Sexocracy

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:16 pm

jam2001 wrote:That was exactly Marx's point.


And he was right. But he didn't call for the abolition of money and he said nothing about the most important areas for human society- sex and drugs.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:24 pm

equal2u wrote:The Sexocracy is a form of communism but a very different one from the one that Marx envisaged.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Calrid » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:53 pm

equal2u wrote:
jam2001 wrote:That was exactly Marx's point.


And he was right. But he didn't call for the abolition of money and he said nothing about the most important areas for human society- sex and drugs.


Why are they the most important part of human society, because you are young and you want both, or because you think they are fundamental to any society? I think what you want is skewed by your inexperience. A good system of government needs to speak to everyone, not young horny post adolescents. And I don't mean that to sound demeaning but your mentality is obviously coloured by your age more than wisdom. Some people can get laid whenever they want anyway, to forgo the chase for a society of people who need make no effort to do so seems shallow, and ultimately unfulfilling. Communism as you say is similar it takes the drive out of labour, because everyone is equal no matter what they think or do. Neither system has shown any sign of success, they always get corrupted by the need for men or women to strive, to prove themselves. Sex and relationships are no different, we have to at the end of the day to have striven for what we wanted out of sex, and that goes for any desire.

Bag o' cats mate, society is a bag of cats, you can't please everyone but you can please the majority. Forgo that fundamental, forgo the drives that are so unique in any individual, let them off their experience of the sexual drive and you'll raise a nation of charisma-less pleasure bots, hooked on drugs that they don't have to work hard to find.

You really should read Brave New World by the way, it's been said before but it might be an eye opener for you particularly.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:21 am

Calrid wrote:
equal2u wrote:
jam2001 wrote:That was exactly Marx's point.


And he was right. But he didn't call for the abolition of money and he said nothing about the most important areas for human society- sex and drugs.


Why are they the most important part of human society, because you are young and you want both, or because you think they are fundamental to any society? I think what you want is skewed by your inexperience. A good system of government needs to speak to everyone, not young horny post adolescents. And I don't mean that to sound demeaning but your mentality is obviously coloured by your age more than wisdom. Some people can get laid whenever they want anyway, to forgo the chase for a society of people who need make no effort to do so seems shallow, and ultimately unfulfilling. Communism as you say is similar it takes the drive out of labour, because everyone is equal no matter what they think or do. Neither system has shown any sign of success, they always get corrupted by the need for men or women to strive, to prove themselves. Sex and relationships are no different, we have to at the end of the day to have striven for what we wanted out of sex, and that goes for any desire.


We're all sexual beings from the moment we're conceived to the moment we die. Your perception of sexuality seems to be that it only applies to 'young horny post adolescents' that is so detached from reality it is psychotic. I'm disturbed by your repeated assertions of the need to 'chase' for sex. You sound like a rapist.

Drugs are incredibly powerful in many ways. Epecially the way they can access feelings of pleasure. We're all pleasure seeking beings whether you're two or a hundred and two. That's one of the reaasons why drugs are incredibly important. Any sociological system that fails to make any comment on them, like Marxism, is going to be a laughable failure from the outset.

My system gives powerful incentive for labour. Not everyone is equal within the economy. Those who do not work only get standard status. Those who work get luxury status. Super luxury is reserved for the sexual service providers.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:27 am

Calrid wrote:
Bag o' cats mate, society is a bag of cats, you can't please everyone but you can please the majority. Forgo that fundamental, forgo the drives that are so unique in any individual, let them off their experience of the sexual drive and you'll raise a nation of charisma-less pleasure bots, hooked on drugs that they don't have to work hard to find.

You really should read Brave New World by the way, it's been said before but it might be an eye opener for you particularly.


I'm not 'forgo'ing the drives. The drives are unforgoable. They are determined by our genes. I want to create a society where they are embraced and fulfilled rather than constantly blocked and frustrated by this fragmented world of self hatred you seem to think is so wonderful.
Last edited by equal2u on Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sun Feb 05, 2012 12:30 am

Calrid wrote:No, I don't feel the need to have sex given to me by the government, I'd much rather earn it by hard graft, and sex isn't easy to get if you're not superbly good looking and charming to boot. But hell when you get it through persistence, patience, and the love of the chase, you earned it. Giving sex to people on a plate degrades the whole experience IMHO, you get out there and fight for it soldier, and I don't want to hear any complaints until I've seen some scars. Dismissed. :wink:


I think if you think it's acceptable to 'chase' and 'fight for' sex then you've got problems. If I have sex with a beautiful woman I want her to leave me with kisses not scars. Chasing a woman and then fighting to have sex with her and coming away scarred sounds like a description of rape to me.

If I was a woman I'd feel threatened by the aggressive language you use to write about sex, and particularly by your comparison of sex with warfare.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Calrid » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:41 am

equal2u wrote:
Calrid wrote:No, I don't feel the need to have sex given to me by the government, I'd much rather earn it by hard graft, and sex isn't easy to get if you're not superbly good looking and charming to boot. But hell when you get it through persistence, patience, and the love of the chase, you earned it. Giving sex to people on a plate degrades the whole experience IMHO, you get out there and fight for it soldier, and I don't want to hear any complaints until I've seen some scars. Dismissed. :wink:


I think if you think it's acceptable to 'chase' and 'fight for' sex then you've got problems. If I have sex with a beautiful woman I want her to leave me with kisses not scars. Chasing a woman and then fighting to have sex with her and coming away scarred sounds like a description of rape to me.

If I was a woman I'd feel threatened by the aggressive language you use to write about sex, and particularly by your comparison of sex with warfare.


Didn't need any posts for that. Scars are you serious, who said the chase leaves scars, if anything it leaves calluses and if you're lucky some pleasant memories.

You're still young that's you fault. You really need to realise that you, and by you I mean you as a person are not all. You like yourself I can tell, but other people, well you are in a world of ignorance.

Still you didn't answer any of my points, I didn't expect you to. For you love, well I don't think you've ever had a long term relationship, and I don't think you can be mature enough to cope with such an imaginary beast atm. If you think I think love is a battlefield, you might be somewhat right, but it is more than that, and you show little knowledge of knowing what that, that is. Hence this thread. My advice sincerely made, grow up, learn to talk, I mean really talk to women, and then have sex.

And hell don't write three posts to address one, unless it's a long post. Like your understanding of sex and real relationships, you should just keep it simple.

I'll refer to a question that a friend of mine once asked, "have you ever really made love to a woman? I mean really." He was joking but how many people have who have no ground to know? Yeah I have really made love to a woman, it was the best sex I ever had, not because she was fantastic in bed, but because mutually we were compatible. Where does your system encourage love, real feeling and not just little more than a wank?
Last edited by Calrid on Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:01 am, edited 4 times in total.
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Calrid » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:52 am

equal2u wrote:
We're all sexual beings from the moment we're conceived to the moment we die. Your perception of sexuality seems to be that it only applies to 'young horny post adolescents' that is so detached from reality it is psychotic. I'm disturbed by your repeated assertions of the need to 'chase' for sex. You sound like a rapist.

Drugs are incredibly powerful in many ways. Epecially the way they can access feelings of pleasure. We're all pleasure seeking beings whether you're two or a hundred and two. That's one of the reaasons why drugs are incredibly important. Any sociological system that fails to make any comment on them, like Marxism, is going to be a laughable failure from the outset.

My system gives powerful incentive for labour. Not everyone is equal within the economy. Those who do not work only get standard status. Those who work get luxury status. Super luxury is reserved for the sexual service providers.


And yeah that's just horse shit because you don't understand how relationships work. Come back in five years when you actually have had a relationship worth talking about, and are not just speaking about what you as a selfish and horny individual want because atm you can't get it.

Drugs are only powerful if lucidity is more so.

Yeah I'm a potential rapist, who the hell isn't. :D
“I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.”

Oscar Wilde - probably.
User avatar
Calrid
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 10:54 am

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:30 am

If she's young and beautiful, nude, smiling adoringly at me and opening her legs as wide as she can go that means she loves me. The rest is bullshit.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Khrone » Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:35 am

equal2u wrote:If she's young and beautiful, nude, smiling adoringly at me and opening her legs as wide as she can go that means she loves me. The rest is bullshit.

You, my good sir, have a horrible definition of love.
Wanting sex is not love, its being horny. There is a very big difference.
Sincerly
-Khrone
User avatar
Khrone
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Only_Humean » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:54 am

equal2u wrote:If she's young and beautiful, nude, smiling adoringly at me and opening her legs as wide as she can go that means she loves me. The rest is bullshit.


This sums up the depth of your insights, I'm afraid.

Also, if you're going to criticise Marx, it helps to have a passing familiarity with what he said.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sun Feb 05, 2012 9:58 pm

Khrone wrote:
equal2u wrote:If she's young and beautiful, nude, smiling adoringly at me and opening her legs as wide as she can go that means she loves me. The rest is bullshit.

You, my good sir, have a horrible definition of love.
Wanting sex is not love, its being horny. There is a very big difference.


I agree wanting sex is not love. My point is that only the young beautiful people have the power to express love for others. The old and the ugly simply can't do it. That's why I advocate the creation of a society where the young and beautiful are incentivised to express love to as many people as possible by becoming sexual service providers.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:01 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
equal2u wrote:If she's young and beautiful, nude, smiling adoringly at me and opening her legs as wide as she can go that means she loves me. The rest is bullshit.


This sums up the depth of your insights, I'm afraid.

Also, if you're going to criticise Marx, it helps to have a passing familiarity with what he said.


I criticise Marx for what he didn't say. He didn't argue for the abolition of money and he didn't say anything about sex or drugs indicatiing a failure to recognise the reality of human beings.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Only_Humean » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:19 pm

equal2u wrote:I criticise Marx for what he didn't say. He didn't argue for the abolition of money and he didn't say anything about sex or drugs indicatiing a failure to recognise the reality of human beings.


You don't seem to know what he didn't say, then. What have you read of his?

A question occurs: I have a few acquaintances who have had their issues with heroin, and they say that it's far better than sex. Why a sex-based economy and not an opiates-based one?
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Sexocracy

Postby FilmSnob » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:26 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
equal2u wrote:I criticise Marx for what he didn't say. He didn't argue for the abolition of money and he didn't say anything about sex or drugs indicatiing a failure to recognise the reality of human beings.


You don't seem to know what he didn't say, then. What have you read of his?

A question occurs: I have a few acquaintances who have had their issues with heroin, and they say that it's far better than sex. Why a sex-based economy and not an opiates-based one?


Because sex keeps you going, while heroin stops you.

Not all drugs are for all people. Heroin might be good for a person that is very wound up all the time and doesn't want to change, for example. With the heroin, he can drop every now and then, but the discipline keeps you wound up the rest of the time, making for a better balance than before. Cocaine might be good for... Well, I dunno, Freud had some theories. Pot is good for people who have trouble empathizing and for the heroin example but to a way lesser extent, or a person that thrives on creativity. You see where I am going with this I think...

But sex is good for everybody.
FilmSnob
ex-Pezer
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:44 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
equal2u wrote:I criticise Marx for what he didn't say. He didn't argue for the abolition of money and he didn't say anything about sex or drugs indicatiing a failure to recognise the reality of human beings.


You don't seem to know what he didn't say, then. What have you read of his?

A question occurs: I have a few acquaintances who have had their issues with heroin, and they say that it's far better than sex. Why a sex-based economy and not an opiates-based one?


I haven't read anything by Marx. When did he argue for the abolition of money? What did he say about drugs? what did he say about sex?

It's not a sex based economy it's a status based economy. Sexual serve providers receive the higher status.

We're all genetically programmed to have sexual desire. We only desire heroin after we've experienced it. You can't overdose on sex. Sex is good for you, heroin use comes with health risks.

The economy isn't designed according to sex or heroin it is designed according to freedom. It is a society where people are free to live whatever lifestyle they wish. It's obvious that most men, if they were able to live the lifestyle they wished to, would have sex with lots of beautiful young women, and so the Sexocracy allows them to do this. I think many people wish to take heroin. I know I do. And so the Sexocracy provides this as well within a regulatory framework to maximise safety.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Philosopher8659 » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:49 am

how did I get here?

"We're all genetically programmed to have sexual desire."

I think I met that programmer once. He was in a group of programmers, one was named genetic, one was named basic, and one was name, what the hell?

I was programmed to have beer and pizza. However, the programmer was not too good and I ended up with salad and steak.

I don't see the distinction between, I was genetically programmed to eat pussy, and God created a fornicator. They seem to be much on par.

Genetic code is a language, to say that a language spoke itself, wrote itself, is rather thoughtless. A non-thought, actually.

As Plato pointed out, nobody desires a specific thing, only the satisfaction of an emotion, which is not specific at all.

The human body is a system of seven environmental acquisition systems. Therefore, any social system which has any hope of existing will be based on conquering "the seven last plagues of man"--metaphorically, of course. And, if one is way too stupid to get the procreative system right, there is absolutely no hope at all for the remaining six, six, six.
Philosopher8659
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:49 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby FilmSnob » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:40 am

Philosopher8659 wrote:As Plato pointed out, nobody desires a specific thing, only the satisfaction of an emotion, which is not specific at all.


When our society starts thinking the opposite of this, I will consider it evolved in its understanding of its humanity.

What a fatal mistake to make for a "philosopher."

Philosopher8659 wrote:six, six, six.


Read up holmes, drop this scripture bullshit.
FilmSnob
ex-Pezer
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Only_Humean » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:50 pm

equal2u wrote:I haven't read anything by Marx.


Perhaps you should.

We're all genetically programmed to have sexual desire. We only desire heroin after we've experienced it. You can't overdose on sex. Sex is good for you, heroin use comes with health risks.


You can, sexual compulsion (to the point of harming oneself) is a well-known disorder. Most of the danger of heroin comes from its uncontrolled, unregulated nature: medical opiates are much safer. And, apparently, better than sex. The pleasure is a (very) similar biological pathway, but more intense - if your philosophy is based on hedonism, why not go for that?

It's obvious that most men, if they were able to live the lifestyle they wished to, would have sex with lots of beautiful young women, and so the Sexocracy allows them to do this. I think many people wish to take heroin. I know I do. And so the Sexocracy provides this as well within a regulatory framework to maximise safety.


How is it different then from legalising drugs and prostitution? What freedom does money prevent here?
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:33 pm

Thanks, Only Humean.

Why don't you answer my questions? where does Marx advocate the abolition of money? What does he say about sexuality? what does he say about drug use?

Sexual compulsion. The 'Tiger Woods' effect right? We've all got sexual compulsion, we've evolved to be like that.

Heroin is a medical opiate- diacetylmorphine. Heroin is just the street name for it. People can take diacetylmorphine in the Sexocracy, or they can have sex with beautiful people, or they can do both. It isn't the case that I have to 'go for' one or the other. Both are available in the Sexocracy.

Money draws value away from human beings and onto itself.
Last edited by equal2u on Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:33 pm

equal2u wrote:The problem with capitalism is that it capitalises on itself. If you stimulate the economy it will go into overdrive until it collapses. If you reduce stimulation it will become increasingly underactive until it collapses. The problem is that any financial economy places value outside of human beings and onto money. This is a misplacement of value and inevitably leads to destruction.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:34 pm

equal2u wrote:I'm the greatest economist that has ever lived because I'm the only one to recognise that the financial economy itself is fundamentally flawed. Money itself is destructive to humanity. Money draws value away from human beings and onto itself. Human beings inevitably become judged according to how much money they have. Money results in an economic system that is insanely complex and is constantly collapsing and then rebuilding itself, with its biological constituents gazing upon it with fear and wonder, constantly observing its every tiny fluctuation and producing offerings to try and appease and soothe it, all the time apparently unaware that they are looking at their own creation.

That's why in the Sexocracy money is entirely done away with and replaced with a simple and elegant status based system.

equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Only_Humean » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:46 pm

equal2u wrote:Why don't you answer my questions? where does Marx advocate the abolition of money? What does he say about sexuality? what does he say about drug use?


In the Communist Manifesto, for a start. Although by the time he got Capital written - he'd probably spent longer studying, publishing and debating on political economy than you've been alive by then - he concluded that it was impractical while commodities were being produced. It's not like it's a new idea - communists were misguidedly equating money with capitalist oppression 150 years ago (Proudhon was all for banning it - 'property is theft') and various religious communities have banned it as well. It's even been done on a national scale - Pol Pot abolished money in Cambodia. Turned out well, didn't it?

As for sex and drugs, he didn't see them as integral to a fair/just society - if religion is the opiate of the masses, it's clear that he's not pro-opiate.

Sexual compulsion. The 'Tiger Woods' effect right? We've all got sexual compulsion, we've evolved to be like that.


No, I mean sexual compulsion. Masturbating until your genitals are injured, unable to concentrate or hold down jobs. And clearly, we haven't all got it.

Money draws value away from human beings and onto itself.


So in the sexocracy, all males have equal status, despite being of different values to society, correct? Status determines how goods are allocated through society. How will 'status' not draw value away from human beings and onto itself? How is it different from money?

Say the fire brigade goes on strike and demands a higher status due to the risks it takes. What then?
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Sexocracy

Postby equal2u » Mon Feb 06, 2012 10:21 pm

Thanks, Only Humean. Money was abolished in North Korea quite recently as well by the late Kim Jong Il with predictably disasterous results.

I certainly wouldn't advocate the abolition of money overnight. First of all I'd be in favour of massive tax rises on the rich to redistribute wealth. Abolishing money completely would be something to aim for in the future.

If money is to be abolished then it has to be done within the context of a new status based system that recognises human beings as pleasure seeking, sexual beings.

I suppose masturbation to the point of injury is overdose on sex in a way. Also people who engage in frequent receptive anal sex can end up with serious problems.

In reality all human beings have fundamentally equal status. In the Sexocracy superficial inequalities are created between the different statuses that I described in my first post. The status doesn't draw value away from human beings and onto itself because it is a justified system. People can justify why the sexual service providers receive the super luxury status, workers receive the luxury status and other people receive the standard status or rehab status. No one can justify why one child is born to be a billionaire while another is born to die from drinking dirty water before they reach 1 year old. Because that just isn't justifiable.

In the Sexocracy all workers receive LS unless they're SSPs. If someone goes on strike then they're just told the system has been set. If firefighters go on strike this is a criminal act. They would be arrested and imprisoned on rehab status and new firefighters would be trained.
equal2u
Thinker
 
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Sexocracy

Postby Khrone » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:03 pm

Just throwing this out there, but you can overdose on sex.
One man (Russian) passed out and his heart stopped after winning a bet with two women saying he could have constant sex with them for like 18 hours non-stop.
I'll look for the article.

P.S. here it is.
"2009: Sergey Tuganov, a 28-year-old Russian, bet two women that he could continuously have sex with them both for twelve hours. Several minutes after winning the $4,300 bet, he suffered a fatal heart attack"
Last edited by Khrone on Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sincerly
-Khrone
User avatar
Khrone
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:34 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]