If there was a pill to kill all your sexual desire, would you take it?

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leftist

Originally posted by AaronWilson
As someone that dislikes sex, I most certainly would.

However, only if that pill did not kill romanticism.


Romanticism is also a delusion.

The world has never before needed clear-headedness the way it does now.
edit on 3/27/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)


Its funny,I agree. I have been staying away from the girl that I love because I am scared that getting too serious will lead to a capitalist existence. The girl is perfect. I picked her up when she was managing a bookstore. She has a degree in literature. She reads Deadpool comics and Shakespeare. She is high school teacher now. She is really hot. Super nice. The coolest most perfect girl I have ever met. And she loves me.

It has come to the stage where it kinda needs to go to another level,but like I said,I fear the loss of my thoughts. She makes me so happy. She makes me forget how horrible the world is. If I take it further there will be no going back. I need to make things formal and more serious. But if I do that,and the new Spanish Civil war breaks out,I might not care. Im sure wouldnt. Not enough to go.

Oscar Wilde thinks that the true socialist individual must avoid monogamy. He think it hurts individualism. I also think having someone that you love makes you care less about everything else.

Romance is good though. but I think I kinda know where you are coming from.




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Germanicus
 


If you can deny your urges you will see your energy can be put to political ends. I am not "spiritual" but I am sure the celebate and ascetic religious people (like monks in the west or aecetics in India for example) were onto something.

Socialism is wonderful in that it welcomes and even encourages a sex-free life for those who want it. People think of the "free love" left, but that is more associated with hippies (who were not really political in a serious sense - hippidom is more a kind of popular mysticism) or some of the antinomian aspects of left-anarchism. But generally speaking, the left allows for non-traditional gender and sexual roles, it understands the need for population reduction better, and it has a place for those who want to transcend the bonds of sexual urges. Think about it: to be progressive is to assert that we can change what is around us, no matter how seemingly engrained, and to recognize that "Man is the Master in All Things" (Kim Jong Ill). Biology is not destiny, nor is tradition, when it comes to the leftist view of sexuality. We can remake ourselves and our basic nature if we want to. Its an enormously comforting and broadminded view for anyone, sexually active or sex-free, straight or queer, whatever.

Capitalism has a much more twisted relationship to sexuality. While claiming to uphold traditional sexual morality (such as it is), it in fact perverts the sexual urge by channeling it into consumerism. Capitalism wants people to be lonely, frustrated, and insecure about sexuality so they will buy things to fix unnecessary problems or soothe the feeling of lonliness with material objects. It turns women into objects and men into frustrated seekers after something that doesn't even exist.
edit on 5/31/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leftist
reply to post by Germanicus
 


If you can deny your urges you will see your energy can be put to political ends. I am not "spiritual" but I am sure the celebate and ascetic religious people (like monks in the west or aecetics in India for example) were onto something.

Socialism is wonderful in that it welcomes and even encourages a sex-free life for those who want it. People think of the "free love" left, but that is more associated with hippies (who were not really political in a serious sense - hippidom is more a kind of popular mysticism) or some of the antinomian aspects of left-anarchism. But generally speaking, the left allows for non-traditional gender and sexual roles, it understands the need for population reduction better, and it has a place for those who want to transcend the bonds of sexual urges. Think about it: to be progressive is to assert that we can change what is around us, no matter how seemingly engrained, and to recognize that "Man is the Master in All Things" (Kim Jong Ill). Biology is not destiny, nor is tradition, when it comes to the leftist view of sexuality. We can remake ourselves and our basic nature if we want to. Its an enormously comforting and broadminded view for anyone, sexually active or sex-free, straight or queer, whatever.

Capitalism has a much more twisted relationship to sexuality. While claiming to uphold traditional sexual morality (such as it is), it in fact perverts the sexual urge by channeling it into consumerism. Capitalism wants people to be lonely, frustrated, and insecure about sexuality so they will buy things to fix unnecessary problems or soothe the feeling of lonliness with material objects. It turns women into objects and men into frustrated seekers after something that doesn't even exist.
edit on 5/31/2012 by Leftist because: (no reason given)


I agree. I wish I was as articulate as you.


You and I are proving Freud wrong.

The whole id thing is bs. We dont have to be selfish. We are not inherently selfish. I refuse to believe it.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
If it were temporary, OTC, and cheap, it might not be such a bad thing.

Seeing some attractive female is distracting, particularly if you don't have much to offer because you're broke, not being part of her social circle, etc. Then you find yourself thinking about somebody that would honestly have nothing to do with you. When stuck in that situation there's usually no means to scratch that itch in a socially acceptable manner. In some people, those kind of thoughts can even make it difficult to socialize. I know I'd rather be alone than feel self conscious about leering (or wanting to) at somebody. I find it too awkward. I'm sure this even goes far enough to lead to worse fustrations and depression in some folks. If not depressed, some may even misdirect that into violence or other socially negative outwards behavior.

This problem must be common enough though, I'm sure a good part of the "forever alone" meme is rooted in it. Not to mention it's funny how the internet culture makes memes out of things most people would rather not talk about otherwise. Besides, those kind of memes wouldn't exist if people couldn't relate to them.

Sure meditation and stuff like that can work to clamp down such desires. But that in itself requires focus. Would be nice to turn it off without that extra effort, or possibly use the time and energy that would have been directed to such meditation for other goals.

Still the desire isn't a bad thing either, it can positively drive motivation in some cases. Having it permanently tamped down could be depressing and boring too. So it's not all bad, just the extremes.

If there were something that lasted about as long as coffee in effect and wasn't any more harmful, and could take that edge off when it becomes too distracting, sure I'd give it a try on occasion. Socializing could even be easier too, as you're not thinking about "you know"
and focus on the conversation topics. (Who knows, it might even have the benefit of making the return swing more fun when you do feel free to let yourself go.)



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pauljs75
 


I agree, or rather a pill that removes said desires and a pill to give said desire incase you ever change your mind.





 
18
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join