Sexocracy

No. You are the one with the proton pseudos, buddy. Your premise is false, because humans have more than one fundamental desire. Humans become even more frustrated, if they do not fulfill other fundamental deires.

So your “sexocracy” does not work. The “flower power society” of the hippies failed, and your “sexocracy” will also fail. But some of those who have other desires will welcome your “sexocracy”, because your “sexocracy” is no competitor for them. In the long run your “sexocracy” will even lead to more inequality, injustice, frustration, and so on.

I am sorry, but there is no doubt.

I know that humans have more than one fundamental desire. I said sexual desire is a fundamental desire, then listed the others. If you’re going to respond to my posts at least read them properly. Human beings will not become ‘frustrated’ if they do not fulfill the other fundamental desires, they will die if they do not fulfill the other desires. If you don’t get air, nutrition, excretion, hydration and sleep then you die. Sexual desire is the only fundamental desire where you don’t actually die without it, that’s why society is able to make such a mess of it without immediately wiping itself out.

The Sexocracy isn’t flower power. It’s a complete political and economic system not hippies smoking weed and making peace signs. You’re drowning in proton pseudos and I’m flying free.

Are you more frustrated now?

I did not say that you did not list other desires. But that does not change anything. You are referring to mererly one desire when it comes to find a solution for frustration. You will always find the same frustration and even more frustration. Again: Your “sexocracy” will never work because of the said reasons.

You did not read my posts carefully. I did not say that your “sexocracy” was “flower prower”. I am saying your “sexocracy” will fail like the “flower power society” failed. Try to read my posts again.

Your proton pseudos is a huge one.

No.

You said ‘humans have more than one fundamental desire’ which implied that you were suggesting that I was suggesting that human beings have just one fundamental desire.

No I’m not. I am saying sexual desire is a fundamental desire that must be fulfilled for a human being to avoid unhappiness. Without fulfilling that fundamental desire he will always be unhappy. That doesn’t mean that a man whose sexual desires are fulfilled wont feel frustrated, his desires for intellectual or athletic fulfillment may not be fulfilled and that may cause him frustration, but those desires are not fundamental to his well being. A man can still find happiness even if he experiences frustration from not fulfilling his intellectual and/or athletic desires as long as his sexual desires are fulfilled, but a man can never find happiness if his sexual desires are not fulfilled, even if he is a highly intellectual elite athlete.

Your ‘said reasons’ are based on your misconceptions.

Yes I do.

I did not say that you said that my Sexocracy is flower power. I said that it is not the flower power society to make the point that it will not behave like the flower power society. You’re implying that the Sexocracy is not a flower power society but it will behave in the same way as a flower power society? That doesn’t make sense. Get your reasoning together before you try to debate with me.

My ideology is based on reasoning and you’ve got proton pseudos all over your face.

No.

No.

You said:

One hour ago!
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=177479&p=2556737#p2556736

Your “sexocracy” is based on a proton pseudos". If you do not understand what I mean and what the reasons are why your “sexocracy” is nonsense, then read this post from Flannel Jesus who said nearly the same that I said:

Yes.

You do not want to discuss, you want to dictate.

You’re just getting confused, Arminius. I’ve always said that the Sexocracy is not the ‘flower power society’. The statement ‘I said that it is not the flower power society to make the point that it will not behave like the flower power society’ does not imply that I am saying the Sexocracy is the flower power society. The statement ‘I said that it is not the flower power society to make the point that it will not behave like the flower power society’ means that the Sexocracy is not the flower power society and that because it is not the flower power society, it will not behave like the flower power society.

Just saying ‘you don’t understand economics’ isn’t a sophisticated argument. You need reasoning.

I’m having to explain some seriously basic stuff to you now, Arminius. Maybe you should admit defeat.

I’m always prepared to accept the possibility that I may be wrong. Maybe I do have the proton pseudos.

You are telling nonsense. And by the way: You have to give us some arguments for your thesis. But your thesis and arguments are nonsense, because they are false, based on a huge proton pseudos. And now you are hiding yourself behind the “flower power”. That is rediculous.

Your “sexocracy” is comparable with the “flower power movement” and other failed social experiments.

Empty phrases like “all humans will be happy” or “all humans will not be frustrated” are no arguments but examples of your own wishful thinking and your own desires. Your “sexocracy” concept is false.

May I ask you how old you are?

I say: You do have the proton pseudos. Your “sexocracy” is based on a proton pseudos.

I don’t think looking at the past hundred year’s tech is the best way to predict the next hundred years. If we did that in 1895 we’d have been fools. I was only invoking TV to demonstrate how people thought it would be a fad that it wouldn’t catch on for various reasons, such as it being a flat square instead of reality. Meanwhile, years later we are glued to our idiot boxes, so that fad theory was proven false. All this shows is that we have the ability to mistake lasting and meaningful advances for empty fads, without knowing it, until after the fact.

But to look at TVs today or in the recent past and extrapolate “never” seems to me to be a serious fallacy, a serious weakness in your normally air tight approach. The advancements in tvs in two years, let alone 20, will be notable, in that it will indeed appear real and 3d. But the real advances will be in oculus tech, which I’ve had the pleasure to beta test. Soon the image in the oculus rift will be cinematic, not pixelated animation. One could, plausibly, sit across the table from a friend who lives thousands of miles away, hear the rosin in her throat, and make deep and lasting eye contact. With a flip of the switch they are now standing by a waterfall. It’s only a small leap to build touch into the scenario. If your argument is limited by your imagination of haptic suits, and you’re picturing them as a crude rubber sex toy, then surely you will have no problem avoiding this line of thinking as long as you want to. We can go in circles forever. I believe we are five years away from a plausible two-perosn sexual experience through oculus and haptics. Possibly three.

When you say “indistinguishable from real sex” it makes me think maybe you don’t have a whole lot of sex. You’re imagining it to be something it’s not. A lot of the actual sex people have isn’t indistinguishable from real sex, to put it lightly. And to suggest people can’t have an intimate friendship through virtual technology is absurd – I have felt more of a bond to the 11-pt font words glowing on my ILP screen than many people in the flesh.

I think you’re also forgetting that we already use high-tech haptic suits. They’re called bodies, and they are not magical. They are bio-machinery that will, inevitably, be extended and enhanced by virtual technology. It seems like you don’t make it a habit to read about future tech, and maybe you carry to the subject a bias against it, so you close your mind to it. But you have yet to show that you know the first thing about predictive tech trends, Moore’s law, haptic engineering, or any of the technologies I’m referencing. I think you’re hiding your head in the sand a bit.

Many guys I know don’t feel the burning desire to get laid, because they jerk off to porn. The effect is already taking place. It severely dampens the universal libido. Given the opportunity to have sex, they might take a pass, not worth the trouble. The smells and the pacing is just ultra slow and boring and too real. They’d rather eat a big bowl of chilly, cuddle up with their iPhone and fuck 20 different chicks before they cum and fall asleep safely alone. This trend will increase as technology becomes more vivid, more sensory inputs involved, and peer to peer, or even group connections become the new trend.

It may make sense to research how long it takes to create a social movement, find evidence that you can do this quickly. Even if you could, you only have about 20-30 years tops, so all the effort might be for naught, given the huge advantages in convenience, privacy, variation and safety that virtual sex could offer. I think we might want to switch it to a Sexocracy where virtually sex is funded by the state. There’s no reason to throw the baby/bathwater. The sexocracy in your version is an ice storm of profound eyes wide shut proportions, the brainchild of a severely numb heart, and you may lack the spectrum of experience and emotion to realize that it’s super icky and no women will ever agree to it.

+++

Do you happen to read a short story by an Italian fantasy writer Lino Aldani?
It’s titled “Onirofilm” and is (AFAIK) is written in late 70s of the previous century.
I cannot find a link in English so I would translate (quite freely and perhaps with a lot of grammar mistakes) the first paragraph here from Bulgarian. Original is in Italian Language.

That is to say Lino Aldani is for sexocracy [virtual sexocracy - imagination ego-oriented. enhanced] what once Jules Verne was for submarines…

(*) That is a fictional character, an actress which seems to match Lino ALdani’s grasping for young women’s beauty – most like OP view on Natalie Portman, Emma Watson etc…

If you haven’t noticed Arminius this thread is over 900 posts long. There’s plenty of my arguments for the Sexocracy to look at if you’re interested.

I’m not hiding behind ‘flower power’. I’ve consistently said that the ‘flower power’ ideology is not the same as my ideology.

I’m 37.

EDIT: I’ve provided some informative quotes about my ideology below, Arminius. Enjoy!

Actual sex and real sex are the same thing.

It would be stupid to try and estimate the future rate of technological advancement without looking at the rate of technological advancement over the past. Look at the Playstation system which has brought out a new installment about once every 6 years. The PS4 is still no where near photo realistic. At the current rate of development we wont see photorealistic games till 2036. And that’s just audio and visual. Tactile technology will need much longer to develop.

It only appears ‘icky’ to you because you have succumbed to society’s message that sex is shameful. That will be purged in the Sexocracy. The Sexocracy doesn’t just provide women for men, it provides women for women, men for women and men for men as well.

This post and the one above are some great posts for you to further explore my ideology, Arminius. By the way, ‘Lucella’ is my alter ego.

it was a joke. my point is that actual sex is often pretty blunt and mechanical, not everybody savors the nuances, especially guys – who are the real beneficiaries of your ideology. So by focusing on that aspect of sex, you’re really stacking the deck. most guys i talk to feel sex is too real for their tastes. farts, bad breath, mixed messages, oily skin, noises, bad timing, boredom, there is a veritable minefield of fuckups, even if you recruit and train sexual olympians, they are still human, and still flawed, your quality control won’t be perfect, and people are distracted by their own flaws as much as their partners’.

Again, statements like these show that you’re not interested in the topic. If you were, you’d know that the pace of technological change has been exponential and will continue to be. So if you insist on looking at the past, look for the fact that it has been an exponential rate of change. Follow your own advice."

You’re cherry picking. Playstation’s problem is that they keep trying to build a better wheel, which is impossible. plus, they didn’t expect that people would rather play flappy bird on an iPhone than play soccer or archery with a kinnect or wii. so the tech has stalled out.

I bought xbox kinnect and wii, and 360. My kids and I play them a lot. It’s a different paradigm. You actually interact with your whole body. The tech is crude, yes, but you’re “there” kicking balloons, bowling, boxing. It’s pretty fucking fun.

Yes, it’s crude, it sucks, no replacement for the real thing, but you have to look for the trajectory and not get hung up with the where it is in the moment.

it’s not icky to me bro, it’s icky to women though. I’m just talking as a marketer. I’m not judging you or it. and living with a woman, i feel it’s not so much programming as it is wiring. while there are probably a lot of exceptions, women literally think lots of sexual partners and lots of sex is in fact icky, and this is hard wired. i have a daughter, too and she just turned 13. I can turn her into a woman who doesn’t feel this way. all i’d have to do is abuse her and treat her disrespectfully. that’s generally where sluts and nymphs come from. they don’t come from philosophy in the boudoir or intercepting society’s message with a new enlightened one of sexual liberation. BELIEVE ME I’VE TRIED. AND TRIED. AND CONTINUE TO TRY. But that doesn’t work. The love generation tried this in the late 60s. It didn’t stick. It depressed people and tore them apart. And it only happened at all because they were as high as fuck.

your sexocracy argument is simply a transplant of the brothel or escort argument. the escort services are out there, and cost is not the barrier. law is not the barrier. cleanliness is not the barrier. legality is not the barrier. stigma is not the barrier. often johns develop respectful, caring friendships with their provider. so coldness isn’t the barrier.

lack of demand is the barrier. because it’s icky. women generally don’t want multiple partners, and most women could have sex if they wanted it, but for them they want a voluntary, organic, earned relationship where sex is on a continuum of hundreds of meaningful activities. men want to know they earned it, too. We want to feel sexy and loved. your sexocracy is for society’s rejects and people who are not quite right in the membrane. it’s for guys who want to go to a whore but don’t have the balls to do it. they want the world to do it for them.

you and your sexocracy are also ten kinds of awesome. you are clearly a genius, and your idea is clearly a lightning rod. You could do all sorts of things with this so keep on the path. i love playing devils advocate, and I love having something worthy of playing devils advocate for hours. I’m not here to put you down or play a game of one upsmanship. i realize it may not be useful, and in fact could be annoying. but i want to make sure you know that underlying my posts is a deep respect for your ideas and the terse, scalpel way of answering to the objections. my hope is that in some way it helps.

I don’t see how you think I’m a genius if you think my Sexocracy ideology is wrong.

I think there are lots of beautiful young women out there who just want to fly free and just fuck different guys here there and everywhere but they don’t because they’re frightened of getting raped and they’re frightened of being labelled sluts/ skanks/ slags/ slappers.

i want to make sure you know that underlying my posts is a deep respect for your ideas and the terse, scalpel way of answering to the objections. my hope is that in some way it helps that i put you through the paces. i’m talking to you like i would talk to a close friend or a brother.

that last assertion you made can’t be measured – or at least I’m sure you haven’t measured it. We are just dueling with anecdotal evidence and intuition and that’s fine. I’m 44, have had numerous partners across social strata, i’m married, i have a daughter, and i have a large group of liberated friends who talk freely, more interested in the truth than anything else. i think i’m in a better position to fly with my intuition on this. uness you have some hard data, it’s going to be hard to buy into this idea that women innately want to fly free but are being held back. and i think an argument can be made for the opposite, the social system is an outgrowth of the natures of men and women, and how sex ultimately plays into the longterm well-being of both genders.

i know it has been a male dominated culture in the US but that has changed, an argument can be made that for a while now, women have been in the drivers seat and can fuck all they want without consequence. they choose not to.