On Viagra & Such.

[plezherus (imported)]

If we would just look at things sexual and say "so"? I remember this lady at the zoo laughing at monkeys copulating. That is the attitude of most of the world toward sex. They either laugh at it, try to punish somebody for partaking in it or act liked crazed idiots over the sight of a good-looking potential sex partner.

A-1

I remeber that lady. In my defense I would like to say the monkey came on to me with both of us finding the expirience mutually beneficial. We even played scat games on a recent conjugal visit.

-plezherus LOL

[SplitDick (imported)]

Master Waddle, here is some response to your considered questions:

"

Everything in moderation should be the underlying motto of everyone entering into the vast world of adulthood.

"

Very true, "everything in moderation" is the best philosophy I've ever encountered. Actually, it is even better to say "everything in moderation, including moderation" so people still let loose now and then.

"

Indeed, hormones are a strong force as they were meant to be. It's a natural occurance brought about by evolution. Here again, to deny that and the urges brought about by nature is to try to set us apart from nature.

"

The whole point of my post was to say that there are two things that have been affected by evolution -- personal biology and society.

The current situation is frustrating because the natural personal biology gives us very strong drives of sexuality, agression, territorialness, and possessiveness. These were essential for individual survival. However, the strongest societies to evolve have suppressed all these. That is evolution too and necessary for societal survival.

You believe like many others that religion was "created" to control people. I don't think that is true, rather religions "evolved" to create strong societies. Unfortunately, strong societies mean frustrated people.

>>>>>

However, healthy sexuality cannot s

imply be "anything goes" sexuality.

<<<<<<<<

"Now, Sweetheart, who told you tha

t? First of all, how do you define "healthy sexuality"? "

By "healthy" I mean that something healthy does not impair one's health. Subjecting yourself to diseases is therefore unhealthy, as is subjecting your body to excessive orgasms (because orgasms have a very drastic biochemical effect on the body and brain). Lastly, there is psychological health which over time can be undermined by cheating, use of prostitutes, etc. which are not very emotionally rewarding in the long run.

I'm assuming you're the product of the 60's or 70's where people gained freedom from sexual repression by assuming everything sexual should be explored, like "masturbation is good". It was very important for our society to go through that loosening up. However, masturbation is only good as long as it is done in moderation. When I was masturbating 10 times a day however I could feel that it wasn't healthy. Eastern Asian religions (which promote moderation) say that a man my age should orgasm about once every three days. I've tried that and I feel much better -- it is definitely healthier.

So when I say "anything goes sexuality", I mean sexuality where a person shows no restraint. I've been there, and

know it leads to unhealthiness of both body and mind.

"Hon...neeeee! 9/11 is a prime example of the frustration and suppression of male testosterone and the misguided purpose of most organized religions. For all their well meaning retoric, re

ligions were never founded for the betterment of mankind!"

I never said that society evolved for the betterment of mankind. But neither did our sexual urges evolve for the betterment of mankind. Evolution at both the societal and individual level only seeks successful propagation -- things that propagate are considered evolutionally successful. The 9/11 is a very good example of societal evolution in progress -- will "western" societies be able to stand up against the fundamentalist "middle eastern" societies?

I didn't say sexual repression by society is "good", all I said is that societies tend to evolve towards that. Most people are perplexed by our laws and religions, but I'm simply saying that they have evolved to suit their own purpose -- which is to propagate.

">>>>

I have mentioned this elsewhere, but the simplest reason is sexual disease --

countries in Africa are currently being decimate

d by promiscuity (causing 75% of population to get HIV).

<<<<< You state the above like sex is a disease."

No, I don't see sex as a disease at all. However, among many of my gay friends who have died of AIDS (which is a horrible way to go) they have all regretted that one sexual encounter. They would repeatedly ask "Why did they risk their life for one moment of sex?" Is a mouthful of cum really worth wasting away for five years?

Anyway, I think you misunderstood my post entirely. You thought I was saying that societal repression of sex is good, and I didn't say that at all. I am a sexual libertine myself, and can guarantee you I've done wierder and more illegal sexual acts than probably anyone on this board. However, I also know that some of those acts were unhealthy and will teach my son about the dangers of unrestrained sex.

I believe that society should allow people to have personal freedom. However, freedom does NOT mean doing anything goes. Freedom means you have CONSCIOUS choice. I know a lot of people for whom sex has become an addiction, and their choice is no longer conscious. There is a point when a society DOES need to enter the bedroom -- for instance to stop African men from spreading AIDS to their wives. There are a lot of dangers in sex. It is fun, but you can die as a result of it. Therefore, control is just as important as tolerance.

The question is: Can society evolve such that it teaches us to be moderate in sex without repressing sex?

[Gerslave (imported)]

There is a typical (western) understanding of the needs of human beings. Our feelings, fear, thoughts are reduced to some needs or goods. And the economy and society is trained to fulfill these needs, without respect of the real human conditions.

So our life, death, society, relations of men and women, religions and science is determined of this aspect, to fulfil your needs if you have enough money. But if you have no money, the you will be not ahuman being.

This prostitution is typical for our life. I think prostitution is the real motor of all our wishes, aims, thinking. Now this damned evolution has brought us to wishes, a little fulfilment an creating new wishes. And this is just the priniples for our sexuality... there are wishes, but they will never end.. and there is no (reasonable) future.

I know, I have a bad, dark meaning of humans... but we left only a lot of shit for the nature...

[Master Waddie (imported)]

SplitDick~

First of all, let me say, that these posts are presented as opposing points of view and none of the attempts at humor or passionate rebutal are not meant as a personal attack. At most I would hope to present some alternative thoughts for your consideration. I'm still boggled by a lot of folks clinging to ultra-conservative concepts and, to me, downright frightening points of view. I'll bet dollars to donuts you were raised Catholic. (Not a put down but an understanding chuckle...)

>>>

Anyway, I think you misunderstood my post entirely. You thought I was saying that societal repression of sex is good, and I didn't say that at all.<<< >>>I didn't say sexual repression by society is "good", all I said is that societies tend to evolve towards that. Most people are perplexed by our laws and religions, but I'm simply saying that they have evolved to suit their own purpose.

<<<

Well, of course, that's exactly what you said! Please don't insult me by saying that I'm incapable of understanding the words you wrote! Here it is in black and white from your previous post: >>>

There has been a societal evolution toward fairly conservative views on sex (most of the world is ruled by Judeo-Christian-Muslim views on sexuality), so there must be some good reason why societies are stronger if they suppress sex.

<<<

In essence, it is your opionion and only your opinion, that societies are made stronger if they suppress sex and the conservative evolution of religion gives them good reason to do so. Religion provides GOOD reasons to suppress sex = stronger societies! As Martha Stewart might say, "It's a good thing!" No, I didn't misunderstand at all. Unless, there's a coded message in that statement and I need a "Lone Ranger" secret decoder ring to get it? If not, then that's absolutely what you said! I think, perhaps, you misunderstood your own s

tatement and find yourself at a loss to defend it.

>>>The point of my post was to say that there are two things that have be

en affected by evolution -- personal biology and society.<<<

Perhaps you should re-read your original post! You didn't mention "personal biology". What the Hell is "personal biology" anyway? Some new field of science you invented? Sounds purposefully nebulous to me. What your post said was: Societies conservative views on sex, fueled by conservative religions, must have good reasons to suppress sex to secure their strength! Suppress sex and you get a strong society? It is my contention that's bullshit, hogwash, and clap-trap! I seriously doubt t

hat you can defend a word of that primus with facts.

>>>The current situation is frustrating because the natural personal biology gives us very strong drives of sexuality, agression, territorialness, and possessiveness. These were essential for individual survival. However, the strongest societies to evolve have suppressed all these. T

hat is evolution too and necessary for societal survival.<<<<

It might help if you preface your strong statements with, "It is my opinion.... Or, "I might be argued......." Or, "I overheard a converstaion the other day in which.........." However to make a statement that "... the strongest societies to evove have suppressed all these." leads one to believe you have the facts to back it up, and you don't. My opinion (see, I practice what I preach!) is that nothing could be further from the truth! No society will ever fully suppress sex. Thank God for that animal within us that will find a way to rut. The real conundrum is to bring religion/society into the modern age and by clinging to such beliefs we only wallo

w in the mire and do little to advance our thinking.

>>>You believe like many others that religion was "created" to control people. I don't think that is tru

e, rather religions "evolved" to create strong societies.<<<

That's exactly what they wan't folks to believe and you buy into it. Well, it's your nickle. I'm sure those poor ladies of Salam, Mass. understood that being burned as witches was to create a stronger community! And, it really strengthens a community to tell ten percent (or more) of it's population that happen to be gay that they are suffering and dying of AIDS because it's God's wrath upon them for t

he unforgivable sin of homosexuality. Yeah, right!

>>>By "healthy" I mean that something healthy does not impair one's health. Subjecting yourself to diseases is therefore unhealthy, as is subjecting your body to excessive orgasms (because orgasms have

a very drastic biochemical effect on the body and brain)<<<

The last line of your statem

ent was worth the whole excha

nge! Loved it! Once again, Sweetheart, who told you that? You really believed your old man when he told you if you wacked off too much it would rot your brain, make you go blind, or howl at the moon. (I asked my old man if I could do it 'til I needed glasses?) Assuming that your statement isn't another creation of your "new science" incompassing "personal biology" what facts do you have to back it up. Surely, this is only your opi

nion. If so, it is my opinion, you are quite wrong!

>>> There is a point when a society DOES need to enter the bedroom -- for instance to stop African men from spreading AIDS to their wives. There are a lot of dangers in sex. It is fun, but you can die as a result of

it. Therefore, control is just as important as tolerance.<<<

Until I read that statement I felt this was a healthy exchange of ideas but the above concept indirectly threatens my personal freedoms and I won't sit idly by and cajole you with humor. That's damn near neo-nazi thinking! "Give us control und ve vill stop this pestilance!" Jews, African men, homosexuals, those that don't agree with us........what's the difference? How much of your personal freedoms are you willing to give up for this control you espouse. Then when they come for you, what will you tell them? If you send your "SAS2P" (Socially acceptable sexual practices police) into my bedroom, they damn well better plan to take me out 'cause I will not submit willingly. No government, religion, or individual has the right to tell you what you may or may not do within the privacy of your own home. Nor do we have the right to control African men even in the name of "saving" them.

Better we should try to change society to educate, send money, food, medications to combat the problem than trying to control people's lives. There are alternatives! Am I surprised at your ultra conservative stance about this issue? Not really. Disappointed perhaps, because you have to be one of the more sexually relaxed individuals that contr

ibute to this board and one of the more intelligent.

>>>The question is: Can society evolve such that it

teaches us to be moderate in sex without repressing sex?<<<

It already has, hon, switch to the Anglican Church and you'll see! "Anything in moderation" is their unwritten credo. And, it's a well know fact, where you find four Anglicans together, you'll find a fifth!

Master Waddie :p

[Peter (imported)]

hello to you all, I am new to this board and still have to read up on topics, it's members.

I noticed the heated debate between Spiltdick and master Waddie...

Without taking sides or attacking someone, I felt compelled to react.

Splitdick made some comments that can be read in a different context then he perhaps meant.

Example: his remark that society should enter the bedroom...well there is entering and entering..

For instance by handing out free condoms, sex education, one DOES in some form ENTER THE BEDROOM, if only by stimulating conscious actions.

Is this going back and forth with lenghtly post with what seems to end up in personal attacks productive for a good exchange of pionts of view ???????

Like our dear "wise" friend Jerry Springer, I would like to end this with some food for thought.

The Internet is a wonderful medium, BUT it is prone to misunderstandings. Both Master waddie and Splitdick (among others) made some excellent and clear pionts...keep focusing on these things...

Greetings to you all,

Peter

P.S. I'll get the hang of all the options like emoticons and so..

[SplitDick (imported)]

Peter, thanks for joining the discussion.

Note there are no personal attacks between Master Waddle and myself. We're just engaged in heated discussion. But I think there is respect on both sides.

Looking forward to hearing more from you.

[SplitDick (imported)]

Master Waddle,

You still greatly misunderstand me. I DON'T think societal repression of sexuality is a good thing at all! None of my statements say that.

All I am doing is explaining why societies tend to repress sexuality. Sexual repression must in some way help propagate society, as ironic as that may seem. That is obvious because such societies have inherited the earth. When I say a "strong" society, I mean one that lasts. All the major societies currently standing on this planet have repressive attitudes towards sex. There is no major city I know of where women regularly walk around without shirts on a hot day (even though it is legal in some cities) -- that seem repressive to me. You totally misunderstood what I meant by "strong" society -- it has nothing to do with a nice society where everyone gets along. I don't even say that a strong society is desirable. I just say that these societies are the ones that cover most of the earth, they last and can defend themselves -- thus I call them "strong". You say I have no proof, but I do -- the world is covered by societies that repress sex, therefore they are "successful".

I am not religious and have never set foot in a church. So I don't understand your allusions to Catholics versus Anglicans. I am not even baptised or anything. However, I understand why people might want to be religious. But in any case, I believe that fundamental religion has an evolutionary advantage or it would not have been so successful -- most of the world believes in them.

Aren't you curious to know why society and religions have the repressive rules that they do? If I were designing a society, it would contain a lot of naked women running around giving blow jobs. I think most heterosexual men would design it that way. So why does our society not allow things like women exposing their breasts in public?

As a scientist, I think that it is worth thinking about. And I think the answer is related to societal evolution.

Most people misunderstand evolution. From the perspective of evolution, "good" means successful propagation. Therefore, a warlike society that wipes out other cultures is "good" from an evolutionary standpoint. Similarly, a high sex drive is "good" from an evolutionary standpoint. Unfortunately, there is a clash between what is good for society and what is good for the individuals in society. An ant farm is a "good" society, but would you want to be a drone?

To be honest, if you lived in a society that allowed the freedom you propose, you'd be dead in a week. Why? Because along with sexual urges, humans also have urges toward violence, and possessiveness. There would be roving gangs of street thugs raping and pillaging everyone that showed weakness. And that would be natural too. I therefore think there is a role for society and its laws, as long as it allows tolerance of the natural urges of the individuals.

Current society is too repressive for my tastes. I think we agree on that?

[Paolo]

I just want to toss in that I agree with Splitdick on the premis that Society is too repressive.

If you think it's repressive in "civilization," then try living in a rural area where Normal Rockwell is still alive and well and dictating folks' lives!

For "favorite Diety's" sake, folks, (or your own sake if your an Atheist) LOOSEN UP!

A few things that irk me when people make a huge issue over them: boys with earrings, spiked/bleached hair or different and unusual haircuts or lack thereof. Public displays of affection. Str8 or gay ... age not an issue. Teen boys who MIGHT be gay being locked up in 'rehab' for it. Same for girls, in fact. Revealing and/or odd clothes. I could go on and on ... but I won't.

[madscientist (imported)]

Once upon a time, I liked to play with toy cars. Still do, only now they are the kind you drive. Once upon a time, I liked to play with my "toy". Now I like other types of toys. My point is merely that the sex industry is making something that is OK to have out-grown into a lifetime commitment. There is nothing wrong with recreational sex. To each their own. But if people no longer feel a natural inclination towards it due to hormonal changes, why artificially generate an interest with hormone replacements that very well could be hazardous?

Of course the sex industry will attempt to make you feel guilty if you are no longer physically able to perform the act, just as the pet industry will attempt to make you feel guilty if you cannot afford to over-indulge your pets. THAT is the American way-finding a way-any way-to get you to part with your money.

My point about our ever-lowering culture was that we seem to care more about one particular activity, sex, than we do about all others. Or so it seems.

[Master Waddie (imported)]

I don't think SplitDick or myself feel like our characters have been personally attacked. We've exchanged ideas before and while we may not always agree, I've found him concerned, intelligent with strong convictions.

It is our right in a free speech society to exchange opposing points of view. I think there have been some interesting ideas and comments within this thread. SplitDick has the right to believe in his somewhat misguided concepts and I'm damn sure he feels exactly the same about mine! Ha! That does not mean that I would refuse to sit down with the man and buy him a beer. That's the beauty of a free society. "Okay, we don't agree, lets have a beer!"

Welcome, Peter, to the board. Once in a while there are some strong opinions voiced here........however, I think most are mature enough to realize that's all they're intended for.

Master Waddie :p