Is sex outdated?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by CarbonKnight, Jul 29, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coolguy4522 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Dec 21, 2000
    star 4
    I don't understand how you could start a topic and refuse to write the word for it.
    It is a better subsitute then "sechs" which is pretty coinfusin if ya axin mesa.
    Edit: Well that at least makes sense, perhaps he should use s3x like a H4X0R. :p

    Anyways, I don't know why this topic is even open, the premise is very confusing and vague. I don't see any real debate here, this is just another thread where somebody makes some sort of idiotic statement that incites people to respond, only in this case I don't think the person posting has any real idea what HE is talking about, and just making rather general statements.

    And if we all stopped having sex right now, we would not procreate, and perhaps a few hundred thousand might live on. Again, you haven't really suggested any alternative, and we got this far with sex, why change?
  2. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I don't understand how you could start a topic and refuse to write the word for it.
    It is a better subsitute then "sechs" which is pretty coinfusin if ya axin mesa.



    He's behind a filter, so just use your imagination and fill in the words.
  3. Ramius Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2002
    star 3
    Oooh, too bad. Filters can really suck sometimes.


    CarbonKnight, could you restate your opinion again? I'm just having trouble understand what your position is on the topic. From what I understand, you think sex for recreation is something we shouldn't do because it is either primitive and/or people mistake it for love. But you said that you like sex and will continue to have sex, so you sound a little hypocritical. Have I missed anything?

    If most animals don't have sex for pleasure, but we do, doesn't that mean something? We are more advanced, so we have sex for pleasure. That sets us apart from the animals.

    And it is my opinion that less than 5,000 years ago it was rare for a woman to have an orgazm.

    Okay, I can see why that might be true, but what does it have to do with this discussion?
  4. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    Okay, I can see why that might be true, but what does it have to do with this discussion?

    My point is that 5,000 years ago we werent having s3x for pleasure... at least not the woman. Then again you don't need an orgazm for pleasure. Of course, the problem was, the men weren't equal to the women pleasure wise, i.e. a caveman would have no reason to last more than a minute.

    As for this topic, I just meant to show that I feel s3x is outdated, and primitive for human beings as a whole. It's a fact that I accept, but don't necessarily agree with. My "point" is that society is guided by something which is outdated and not really necessary.

    And yes, I'm behind a filter, and believe it or not, I can't write the word "Dom1nant" without it being blocked.
  5. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    My point is that 5,000 years ago we werent having s3x for pleasure... at least not the woman. Then again you don't need an orgazm for pleasure. Of course, the problem was, the men weren't equal to the women pleasure wise, i.e. a caveman would have no reason to last more than a minute.


    May I ask how you know all these things, and with such certainty?
  6. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    Well, I have an interest in the life of prehistoric man (of course, 5000 years ago wasn't exactly "prehistoric") and I can't see any reason why a man would feel the need to give up his own pleasure for a woman. Of course, I'm thinking of prehistoric man pre-language.
  7. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    and I can't see any reason why a man would feel the need to give up his own pleasure for a woman.

    Science isn't based on things that we necessarily see a need for. I think it's important to make a distinction between facts and opinions here.
  8. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    Science isn't based on things that we necessarily see a need for. I think it's important to make a distinction between facts and opinions here.

    True, but many people view Evolution as opinion, and some even believe the earth is less than 5000 years old. When an animal such as a dog copulates, I don't think he or she is doing it for pleasure, or with the intention of reproducing. Instead I imagine it's similar to hunger and thirst, a certain "drive" to have s3x.
  9. TOUCHPUMP Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2002
    star 1
    As humans our sex has evolved into a complex expression of affection or attraction. Animals don't do that. So in essence sex would be outdated if we continued to have caveman sex (which ain't too bad when trying to squeeze in a nooner!)

    You also state we should rise above our pleasures as an evolved species. Well we have evolved when it comes to our pleasures. We just expanded them into more fun!
  10. gwaernardel Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2001
    star 4
    But we've established that dolphins and bonobos copulate for pleasure.

    I just don't get if you're trying to argue something here or if you're just trying to discuss something.
  11. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    True, but many people view Evolution as opinion

    Yes, but that opinion is based on evidence. I'm asking you for evidence for your opinions.
  12. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    I'm not really arguing anything, but overall I feel that is the worst thing to happen to humans, and we would be much more advanced without it.


    (And, no I'm not talking about the reproductive function of )
  13. TOUCHPUMP Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2002
    star 1
    Then explain how you think we would be more advanced without sex.
  14. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    Think of all the times people have chosen the more attractive over the more intelligent for example.
  15. CUBIE_HOLE Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 15, 2001
    star 4
    CarbonKnightThink of all the times people have chosen the more attractive over the more intelligent for example.
    />

    Where does it say that the 'more intelligent' are more superior to the 'more attractive?'

    In some cases, maybe, but not in all cases.

    Actually, in most of modern society, attractiveness/beauty plays a big part in whether our not a person is successful.

    Also, why does deriving pleasure from sex seem outdated, but physical pleasure from eating food or using the bathroom does not fall under 'outdated?' />/>
  16. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    Where does it say that the 'more intelligent' are more superior to the 'more attractive?'

    Um, call me crazy but I feel the "more intelligent" are superior to "more attractive".

    In some cases, maybe, but not in all cases.

    Actually, in most of modern society, attractiveness/beauty plays a big part in whether our not a person is successful.


    Attractiveness and beauty play a big part in society because of s3x! Which is why s3x is clearly outdated, and one of the worst things that happened to humans!!

  17. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Um, call me crazy but I feel the "more intelligent" are superior to "more attractive

    Have you considered the possibility that some people are both very intelligent and very attractive?

  18. gwaernardel Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2001
    star 4
    Attractiveness is more than just sex appeal. If we only were attracted to people that satisfy our primal urges, no one would find people like Natalie Portman good-looking because her hips aren't large enough to bear lots of children.
  19. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    Have you considered the possibility that some people are both very intelligent and very attractive?

    No. I haven't. I'm stupid.

    Seriously, that's not what I was saying at all.
  20. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    But see, if you're saying that intelligence is superior to attractiveness (or more precisely, that intelligent people are superior to attractive ones), you don't seem to allow for the times when people are both.
  21. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    If we only were attracted to people that satisfy our primal urges, no one would find people like Natalie Portman good-looking because her hips aren't large enough to bear lots of children.

    Natalie Portman is attractive because she has a beautiful face. You don't need the whole package to be s3xually attractive.
  22. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    But see, if you're saying that intelligence is superior to attractiveness (or more precisely, that intelligent people are superior to attractive ones), you don't seem to allow for the times when people are both.

    Well, I guess that would mean attractive, intelligent people are superior to intelligent, unattractive people. There can be two obviously.
  23. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Natalie Portman is attractive because she has a beautiful face. You don't need the whole package to be s3xually attractive.

    I would wager that most people consider her attractive for more than just her face.
  24. gwaernardel Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 5, 2001
    star 4
    What I'm saying is that we've evolved beyond our purely sexual reasons for being attracted to people. It doesn't have much to do with sex any more. Think about it. When you buy a painting, you buy the one that's the most aesthetically pleasing. The same goes for humans. It's not very sexually-driven any more.
  25. CarbonKnight Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2002
    star 4
    I would wager that most people consider her attractive for more than just her face.

    Actually Carrie Fischer must be her opposite. Fischer has the body, but not really the face, and Portman has the face but not really the body. Plus I think Portman she had a Britney Spears style "growth spurt" for AOTC, and Where the Heart Is.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.