Sexocracy

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?

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. :smiley:

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Read up holmes, drop this scripture bullshit.

Perhaps you should.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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”

Why not humans as creative, playful beings? Or humans as social, nurturing beings? This is where the question returns to your personal situation - age, gender, relationship history and so on.

You can justify it to yourself. It’s not a logical inevitability, though, it’s a question of values and priorities.

OK, we’ve established that it’s an oppressive state with no room for social compromise. So why would people take on jobs that are currently high-risk or require intense dedication, which are now compensated in the form of pay? How do you ensure that the best people are taken for the roles they are needed in, and remain motivated? And how does the sexocracy “fund” large-scale infrastructure?