not very open about it anymore because let's face it, many people lack the capacity to appreciate and understand such a thing

Now, for me to add my opinion on this topic:

I agree that human's sex drive is a problem. Unfortunately, I don't see an easy solution to solve it that wouldn't violate ethical issues.

Currently, humans number somewhere over 7.4 billion. If our numbers keep increasing at the rate they are now, somewhere by the year 2040 we are expected to be at 9.6 billion or higher in number; that is way too many people to fit on one tiny little planet in my opinion.

Right now, the only thing we can really do is educate people on using proper protection when having sex but unfortunately, most people still won't listen to reason on that subject.

Without putting faith into something like a technological singularity for instance that if it actually happens the way some futurists happen, might not even happen for several hundred years, I see 2 other options to keep humanity's numbers in check that many people here probably wouldn't like.

My first option would be requiring a license in every major country in order to become a parent. Require things such as psychological testing, knowledge assessment in parenting and life skills, and income testing. Ensure that perspective parents are capable of raising a child in a healthy way while being financially able to provide all of their needs while ensuring that they won't become abusers. Limit all licensed parents to two children much like China does now with their two child policy. If licensed parents have more than two children or unlicensed parents have any at all, have the children taken by their country. If they continue to have children despite not being licensed to, have them forcibly sterilized.

My second and probably my least popular idea here is to let climate change run it's course without doing anything about it other than the bare minimum to ensure the survival of our species. Let nature take it's course and let humans die off in the billions to alleviate our serious world population issue. If we lost somewhere between say 4-6 billion people, we would still have more than enough humans to keep civilization afloat and progress continuing especially considering somewhere around 9% of humanity lives in a first world country and actually contributes to the progress of humanity and forms the backbone for a society to function.

Thanks for this thread BTW. My brain is clearly not being pushed to critically think enough so it feels good to exercise my mind for once

[avlady]

I myself do believe in true love-i'm sure that will get me in trouble here. i don't want to go any futher than that here but i've experienced it myself and it is one of the only things that keep me going sometimes.

[icecappe]

I don't belive in eliminating/reducing/controlling sex at all. In order to do that many freedoms would have to be taken away pushing us towards a more totalitarian state. Well this may be for the greater good of society I don't think people would accept the idea, as people like having control over themselves. A large range of people have sex no matter how "unlucky" they have it and it seems people who do not have it just don't want it. And anyways all of these ideas sound like 1984 and partially like Hitler's eugenics program, which are the type of societys I stongly oppose.

[Teddy Bear]

Why would you want to eliminate sex?

Originally Posted by Teddy Bear

Why would you want to eliminate sex?

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.