What do all of you think of Sex? [Archive]

Bolshevika

14th December 2003, 05:19

Other than "it feels good", can you tell me your opinions on human sexuality and relationships? I am quite mixed on this issue.

I can tell you what, I don't think it's more than a matter of pleasure, a piece of you going into someone elses hole.

However, I am also strong advocate for women's rights, and freeing them from the chains of capitalist exploitation. Things like pornography, prostitution, etc are institutions made by the perverted ruling class. They take these poor girls, who are often times beautiful, and force them to take place in these disgusting acts. However, I must admit, I've looked at the pornography numerous, including today :unsure: and feel hypocritical in saying this, but I think it should be outlawed. You see, the bourgeois is cunniving, they make these things like pornography, cigerrettes, etc addictive and bound us to slavery and dependence for their products (I am currently enslaved by both items, and am definetly trying to quit).

I also disagree with many of my comrades on the question of marriage. I believe marriage is a form of exploitation, of patriarchy. The man is the head of the house, the man is the lone worker, the woman must cook, clean it is slavery I tell you!

What disgusts me the most is the lack of feminist consciousness amongst mainstream women. It seems that they like to be taken advantage of , they even have the nerve to deny they are being exploited and pull some stupid religious reason out and call those who are their allies "insane" or "emotionless", it shows the impact their oppressors have on them.

I also have a material outlook on issues as "love". I believe "love" is simply mutual attraction between two members of the opposite/same sex, and is simply made more of a big deal by the media than it is .

I believe condoms and other methods of birth control should be taught about in all schools, and birth control should be handed out in public places. We shouldn't promote absolute whoredom, but shouldn't demoralize women who like to have sex. Really, I constantly hear my male comrades complain about how women are so hard to get into their beds, and they don't realize that we do this to ourselves. By calling women who like to engage in sexual activity 'sluts' and 'whores' we demoralize them, and make them much more conservative in sexual activity.

What is your opinion on sex?

Urban Rubble

14th December 2003, 05:58

However, I am also strong advocate for women's rights, and freeing them from the chains of capitalist exploitation. Things like pornography, prostitution, etc are institutions made by the perverted ruling class. They take these poor girls, who are often times beautiful, and force them to take place in these disgusting acts. However, I must admit, I've looked at the pornography numerous, including today and feel hypocritical in saying this, but I think it should be outlawed. You see, the bourgeois is cunniving, they make these things like pornography, cigerrettes, etc addictive and bound us to slavery and dependence for their products (I am currently enslaved by both items, and am definetly trying to quit).

Prostitution is something than the Capitalist society promotes. Women who have no other prospects for accumulating capital see having sex as an easy way to get ahead, and it is. In a Socialist society we probably wouldn't have these kinds of problems, no woman would be forced into the sex trae. However, some women may enjoy this kind of work so legalized prostitution could be a possibility without having any oppression of the prostitutes.

As for porn, bring it on I say. As long as the women or men aren't being forced to do it then i see no problem.

I also disagree with many of my comrades on the question of marriage. I believe marriage is a form of exploitation, of patriarchy. The man is the head of the house, the man is the lone worker, the woman must cook, clean it is slavery I tell you!

The man being the head of the house and the lone worker and all that other shit have nothing to do with marriage. The idea of marriage is fine, the idea of the man being the head of the house is what needs to go. I think alot of people get the idea that when a woman is a housewife and stays home with the kids that she is somehow being opressed. I disagree. I think that if she is forced to do it it's oppression, but there are many reasons why females traditionally hold the roles they do. First, they bare the kids so they are usually the ones who stay at home and take care of them, which is fine. Also, women are not as suited for labor type work. They are physically weaker, this is another reason why men traditionally work as opposed to staying at him. What I don't get is how some people think a housewife just sits at home and doesn't work. A housewife is just as important a job as a doctor.

In todays society we are seeing more and more men staying at home while women go work however there is still a huge majority of women who stay at home because in all truth, women are usually better suited for the stay at home position. This is not sexism, it's fact.

What disgusts me the most is the lack of feminist consciousness amongst mainstream women. It seems that they like to be taken advantage of , they even have the nerve to deny they are being exploited and pull some stupid religious reason out and call those who are their allies "insane" or "emotionless", it shows the impact their oppressors have on them.

Again, you have to look at whether they are being forced into it or if they are happy to play the traditional role. If they are fine with being the homemaker then I see nothing wrong with it.

I also have a material outlook on issues as "love". I believe "love" is simply mutual attraction between two members of the opposite/same sex, and is simply made more of a big deal by the media than it is .

I agree. ALthough I don't really think it's the media's fault.

I believe condoms and other methods of birth control should be taught about in all schools, and birth control should be handed out in public places. We shouldn't promote absolute whoredom, but shouldn't demoralize women who like to have sex. Really, I constantly hear my male comrades complain about how women are so hard to get into their beds, and they don't realize that we do this to ourselves. By calling women who like to engage in sexual activity 'sluts' and 'whores' we demoralize them, and make them much more conservative in sexual activity.

That is very true, good point. I have no problem with critisizing people's sexual practices if they are being irresponsible, but there can't be a double standard. Many males hold the belief that it's O.K for them to be promiscuous but if a woman does it she is somehow unclean.

SonofRage

14th December 2003, 06:00

Porno is probably the only industry where women get paid more than men. They are not exploited any more than any other worker. Some people actually like that line of work. If we had socialism and people still wanted to do it, let them.

Jaha

14th December 2003, 06:25

it seems to me that most of the ideas towards sex in the american society are guided by the religious right and their attempt to control morality. most of the guiding factors would be discarded in a socialism.

an all-encompassing statement i can make is that in a socialism sex would be considered a private thing. government would not invade the bedroom as it were....

consentual sex between adults, consentual porno, widespread birth control would all be accepted. marriage would be a touchy topic. that would be where the conflict would heat up. marriage is traditionally a religious act. and since a communist nation is a "superstitious-free" zone, it would loose its status. i think marriage would grow into a thing only for people who truly feel in love. it would not be mainstream.

ahama

Bolshevika

14th December 2003, 06:26

Prostitution is something than the Capitalist society promotes. Women who have no other prospects for accumulating capital see having sex as an easy way to get ahead, and it is. In a Socialist society we probably wouldn't have these kinds of problems, no woman would be forced into the sex trae. However, some women may enjoy this kind of work so legalized prostitution could be a possibility without having any oppression of the prostitutes.

Yes. I think we should have a Prostitute union base, sort of like a much more safe and sanitary version of the whore house, where people can go once every month.

However, I do not recognize prostitution as real labour, because it contributes nothing to society. I believe it should be like a part time job, once a month all women who want to get payed for one days work does thos for extra income. The women although must do this on their free time and must have real jobs, such as factory workers, medical workers, etc as their full time jobs.

As for porn, bring it on I say. As long as the women or men aren't being forced to do it then i see no problem.

I think pornography should be heavily regulated, and like prostitution should be more of a part time job, rather than a real job. I also think all restrictions on buying pornography should be repealed.

The man being the head of the house and the lone worker and all that other shit have nothing to do with marriage. The idea of marriage is fine, the idea of the man being the head of the house is what needs to go. I think alot of people get the idea that when a woman is a housewife and stays home with the kids that she is somehow being opressed. I disagree. I think that if she is forced to do it it's oppression, but there are many reasons why females traditionally hold the roles they do. First, they bare the kids so they are usually the ones who stay at home and take care of them, which is fine. Also, women are not as suited for labor type work. They are physically weaker, this is another reason why men traditionally work as opposed to staying at him. What I don't get is how some people think a housewife just sits at home and doesn't work. A housewife is just as important a job as a doctor.

I most definetly disagree. In my opinion, all capitalist "traditions" are either from feudal times or religiously motivated. Most capitalist tradition, is bourgeois tradition, hence reactionary. The point of revolution is to change society in an extreme way, not just "reform" it. I think there should be massive propaganda campaigns promoting women in the work place and independent. Reason are not that much physically inferior and are definetly capable of some of the same labour as men (factory work, medical work, etc should be something appealing to women) .

Housewives are slaves. They get no income for their labour, they have no freedom, and are not recognized as independent human beings. They are simply given food, water, and housing as "pay". They are seen as commodities, like the negro slaves in the southern plantations.

In todays society we are seeing more and more men staying at home while women go work however there is still a huge majority of women who stay at home because in all truth, women are usually better suited for the stay at home position. This is not sexism, it's fact.

That is indeed sexism!

You see, the reactionary judeo-christian society we live in tells us women are housewives, owe their husbands, etc. This comment is like saying "the negro is better suited to pick cotton", it suggests women are only good at one thing. This is old thought. Women in past socialist countries prove this misconception wrong.

SonofRage

14th December 2003, 07:28

They are providing a service. This is entertainment and is as much as job as any. Marriage is a natural thing. There are many animals who choose mates for life. This is nature's way and I see little need to change it. As long as the people in the marriage are equal partners, it's no business of the state. I'd say the same thing for religion, it's none of the state's business.

Comrade Beria

14th December 2003, 08:33

As Comrade Marx said, women should be shared in common like property, and, as Comrade Lenin said, sex should be as mundane as drinking a glass of water. Death to private property! Death to America!

The Feral Underclass

14th December 2003, 09:50

Sex is a good thing and should be enjoyed by all without contstraints if they choose to do so.

Things like the sex industry and prostetution, they are results of capialitsm and male dominance over women, but at the same time I know a girl who is a striper and she enjoys her work. She enjoys having that power of men, she likes the attention and she likes the money. if that is what she likes I do not see a problem with it. However under the present conditions I think it should be unionized and recognized as a valid union, this will go some way to see the industry regulated and allow women to feel in mroe control. The same for prostitution. It should be made legal and unionized, on big Sex Union :P In germany prostitution is legal.

Again, the quesiton of marriage should be an option to anyone if they choose. I think it is not a question of fighting marriage, but fighting male dominant roles with society in general, then marriages will not become this prison like experience that it can be for some women.

Love is by no means a media hype...the emotions you feel are extremly your own. I dont think you can ever really know what love is until you feel it...and you will feel it...when you meet the right person you will not be able to control it...

Hoppe

14th December 2003, 10:04

In Holland prostitution is legal as well. So jobless women can now legitamely support themselves.

I don't see why women are being exploited. They are exploiters themselves by letting men pay for their human desire to procreate.

Misodoctakleidist

14th December 2003, 10:18

There is nothing wrong with prostitution or porn ect. whats wrong is the exploitation common to any proffesion.

mEds

14th December 2003, 10:27

Umm.. prostitution and porn are exploited by capitalism BUT CERTAINLY NOT CREATED by it.....

Saint-Just

14th December 2003, 12:36

Psychologically, people need one person to devote themselves to them at the exlusion of all others. Therefore, sex as an act divorced from this i.e. promiscuity, serves to diminish the value of this psychological need. Therefore we diminish ourselves as human beings in doing so.

Sex is self surrender, in sex one submits their body and sole to another individual, as such it is demeaning to do so without certain prerequisites. Such prerequisites are commitment and love. Self surrender is an act of love, so sex is an act of love.

Men and woman sometimes find sex very difficult because they have false preconceptions as to what it means, that is to say sex is sometimes viewed as merely an act of physical value, as such people become concerned only with this aspect of it and thus have difficulty in comprehending the act of sex. So, they are inhibited in seeking out the sexual act and enjoying it. Others revel in some of the false values given to sex, that is to say they revel in the physical value alone and have been duped into believing this, ultimately they will not lead a full and emotionally substantial life and will only hurt the feelings of others and themselves.

Sex without love and without relationship is practiced by people who have been fooled into accepting views of human values and psychology that are false. This has not come about by any real concerted effort but by years of confusion. There are many conflicting opinions on sex, not simply two conflicting opinions reactionary and progressive.

Many people hold these values I have outlined to varying degrees, many people do find emotional meaning to sex and would only have sex inside a relationship. Sex is enjoyable, but it can be a good thing and a bad thing depending on the cirumstances in which it is practised.

dopediana

14th December 2003, 12:50

urban rubble

Prostitution is something than the Capitalist society promotes. Women who have no other prospects for accumulating capital see having sex as an easy way to get ahead, and it is. In a Socialist society we probably wouldn't have these kinds of problems, no woman would be forced into the sex trae. However, some women may enjoy this kind of work so legalized prostitution could be a possibility without having any oppression of the prostitutes.

capitalist society promotes sex because sex sells. they play off natural desires. this also decreases the value of sex and narrows standards of beauty. prostitutes don't "get ahead" by being prostitutes. maybe models/singers/actresses get ahead by giving their producers blowjobs but i have yet to see any prostitute make it anywhere in life by being one with a few exceptions like evita. when you sell something (like your body in this case) it goes to the highest bidder. you compromise your virtue (or whatever you want to call it) to pay for your next meal. prostitution is never anyone's first job choice. a study was done of prostitutes in brazil. a whole whopping 2% do it because they like it. therefore, if i was driving through rio de janeiro at 2 in the morning and were to pick 50 prostitutes at random, only one of them would be there because she likes it. the remaining 49 endure the beatings, degradation, and STDs because it feeds the family.
now, there's always the possibility that if prostitution were legal and wasn't such a covert industry, there would be less abuse involved but i am still opposed to putting out for money. everyone deserves a chance to feel good but it's got to be a genuine good. and after all, it's not in the true spirit of communism to pay for intercourse.

CG717

Yes. I think we should have a Prostitute union base, sort of like a much more safe and sanitary version of the whore house, where people can go once every month.
However, I do not recognize prostitution as real labour, because it contributes nothing to society. I believe it should be like a part time job, once a month all women who want to get payed for one days work does thos for extra income. The women although must do this on their free time and must have real jobs, such as factory workers, medical workers, etc as their full time jobs.

oh. my. god.
yes, i put out once a month to keep my comrades in good spirits! i'm STD-free, use a condom, and change the sheets after each partner!

"so wilma, what are you doing this weekend?"
"going to put in overtime at the brothel to make a little extra to buy some christmas presents. that paper mill is such tedious business."

that's so full of shit it doesn't merit a proper response.

Housewives are slaves. They get no income for their labour, they have no freedom, and are not recognized as independent human beings. They are simply given food, water, and housing as "pay". They are seen as commodities, like the negro slaves in the southern plantations.

maybe in africa and china and south america, but in the US? welcome to the 21st century. housewives in this century actually stay at home because the husband makes so much money they don't need to work. and i have plenty of friends whose moms are housewives and absolutely love it. they get to cook fancy stuff for dinner and drive around in the passat wagons their husbands buy them and go to sales at JC penny's. it's a meaningless existence unless you're writing a novel or something but i know plenty who are perfectly content. and they even have maids come in once a week. and they're not treated like commodities at all.

in conclusion, i say lift the taboo on sex and put condom machines all over the place. if anything, ban violence on tv and the internet and put out naked people instead. porn is fine as long as it's just erotica and not girls fucking horses or violent sex with nipple clamps and nasty shit like that. if you expose people to it more it won't be such a huge deal.

redstar2000

14th December 2003, 14:13

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14 2003, 04:33 AM
As Comrade Marx said, women should be shared in common like property, and, as Comrade Lenin said, sex should be as mundane as drinking a glass of water.
No, Marx did not say that. What he said was that since the bourgeoisie has heard that communists want to abolish private property and since they regard their wives and daughters as property, then "it follows" that communists "want" to make women "public property". Marx was actually making a sarcastic reference to the bourgeoisie.

Nor did Lenin make the statement you attributed to him. It was the Left-Bolshevik Alexandra Kollentai who said it...and Lenin displayed his puritanical bias by remarking "who wants to drink from a dirty glass?".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

redstar2000

14th December 2003, 14:41

Psychologically, people need one person to devote themselves to them at the exclusion of all others.

Sez who?

Therefore, sex as an act divorced from this i.e. promiscuity, serves to diminish the value of this psychological need.

That conclusion does not follow from the dubious premise. One could be promiscuous and still have someone "exclusively devoted" to them.

Therefore we diminish ourselves as human beings in doing so.

Why?

See, this is a series of statements that "look like" logical reasoning...but, in fact, are completely disconnected from each other and entirely unsupported by evidence.

I think this always happens when someone attempts to "justify" what are simply preferences/prejudices.

Sex is self surrender, in sex one submits their body and soul to another individual, as such it is demeaning to do so without certain prerequisites. Such prerequisites are commitment and love. Self surrender is an act of love, so sex is an act of love.

CM, I think you should take up 19th century romantic poetry as a hobby...maybe even try writing some yourself.

And, for "heaven's" sake, there's no such thing as a "soul"!

...ultimately they will not lead a full and emotionally substantial life and will only hurt the feelings of others and themselves.

Not to keep repeating myself, but sez who?

Who's going around metering "emotional substantiality"? This person is faithful--meter reading 9.97. That person sleeps around--meter reading 1.06.

Sex without love and without relationship is practiced by people who have been fooled into accepting views of human values and psychology that are false.

Third time's a charm: sez who???

Psychology is a "border-line" science at best, and the number of verifiable statements it can make are few. There was a time when it was seriously asserted that women could be "over-sexed".

"Human values", upon close inspection, usually turn out to be class values...specific to a particular historical epoch.

CM's views, I'm afraid, have their roots in the Protestant Reformation and the rise of the early bourgeoisie...when marriage first became a matter of individual couples instead of family alliances.

To hear such views now is rather like stumbling over a living dinosaur.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

@[email protected]@

14th December 2003, 15:34

Perhaps, we should initiate a movement: Let the American soldiers go home crosses the Christmas day?

Se7en

14th December 2003, 15:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 01:19 AM
I also disagree with many of my comrades on the question of marriage. I believe marriage is a form of exploitation, of patriarchy. The man is the head of the house, the man is the lone worker, the woman must cook, clean it is slavery I tell you!

I take issue with this based on experience with my immediate family. My Dad works, my Mom works. My Dad cooks, my Mom cooks. My Dad cleans, my Mom cleans. No slavery there comrade.

If you love someone why not commit yourselves to each other for life? What's wrong with that? As long as the union is equal, it's a beautiful thing.

Saint-Just

14th December 2003, 18:13

That conclusion does not follow from the dubious premise. One could be promiscuous and still have someone "exclusively devoted" to them.

No, because if you see sex as baring one's sole then doing that with several people means you are not devoting your sole to one individual, but rather many. That is not exlusive.

See, this is a series of statements that "look like" logical reasoning...but, in fact, are completely disconnected from each other and entirely unsupported by evidence.

I think this always happens when someone attempts to "justify" what are simply preferences/prejudices.

You may be right here, I am not of a great enough intellect to construct a good argument.

CM, I think you should take up 19th century romantic poetry as a hobby...maybe even try writing some yourself.

And, for "heaven's" sake, there's no such thing as a "soul"!

I have written poetry before when I was in school, and I got a lot of complements for it and a good audience from the Church. However, I was and still am an atheist. I do like 19th Century romantic poetry, although not all of it as my views are slightly different to 19th Century views. I have read 19th Century poetry that talks about coercing many woman into sex and ones about how difficult it is to make a woman lose her virginity. As I said, people should not be fearful of having sex.

Urban Rubble

14th December 2003, 20:17

Housewives are slaves. They get no income for their labour, they have no freedom, and are not recognized as independent human beings. They are simply given food, water, and housing as "pay". They are seen as commodities, like the negro slaves in the southern plantations.

The fact that you can equate a housewife to a slave on a plantation is an insult to what those slaves went through. You don't they get income ? So half of everything the huband makes is not income ? You're crazy. How do they have any less freedom ? They are given alot more than the bare essentials you claim they do, again, they make half of what the husband makes. This is not an argument against marriage, this is an argument to get rid of male dominance.

You see, the reactionary judeo-christian society we live in tells us women are housewives, owe their husbands, etc. This comment is like saying "the negro is better suited to pick cotton", it suggests women are only good at one thing. This is old thought. Women in past socialist countries prove this misconception wrong.

Are you blind ? Do you totally ignore the fact that women, on average, are not as physically strong as males ? Why would they want to go work a field when they have the option to stay at home and take care of the family/household ? There is nothing sexist about it, that is how it is. Women should not be forced into anything, but they will always be better suited for the homemaker life. That does not mean they can't go work, they can, but the majority choose not to, and I'm sure they would continue to in a Socialist society.

The only sexist thing I've seen in this thread is when you try to downplay the role of the woman as a homemaker. This is a very important role, possible the most important role in society, and you are acting like it isn't a real job. This is a hugely important role.

Do you really deny that women are more naturally suited for this ? They bare the child, naturally they would be the one to stay at hom. They are usually not as strong as a male physically, especially after child birth.

Stephan

14th December 2003, 21:33

In response to the original question: "What do you all think of sex?"

Basically, there are two types of sex. 1. Romantic Sex. 2. Reproductive Sex.

1. Romantic sex is entirely a selfish act. Those who take part in it are simply gorging themselves on the pleasures of the body and mind. Obviously, in any collectivist system such selfishness should be morally condemned and banned by law.

2. Sex however is needed to maintain the collective group. Therefore, with under socialism, I'd find it appropriate that this type of sex would be highly regulated. There would be centers where people would donate sperm and eggs, and the state would grow the fetus's themselves and place them in the state institutions once born.

Ideally this would be achieved without anyone feeling any sensual pleasure whatsoever, however there will always be those who live selfishly, but they can be dealt with. I mean come on, the only legitimate reason for reproduction is to prolong the collective, which is what should make the people happy.

BuyOurEverything

14th December 2003, 21:48

synthesis

14th December 2003, 22:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2003, 10:33 PM
In response to the original question: "What do you all think of sex?"

Basically, there are two types of sex. 1. Romantic Sex. 2. Reproductive Sex.

1. Romantic sex is entirely a selfish act. Those who take part in it are simply gorging themselves on the pleasures of the body and mind. Obviously, in any collectivist system such selfishness should be morally condemned and banned by law.

2. Sex however is needed to maintain the collective group. Therefore, with under socialism, I'd find it appropriate that this type of sex would be highly regulated. There would be centers where people would donate sperm and eggs, and the state would grow the fetus's themselves and place them in the state institutions once born.

Ideally this would be achieved without anyone feeling any sensual pleasure whatsoever, however there will always be those who live selfishly, but they can be dealt with. I mean come on, the only legitimate reason for reproduction is to prolong the collective, which is what should make the people happy.
http://www.name-traces.com/papers/kids/dinosaur.jpg

You know, if you're going to pose as a Leftist to try to make us look bad, you could at least not appropriate your false ideas directly from Orwell.

SonofRage

14th December 2003, 22:20

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 14 2003, 09:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Dec 14 2003, 09:13 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 14 2003, 04:33 AM
As Comrade Marx said, women should be shared in common like property, and, as Comrade Lenin said, sex should be as mundane as drinking a glass of water.
No, Marx did not say that. What he said was that since the bourgeoisie has heard that communists want to abolish private property and since they regard their wives and daughters as property, then "it follows" that communists "want" to make women "public property". Marx was actually making a sarcastic reference to the bourgeoisie.

Nor did Lenin make the statement you attributed to him. It was the Left-Bolshevik Alexandra Kollentai who said it...and Lenin displayed his puritanical bias by remarking "who wants to drink from a dirty glass?".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas [/b]
Thanks to redstar2000 for clearing up nonsense as usual.

Stephan

14th December 2003, 22:30

I am not posing as a leftist. And, I admit, I am ignorant of the applications of the philosophies behind socialism. I didn't know the idea I expressed was Orwellian. Orwell was a pathetic wrtier in my opinion, so I probably agree with you there.

However, instead of smearing me by calling me stupid, perhaps you could address the idea.

BuyOurEverything

14th December 2003, 23:00

For some reason, you seem to think that the purpose of socialism is to crush freedom. In fact, it is quite the opposite, socialism is freedom. Equally distributing the wealth gives freedom to all people, not just the rich.

1. Romantic sex is entirely a selfish act. Those who take part in it are simply gorging themselves on the pleasures of the body and mind. Obviously, in any collectivist system such selfishness should be morally condemned and banned by law.

Stupid is about the only word I can use to describe this. It is just plain wrong. As you provide no reasons for this statement, I can't really comment further.

Therefore, with under socialism, I'd find it appropriate that this type of sex would be highly regulated. There would be centers where people would donate sperm and eggs, and the state would grow the fetus's themselves and place them in the state institutions once born.

Again, I don't know why you think that. I am a socialist and I would oppose that. I don't really know how I can rebute it any more than that.

Ideally this would be achieved without anyone feeling any sensual pleasure whatsoever, however there will always be those who live selfishly, but they can be dealt with. I mean come on, the only legitimate reason for reproduction is to prolong the collective, which is what should make the people happy.

You are seriously misinformed. Why do you think socialism opposes pleasure?

Stephan

14th December 2003, 23:50

Buyoureverything,

"socialism is freedom." Right, we talked about this in the other thread. Bounded servitude of the individual creates freedom for "the people." I understand this part.

My point is that with socialism, or any system based on collectivism, selfishness is what will lead to the system's collapse. First you have someone in love, not because it's good for society, but because it's good for them, they selfishly value the person they are in love with. This selfish pleasure could easily lead an individual to thinking that other material values should be pursued for selfish ends. ANd then, BAM!, all of a sudden you have someone screaming "Don't tread on me!" and saying that they don't give a damn about society. You have someone who starts having counter-socialistic thoughts such as " If I work this field and produce wheat, the wheat is my property!"

Without any control, I think that this system would definitly collapse.

Buyoureverything,

You state: "I am a socialist and I would oppose that. I don't really know how I can rebute it any more than that." Maybe your not as socialistic as you think then, if you can't explain why what I am saying is not consistent with socialism.

I mean, as already established in the other thread, if someone thinks it is moral to hold on to what they produce, ie they believe in private property, they should be arrested and sent to jail. This is because socialists view this as immoral selfishness. Same thing goes for selfish love. Come now Buyoureverything, certainly romantic love to you is a selfish desire that society would be better without, right? So, I suggested that, since it is immoral, being a selfish act, it should be condemned by law. Isn't this just being consistent with principle?

Stephan

14th December 2003, 23:55

Oh, and to answer your quesiton a little more explicity. Why don't I think socialism opposes pleasure? It depends on what type of pleasure. Socialism most certainly does oppose selfish pleasure. However, selfless pleasure would be fine I think.

Ex. You should be happy that your country harvests 120% more wheat than they did last year.
YOu shouldn't be happy just because you are in a romantic love affair. Hell, that affair may be taking time away from your work, which means you are taking precious labor away from the state. This could be looked at as an indirect mode of theft! You're stealing time from the state for your own selfish pleasures.

If this is not correct, what the hell am I missing?

Rasta Sapian

15th December 2003, 00:00

oh baby, when i get that feeling, that sexual healing, oh ya

feels good! oh lord!

I slept with a prostitute before, only once, i don't plan to again anytime soon.

my maudo: dowatchalike, whenulike, howulike, spread love but don't be an asshole about it :)

dopediana

15th December 2003, 00:47

i am of the opinion that all males cease responding to this thread on the topic of prostitution immediately and let the women make a decision on it.

synthesis

15th December 2003, 01:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 12:55 AM
Oh, and to answer your quesiton a little more explicity. Why don't I think socialism opposes pleasure? It depends on what type of pleasure. Socialism most certainly does oppose selfish pleasure. However, selfless pleasure would be fine I think.

Ex. You should be happy that your country harvests 120% more wheat than they did last year.
YOu shouldn't be happy just because you are in a romantic love affair. Hell, that affair may be taking time away from your work, which means you are taking precious labor away from the state. This could be looked at as an indirect mode of theft! You're stealing time from the state for your own selfish pleasures.

If this is not correct, what the hell am I missing?
Read this and then get back to us.

http://www.geocities.com/c_ansata/decad/socialism.html

BuyOurEverything

15th December 2003, 01:59

i am of the opinion that all males cease responding to this thread on the topic of prostitution immediately and let the women make a decision on it.

What?

suffianr

15th December 2003, 02:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 05:48 AM

In response to the original question: "What do you all think of sex?"

Basically, there are two types of sex. 1. Romantic Sex. 2. Reproductive Sex.

1. Romantic sex is entirely a selfish act. Those who take part in it are simply gorging themselves on the pleasures of the body and mind. Obviously, in any collectivist system such selfishness should be morally condemned and banned by law.

2. Sex however is needed to maintain the collective group. Therefore, with under socialism, I'd find it appropriate that this type of sex would be highly regulated. There would be centers where people would donate sperm and eggs, and the state would grow the fetus's themselves and place them in the state institutions once born.

Ideally this would be achieved without anyone feeling any sensual pleasure whatsoever, however there will always be those who live selfishly, but they can be dealt with. I mean come on, the only legitimate reason for reproduction is to prolong the collective, which is what should make the people happy.

You really have no idea what socialism is. I suggest you educate yourself before you make yourself look even stupider than you already have.

1. Romantic sex is entirely a selfish act. Those who take part in it are simply gorging themselves on the pleasures of the body and mind. Obviously, in any collectivist system such selfishness should be morally condemned and banned by law.

That's scary, dude.

But let's suppose that you're a virgin. And you prefer not to have sex at all, at least, until you finally get married.

Isn't that selfish? Denying people the opportunity to get you laid? Repressing their natural instincts to fornicate and propogate their own human-spawn across the continents? Keeping yourself clean and holy until the coming of the Messiah or whatever it is that your Super-Christian psyche is manifesting through your insipid replies?

Why not?

To fuck or not to fuck.

That is no question.

Stephan

15th December 2003, 03:45

Suffian, your post was mostly incoherent, however something can be said to it.

First, I'm not Christian, I'm an athiest.

Second of all, I was simply trying to get into the mind set of a socialist on the topic of sex. I still think that what I said was consistent with the philosophy behind socialism. That is, truely selfish pleasures are detrimental to the state.

HOwever, you echoed my second point. Being, a socialist would want the citizens to view non-romantic reproduction as something wonderful, since it would keep the collective alive.

It's funny though, that you should accuse me of being a Christian when in fact I was trying to think like a socialist. Interesting...

hazard

15th December 2003, 03:45

this may seem confusing, but I see sex like all other appetites in a Platonic sense. it appeals to that which is necessary for survival. such as eating and sleeping.

now although I view sex like this, that does not mean I condone or think it wise to having three square fucks a day. to view sex as it relates to this platonic, animalistic, appetite portion of ourselves means I similarly view it in the exact same way that Plato did. it must be suprressed. such as overeating and oversleeping serve no beneficial capacity, neither does having excessive sex.

under the same realm of this ancient understanding, the next higher order, passion, covers how sex should be handled. with love. this is where I depart from the ancient understanding, as passion, much like appetite, are to be subserviant to reason.

speaking logically, that is with reason, it is unreasonable for all of the passions, such as love and hate and truth and justice, to be ruled by reason. they exist almost entirly outside of reason's realm. Plato even designed "heaven" under such a concept as holding these passions in their most natural setting, unfettered by human interaction or constraint. reason cannot ever rule over such desires, and it never should. reason works best to subjegate appetite, such as " I want only to ever have one sexual partner " and allow passion to complete the task of locating and entertaining that sexual partner. reason is, in effect, subserviant to passion. Plato might have meant that reason should rule, but since it can't, it should rule over appetite at the very least. clearly reason is of a higher value than passion in the human species anyway. in journeying through life the final destination, according to plato, is an existence of pure passion that can only be achieved AFTER life. so reason serves the purpose of controling our animal drive so that we may all eventually gain access to "heaven".

much of my criticisms of capitalism revolves around their use of appetite to control the population. eating and sleeping and fucking are all that the public are really supposed to think about. and a sign of success in capitalism is the amount of eating and sleeping and fucking you have or have access to. essentially there is a ratio to all of these effects. the amount of sleep you are allowed is based upon how much you are forced to work where the more money you make means the more access to sleep you have. the amount, or value, of food you eat works in the same way. similarly, sex is taught to the public in that men must generate money so that they can display to women their ability to provide excess of food and sleep so that they can fuck such women. women, similarly, are taught how to rank men on this basis so they can discard suitors on an appropriately sliding scale.

naturally sleep can be expanded to contain rest: luxury leisure items like vacations and swimming pools and sports cars. eating can be expanded to contain survivability: houses and weapons and education. capitalism requires sex in order to protect their regime from this brutal truth. as soon as the populace discovers that they have been filtered and carbon copied like this, THEY SHOULD revolt on the spot on sheer principle. if not for sex that is.

see, sex is so oversold and raised to such a level of importance that the populace is dragged down to a level of horned out and idiotic zombies all looking to screw each other. they don't care if their existence is planned out from birth. they only care if they're gonna get to fuck. and if they're not, they only care when they're gonna fuck again. and if they don't care about that, they oly care when the next issue of hustler comes out. and if they don't care about that, then they probably are considered insane. strangely, when told of sex being used in such a way, the population probably is so turned on that they similarly don't care. sex driven simpletons subsisting for the seduction and soothing sanguinity of sex.

I'm starting to think that sex is they key population control of capitalism used in order to prevent revolution. mostly because of its relative cost. all it takes is the universal misuse through overuse of this concept and a revolution can never occur.

Saint-Just

15th December 2003, 14:21

Originally posted by DyerMaker+Dec 14 2003, 11:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DyerMaker @ Dec 14 2003, 11:14 PM)
[email protected] 14 2003, 10:33 PM
In response to the original question: "What do you all think of sex?"

Basically, there are two types of sex. 1. Romantic Sex. 2. Reproductive Sex.

1. Romantic sex is entirely a selfish act. Those who take part in it are simply gorging themselves on the pleasures of the body and mind. Obviously, in any collectivist system such selfishness should be morally condemned and banned by law.

2. Sex however is needed to maintain the collective group. Therefore, with under socialism, I'd find it appropriate that this type of sex would be highly regulated. There would be centers where people would donate sperm and eggs, and the state would grow the fetus's themselves and place them in the state institutions once born.

Ideally this would be achieved without anyone feeling any sensual pleasure whatsoever, however there will always be those who live selfishly, but they can be dealt with. I mean come on, the only legitimate reason for reproduction is to prolong the collective, which is what should make the people happy.

You know, if you're going to pose as a Leftist to try to make us look bad, you could at least not appropriate your false ideas directly from Orwell. [/b]
However, Orwell's views do not entirely disagree with this. Orwell did not value romance, he thought people should simply have sex with whoever they want. Orwell's like is demonstrated by the way Winston and Julia betray each other in 1984, Orwell does not believe in any kind of romantic bonds. Julia is very romantic, in onw encounter she tells Winston how many men she has had promiscuous sex in a field before him.

CASTRO_SUCKS

15th December 2003, 16:06

Jesus Christ!!! Do you people REALLY need to question EVERYTHING???? I mean goddamnit people.....its JUST SEX!!!!! Does EVERYTHING need to be justified? Labelled? You all need to go out get yourself someone (other than yourselves) that would bring you to orgasm, and FORGET this NONSENSE about questioning sex...(or EVERYTHING for that matter)! :angry: :angry:

el_profe

15th December 2003, 16:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 04:45 AM
Suffian, your post was mostly incoherent, however something can be said to it.

First, I'm not Christian, I'm an athiest.

It's funny though, that you should accuse me of being a Christian when in fact I was trying to think like a socialist. Interesting...
They accuse you of being christian because they hate christians. They probably talk about freedom of religion but christianity or jews are not included in that freedom of religion. Since they dont like christians and they dont like your point of view they associate one with the other. i.e. if i sya i am against abortion somone will call me a right wing christian. Most anti-religion and some atheist hate christians because they where brought up in a or house with some type of chirstian (catholics also) roots so they have resentment against that god that they where taught existed thus making them be antil-religion (which means anti jew, christian, catholic, but muslims are ok) . Most of them just blame "God" for problems theyve had and they proclaim to be atheist when they are anti god . WHEre in homes where they didnt really care about religion you dont see that hate against christians or jews or catholics. they just dont believe in that stuff.

cubist

15th December 2003, 16:25

CS yes everything does need questioning, it is through not questioning things that bad things happen,

asides from which its nice too no what other socialists think about it and what cappies think it helps build an impression of everyone and their ideas

CASTRO_SUCKS

15th December 2003, 17:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 05:25 PM
CS yes everything does need questioning, it is through not questioning things that bad things happen,

asides from which its nice too no what other socialists think about it and what cappies think it helps build an impression of everyone and their ideas
Indeed cephas, and I really appreciate your patience in MY frustration...but if I were to question EVERYTHING in my life...down to the smallest detail, it would probably then spiral into my struggle to justify each little event, which would no doubt lead to my wondering if I even deserve ANYTHING in my life, and inevitably get me to ponder if I even deserve to be alive. My frustration in questioning everything is "Why not just accept some things as they are and enjoy them?" I mean, so far, what I've seen in my little time here as an outsider is that a lot of you guys are very unhappy individuals, questioning and labelling everything around. I understand and appreciate the quest for knowledge, but am I now, to stop right before having sex and question the very act? Should I NOT enjoy HAVIONG sex from now on? should I view it as some politically inferior act that would bring on the demise of humanity? I mean come on.

Urban Rubble

15th December 2003, 20:02

We question things because that is a logical step in personal evolution and human evolution for that matter. If you don't question society's constructs and everything you are taught what kind of mindless drone are you ? I do it because I have come to realize that not everything I have been taught about life is true, so now I question things and come up with my own conclusions.

Also, I have a girlfriend who I have sex with every single day, so I don't know what that advice about finding a girl to have sex with is all about.

CASTRO_SUCKS

15th December 2003, 21:36

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 15 2003, 09:02 PM
so now I question things and come up with my own conclusions.

What kind of "logic" IS that anyway? You have to ASK things to draw your OWN conclusions?? How about you just ENJOY that so-called sex you have with your girlfriend and stop questioning it, eh? Whats wrong with just ENJOYING something?! Jesus!

canikickit

15th December 2003, 22:10

You have to ASK things to draw your OWN conclusions??

Stop asking questions. You fucking nut.

10 ways to post like a conspiracy nut (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=12&t=14464)

Not everyone can go for the slack jawed yokel lifestyle you've chosen for yourself, Mr. _SUCKS.

Urban Rubble

15th December 2003, 22:24

What kind of "logic" IS that anyway? You have to ASK things to draw your OWN conclusions?? How about you just ENJOY that so-called sex you have with your girlfriend and stop questioning it, eh? Whats wrong with just ENJOYING something?! Jesus!

Wow. You've hit a new low. So how do you draw conslusions if you don't question things ? Seriously, you actually think that just accepting everything the world tells you is a good way to go about things ? And you cappies wonder why we call you brainwashed. Yes, I question most things about life so I can draw my OWN conclusion, not the conclusion of the person that taught me. Idiot.

Also, please explain to me how questioning something take the enjoyment out of it. You told me to stop questioning it and enjoy the sex, has it occurred to you that I do both ? I do enjoy it, that doesn't mean I can't question it. I enjoy skateboarding more than almost anything on earth, but sometimes when I am laying in the hospital with my 6th concussion I question if it's time to stop or not.

CASTRO_SUCKS

15th December 2003, 22:37

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 15 2003, 11:24 PM
....So how do you draw conslusions if you don't question things? ....
Funny that....I go out and experience them for myself! Imagine that!

Oh and you can KEEP your "idiot" remark!

And canikickit: I thought you were smarter than that! Guess I was wrong!

canikickit

15th December 2003, 22:46

C_S, if you read the link I provided you will see that you adhere to a lot of the criteria.

People should question and reflect on everything they encounter in life.
You can enjoy sex and still think about what it all means, and there is stuff to think about.

You say you go out and experience things for yourself. After you have experienced them, do you not think about those things. When one says "question things", they don't mean asking their teacher, they mean reflection and consideration.

I'm sorry for my callous remarks.

CASTRO_SUCKS

15th December 2003, 22:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2003, 11:46 PM
People should question and reflect on everything they encounter in life.
You can enjoy sex and still think about what it all means, and there is stuff to think about.

You say you go out and experience things for yourself. After you have experienced them, do you not think about those things. When one says "question things", they don't mean asking their teacher, they mean reflection and consideration.

I'm sorry for my callous remarks.
I guess I can see where you're coming from...BUT sometimes its too much thought process. There are times when I just want to sit back and enjoy things in life without having to think/worry/ponder them. Call me blind, but sometimes this is NOT a bad thing.

canikickit

15th December 2003, 22:59

Of course not. It's a great thing. :lol:
But the starter of this thread probably wasn't in one of those moods when he started this thread.

Stephan

15th December 2003, 23:04

CASTR0_SUCKS, (duh)

Man is a rational being. The only proper way he can survive is through an active process of reason. That is, by perceiving reality and integrating his precepts into concepts. This process is volitional, i.e. - man must choose to excercise his rational faculty. When observing reality and using reason to form rational principles, man has to ask questions. He has to ask "What caused this effect?", or "What will the effect be of this cause?" This is specifically seen the applied sciences such as engineering.

A man cannot build a hut without observing the principle of gravity. He may not explicitly ask those questions, but through his observations and reason, he will realize that his shelter must have vertical support in order for it to stand. As civilization progresses, man asks more and more questions until he understands what gravity is, and he understands how he can build beautiful skyscrapers.

All in all, my point is that questioning is so important. And not just in science either, which is what many people think. QUestioning why you feel certain ways, such as why you are attracted to someone, tells you a lot about yourself and the nature of love in general.

As such, I disagree with you. Rationally questioning everything is simply being consistent with human nature. Sex itself is something that I think should be questioned most by everyone.

When you go out and experience things, you must think at the same time in order to understand the consequences and implications of your experiences. But still, going out and having sex is not going to teach you what sex is really all about. You can learn much more by sitting down, thinking, and above all, questioning yourself.

So, CASTRO_SUCKS in the famous words of Salt 'n Peppa...

Let's talk about sex baby, just you and me...

:o

dopediana

15th December 2003, 23:32

Originally posted by CASTRO_SUCKS+Dec 15 2003, 11:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CASTRO_SUCKS @ Dec 15 2003, 11:54 PM)
[email protected] 15 2003, 11:46 PM
People should question and reflect on everything they encounter in life.
You can enjoy sex and still think about what it all means, and there is stuff to think about.

You say you go out and experience things for yourself. After you have experienced them, do you not think about those things. When one says "question things", they don't mean asking their teacher, they mean reflection and consideration.

I'm sorry for my callous remarks.
I guess I can see where you're coming from...BUT sometimes its too much thought process. There are times when I just want to sit back and enjoy things in life without having to think/worry/ponder them. Call me blind, but sometimes this is NOT a bad thing. [/b]
when you really think about it, there's no point to our existence. so we have to make a reason, and the reason is to think about what we do.

hell, even when i'm not questioning the deeper meanings and underworkings of sex, i can't deny that there's always something going on like "oh, i hope he does that again" or "did that turn him off."

it's impossible to just shut down and enjoy something purely for enjoying it. at least for me anyways.

and cani, withdraw that apology. your remark was fine. for a 30-something guy he ought to know how to control himself. nothing you were saying was so out of line.

tyler, sex every single day? don't you get tired of it? and in terms of pills and/or condoms every year for each day of the year, it comes to more than 300 dollars per year (depending on what you buy, of course). pretty amazing.

Stephan

16th December 2003, 02:16

when you really think about it, there's no point to our existence.

Um, why are you still here then? Why not go commit suicide?

The "point to existence", or as I like to say an "individual's purpose" is to live free and happy. INDIVIDUAL HAPPINESS! :D That is what the purpose of life is!

Ofcourse, it's a rational selfish happiness, not hedonism or anything of that sort.

If your life is lived in servitude to a God/Allah/Society then you'd be 100% right. There would be no point of living. Just look at the ethics of devout ::insert religious affiliation here:: and also of devout collectivists. They have codes of altruism - codes of self-sacrifice, where individual happiness is shunned.

I say to hell with all of that. I have one life here on Earth, and nobody, and I mean nobody, is going to stop me from maximizing my happiness.

(Sorry if this is a digression, as I have been quite vocal about digressions in the thread I've been talking in; however, I couldn't let someone think that horrible nihilistic thought.)

CASTRO_SUCKS

16th December 2003, 02:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 12:32 AM
...and cani, withdraw that apology. your remark was fine. for a 30-something guy he ought to know how to control himself. nothing you were saying was so out of line.

Not out of line? So "you're a fucking nut" and "Mr_Sucks" should be a standard greeting between civilised adults then? Especially since 'Canikickit' has been one of the ones that have always posted intelligently and respectfully in this forum? Whats the matter with YOU? Can't stand that two people CAN be civilised? This is the problem with society..NAY the WORLD...today: "Hey WHY take accountability for what I've done/said? It the other guys fault!" Oh, I get it...its only proper when I apologize, huh? Leave well enough alone, lady. Canikickit excused himself for what he said, and now we can/should move past that. Hell, I admire him for having the decency to apologize! He's a hell of a lot bigger of a person in my book for doing so! Many of you think apologizing for thoughtless words/actions/insults is beneath you. Had it been me to say something irrational to someone that didn't deserve it, I would have been the first one to apologize, much like I did in one of my early posts on this board.

But I guess thats why mankind is doomed to fight on and on until the end!

PS-And what exactly did I say that labeled me "out of control" in your frail sensitive little eyes THIS TIME?!

dopediana

16th December 2003, 02:42

well, if you want to be so fucking existential about it, there are two perspectives to the meaning of life:

1. reproduce and make your species as powerful as possible and be comfortable.
2. recognize the right of other species to exist as well and try to live accordingly.

this could take this thread on a severe tangent.

hazard

16th December 2003, 02:52

castro sucks:

something has drawn me to respond to some of your conclusions

maybe its your indirect reference to "a fucking nut" that draws my response. I take stuff like that personally. don't ask why, and if you do, I won't say anyway.

your position on not analyzing the process of sex is not only risk y, it is dangerous. its like, I dunno, not cooking a chicken properly and just eating it sort of raw. you'll be glued to the throne in agony for hours. similarly, to simply indulge in physical pleasure without considering what you are about to participate in is equally as dangerous, if not more so.

whether you think this process of questioning can go too far or not is up to you. sex is not just an interaction between two unreasoning and unfeeling entities. it is an intmate interaction between humans. that is, REASONING and FEELING beings. to subtract these components really drops our species to the level of lower invertibrates. I would never have sex with someone I didn't love. if that means I have to analyze and think about the process for YEARS, so be it.

if you want to toss your genitals around like a yo-yo, that is your problem. but don't be so vain to assume that "simple pleasure" is condonable in light of the modern human condition and all of its problems.

dopediana

16th December 2003, 02:53

Originally posted by CASTRO_SUCKS+Dec 16 2003, 03:39 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CASTRO_SUCKS @ Dec 16 2003, 03:39 AM)
[email protected] 16 2003, 12:32 AM
...and cani, withdraw that apology. your remark was fine. for a 30-something guy he ought to know how to control himself. nothing you were saying was so out of line.

Not out of line? So "you're a fucking nut" and "Mr_Sucks" should be a standard greeting between civilised adults then? Especially since 'Canikickit' has been one of the ones that have always posted intelligently and respectfully in this forum? Whats the matter with YOU? Can't stand that two people CAN be civilised? This is the problem with society..NAY the WORLD...today: "Hey WHY take accountability for what I've done/said? It the other guys fault!" Oh, I get it...its only proper when I apologize, huh? Leave well enough alone, lady. Canikickit excused himself for what he said, and now we can/should move past that. Hell, I admire him for having the decency to apologize! He's a hell of a lot bigger of a person in my book for doing so! Many of you think apologizing for thoughtless words/actions/insults is beneath you. Had it been me to say something irrational to someone that didn't deserve it, I would have been the first one to apologize, much like I did in one of my early posts on this board.

But I guess thats why mankind is doomed to fight on and on until the end!

PS-And what exactly did I say that labeled me "out of control" in your frail sensitive little eyes THIS TIME?! [/b]
boo fucking hoo. you set yourself up for being called mr_sucks. you chosen handle being "castro_sucks" and divided into the traditional first name and last name and then the respectful form of address used for formal conversation is this formula: "mr/mrs/ms last name" so you can hardly complain for being addressed as "mr_sucks." in fact, it was maybe even a bit funny. but i'm glad it makes your day that he apologized. because i probably wouldn't have. i'll admit you've been in control compared to what you were like your first posts here. don't lose it.

i only wish i were half the man that canikickit is.

and now, back to sex. tell us about your 33 years of experience with cuban whores.

CASTRO_SUCKS

16th December 2003, 03:12

Originally posted by AllTomorrowsParties+Dec 16 2003, 03:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AllTomorrowsParties @ Dec 16 2003, 03:53 AM) boo fucking hoo. you set yourself up for being called mr_sucks. you chosen handle being "castro_sucks" and divided into the traditional first name and last name and then the respectful form of address used for formal conversation is this formula: "mr/mrs/ms last name"....[/b]

Wow..is THAT how it worked? I'm actually glad someone was able to piece that mystery together because I had NO CLUE as to how he arrived at that monicker. :blink: Be honest....you're about twelve years old huh?

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 03:53 AM
but i'm glad it makes your day that he apologized. because i probably wouldn't have......don't lose it.
Like I said before, it DID make my day that he had the nobility and courtesy to apologize, ESPECIALLY when there are people like you so quick to shoot someone down for BEING polite and proper! And as far as me "not losing it" I've stated in one of my previos posts that my new stance around shall be an eye for an eye. You respect me, I respect you and vice-versa. You got a problem with that?! Canikickit has earned a spot in my "intellectual list" along with a few others on here that are willing and able to discuss matters RATIONALLY and without insults. You on the other hand....

[email protected] 16 2003, 03:53 AM
and now, back to sex. tell us about your 33 years of experience with cuban whores.
Wow you've reduced yourself to calling them "cuban whores" now? How very "adult" of you. ..Jesus lady...go out and get yourself laid...you're just a wee bit too stressed out and angry! I 4 N I

synthesis

16th December 2003, 04:09

I see nothing wrong with somebody calling you Mr. Sucks. People call me Mr. Maker, Mr. Sucks isn't any different. If you don't want to be called Mr. Sucks as a formal address, perhaps you should have selected a surname other than 'sucks.'

Maybe if you had titled yourself BATISTA_WAS_AWESOME then you could be content with being called Mr. Awesome.

CASTRO_SUCKS

16th December 2003, 13:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 05:09 AM
I see nothing wrong with somebody calling you Mr. Sucks.......
Listen...DROP this already! He apologized for the Mr_Sucks AND the "fucking nut" part! Did you forget the "Fucking nut" part, or did you casually glaze over that? He seems a much more proper person than a lot of the others here...present company NOT excluded!

DROP IT!

CASTRO_SUCKS

16th December 2003, 13:49

Originally posted by hazard+Dec 16 2003, 03:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hazard @ Dec 16 2003, 03:52 AM)
your position on not analyzing the process of sex is not only risk y, it is dangerous. its like, I dunno, not cooking a chicken properly and just eating it sort of raw........to simply indulge in physical pleasure without considering what you are about to participate in is equally as dangerous, if not more so.[/b]
Cooking a chicken thoroughly? Thats an improper analogy in this case. We're not talking about safe sex here (THATS a no-brainer). We're actually breaking apart and analyzing sex as if it were a motherboard on a PC...trying to track down all our feelings and WHY we should be feeling them and if its OK to be feeling them. You're turning a wonderful experience and reducing it to a series of synapses, thought and self-conflict.

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 03:52 AM
...sex is not just an interaction between two unreasoning and unfeeling entities. it is an intmate interaction between humans. that is, REASONING and FEELING beings.
You all need to get together on an issue here. There are a whole bunch of contradictions in what you people believe in. on the one hand you say sex is not just an interaction between two unreasoning, unfeeling entities. On the other hand you have some saying its ok, its empowering, and still some that say prostitution is ok and should be legal. I mean is there any ONE subject that you can all agree on? (OTHER than you guys NOT liking me?)

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 03:52 AM
I would never have sex with someone I didn't love. if that means I have to analyze and think about the process for YEARS, so be it.
Well, you're young yet. HOPEFULLY you'll stick with your beliefs...thats pretty good that a guy has those convictions, (and pretty difficult to maintain) but we'll jst have to wait and see. The female persuasion is pretty powerful. ;)

[email protected] 16 2003, 03:52 AM
if you want to toss your genitals around like a yo-yo, that is your problem. but don't be so vain to assume that "simple pleasure" is condonable in light of the modern human condition and all of its problems.
Again, having SAFE SEX is NOT the issue here.....

Bolshevika

16th December 2003, 20:29

Mr_Sucks/cospiracy nut: Expect a horrible STD soon.

CASTRO_SUCKS

16th December 2003, 21:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 09:29 PM
Mr_Sucks/cospiracy nut: Expect a horrible STD soon.
Awww.....there there.....Dont' worry about me catching an STD soon....I DON'T plan on going anywhere near alltomorrowpatries anytime soon! But thanks for caring.

Bolshevika

16th December 2003, 22:09

Hee hee Mr_Sucks, I see your point

dopediana

16th December 2003, 23:57

(mr_SUCKS is a 33 year old virgin)

and bolshevika, do you really want to start this all over again? i've slapped you so many times before and you still haven't learned? you don't fuck with the vegetarians.

Bolshevika

17th December 2003, 00:18

Please AllTomorrowsParties, just, shutup you complaining child. I simply laughed at Mr Castro sucks because he made a funny comment. So please, go post in Chit Chat or something and leave the big kids alone.

CASTRO_SUCKS

17th December 2003, 00:37

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 01:18 AM
Please AllTomorrowsParties, just, shutup you complaining child. I simply laughed at Mr Castro sucks because he made a funny comment. So please, go post in Chit Chat or something and leave the big kids alone.
HOLY COW! Listen...Bolshevika...I don't mean to kiss your ass, but you just went up about ten points in my book! Good on ya! Ok...I know I know...now we have to get back to being enemies.....sheesh...can't I meet ANYONE on here that doesn't want me dead? ;)

Anarchist Freedom

17th December 2003, 00:47

However, I am also strong advocate for women's rights, and freeing them from the chains of capitalist exploitation. Things like pornography, prostitution, etc are institutions made by the perverted ruling class.

oh please in porn what they make shit for money every time the girl gets cornholed?? fuck no dude pornstarts arent poor people there making big huge money sheesh what are they crying on there way saying im soo abused to cash there check???

:che:

dopediana

17th December 2003, 01:47

bolshevika, mr_sucks, you two are sexist ****s.

just because i am female and you happen to dislike me, your instant course of attack is to say that i have STDs therefore suggesting that i sleep around, therefore not only trying to demean my person, but using my gender to do it.

chit chat, bolshevika? it's not my fault you were restricted. don't get all bitter about it to me....

IHP

17th December 2003, 01:54

Bolshevika is a male? Well, that's news to me. In Russian, if suffixed with an A, makes the word/object is female.

Mr.Sucks, I fail to the parallel between between a defense of the meaning of engaging in sex, and Ms. Parties having STDs. Let's use logic for once.

Bolshevika

17th December 2003, 02:20

Bolshevika is a male? Well, that's news to me. In Russian, if suffixed with an A, makes the word/object is female.

Bolshevik was the original name but it was taken so I was forced to add a letter to it. A mere coincidence.

And ATP: I am possibly the anti-thesis of a sexist. I wasn't of the idea to take that particular path in insulting you, I could've said "you are a *****!", "you are an attention whore and everyone has there noses up your ass" , or "you are overemotional person that takes things too seriously" (this isn't necessarily a criticism, because I am very emotional, just not over the internet).

Mr_Sucks may deserve to be in a gulag, but he is funny. Maybe we should appoint him The Peoples Jester to makeup for his crimes?

Urban Rubble

17th December 2003, 04:46

I just thought I'd answer Diana's question. I was going to PM it to her but it's about sex so I didn't want her to think I was getting to "personal" by PM'ing her about sex. =)

tyler, sex every single day? don't you get tired of it? and in terms of pills and/or condoms every year for each day of the year, it comes to more than 300 dollars per year (depending on what you buy, of course). pretty amazing.

Maybe not every single day. Just about though. What can I say ? I'm a 21 year old male with a readily available female, it's inevitable. As far as pills go, that is my girl's department. Her mom pays for the stuff because when my girlfriend was younger her mom knew she was having sex so she has been on the pill ever since. Is it really that expensive ? Either way, if you take it you have to take it every day.

synthesis

17th December 2003, 05:39

Originally posted by CASTRO_SUCKS+Dec 16 2003, 02:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (CASTRO_SUCKS @ Dec 16 2003, 02:32 PM)
[email protected] 16 2003, 05:09 AM
I see nothing wrong with somebody calling you Mr. Sucks.......
Listen...DROP this already! He apologized for the Mr_Sucks AND the "fucking nut" part! Did you forget the "Fucking nut" part, or did you casually glaze over that? He seems a much more proper person than a lot of the others here...present company NOT excluded!

DROP IT! [/b]
Present company applies to me?

I only give people shit when they ignore my facts.

hobosexual

17th December 2003, 05:45

haha, its a forum on sex and there are "69" posts... well, now theres 70.

synthesis

17th December 2003, 05:53

You ruined it! :angry:

dopediana

17th December 2003, 12:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 03:20 AM

Bolshevika is a male? Well, that's news to me. In Russian, if suffixed with an A, makes the word/object is female.

Bolshevik was the original name but it was taken so I was forced to add a letter to it. A mere coincidence.

either way you're still a ****

(the opportunity was there and i couldn't resist)

cubist

17th December 2003, 13:27

girls girls girls,

its only sex your squabling like your new to it

CASTRO_SUCKS

19th December 2003, 15:24

Originally posted by IHP+Dec 17 2003, 02:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (IHP @ Dec 17 2003, 02:54 AM) Mr.Sucks, I fail to the parallel between between a defense of the meaning of engaging in sex, and Ms. Parties having STDs. Let's use logic for once. [/b]
Really? Perhaps you'd CARE to address the following statements from her then?!

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 02:47 AM
bolshevika, mr_sucks, you two are sexist ****s.

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 12:57 AM
(mr_SUCKS is a 33 year old virgin)

[email protected] 16 2003, 03:53 AM
tell us about your 33 years of experience with cuban whores.

Tell ME where all HER comments are related to this post!!!!

Soul Rebel

19th December 2003, 16:22

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 17 2003, 01:47 AM

However, I am also strong advocate for women's rights, and freeing them from the chains of capitalist exploitation. Things like pornography, prostitution, etc are institutions made by the perverted ruling class.

oh please in porn what they make shit for money every time the girl gets cornholed?? fuck no dude pornstarts arent poor people there making big huge money sheesh what are they crying on there way saying im soo abused to cash there check???

:che:
I can never understand what the fuck you are saying. you should really try to learn how to write properly before you type. Run-on sentences are no good.

and btw- not all pornstars make huge amounts of money. it depends on how many videos you sell and what company you work for. Even as a pro-sex feminist i have to tell you that many porn stars do have bad experiences in the industry. Many are drugged or abused while working. Its not all fun and games.