All About Sex.

  • Thread starter Thread starter AkshayGoodOne
  • Start date Start date
A

AkshayGoodOne

Guest
Hi

Thank you for clinging on to this thread. Like always, I'll give my best to meet your expectations and give you the value for your precious time on this post. If you clicked on this post, thinking I might be horny, then you're right in a way. I am, not just in the way others express it. I'd better say I am intrigued about this concept and all that's in it.

I was always longing for a subtle discussion about Sex in people's life, as it would help me as an individual to understand and relate to people and their sexual fantasies better. When you don't understand people, they get frustrated and might even hate you. So, understanding is crucial to support and belongingness, which many people desire on this site and in real life. Your thoughts on this would really help educating people about this crucial part of life, in general.

Let us begin with some questions-
* Why it requires two human beings (A male and a female) to reproduce?
* Why is sex so much fun, that even its concept or imagination drives people crazy?
* Why you can't talk openly about sex in public? OR Why Sex can't be taken normally?
* Why religion hates Masturbation and exercise control over Sex? OR Sex in a Religious Context.
* Why sex means differently for men and women?
* Why sometimes, everything in this world and all attitudes of people, seems related only to sex?
* Why sometimes, you feel guilty of being too much involved into sex?
* Why are we discussing this?
* How is sex related to love?

Yes I know, so many questions.. We'd require multiple threads for the discussion. However, I'll try explaining the context behind the first question.

Sex is a fundamental activity for continuation of a species, where a life-form is begotten and reared for survival and existence in this world and is in turn expected to beget future life-forms. Sex can be understood as a tool for Evolution - Two partners with different ethnicities and genetics meet and create a better prototype of the species. You may relate this to Charles Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, Sexy Son Syndrome and all theories prevalent in Zoology or Anthropology. Evolution has a plan- To encourage continuous improvement in species for adaptability in an ever-changing natural environment and instill endurance. This trait of evolution have been incarnated in business, production, services, human character and most of the aspects related to human life. The ideology of evolution is....Viral.

Many people also discern Evolution as a facility for a species to compete with other species in the harsh natural environment and gain control and power to reap benefits and pleasure. So, it all revolves around how a species facilitates and makes best use of laws of Evolution.

Now, a species undergoing evolution requires genetic, structural and ideological improvement. Every species has a unique tactic for evolution. You might have adhered to the well-known belief that all species began as single-celled organisms. Cells reproduce too, they generate copies of themselves. But cloning or copying data often leads to dilution in its quality. So cloning wasn't the best thing for species. Some of the species stuck to asexual reproduction, this copying process, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoans, fungi etc.While the rest sought to be multi-cellular, and let their DNA open to changes. Now, you either need mutation or interaction between two different DNA's to incur change. So sexual reproduction was a good choice to provide a laboratory for evolutionary improvement, as mutation due to external agents like cosmic rays and nuclear radiations was too rarely feasible.

Why do we have males and females? They both usually are similar, but have different genetic roles. One needed to procure a life-form, one needed to stimulate and signal the reproduction process. This also introduced a sort of external birth control, (Two different people for reproduction) because if one organism had both male and female organs, it'd reproduce indefinitely leading to genetic complications and also since all cells had same genetic data, no scope of improvement would be introduced.

Why can't two males or two females reproduce? Like I said earlier, two similar genders would require presence of both the male and female parts, whose non-feasibility is already discussed.

Phew....So we have a Male and a Female for reproduction. The new ways of reproduction are left open to us.

Next thread will be about "Why sex is Fun?"

Thank You...
 
You're a real good forum-er and I hope you're around for a long time to come (heh).

I think I'm going to ponder on these questions before blurting out the first things that come to mind. I'll revisit and post on the ones that I feel like blathering on about.
 
AkshayGoodOne said:
Hi

Thank you for clinging on to this thread. Like always, I'll give my best to meet your expectations and give you the value for your precious time on this post. If you clicked on this post, thinking I might be horny, then you're right in a way. I am, not just in the way others express it. I'd better say I am intrigued about this concept and all that's in it.

I was always longing for a subtle discussion about Sex in people's life, as it would help me as an individual to understand and relate to people and their sexual fantasies better. When you don't understand people, they get frustrated and might even hate you. So, understanding is crucial to support and belongingness, which many people desire on this site and in real life. Your thoughts on this would really help educating people about this crucial part of life, in general.

Let us begin with some questions-
* Why it requires two human beings (A male and a female) to reproduce?
* Why is sex so much fun, that even its concept or imagination drives people crazy?
* Why you can't talk openly about sex in public? OR Why Sex can't be taken normally?
* Why religion hates Masturbation and exercise control over Sex? OR Sex in a Religious Context.
* Why sex means differently for men and women?
* Why sometimes, everything in this world and all attitudes of people, seems related only to sex?
* Why sometimes, you feel guilty of being too much involved into sex?
* Why are we discussing this?
* How is sex related to love?

Yes I know, so many questions.. We'd require multiple threads for the discussion. However, I'll try explaining the context behind the first question.

Sex is a fundamental activity for continuation of a species, where a life-form is begotten and reared for survival and existence in this world and is in turn expected to beget future life-forms. Sex can be understood as a tool for Evolution - Two partners with different ethnicities and genetics meet and create a better prototype of the species. You may relate this to Charles Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, Sexy Son Syndrome and all theories prevalent in Zoology or Anthropology. Evolution has a plan- To encourage continuous improvement in species for adaptability in an ever-changing natural environment and instill endurance. This trait of evolution have been incarnated in business, production, services, human character and most of the aspects related to human life. The ideology of evolution is....Viral.

Many people also discern Evolution as a facility for a species to compete with other species in the harsh natural environment and gain control and power to reap benefits and pleasure. So, it all revolves around how a species facilitates and makes best use of laws of Evolution.

Now, a species undergoing evolution requires genetic, structural and ideological improvement. Every species has a unique tactic for evolution. You might have adhered to the well-known belief that all species began as single-celled organisms. Cells reproduce too, they generate copies of themselves. But cloning or copying data often leads to dilution in its quality. So cloning wasn't the best thing for species. Some of the species stuck to asexual reproduction, this copying process, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoans, fungi etc.While the rest sought to be multi-cellular, and let their DNA open to changes. Now, you either need mutation or interaction between two different DNA's to incur change. So sexual reproduction was a good choice to provide a laboratory for evolutionary improvement, as mutation due to external agents like cosmic rays and nuclear radiations was too rarely feasible.

Why do we have males and females? They both usually are similar, but have different genetic roles. One needed to procure a life-form, one needed to stimulate and signal the reproduction process. This also introduced a sort of external birth control, (Two different people for reproduction) because if one organism had both male and female organs, it'd reproduce indefinitely leading to genetic complications and also since all cells had same genetic data, no scope of improvement would be introduced.

Why can't two males or two females reproduce? Like I said earlier, two similar genders would require presence of both the male and female parts, whose non-feasibility is already discussed.

Phew....So we have a Male and a Female for reproduction. The new ways of reproduction are left open to us.

Next thread will be about "Why sex is Fun?"

Thank You...
Click to expand...

Hey, I love how your mind works, brilliant xx
 
Telemachus said:
You're a real good forum-er and I hope you're around for a long time to come (heh).

I think I'm going to ponder on these questions before blurting out the first things that come to mind. I'll revisit and post on the ones that I feel like blathering on about.
Click to expand...

Hey Telemachus....You are a great support and motivation to this forum-er :p Like always, your participation would be highly revered, dear friend :)
 
A lot of these questions can have boring, evolutionary explanations. Male and female is a matter of logistics; the desire is the motivation to puts those logistics into action as frequently as possible; and rationalization helps with the apparent arbitrariness of these logistics.

The ones that may be more fun are the post-evolutionary questions, primarily control of sexual behaviour, male and female sexual mores, and the cognitive-emotional relationship to sex.

There is, I suspect, no post-coital fret or regret when animals rut. We as social and conscious beings unfortunately must endlessly obsess about our behaviour in every context: How we feel about ourselves, our lover, our family, our people, our state.

So here's the blather I promise, a few guesses hazarded on the control of sex. You mention religion, but I would suggest that religion is more a means employed by Power to achieve its manipulative ends, a means which is operated in conjunction with law, education, academia, media, and other things which some people call "social technologies."

In a practical sense, the control of sex is a necessity. For example, in the 80's when gay men were discovering they had this brand new disease called GRIDS, they visited their doctors. It was not long before doctors could definitively say "this is deadly, and if you have sex you'll probably pass the death sentence on to others." However, doctors at the time reported a common reply to this very serious situation: "My body, my choice." Many of those patients went right on back to their bath house orgies with that full medical knowledge. As a matter of public health, control was certainly called for, if not enacted (though such control by a state could be argued as being totalitarian in the extreme). Still, sexual decisions have effects and thus the desire to limit or direct those decisions is borne from the knowledge of these and other predictable consequences.

I've been reading about terrorists lately and they too have a very interesting relation to sex. Al-Qaeda had an elite unit of jihadis that it wished to disband, but these guys are some of the most hardened and ardent buggers in their outfit. They tried paying them to lay down their guns, they tried taking away their authority, and I think they even tried asking nicely. Never worked.

One day a bright fellow had the idea of getting all these thugs married. They basically hosted a singles mixer (in a cave somewhere I presume. The lighting would've been tremendously romantic) and most if not all the guys were paired off, and within months the platoon that was so resistant to disbanding was dissolved. With wives, and in particular with children, terrorism for these men was no longer part of their lives.

In this case, getting a bunch of lonely men laid was a fantastic idea. I've no idea how happy the marriages are, but hey, none of them are blowing up mosques (as far as I know).

One final rumination upon sex control, which relates to the last point. As far as I can tell, the nuclear family is the most stable unit of human relationships, and the more conventional the better. Now I suspect that everyone understands that pre-marital sex poses risks, but they are quite easily mitigated IF one has the foresight to take a few simple precautions. As a matter of the state, especially in the past when birth prevention didn't consist of much more than abstinence and pulling out, a blanket policy (I. E., abstinence until marriage) could be argued as the best defence against rampant illegitimacy. Furthermore, we all know that we unwashed masses are not known for our strict self-control. Again, a blanket policy might be a good idea.

Thus it does not surprise that past proscriptions from Church and State attempted to enforce both legally and socially a system of control over the sexual relations between men and women to obtain structured, non-dysfunctional behaviors via systems which were severe and all encompassing.

In the same way marriage busted up Jihad gangs, marriage might have the added benefit of creating a bond which can be threatened by invasion, and thus inspire enlistment when the State desires it. Framing enemy actions (even if you plan on being the attacker, derp) as destructive to one's children can be a great tool to that end.

Hm. I don't think that was very helpful, or even interesting.
 
Telemachus said:
A lot of these questions can have boring, evolutionary explanations. Male and female is a matter of logistics; the desire is the motivation to puts those logistics into action as frequently as possible; and rationalization helps with the apparent arbitrariness of these logistics.

The ones that may be more fun are the post-evolutionary questions, primarily control of sexual behaviour, male and female sexual mores, and the cognitive-emotional relationship to sex.

There is, I suspect, no post-coital fret or regret when animals rut. We as social and conscious beings unfortunately must endlessly obsess about our behaviour in every context: How we feel about ourselves, our lover, our family, our people, our state.

So here's the blather I promise, a few guesses hazarded on the control of sex. You mention religion, but I would suggest that religion is more a means employed by Power to achieve its manipulative ends, a means which is operated in conjunction with law, education, academia, media, and other things which some people call "social technologies."

In a practical sense, the control of sex is a necessity. For example, in the 80's when gay men were discovering they had this brand new disease called GRIDS, they visited their doctors. It was not long before doctors could definitively say "this is deadly, and if you have sex you'll probably pass the death sentence on to others." However, doctors at the time reported a common reply to this very serious situation: "My body, my choice." Many of those patients went right on back to their bath house orgies with that full medical knowledge. As a matter of public health, control was certainly called for, if not enacted (though such control by a state could be argued as being totalitarian in the extreme). Still, sexual decisions have effects and thus the desire to limit or direct those decisions is borne from the knowledge of these and other predictable consequences.

I've been reading about terrorists lately and they too have a very interesting relation to sex. Al-Qaeda had an elite unit of jihadis that it wished to disband, but these guys are some of the most hardened and ardent buggers in their outfit. They tried paying them to lay down their guns, they tried taking away their authority, and I think they even tried asking nicely. Never worked.

One day a bright fellow had the idea of getting all these thugs married. They basically hosted a singles mixer (in a cave somewhere I presume. The lighting would've been tremendously romantic) and most if not all the guys were paired off, and within months the platoon that was so resistant to disbanding was dissolved. With wives, and in particular with children, terrorism for these men was no longer part of their lives.

In this case, getting a bunch of lonely men laid was a fantastic idea. I've no idea how happy the marriages are, but hey, none of them are blowing up mosques (as far as I know).

One final rumination upon sex control, which relates to the last point. As far as I can tell, the nuclear family is the most stable unit of human relationships, and the more conventional the better. Now I suspect that everyone understands that pre-marital sex poses risks, but they are quite easily mitigated IF one has the foresight to take a few simple precautions. As a matter of the state, especially in the past when birth prevention didn't consist of much more than abstinence and pulling out, a blanket policy (I. E., abstinence until marriage) could be argued as the best defence against rampant illegitimacy. Furthermore, we all know that we unwashed masses are not known for our strict self-control. Again, a blanket policy might be a good idea.

Thus it does not surprise that past proscriptions from Church and State attempted to enforce both legally and socially a system of control over the sexual relations between men and women to obtain structured, non-dysfunctional behaviors via systems which were severe and all encompassing.

In the same way marriage busted up Jihad gangs, marriage might have the added benefit of creating a bond which can be threatened by invasion, and thus inspire enlistment when the State desires it. Framing enemy actions (even if you plan on being the attacker, derp) as destructive to one's children can be a great tool to that end.

Hm. I don't think that was very helpful, or even interesting.
Click to expand...

Hey, for what it’s worth, thank you for sharing your ideas and thoughts. I found it both helpful and interesting. Informative too x
 
Telemachus said:
A lot of these questions can have boring, evolutionary explanations. Male and female is a matter of logistics; the desire is the motivation to puts those logistics into action as frequently as possible; and rationalization helps with the apparent arbitrariness of these logistics.

The ones that may be more fun are the post-evolutionary questions, primarily control of sexual behaviour, male and female sexual mores, and the cognitive-emotional relationship to sex.

There is, I suspect, no post-coital fret or regret when animals rut. We as social and conscious beings unfortunately must endlessly obsess about our behaviour in every context: How we feel about ourselves, our lover, our family, our people, our state.

So here's the blather I promise, a few guesses hazarded on the control of sex. You mention religion, but I would suggest that religion is more a means employed by Power to achieve its manipulative ends, a means which is operated in conjunction with law, education, academia, media, and other things which some people call "social technologies."

In a practical sense, the control of sex is a necessity. For example, in the 80's when gay men were discovering they had this brand new disease called GRIDS, they visited their doctors. It was not long before doctors could definitively say "this is deadly, and if you have sex you'll probably pass the death sentence on to others." However, doctors at the time reported a common reply to this very serious situation: "My body, my choice." Many of those patients went right on back to their bath house orgies with that full medical knowledge. As a matter of public health, control was certainly called for, if not enacted (though such control by a state could be argued as being totalitarian in the extreme). Still, sexual decisions have effects and thus the desire to limit or direct those decisions is borne from the knowledge of these and other predictable consequences.

I've been reading about terrorists lately and they too have a very interesting relation to sex. Al-Qaeda had an elite unit of jihadis that it wished to disband, but these guys are some of the most hardened and ardent buggers in their outfit. They tried paying them to lay down their guns, they tried taking away their authority, and I think they even tried asking nicely. Never worked.

One day a bright fellow had the idea of getting all these thugs married. They basically hosted a singles mixer (in a cave somewhere I presume. The lighting would've been tremendously romantic) and most if not all the guys were paired off, and within months the platoon that was so resistant to disbanding was dissolved. With wives, and in particular with children, terrorism for these men was no longer part of their lives.

In this case, getting a bunch of lonely men laid was a fantastic idea. I've no idea how happy the marriages are, but hey, none of them are blowing up mosques (as far as I know).

One final rumination upon sex control, which relates to the last point. As far as I can tell, the nuclear family is the most stable unit of human relationships, and the more conventional the better. Now I suspect that everyone understands that pre-marital sex poses risks, but they are quite easily mitigated IF one has the foresight to take a few simple precautions. As a matter of the state, especially in the past when birth prevention didn't consist of much more than abstinence and pulling out, a blanket policy (I. E., abstinence until marriage) could be argued as the best defence against rampant illegitimacy. Furthermore, we all know that we unwashed masses are not known for our strict self-control. Again, a blanket policy might be a good idea.

Thus it does not surprise that past proscriptions from Church and State attempted to enforce both legally and socially a system of control over the sexual relations between men and women to obtain structured, non-dysfunctional behaviors via systems which were severe and all encompassing.

In the same way marriage busted up Jihad gangs, marriage might have the added benefit of creating a bond which can be threatened by invasion, and thus inspire enlistment when the State desires it. Framing enemy actions (even if you plan on being the attacker, derp) as destructive to one's children can be a great tool to that end.

Hm. I don't think that was very helpful, or even interesting.
Click to expand...

Had great time reading this. Thanks...I disagree with your last statement.

Hugs and Kisses :)
 
Telemachus said:
A lot of these questions can have boring, evolutionary explanations. Male and female is a matter of logistics; the desire is the motivation to puts those logistics into action as frequently as possible; and rationalization helps with the apparent arbitrariness of these logistics.

The ones that may be more fun are the post-evolutionary questions, primarily control of sexual behaviour, male and female sexual mores, and the cognitive-emotional relationship to sex.

There is, I suspect, no post-coital fret or regret when animals rut. We as social and conscious beings unfortunately must endlessly obsess about our behaviour in every context: How we feel about ourselves, our lover, our family, our people, our state.

So here's the blather I promise, a few guesses hazarded on the control of sex. You mention religion, but I would suggest that religion is more a means employed by Power to achieve its manipulative ends, a means which is operated in conjunction with law, education, academia, media, and other things which some people call "social technologies."

In a practical sense, the control of sex is a necessity. For example, in the 80's when gay men were discovering they had this brand new disease called GRIDS, they visited their doctors. It was not long before doctors could definitively say "this is deadly, and if you have sex you'll probably pass the death sentence on to others." However, doctors at the time reported a common reply to this very serious situation: "My body, my choice." Many of those patients went right on back to their bath house orgies with that full medical knowledge. As a matter of public health, control was certainly called for, if not enacted (though such control by a state could be argued as being totalitarian in the extreme). Still, sexual decisions have effects and thus the desire to limit or direct those decisions is borne from the knowledge of these and other predictable consequences.

I've been reading about terrorists lately and they too have a very interesting relation to sex. Al-Qaeda had an elite unit of jihadis that it wished to disband, but these guys are some of the most hardened and ardent buggers in their outfit. They tried paying them to lay down their guns, they tried taking away their authority, and I think they even tried asking nicely. Never worked.

One day a bright fellow had the idea of getting all these thugs married. They basically hosted a singles mixer (in a cave somewhere I presume. The lighting would've been tremendously romantic) and most if not all the guys were paired off, and within months the platoon that was so resistant to disbanding was dissolved. With wives, and in particular with children, terrorism for these men was no longer part of their lives.

In this case, getting a bunch of lonely men laid was a fantastic idea. I've no idea how happy the marriages are, but hey, none of them are blowing up mosques (as far as I know).

One final rumination upon sex control, which relates to the last point. As far as I can tell, the nuclear family is the most stable unit of human relationships, and the more conventional the better. Now I suspect that everyone understands that pre-marital sex poses risks, but they are quite easily mitigated IF one has the foresight to take a few simple precautions. As a matter of the state, especially in the past when birth prevention didn't consist of much more than abstinence and pulling out, a blanket policy (I. E., abstinence until marriage) could be argued as the best defence against rampant illegitimacy. Furthermore, we all know that we unwashed masses are not known for our strict self-control. Again, a blanket policy might be a good idea.

Thus it does not surprise that past proscriptions from Church and State attempted to enforce both legally and socially a system of control over the sexual relations between men and women to obtain structured, non-dysfunctional behaviors via systems which were severe and all encompassing.

In the same way marriage busted up Jihad gangs, marriage might have the added benefit of creating a bond which can be threatened by invasion, and thus inspire enlistment when the State desires it. Framing enemy actions (even if you plan on being the attacker, derp) as destructive to one's children can be a great tool to that end.

Hm. I don't think that was very helpful, or even interesting.
Click to expand...
EXTREMELY interesting :)
 
Telemachus said:
A lot of these questions can have boring, evolutionary explanations. Male and female is a matter of logistics; the desire is the motivation to puts those logistics into action as frequently as possible; and rationalization helps with the apparent arbitrariness of these logistics.

The ones that may be more fun are the post-evolutionary questions, primarily control of sexual behaviour, male and female sexual mores, and the cognitive-emotional relationship to sex.

There is, I suspect, no post-coital fret or regret when animals rut. We as social and conscious beings unfortunately must endlessly obsess about our behaviour in every context: How we feel about ourselves, our lover, our family, our people, our state.

So here's the blather I promise, a few guesses hazarded on the control of sex. You mention religion, but I would suggest that religion is more a means employed by Power to achieve its manipulative ends, a means which is operated in conjunction with law, education, academia, media, and other things which some people call "social technologies."

In a practical sense, the control of sex is a necessity. For example, in the 80's when gay men were discovering they had this brand new disease called GRIDS, they visited their doctors. It was not long before doctors could definitively say "this is deadly, and if you have sex you'll probably pass the death sentence on to others." However, doctors at the time reported a common reply to this very serious situation: "My body, my choice." Many of those patients went right on back to their bath house orgies with that full medical knowledge. As a matter of public health, control was certainly called for, if not enacted (though such control by a state could be argued as being totalitarian in the extreme). Still, sexual decisions have effects and thus the desire to limit or direct those decisions is borne from the knowledge of these and other predictable consequences.

I've been reading about terrorists lately and they too have a very interesting relation to sex. Al-Qaeda had an elite unit of jihadis that it wished to disband, but these guys are some of the most hardened and ardent buggers in their outfit. They tried paying them to lay down their guns, they tried taking away their authority, and I think they even tried asking nicely. Never worked.

One day a bright fellow had the idea of getting all these thugs married. They basically hosted a singles mixer (in a cave somewhere I presume. The lighting would've been tremendously romantic) and most if not all the guys were paired off, and within months the platoon that was so resistant to disbanding was dissolved. With wives, and in particular with children, terrorism for these men was no longer part of their lives.

In this case, getting a bunch of lonely men laid was a fantastic idea. I've no idea how happy the marriages are, but hey, none of them are blowing up mosques (as far as I know).

One final rumination upon sex control, which relates to the last point. As far as I can tell, the nuclear family is the most stable unit of human relationships, and the more conventional the better. Now I suspect that everyone understands that pre-marital sex poses risks, but they are quite easily mitigated IF one has the foresight to take a few simple precautions. As a matter of the state, especially in the past when birth prevention didn't consist of much more than abstinence and pulling out, a blanket policy (I. E., abstinence until marriage) could be argued as the best defence against rampant illegitimacy. Furthermore, we all know that we unwashed masses are not known for our strict self-control. Again, a blanket policy might be a good idea.

Thus it does not surprise that past proscriptions from Church and State attempted to enforce both legally and socially a system of control over the sexual relations between men and women to obtain structured, non-dysfunctional behaviors via systems which were severe and all encompassing.

In the same way marriage busted up Jihad gangs, marriage might have the added benefit of creating a bond which can be threatened by invasion, and thus inspire enlistment when the State desires it. Framing enemy actions (even if you plan on being the attacker, derp) as destructive to one's children can be a great tool to that end.

Hm. I don't think that was very helpful, or even interesting.
Click to expand...
*agrees with those above me*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top