Humans are more than sex. That is the point of Sexocracy, to get people to stop obsessing over sex and focus on their true potential. Once they are sexually satisfied they will stop putting sex on a pedastal and have more freedom to explore other things.
Needs aren’t independent from other needs. So if you want to sexually satisfy a man you must also satisfy all of his other needs. Sounds weird?
If you want to sexually satisfy me you must give me a good wife and a good family and a good social circle then I will be sexually satisfied because sex will have much deeper meaning than otherwise. Otherwise, you may satisfy this one need, but you will leave me feeling empty afterwards.
You are a genius, period. A genius of everything and anything. No bigger genius ever lived nor will ever live, we all bow down to you, blessed be the name of Trixie.
wikipedia.
i guess we’re both right.
It is like saying: (1) “Money is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the plutocracy. The plutocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises money.” (2) “Work is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the workocracy. The workocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises work.” (3) “Love is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the loveocracy. The loveocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises love.” (4) “Music is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the musicocracy. The musicocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises music.” (5) “The Demos is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the democracy. The democracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises the demos.” (6) “Nobility is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the aristocracy. The aristocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises nobility.” (7) “A king is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the monarchy. The monarchy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a king.” (8) “A drug is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the drugocracy. The drugocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a drug.” (9) “War is the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the warocracy. The warocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a war.” (10) “Machines are the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get them. It’s the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s why it’s called the machinocracy. The machinocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises machines.” … And so on, and os on. … The world is full of such examples. … It is always the same error - and always based on a proton pseudos.
Sex is not the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s not why it’s called the sexocracy. The sexocracy does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise sex. … It is just the same old ideology with the same old old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.
And by the way, equal2u:
Equality is not the only fundamental desire where you don’t die if you don’t get it. It’s not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That’s not why it’s called the egalitarianism. The equality does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise equality. … It is just the same old ideology with the same old old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.
The forces of evolution have primed our sex drives to be extremely powerful. The more powerful the sex drive the higher chance that the organism will pass on its genes. That’s why sex is a fundamental desire. Evolution has made sexual desire powerful, not work or love or music or money.
There are other “drives” and desires that are more important than sex. Do you not know them? Do you not breathe? Do you not drink? Do you not eat? Is there no metabolism in your body? If not, then you are no living being. 
And there are many people who prefer, for example, work or love or money, not sex.
There are even people who hate sex, for eaxmple Anna Nicole Smith who said “I hate for men to want sex all the time. I hate sex anyway”.
And Pandora even thinks that the “straight male … will end up below a gay man-whore”.
That you would write this just proves you are not reading what I write properly- see next post.
I’m not responding to you anymore Arminius. It is a waste of time.
You are the one who does not read what other ILP members write in this thread. If you had read the text of other ILP members, then you would have learned a lot. But you have not. … Pity.
That is nonsense. There are many other desires where you don’t actually die without it. And if you had read my posts properly, then you would have known this. One of my posts (try to read it properly):
Equal2u, I am afraid you will never learn the right basics.
Are you again frustrated, my boy?
I have given you all the informations you need in order to understand that your “sexocracy” is nonsense - based on a proton pseudos.
Other humans desire money, work, love, war, lierature, music, sports, machines, a healthier life, a happier life, and many other pleasures - but not or not necessarily sex.
Are you from the UK? If so, then - please (!) - realise that the Victorian era is over!
Queen Alexandrina Victoria (1819-1901).
i have to agree the arminus is now wasting time and many of your detractors are wasting time.
I wonder if sex-ocracy is the best title. it seems to be saying sex-rule or a sex form of govt.
I feel like sex is just one component of social service. I don’t see how this is in any way sex-rule, sex govt.
the name is a going to come off as a misnomer or an overstatement, again, like a bad 1970s sci fi exploition film.
not sure what a better title would be.
i also think if you’re writing a book, you seem to be in trouble, because to write a book that sells, in an area of
intuition, isn’t merely about the points you make. you have to empathize with the reader and their objections.
You have to preempt their difficulties, and instead of shutting them down in blunt fashion and with varying degrees of convincingness like you do here, you need to step into the readers’ shoes, figure out what it’s like to be the other guy, before you can change their minds.
many of the objections raised in this thread are fairly valid. and when visionaries seek something unusual, it’s ok to be uncertain as to whether it will work, whether people will take to it.
I don’t think you should give up the project, or waiver from your convictions. But i think you need to practice the spirit of empathy with your readers and stop thinking that you have to be committed to the point of blind obedience to your premise. that’s not the best way to think or sell these days.
it will be seen as a pathetic attempt to be like nietzsche or something. won’t work.
it’s possible that you just use this place to test ideas, and you’re blunt out of necessity – you don’t really care what people here think, they’re not the ones buying the book. Fine.
If einstein got hit by a train on his 15th birthday, he still would have been a genius. You don’t need to have a published breakthru to be a genius. And einstein might have had a friend or mentor, who just by virtue of talking to him and seeing how his mind leaps from A to D without need for B and C, could have deduced he was a genius. I think you’re a genius, but I think you have a long way to go before you can package something worthy of the name.
All your “sexocrats” are wasting time. Your “idea” is not new. Those with that “idea” were, are, and will be wasting time.
Your “project sexocracy” is foredoomed to failure. It is based on a proton pseudos.
All typical Jacobean “projects” are foredoomed to failure.
Thanks, Gamer. Maybe I was too harsh on Arminius, hopefully he will read this and think again. I’ve thought of ‘biocracy’ as an alternative title because it is a ‘bioharmonious society’ that exists in relation to our fears and desires as biological organisms. What Arminius doesn’t seem to understand is we are all formed by evolution, which is all about the propagation of our genes, and that’s why evolution has made sexual desire a fundamental desire. And it’s the word ‘fundamental’ that Arminius misses. Of course we desire literature and music, but evolution hasn’t primed us to have fundamental desires for those things alongside our desire for air as they are far less important to the propagation of our genes.
Another important aspect of living in harmony with nature is living in harmony with the various substances that alter us physiologically, especially the substances that give us access to pleasurable experiences even greater than what we can achieve through sex, so ‘narcocracy’ is another option. However I’m going to stick with sexocracy to emphasise the importance of the sexual service providers and the sacrifice they are asked to make and the importance of rewarding them above and beyond anyone else in society in recognition of that sacrifice.
I’m explaining the psychological processes behind mainstream thinking about sex work and recreational drugs.
I empathise with my detractors. Usually they just don’t like that I’m smarter than them and they’ll use every intellectually dishonest trick in the book to try and get one over me. For the ultimate example of this see what happened at the end of my ‘legalize heroin’ thread. That includes moderator’s abusing their power to beat me when they can’t do it intellectually. By the way where is Only Humean? I would have thought he would have issued a few of his ‘incivility’ warnings like he usually does.
I came here hoping that my Sexocracy ideology would go viral and I would become a world famous philosopher and then I could use my fame to generate money as well as make the world a better place. Obviously that hasn’t happened, that’s why I’m writing the book. You’re the only reason I’m sticking around here now, Gamer. Because you’re an unusually bright spark for ILP. But once this month ends I’m out of here until my book is finshed.
[i][size=102]Your “sexocracy” has nothing at all to do with genes and evolution, nothing at all to do with offspring, nothing at all to do with children, nothing at all to do with family.
You just want to have sex with young girls. And this for ever and ever.[/size] [/i]
You are ignoring all the lots of posts that call attention to your “sexocracy” error, because you do not want to discuss but to dictate your “sexocracy” error and terror. Dictating error and terror is typical Jacobean.
Why are you so obsessed?
Arminius…seriously…you’re just embarrassing yourself.
“Thanks” for your “response”, because you wrote exactly 656 minutes ago:
How embarrassing!
I can’t take your “sexocracy” seriously. You have no serious arguments, and you can’t have any, because your “sexocracy” is based on a proton pseudos. This has to do with your very individual desires, your own self-descriptions:
So you are the only one who is embarrassing himself.
You have no single argument, merely excuses and accusations. That is no discussion. That is your written showmanship, your ridiculous self-description.
How embarrassing!
OK then, Arminius, I changed my mind and decided to respond to you again, but I think there’ll be no more responses from me to you anymore. Not unless you write something interesting, which is unlikely.
st. gamer, patron of potential writers
Nothing wrong with dreaming big. And I don’t think this whole thing is a far cry from “all you need is love.” Even though this is a philosophical idea, there’s a sense that equal is going up against the blue meanies on this one and there’s a noble intention here. I think the jury is in on sex and how it’s used and why, and it’s a very charged subject with deep roots in evolution. and it’ll take a whole lot of factors to shake it loose, no one book can make all the difference. Even if this doesn’t result in social transformation, it has literary value on a few levels.
The movement would be meaningless to me. But it would affect my kids. And I will tell them what I’ve told you repeatedly: be brave and kind, it’s really that simple kid.
Like you and many others who has written there - I do not believe that achieving of ubiquitous sexual satisfaction or getting practically unlimited free access to fulfillment of the sexual desires (if ever at all possible) will be-all and end-all of social development or in other words the “end of history”.
I also can’s see how universal happiness could be a achieved after any “world’s new order” establishment. And the sex main pleasure is probably the feeling that you get it not because of your social/ material status but because of the attractiveness of your own fine and lovely personality (smart and smartassness).
My personal opinion on drugs usage [out of medical institutions] is that they are generally devastating for all the humans. Rigidly conservative stance as it may seems.
But IMHO you misinterpret equal2u there.
Under “fundamental desire” Eeual2u (IMO) understands much more: innate human drives, instincts, urges, impulses…
Equal2u did not refer to any arbitrary chosen subjects (money, demo[n]s, kings, nobility, drugs, machines, etc.,); social processes and activities (work, war,) or let me say the fundamental aesthetics longings (for music, art or beauty in any and all of its random forms).
IMHO in that particular case equal2u is basically retelling Freud’s story about psychological individuals who are first of all organisms and that any organism acts to survive and reproduce. Accordingly any such individual/ organism is directed toward the said ends by its fundamental needs - hunger, thirst, avoidance of pain, and sex. (Breathing is not included because (a)/ some organisms do not breathe. It is true that some organism are not making sex as well but let it leave it for now. ; (b)/ for the time being there is no serious restriction to that resorse on the mother Earth 
In the common case (Sun-eaters excluded) only sex out of these 4 fundamental needs/ desires may be self-suppressed by / taken away from the individual without imminent death of the latter.
Permanent voluntary continence from sex will eventually cause lack of offsprings [invitro and the likes excluded] and yes - continuous privation of satisfactory sex relation sometimes may cause nervosity, frustration, depression, constant anguish, misery and the likes.[Debatable as it is No sex is no fun - but is it unhealthy?
In my understanding sexocracy idea is an attempt to radically resolve this social/ individual human’s problem. Why this is better from the simple legalization of prostitution, the OP already explained. He thinks that sexual service providers shall be valued and justly honored by the rest of the society members rather than scorned. (The truth is that irrespective of the whores’ class[y]/ whores’ actual social status, the ‘normal people with “decent jobs” generally do not respect those who are selling their bodies for pleasure.)
Indeed it (sexocracy) has much in common (but is not one and the same) with communism (cf. From Money to Labour-Time Computation; or the general principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need; meritocracy (Ability and skills for providing quality sex services being the most valued merit in the sexocratic society) and most probably many other utopia or partly materialized projects of social engineering. But it at the very least needs to be seriously considered as a theoretical alternative. The right place for any utopia is the discussion forum. Even if when it seems to be artificially created.
I also sincerely think that equal2u (while mostly making a joke with us) has demonstrated quite efficient defence of his position and there are (IMHO) several occasions when his opponents while claiming to be regarding human beings as much more elevated creatures (rather than reduced to brutal sex driven pleasure searchers – “Kriswest - turning it into a commodity and remove all sentiment”; “taking it away from a private intimate loving situation” .) – did in fact vulgarize and belittle much more HM the Human - compared to equal2u himself). It may be my wrong (misunderstanding) but several opponents of equal2u were saying that sex is driven by omnipresent human’s desire for domination; will for power and etcetera. ” Ascolo Parodites ignoring the extreme degree to which power is involved in sex”; Kriswest “Sexual actions are about owning dominating in order to prove dominance.”;.Which I believe is wrong. The same allegation actually goes with the statement that “Kriswest - At our core nature we are capitalistic/Imperialistic. Just look at family structures then apply that to society. “