Sex Freely Without Corporate

[Haruhi]

Sexuality is, despite its omnipresence, prevented from being expressed openly and honestly in everyday interactions. In these situations, it is forbidden to look at certain parts of another's body, show 'too much' of one's own, openly express sexual desire in company, or even just have sex without buying into a complex contextual framework of meanings and ideological obligations.

Yet sexuality is expressed, in a restrictive hieroglyphic language, everywhere. A gesture. A certain nuance of speech. An image. In order to have sex with the type of person desired, it is usually necessary to act and live in a certain way. Certain products must be bought, certain clothes worn, and certain attitudes and beliefs held.

I hold that much of the motivation for buying into common conceptual frameworks is sexual. The corporate/governmental social hierarchy has a monopoly on sex, in that not buying into the belief systems necessary for interacting with them as they require results in social rejection and, thus, an absence of sex.

It is the repression of sexuality which facilitates this. Sex isn't ''easy'' and ''fast'' in modern society, and all of the steps of a complex human equivalent of the (non-human) animal mating dance must be fulfilled in order for it to be obtained. A certain type of clothing and make-up must be worn, and a certain worldview shared with the other.

This may not apply to exceptionally physically attractive people, but human individuals are generally socially defined. All that is needed for almost everybody to buy into the conceptual framework is for enough people to be subconsciously sexually motivated to do so. Our modern mating dance is also much more flexible than that of other animals. Abstract signifies, defined my individual cultures, are involved. If these abstract indicators, such as complicity in a single conceptual scheme, are not present, then sex does not happen.

As long as sexuality is repressed, as long as the human body is taboo, and as long as sex is a hugely ''meaningful'' act, the vast majority of people will be bound. People will be forced, subconsciously, to but into conceptual systems necessary for the fulfillment of the complex steps of human mating rituals.

This is used in advertisements, maintenance of hierarchical social structures, and the encouragement of conformity. The threat of unfulfilled sexuality is a gun held to the common man and woman's head. Sex is distant and abstract, so we buy and buy and work and work and do this and that in a disparate attempt to seem desirable according to the ever changing complex set of conceptual considerations that a potential mate will judge us by.

The highly intelligent individual can learn to ''pretend'' to buy into such conceptual frameworks, without actually doing so. Intelligence can bring increased freedom, but only in a restricted society. This option is not available to the common man and woman, who will inevitably-- emotionally-- buy into the rituals which they must adopt in order to have the sexual relationships that their instincts require.

Only when the human body is no longer taboo, when sex is no longer abstract and conceptually meaningful, and only when people are fucking in the streets and expressing their sexuality openly may we be free from conceptual homogony.

I do not argue that the set-up was consciously constructed by people who wanted power-- the world is too chaotic for that, and I am no conspiracy theorist. I *do* argue that the ultimate effect is the same, and that sexual restriction is one of the foundations of social and imaginative subjugation.

When (assuming it could or might happen) there is no underlying sexual motivation to buy into the conceptual schemes which were previously necessary for sex, people will be freer and more diverse.

Let the revolution start here. Let all sexuality be openly expressed on this forum! Let a simple physical act no longer be taboo! Let humans live, eat, and fuck freely, without the necessity of buying into complex and abstract systems which ensnare them and determine the course of their lives.

(last paragraph is why this is posted in ''INTP'').

 

[Carnap]

yawn.

I tend to think of the "corporate" aspect you are talking about as the natural result of libidinal capitalism/economy.

As for all the free sex, the sex sans taboo, etc. it makes no sense in terms of evolution. I cannot speak for men at all, but women are hard driven to attract a long term mate.

And people walking naked in the streets (I think you mentioned that, but I am not going to re read)? 1) hygiene, 2) Deleuze. I'm sorry, but that is a recipe for sexual short circuiting, which already happens.

Nice post, easy rant to.

 

[Haruhi]

yawn.

Oh, thanks a fucking lot. That makes me feel really good about the post I spent ages writing, in the hope that there could be an interesting discussion about it. A reply like that really encourages a good atmosphere for debate, and I'm so glad that we have people as witty as you who are capable of coming up with such original responses.

Nice post, easy rant to.

This doesn't make any sense.

The stuff in-between is just mediocre. I will only reply to better reasoned posts which actually address the aesthetic, structure, axioms, and conclusions of my argument. If I wanted 3-line, dogmatic and uninteresting points like yours, I would post this on a forum full of ISTJs or some such type.

 

[Carnap]

The whole thing just didn't make any logical sense. Not biologically, anyway. All these people obsessed with freedom really make me mad. Nothing personal.

Sorry I was so blunt. I'm sure there is someone out there who thinks returning to a primitive state (or rather, in this case, completely going against nature and pretending we are living "freely" according to our nature) might agree with you. I, however, do not. Vehemently.

You do have some valid points about capitalist society, but the rest just doesn't make sense to me.

gee, i forget how rude i am sometimes.

 

[preilemus]

applying meaning to that which has the potential to be meaningless can inhibit growth

 

[Carnap]

Glovehead to my rescue.

 

[Haruhi]

Glovehead to my rescue.

applying meaning to that which has the potential to be meaningless can inhibit growth

Only when the human body is no longer taboo, when sex is no longer abstract and conceptually meaningful, and only when people are fucking in the streets and expressing their sexuality openly may we be free from conceptual homogony.

Although, regardless, I think that his point is quite irrelevant, given that the concept of ''meaning'' in this post is multiordinal and defined primarily by the specific context. Such pretty linguistic arrangements as his may sound nice and clever, but they don't really offer anything, given that the reality we interact with is structurally complex.

 

[Carnap]

at least he changed the subject.

enough about all of this...

 

[Kuu]

^ And don't you think, Carnap, that it is possible to go beyond evolution and what is "hardwired"? (agh, kinda ninja'd... that's what happens when you open up lots of tabs)


I do hope that this comes to pass one day; unfortunately I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Whenever I speak of things like this, people laugh at me as if I'm joking. It's sad, most people cannot even fathom the idea. When I tell them it's serious, they give me the get away creepy pervert look. That hasn't stopped me from saying it, though.

The way things are now, it is indeed better to opt out and be mostly free of all the contrived motions even at the cost of all sex...



How exactly could free sex make people more diverse? Aren't the localized nuances of the mating dance (and all things related) what constitute a large part of what is called "culture"? Isn't restraint sometimes better for diversity (distinct solutions to the same problem, rather than no problem at all?)


((Interesting, you remind me of myself when I used to be more focused.))

 

[Carnap]

I just think that already living in urban environments and experiencing too much attraction and repulsion, rivalry, etc that needs to be bottled up makes people short circuit. It can "cause" gender identity confusion among other things.

I prefer not to waste my libido so I have lots of it for someone I get along with intellectually.

ohh I just got it. This is gonna be fun

you"re lucky cause i still have no idea what's going on. wish i had never responded.

 

[Haruhi]

I just think that already living in urban environments and experiencing too much attraction and repulsion, rivalry, etc that needs to be bottled up makes people short circuit. It can "cause" gender identity confusion among other things.

I prefer not to waste my libido so I have lots of it for someone I get along with intellectually

You don't understand my post.

The point, grotesquely simplified, is that the removal of the motivation of that rivalry will allow people to opt out of conceptual frameworks which it currently forces them to buy into. I'm not arguing for more sex for its own sake, but because the removal of sexual limitation would loosen the hold which those who control sexual stimulus (advertisers and others who define culture) have over the general population's behavior and perception.



=======================

I do hope that this comes to pass one day; unfortunately I don't see it happening in my lifetime. Whenever I speak of things like this, people laugh at me as if I'm joking. It's sad, most people cannot even fathom the idea. When I tell them it's serious, they give me the get away creepy pervert look. That hasn't stopped me from saying it, though.

Architects get funny looks if they try to explain the subtleties of modern architectural theory to builders, but it doesn't stop the building from being constructed, so long as there is enough power and are enough resources behind the project.

How exactly could free sex make people more diverse? Aren't the localized nuances of the mating dance (and all things related) what constitute a large part of what is called "culture"? Isn't restraint sometimes better for diversity (distinct solutions to the same problem, rather than no problem at all?)

In some ways, yes. However, as Taoisist retentionists argue, it is a powerful subliminal sexual drive which tends to lead to breakthroughs and an Einsteinian/Teslan drive for understanding. Perhaps the direction of this energy away from the mating dance towards other activities might be more effective for increasing expansion/diversity. I.e. what you talk of drives people to create lots of complex, pretty little foxtrots. Focusing energy away from it, because sex is readily available and unrestricted, might lead to true and unlimited art-- i.e. ballet. Perhaps not, though.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

"Intelligence can bring increased freedom, but only in a restricted society." This is essentially XIII's goal. Overcoming the constraints of pesonality, society, etc.

 

[Latro]

Sorry...this is the kind of thing (i.e. things like the OP) that an INTX would typically throw together to rationalize their own difficulties. A kind of thing that makes some sense, and would theoretically work...except it doesn't in practice, for a large number of people.

Seriously, there are people who will just have sex and then never speak to one another again. Not out of hatred or anything like that, but simply because it was a one night stand, and that feeling was mutual. This is not at all uncommon.

 

[Haruhi]

Sorry...this is the kind of thing that an INTX would typically throw together to rationalize their own difficulties. A kind of thing that makes some sense, and would theoretically work...except it doesn't in practice, for a large number of people.

Seriously, there are people who will just have sex and then never speak to one another again. Not out of hatred or anything like that, but simply because it was a one night stand, and that feeling was mutual. This is not at all uncommon.

I was worried it might come off like this. I actually don't have problems in this area (lost my virginity when I was 14, haven't stopped since). If you look back over the original post with this in mind, I think you might interpret it differently.

"Intelligence can bring increased freedom, but only in a restricted society."

Well, yes, but my focus is on the common man and the state of society as a whole. I think you might have misinterpreted it. I only mentioned that as a caveat.

Thanks for the comment, anyway. I do think that many conceptual structures are ways of... creating a ''reason'' for something which does not have a conceptual origin.

 

[Latro]

I was worried it might come off like this. I actually don't have problems in this area (lost my virginity when I was 14, haven't stopped since). If you look back over the original post with this in mind, I think you might interpret it differently.

This statement is flatly false and lacks ambiguity:

Sex isn't ''easy'' and ''fast'' in modern society

 

[Haruhi]

I assure you that it isn't false. You can go wherever and talk to a guy or girl and end up hooking up, but certain symbolic conditions have to be met for that to happen (clothes, style of communication etc.). It's not hard to meet them if you apply yourself to it, but it does force you to buy into something in the way described in the original post.

Additionally, the expression of sexuality is still limited. One night stands are limited in the range of behaviors which they typically permit, between two average individuals of most modern societies. My post was about... stripping away... the symbolic meaning of sex and hyer-limited contexts in which it can be expressed by and between most individuals.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

I was worried it might come off like this. I actually don't have problems in this area (lost my virginity when I was 14, haven't stopped since). If you look back over the original post with this in mind, I think you might interpret it differently.

You've basically confessed now. Thanks.

 

[Kuu]

^^ Ugh. I'm sorry for that. It was not my intention to provoke a derailment. There has been some very recent trolling, and paranoia is running high in many members. Their behavior is nevertheless inexcusable considering the lack of solid evidence...
Though derailments in this forum are relatively common, you might as well get used to them.

Architects get funny looks if they try to explain the subtleties of modern architectural theory to builders, but it doesn't stop the building from being constructed, so long as there is enough power and are enough resources behind the project.

Oh I know. Do you happen to be an architect or was this just an spur of the moment comparison?

In many ways, no matter how subversive architecture tries to be, it is mostly on the service of the establishment, which is the only reason "subversive" architecture even gets done in the first place. What you are proposing is going against all systems of social order/control as well as instinct, and thus naturally unpopular (though not necessarily mistaken nor wrong).

In some ways, yes. However, as Taoisist retentionists argue, it is a powerful subliminal sexual drive which tends to lead to breakthroughs and an Einsteinian/Teslan drive for understanding. Perhaps the direction of this energy away from the mating dance towards other activities might be more effective for increasing expansion/diversity. I.e. what you talk of drives people to create lots of complex, pretty little foxtrots.

Indeed, I guess most of what is produced is petty and superfluous.

Focusing energy away from it, because sex is readily available and unrestricted, might lead to true and unlimited art-- i.e. ballet. Perhaps not, though.

Like sublimation, but instead of redirecting the unsatisfied drive, you actually satisfy it so as to quickly get it out of the way.... yes, makes sense.


(Eh, guess this means I have nothing else to add at the moment. I hope the thread manages to get back on track...)

 

[Carnap]

quote latro.

mmmm... i'm a lot more selfish than that. If I have someone I like, I'm going to want them to do a lot more than service me. And I don't usually lust people's bodies, I lust their minds and I like sensitive people, vulnerable people.

you don't find that in a one night stand.

ok, I'm leaving the thread. I have nothing to contribute as I have the feeling we are all talking at cross purposes.

 

[Latro]

I assure you that it isn't false. You can go wherever and talk to a guy or girl and end up hooking up, but certain symbolic conditions have to be met for that to happen (clothes, style of communication etc.). It's not hard to meet them if you apply yourself to it, but it does force you to buy into something in the way described in the original post.

Again, no. This would make sense, but it's not the case in practice.

Additionally, the expression of sexuality is still limited. One night stands are limited in the range of behaviors which they typically permit, between two average individuals of most modern societies. My post was about... stripping away... the symbolic meaning of sex and hyer-limited contexts in which it can be expressed by and between most individuals.

Wait, do you mean during the sex act, or in activity prior to and after the sex act? Because I see no reason why there is any limit in the activities during the sex act in a one night stand except perhaps a display of true interpersonal intimacy.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

Well, since the issue was obviously broached... I don't have any opinion yet whether XIII is back or not.

But, I think it's disturbing how intense a legacy XIII has created. Every new member seems to get attacked now...

I can't find it now, but I agree with Snowqueen's sentiment that it is to our credit when we give new members the benefit of a doubt, even if we risk falling prey to XIII again.
​

 

[Haruhi]

^^ Ugh. I'm sorry for that. It was not my intention to provoke a derailment. There has been some very recent trolling, and paranoia is running high in many members. Their behavior is nevertheless inexcusable considering the lack of solid evidence...
Though derailments in this forum are relatively common, you might as well get used to them.




Oh I know. Do you happen to be an architect or was this just an spur of the moment comparison?

In many ways, no matter how subversive architecture tries to be, it is mostly on the service of the establishment, which is the only reason "subversive" architecture even gets done in the first place. What you are proposing is going against all systems of social order/control as well as instinct, and thus naturally unpopular (though not necessarily mistaken nor wrong).



Indeed, I guess most of what is produced is petty and superfluous.



Like sublimation, but instead of redirecting the unsatisfied drive, you actually satisfy it so as to quickly get it out of the way.... yes, makes sense.


(Eh, guess this means I have nothing else to add at the moment. I hope the thread manages to get back on track...)

Very interesting post... I look forward to future discussions with you, if you do not yet have anything further to say about this one.

 

[FacetiousPersona]

When did you pop back into the picture, face?

I'm bored. Plus, how could I resist an opportunity to be annoying?

 

[Haruhi]

Thank you mods, I appreciate that you split the thread.

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=85729#post85729

Please post off-topic things there.

This whole situation is unsettling.

 

[Ogion]

Offtopic in this thread stops now. You can, if you must, post such things in the split thread.

Ogion

 

[Kuu]

Very interesting post... I look forward to future discussions with you, if you do not yet have anything further to say about this one.

Hope you enjoy the forum, in spite of what has just happened. Tumultuous times.
I, for one, am committed to upholding the tradition of quality discussions this forum was once known for, not too long ago. *dramatic wind*

 

[Enne]

Is it Tuesday, Haruhi?

 

[Haruhi]

Is it Tuesday, Haruhi?

Haha . Watch this space.

 

[Tyria]

Sexuality is, despite its omnipresence, prevented from being expressed openly and honestly in everyday interactions. In these situations, it is forbidden to look at certain parts of another's body, show 'too much' of one's own, openly express sexual desire in company, or even just have sex without buying into a complex contextual framework of meanings and ideological obligations.

Yet sexuality is expressed, in a restrictive hieroglyphic language, everywhere. A gesture. A certain nuance of speech. An image. In order to have sex with the type of person desired, it is usually necessary to act and live in a certain way. Certain products must be bought, certain clothes worn, and certain attitudes and beliefs held.

I hold that much of the motivation for buying into common conceptual frameworks is sexual. The corporate/governmental social hierarchy has a monopoly on sex, in that not buying into the belief systems necessary for interacting with them as they require results in social rejection and, thus, an absence of sex.

It is the repression of sexuality which facilitates this. Sex isn't ''easy'' and ''fast'' in modern society, and all of the steps of a complex human equivalent of the (non-human) animal mating dance must be fulfilled in order for it to be obtained. A certain type of clothing and make-up must be worn, and a certain worldview shared with the other.

This may not apply to exceptionally physically attractive people, but human individuals are generally socially defined. All that is needed for almost everybody to buy into the conceptual framework is for enough people to be subconsciously sexually motivated to do so. Our modern mating dance is also much more flexible than that of other animals. Abstract signifies, defined my individual cultures, are involved. If these abstract indicators, such as complicity in a single conceptual scheme, are not present, then sex does not happen.

As long as sexuality is repressed, as long as the human body is taboo, and as long as sex is a hugely ''meaningful'' act, the vast majority of people will be bound. People will be forced, subconsciously, to but into conceptual systems necessary for the fulfillment of the complex steps of human mating rituals.

This is used in advertisements, maintenance of hierarchical social structures, and the encouragement of conformity. The threat of unfulfilled sexuality is a gun held to the common man and woman's head. Sex is distant and abstract, so we buy and buy and work and work and do this and that in a disparate attempt to seem desirable according to the ever changing complex set of conceptual considerations that a potential mate will judge us by.

The highly intelligent individual can learn to ''pretend'' to buy into such conceptual frameworks, without actually doing so. Intelligence can bring increased freedom, but only in a restricted society. This option is not available to the common man and woman, who will inevitably-- emotionally-- buy into the rituals which they must adopt in order to have the sexual relationships that their instincts require.

Only when the human body is no longer taboo, when sex is no longer abstract and conceptually meaningful, and only when people are fucking in the streets and expressing their sexuality openly may we be free from conceptual homogony.

I do not argue that the set-up was consciously constructed by people who wanted power-- the world is too chaotic for that, and I am no conspiracy theorist. I *do* argue that the ultimate effect is the same, and that sexual restriction is one of the foundations of social and imaginative subjugation.

When (assuming it could or might happen) there is no underlying sexual motivation to buy into the conceptual schemes which were previously necessary for sex, people will be freer and more diverse.

Let the revolution start here. Let all sexuality be openly expressed on this forum! Let a simple physical act no longer be taboo! Let humans live, eat, and fuck freely, without the necessity of buying into complex and abstract systems which ensnare them and determine the course of their lives.

(last paragraph is why this is posted in ''INTP'').

First of all, I apologize for the less than welcoming reception that you received here. Things have been quite hectic here for the past few days. Everyone has their own way of dealing with things here.

Next, I will address what you have put forth. While sex may be one of the reasons that humans buy into common conceptual frameworks, they may buy into it for others reasons as well (power, fame, wealth, necessity, etc).

There are some interesting cases where sex was held in somewhat different attitudes. In the 60's and 70's, all the rage was about 'free' love. I'm not sure if you had to buy into the culture during that time (too young to remember, lol) there was a certain openness and disregard for the then current conceptual framework for sexual behavior and attitudes. You could say that modern sexual practices (at least in America) are strongly influenced from the acceptance or rejection of the sexual revolution in those times.

Another instance of (free?) sex took place at some temples (I am trying to recall this correctly, so bear with me). There are stories of women at the temples of (Baal?) who offered free sexual services to those who required them for a good harvest, to commune with Baal, etc. I'm not sure what the requirements were for the services offered, but I would assume membership might have been one (though I am not certain). I am not an expert or well read on the history of sexual behaviors/practices in human history, but I could try to help you to find some material about it if you are interested in it.

There is another thing that may stand in the way of total sexual freedom besides the taboo of the human body. I believe that thing is/are STD's. While some are not as dangerous as others, syphillis and AIDS can prove lethal if the correct pharmaceuticals/medical treatment are available. Even with access to the best antivirals available, you would still have to deal with the stigma that surrounds a deadly virus (AIDS) that can be spread from person to person (and cannot currently be cured). You would also have to deal with the economic impact of having to manage AIDS as a disesase state; antiretrovirals are very expensive.

In the long run, I think freedom is just as important with the responsibilities that it brings. I agree that the current system is quite restrictive in the obligatory mating dances that must occur, but perhaps people will hold fast to those traditions until there is no need to have meaning attached to them. Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for sexual selection in nature (and humans for that matter). I can't remember where I read it, but there was an article about kissing. Women were somehow able to (detect?) if their mates had a different (immunologic?) makeup than their own, and it served as a factor in sexual selection.

In conclusion, there are many ways that sexual selection and the game of mating rituals can be sliced to emphasize and minimize different 'modules' of the house of sexuality (you mentioned building in an earlier post, I couldn't resist )

I would love to discuss more on this topic in light of other aspects of sex, or more clarification on the mating rituals and meaning that you described in the OP.

 

[fullerene]

fuck... I just lost about 3/4 of this post when my ubuntu spontaneously logged me out. How frustrating. Can thunderstorms do that? It's never happened before. Anyway.... I just started writing it up again, and realized that my first post was better. I'm pretty sure I can take issues with a lot of connecting-assumptions you made, and use all your same observations to (more reasonably, imo) recenter all the evidence around acceptance and the loss of quality in the face of quantity, but this one was jumbled and I didn't like how it was turning out. I will attempt to organize my thoughts and try it again later, but thought I ought to post this little bit first (since I'm not sure how long writing an actual response will take)

since you're new, you wouldn't have had the time, yet, to learn that the first few posts to any thread that was intended to be deep are dismissive and usually insulting. Please don't take it personally; it doesn't meant that interested responses aren't coming. Obviously, the responses from people thinking about your subject will take longer to pop up, because they actually have to think about them.

 

[Haruhi]

It was not 'intended' to be 'deep'. I write what I think, and my thoughts are the way they are. I do not 'intend' them to be so.

I see your general point, though... but, why? When there are intelligent people and interesting discussions on this forum, what is the point in unintelligent and unconsidered replies? There seem to be whole forum sections dedicated to them. Surely they could be kept there.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to your response. My first post wasn't so much what I absolutely believe, as a summary of thoughts I've been having... posted in the hope that interesting discussion could ensue, so that I could modify or expand my perspective (and so that others could do the same). I prefer truly communicative discussions to hostile debates (where people try to 'prove' each other wrong, while ignoring valid points or information which might force them to modify their viewpoint if properly considered).

So, I'm fully prepared to modify the views I presented if you offer a perspective which is more coherent or interesting. I don't think true logic applies to subjective and limited debates such as those that apply on these forums, but I'm sure that, with the right mindset, it's possible for us (i.e. anybody seriously participating) to learn a lot from each other and alter or expand our own positions.

p.s. Will address Crimson_Knight shortly.

Next, I will address what you have put forth. While sex may be one of the reasons that humans buy into common conceptual frameworks, they may buy into it for others reasons as well (power, fame, wealth, necessity, etc).

There are some interesting cases where sex was held in somewhat different attitudes. In the 60's and 70's, all the rage was about 'free' love. I'm not sure if you had to buy into the culture during that time (too young to remember, lol) there was a certain openness and disregard for the then current conceptual framework for sexual behavior and attitudes. You could say that modern sexual practices (at least in America) are strongly influenced from the acceptance or rejection of the sexual revolution in those times.

Another instance of (free?) sex took place at some temples (I am trying to recall this correctly, so bear with me). There are stories of women at the temples of (Baal?) who offered free sexual services to those who required them for a good harvest, to commune with Baal, etc. I'm not sure what the requirements were for the services offered, but I would assume membership might have been one (though I am not certain). I am not an expert or well read on the history of sexual behaviors/practices in human history, but I could try to help you to find some material about it if you are interested in it.

There is another thing that may stand in the way of total sexual freedom besides the taboo of the human body. I believe that thing is/are STD's. While some are not as dangerous as others, syphillis and AIDS can prove lethal if the correct pharmaceuticals/medical treatment are available. Even with access to the best antivirals available, you would still have to deal with the stigma that surrounds a deadly virus (AIDS) that can be spread from person to person (and cannot currently be cured). You would also have to deal with the economic impact of having to manage AIDS as a disesase state; antiretrovirals are very expensive.

In the long run, I think freedom is just as important with the responsibilities that it brings. I agree that the current system is quite restrictive in the obligatory mating dances that must occur, but perhaps people will hold fast to those traditions until there is no need to have meaning attached to them. Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for sexual selection in nature (and humans for that matter). I can't remember where I read it, but there was an article about kissing. Women were somehow able to (detect?) if their mates had a different (immunologic?) makeup than their own, and it served as a factor in sexual selection.

In conclusion, there are many ways that sexual selection and the game of mating rituals can be sliced to emphasize and minimize different 'modules' of the house of sexuality (you mentioned building in an earlier post, I couldn't resist )

I would love to discuss more ion this topic n light of other aspects of sex, or more clarification on the mating rituals and meaning that you described in the OP.

W.r.t your first point, I agree completely. Necessity-- specifically hunger-- forced the majority of Europe's population to buy into the conceptual frameworks implicit in hierarchical serfdom for many centuries. It could be argued that this is more a matter of action than belief, but, as I previously argued, the common man cannot usually or consistently distinguish between a deeper identity and his superficial lifestyle and actions.
Sex is, to me, the major factor in much of first-world modern culture. Other factors still apply, of course, but I still think that the sexual openness I discussed in the first post would be equivalent in impact to the emancipation of slaves in the past few centuries.

----

I am interested in the material about human sexual history that you mentioned. Interestingly enough, many of the most sexually free cultures have also been the most... uh.... ''spiritually''.... developed. Pre-colonial India for example, was the origin of both the kama sutra and the some of the most advanced mystical systems this world has seen. Chinese Taoism had a strong element of what they called ''sexual alchemy''. Contrast this with the sexual and ''spiritual'' repression of Victorian England.
By ''spiritual'', I do not mean religious. I refer to sages and mystics and true holy men.

---

W.r.t STDs, it is indeed a problem. Hmmm.

I think that it's possible for a much greater degree of sexual freedom without increasing this risk. People fuck anyway, and will fuck no matter what. I'm more concerned with the context in which they fuck, and the actions which lead to fucking. These don't change the likelihood of STD infection unless they somehow make the sexual activity itself more dangerous, or discourage protection... or increase the frequency of sex in general across multiple partners.
Perhaps restriction serves a purpose in that sense, in that sexually cautious and inhibited people might avoid AIDS and end up with a stable long-term relationship and 2 kids. They propagate their genes.
However, I think that it is possible to be far more open about sexuality without increasing these risks. Being naked doesn't lead to STI infection, neither does talking about sex openly and with appreciation of the risks. Fucking in a park is no more dangerous than on a bed (unless you count angry mobs and arrests... but that wouldn't be a problem in the hypothetical situation which I've presented).

I've talked to some biochemists who believe that we might have a Vaccine (not a cure) for HIV within the next few decades. This would certainly alter this consideration, given the ease of treatment for other, most bacterial, infections and the relative harmlessness of herpes etc.

-------

About your last point... yes, indeed. Human sexuality, though, can be modified in expression to a great degree by culture and social structure. I think that discussions such as the one we are having will become increasingly pertinent as we gain the technology and knowledge to move beyond the (*seemingly*) random accidents of culture which have determined how we live and fuck as a species thus far.

 

[Felan]

Oh, thanks a fucking lot. That makes me feel really good about the post I spent ages writing, in the hope that there could be an interesting discussion about it. A reply like that really encourages a good atmosphere for debate, and I'm so glad that we have people as witty as you who are capable of coming up with such original responses.



This doesn't make any sense.

The stuff in-between is just mediocre. I will only reply to better reasoned posts which actually address the aesthetic, structure, axioms, and conclusions of my argument. If I wanted 3-line, dogmatic and uninteresting points like yours, I would post this on a forum full of ISTJs or some such type.

Carnap's post was more than 3 lines. I agree starting a post of with yawn is poor form, but she made some other points on target with the OP that you conveintently gloss over. To me it reeks of hypocrisy and your condescending and dismissive tone is more at home in a forum of ISTJs.

Moving more on topic, humans are a diverse collection: from individual to community. I think that diversity is far more important than universal freedom. I do think what happens between consenting adults in privacy is, for the most part, the concern of those adults alone. I think communities should have the rights to determine what is publicly decent for that community.

Trying to impose open/free sexuality on everyone is just as wrong as imposing closed/restricted sexuality on everyone.

I don't see you connection of corporations to sex, other than advertising uses sex to sell. The power of sex is such that is leeches into societal expression in many ways.

 

[Haruhi]

I don't see you connection of corporations to sex, other than advertising uses sex to sell. The power of sex is such that is leeches into societal expression in many ways.

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you may understand my position better if you reread the original post. I dealt with the corporations there (although I don't talk about them for long, the post as a whole is an... explanation of that point).

Trying to impose open/free sexuality on everyone is just as wrong as imposing closed/restricted sexuality on everyone.

Really? Giving people the freedom to choose, and not persecuting or ostracising those people for their choice, is as bad as preventing them from choosing? I think people 'should' be able to choose their own sexual behaviors and participate in them openly. This is not possible currently. The human body itself is taboo; this is simply insane.
I see no reason why self-actualised people should see sex as any more taboo than walking or eating.

Moving more on topic, humans are a diverse collection: from individual to community. I think that diversity is far more important than universal freedom. I do think what happens between consenting adults in privacy is, for the most part, the concern of those adults alone.

Agreed, but not ''in privacy''. I dealt with the reasons why in my first post.

I think communities should have the rights to determine what is publicly decent for that community.

Surely discussion between individuals is a prerequisite to this, given that communities consist of individuals?
Also what if communities don't really 'decide'? What if they just inherent a set of, almost, randomly determined cultural idiocies which they purport to be their own, clearly 'rational', opinions? Personally, being subject to such an automatic process makes me feel very uneasy. I would prefer an atmosphere generally as open (and intelligent) as possible, in which individuals can choose not to participate in certain behaviors or conversations, but cannot prevent others from doing so (wherever they choose, as long as it is not on private property).

Almost everywhere on earth is a ''community'' nowadays... it's very tiring for people who are different enough that they cannot happily fit into those communities but who are rare enough that they do not have the power to create a community which caters to their needs. I can't envisage any short-term solution... it's quite depressing.

 

[Felan]

I don't mean to be rude, but I think you may understand my position better if you reread the original post. I dealt with the corporations there (although I don't talk about them for long, the post as a whole is an... explanation of that point)..

Okay in my readings essentially no matter how much sexuality is repressed in a society it always bubbles up to the surface. I don't agree that corporations and government have a monopoly on sexuality, rather I think sex has more of a hold on government, corporations, religions, and humans.

You made reference to Chinese Taoism at one point. From what I've read China has a very long history of sexual conservatism. A painting of rain was considered provacative image of sexual intercourse not all that long ago from what I've read. In spite of those attitudes, China provided a great many advancements to humanity.

Europe was a collection of essentially uncouth barbarians when the Arab Muslims were the height of civilization, science, and sophiscation. This despite a sexual conservativism that as far as I know is unmatched in history (I'm probably wrong about this).

Ancient Greece was fairly sexually open (if I'm not mistaken) and the foundation of much of what makes Western civilization great.

Great individuals have often flaunted their sexuality to the shock and sometimes engaged fascination of masses of people that don't share in it.

All in all I don't really see a strong correlation between sexual openness and the success of a society. I don't sexual openess/closedness impacting a person course in life beyond a superficial level. The significant impact to me would seem to be those who would make their sexuality their life.

Really? Giving people the freedom to choose, and not persecuting or ostracising those people for their choice, is as bad as preventing them from choosing? I think people 'should' be able to choose their own sexual behaviors and participate in them openly. This is not possible currently. The human body itself is taboo; this is simply insane.
I see no reason why self-actualised people should see sex as any more taboo than walking or eating.

If someone doesn't buy into a nudist community than their isolation and ostracization would be as poignant as perhaps a nudist in a clothed community would feel. The freedom should be there to choose the community that suits those things that are most important to you, within some limits. There are diverse communities around the world and for an intelligent and enlightened individual borders provide a minor obstacle. My understanding is that European nations are more sexually open than the US for example.

As a citizen of the US I feel a deal of frustration about what I perceive as backward sexuality at times. The whole debate over gay marriage, transexual, transgender, and so on is annoying to me. In spite of my annoyance at it, I have an even stronger desire to not stomp on the communities that oppose such sexual openness. It is only through long patience and occassional sudden unplanned moments of history that can bring change in communities.

So yes I'm for effecting change in my country. I also whole-heartedly embrace other communities right to decide what is right for them. In my view it is the diversity of community and individual frameworks that encourage the greatest variety of thinking and innovation.

Agreed, but not ''in privacy''. I dealt with the reasons why in my first post.

Surely discussion between individuals is a prerequisite to this, given that communities consist of individuals?
Also what if communities don't really 'decide'? What if they just inherent a set of, almost, randomly determined cultural idiocies which they purport to be their own, clearly 'rational', opinions? Personally, being subject to such an automatic process makes me feel very uneasy. I would prefer an atmosphere generally as open (and intelligent) as possible, in which individuals can choose not to participate in certain behaviors or conversations, but cannot prevent others from doing so (wherever they choose, as long as it is not on private property).

Almost everywhere on earth is a ''community'' nowadays... it's very tiring for people who are different enough that they cannot happily fit into those communities but who are rare enough that they do not have the power to create a community which caters to their needs. I can't envisage any short-term solution... it's quite depressing.

I would advocate greater diversity in community views of acceptable sexuality and would strongly oppose forcing everyone to one particular view of acceptable sexuality. Homogenization is far worse for humanity as a whole than the unfortunate ostracization felt by individuals.

 

[quitejaded]

One time, on an IB forum, I made a random post about how I really wanted someone to squeeze my tits.

A few months later, someone had the courage to message me about the inquiry. I told him it was a joke, but if he would like to squeeze my tits, I'd surely appreciate it.

And so a real life friendship was born off the 'webz.

 

[Haruhi]

Please refer to fetish thread. My offer stands.

 

[Latro]

One time, on an IB forum, I made a random post about how I really wanted someone to squeeze my tits.

A few months later, someone had the courage to message me about the inquiry. I told him it was a joke, but if he would like to squeeze my tits, I'd surely appreciate it.

And so a real life friendship was born off the 'webz.

IB forum? Damn, I wish I had thought to look for one of those while I was still in IB...

 

[alkeides]

----

I am interested in the material about human sexual history that you mentioned. Interestingly enough, many of the most sexually free cultures have also been the most... uh.... ''spiritually''.... developed. Pre-colonial India for example, was the origin of both the kama sutra and the some of the most advanced mystical systems this world has seen. Chinese Taoism had a strong element of what they called ''sexual alchemy''. Contrast this with the sexual and ''spiritual'' repression of Victorian England.
By ''spiritual'', I do not mean religious. I refer to sages and mystics and true holy men.

---

This article may be relevant, particularly for the quoted portion.

 

[Lyra]

AHHH. I don't even want to have to think about what I wrote in these threads. Haruhi typed at 200/wpm, twisted truth purposefully, and didn't think. She was creating worlds around her, after all.

And she was trying to by domineering and offensive like... Haruhi.

Thanks for the link, though. I'm reading it now.

 

[spoirier]

Sorry to repeat this link I already posted to other threads but this thread seems quite the right topic. Until now, what I have put to that web site is just a rather small (but highly concentrated) set of ideas, analysis and arguments, but who knows if more people come to contribute and take initiatives, what can grow out of it: Singles of the world, unite !