 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / March 2006without aids, herpes hepatitis etc, what kind of sex would we be getting up to these days?
would we be engaging in wild orgies? would the worldwide religions have lost enormous power? did we get a lot more f.cking done in the 60s and 70s? throughout history, you see, sex was made a taboo coz of the result, the result was kids, overpopulation, physical risk for the woman, so they came up with codes and taboos and stuff like wagnerian knights and big dresses and 'love'. but as always happens with humans, they confused myth with praxis, they really believed all this sh.t bout monogamy, 'love', marriage, getting old together, family and ultimately just another right wing interpretation on mysticism called religion. with condoms and pills all of that could have collapsed, but then all the sexually transmitted diseases came about. and once again we confuse myth with praxis. tom wolfe talks of how people are naturally inclined to monogamy, we talk as if sex scenes are supposed to affect kids and use that non-excuse and myth resulting from just praxis to hide revolutionary sex from the media. and now its all about getting A gf, no ambiguity, we're back to puritan notions of identity, and now it's all bout drugs, alcohol, loud music... without std, would we all be having sex in public places? would politicians be engaging in big brother sex? would it be a case of just gaping at some broad and doing it there and then coz why not? would barbecues have been substituted with orgies and clothes industries collapsed? wow, what a thought, a world with no tommy hilfiger, ralph lauren, nike and fitness fanatics. perhaps the dystopia of postmodernity might have been less harsh, i mean there would be no beckham, beckham being a result of paranoid sexual power politics (a moron who looks like a girl and with a taste for women up his arse?). plus, sex has always been used by right wingers (who now apparently call themselves 'libertarians') as a method of controlling the population. wonder what might have happened in that arena thou as i said above, there's no difference between religion and politics. . The birth rate would be an indicator of sexual activity. . Imagine the disease of the future. For example, a parasitic virus centered around the genitals so that if you don't have sex you die. So A calls up B and asks can you come over. B says I can't I'm going over to C's. A cries you've got to come over now! It's beginning to gnaw at me! . The birth rate would be an indicator of sexual activity. . Imagine the disease of the future. For example, a parasitic organism centered around the genitals so that if you don't have sex you die. So A calls up B and asks can you come over. B says I can't I'm going over to C's. A cries you've got to come over now! It's beginning to gnaw at me! The socialist cause has entered the road of revival thanks to the outstanding ideological and theoretical activities and revolutionary practice of leader Kim Jong Il - 27 Feb 2006 18:18 GMT monsieurblob@hotmail.com wrote... > and once again we confuse myth with praxis. tom wolfe talks of how > people are naturally inclined to monogamy, we talk as if sex scenes are > supposed to affect kids and use that non-excuse and myth resulting from > just praxis to hide revolutionary sex from the media. and now its all > about getting A gf, no ambiguity, we're back to puritan notions of > identity, and now it's all bout drugs, alcohol, loud music... While I hate religion and believe in sexual freedom, I also realize that deadly STDs exist. Has anyone ever considered that perhaps traditional emphasis on virginity, monogamy, and control over who your children marry might have been reactions to an ancient deadly STD outbreak? At some point perhaps 10,000 years ago when the ice age ended and human groups began moving into new territories and encountering each other there may have been an outbreak of an STD. It may have taken centuries to recognize, but eventually they would realize that virgins didn't die from that particular disease, that known girlfriends of Caveman X all had the disease, and that those in committed relationships didn't get the disease. That observation could easily have worked its way into the culture and that is why promiscuity has been frowned upon since. Like all cultural traditions, people imagined they were the way the gods wanted it and they became divine commands when written down thousands of years later. It has also been suggested that Jewish dietary laws were the result of recognizing disease, shellfish can be poisonous from red tide, pigs carry trichinosis, etc. - so that an ancestral memory of the tribe getting sick from a bad batch of oysters becomes a Command from God himself to never eat oysters or go to hell. So maybe promiscuity isn't such a good thing, but it's important to argue against it using science (that it spreads HIV) rather than using religious morality (that you will go to hell for it). On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:18:54 GMT, The socialist cause has entered the road of revival thanks to the outstanding ideological and theoretical activities and revolutionary practice of leader Kim Jong Il <comrade@kim.jong.il> wrote: >While I hate religion and believe in sexual freedom, I also realize that >deadly STDs exist. Has anyone ever considered that perhaps traditional >emphasis on virginity, monogamy, and control over who your children marry >might have been reactions to an ancient deadly STD outbreak? There are several advantages of monogamy - but since societies are common that give not much more than lip service to it, I would hazard that the main advantages are more towards children having fathers than in prevention of disease. The socialist cause has entered the road of revival thanks to the outstanding ideological and theoretical activities and revolutionary practice of leader Kim Jong Il wrote: > monsieurblob@hotmail.com wrote... > > and once again we confuse myth with praxis. tom wolfe talks of how [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > argue against it using science (that it spreads HIV) rather than using > religious morality (that you will go to hell for it). Very interesting comments - would imagine this has alot to do with the survival of the human species. The benefit of a monogamous relationship was that the cave man would hunt to feed his cavewoman wife and child in return for getting laid. Would imagine Arab countries place taboos on womans sexuality for the same reason and perhaps limit their population in an arid climate that could not support having too many children. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:18:54 GMT, The socialist cause has entered the road of revival thanks to the outstanding ideological and theoretical activities and revolutionary practice of leader Kim Jong Il <comrade@kim.jong.il> wrote: >So maybe promiscuity isn't such a good thing, but it's important to >argue against it using science (that it spreads HIV) rather than using >religious morality (that you will go to hell for it). Of course, religious morality may have a scientific basis as well. One would think there is some survival benefit to having a religious society, or we wouldn't have so many societies with "wrong" religions. > would we be engaging in wild orgies? Maybe, but probably not for long. > would the worldwide religions have lost enormous power? > > did we get a lot more f.cking done in the 60s and 70s? From the time of the greatest upsurge of the kibbutz movement, in the 1940s and 1950s, its leaders promoted a policy of complete sexual equality, of encouraging women to enter roles previously reserved for men. In the early years it almost worked. The first generation of women were ideologically committed, and they shifted in large numbers to politics, management, and labor. But they and their daughters have regressed somewhat toward traditional roles, despite being trained from birth in the new culture. Furthermore, the daughters have gone further than the mothers. They now demand and receive a longer period of time each day with their children, time significantly entitled "the hour of love." Some of the most gifted have resisted recruitment into the higher levels of commercial and political leadership, so that the representation in these roles is far below that enjoyed by the same generation of men. It has been argued that this reversion merely represents the influence of the strong patriarchal tradition that persists in the remainder of Israeli society, even though the role division is now greater inside the kibbutzim than outside. The Israeli experience shows how difficult it is to predict the consequences and assess the meaning of changes in behavior based on either heredity or ideology. ...There is a cost, which no one can yet measure, awaiting the society that moves either from juridical equality of opportunity between the sexes to a statistical equality of their performance in the professions, or back toward deliberate sexual discrimination. Another unknown cost awaits the society that decides to reorganize itself into smoothly functioning nuclear families, or to abolish families in favor of communal kibbutzim. There is still another cost - and some of our members are already paying it in personal suffering - for the society that insists on conformity to a particular range of heterosexual practices. We believe that cultures can be rationally designed. We can teach and reward and coerce. But in so doing we must also consider the price of each culture, measured in the time and energy required for training and enforcement and in the less tangible currency of human happiness that must be spent to circumvent our innate predispositions On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/ > throughout history, you see, sex was made a taboo coz of the result, > the result was kids, overpopulation, physical risk for the woman, so [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > population. wonder what might have happened in that arena thou as i > said above, there's no difference between religion and politics. > would we be engaging in wild orgies? > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > population. wonder what might have happened in that arena thou as i > said above, there's no difference between religion and politics. Don't left wingers control the population with it too? How much was homosexuality encouraged by the Soviet Union at the height of its power? W : ) >> would we be engaging in wild orgies? >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > W : ) Encouraged? There is a big difference in not surpressing and encouraging. The really smart marketeers (political and religious) know how to surpress something into growth. The forbidden fruit aspect of sex is a great example if the powers that be want to see increase in population. On blobs point re nakedness. There'd be a hell of a lot more going to the gym in those circumstances. In Perth WAustralia, in the mid 80's , we had 10%of the pop. having gym memberships. Great climate = diminished cover up :-) BOfL >Don't left wingers control the population with it too? How much was >homosexuality encouraged by the Soviet Union at the height of its >power? The Soviet Union denied it existed there, with the result that it was not uncommon of Soviet men to hug and otherwise touch each other in public. >>Don't left wingers control the population with it too? How much was >>homosexuality encouraged by the Soviet Union at the height of its [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >not uncommon of Soviet men to hug and otherwise touch each other in >public. Soviet Union was NOT kind to gay people. Never has been. Men often hold hands in places like India and Iran. The governments of both countries criminalize same sex relations. However, the men and women there are not so hung up about sexuality as to perceive that affection between the same sex is attraction. Physical attraction between members of the same sex, of course, exists in every culture of the human species--and many other species as well. It is perfectly natural. The ones that squeal the most, though, about it and are afraid of it are just your run-of-the-mill bigots (right or left wing), and very often secretly just wannabe cocksuckers. Like you, Howard. George M. Carter >The ones that squeal the most, though, about it and are afraid of it >are just your run-of-the-mill bigots (right or left wing), and very >often secretly just wannabe cocksuckers. Like you, Howard. Do I squeal about it? Or is your "like you" based upon something else? If you note most of my posts that would be of interest to gays are supporting their right to marry. Or are Libertarian minded people "secretly just wannabe cocksuckers"? >>The ones that squeal the most, though, about it and are afraid of it >>are just your run-of-the-mill bigots (right or left wing), and very >>often secretly just wannabe cocksuckers. Like you, Howard. > >Do I squeal about it? Or is your "like you" based upon something >else? >If you note most of my posts that would be of interest to gays are >supporting their right to marry. Or are Libertarian minded people >"secretly just wannabe cocksuckers"? Gosh, how white of you! Well, if I have erred it was based on limited information from your posts about the Soviet Union. I am delighted to hear I may be wrong and that you are not necessarily a homophobe. Libertarians have nice ideas about personal liberty but then have this starry-eyed. naive trust in the "market" as if it is utterly trustable and needs no oversight. Of course, governments certainly can suck too. George M. Carter > Libertarians have nice ideas about personal liberty but then have this > starry-eyed. naive trust in the "market" as if it is utterly trustable > and needs no oversight. Libertarians are basically a flavor of Republican. The Episcopal/Anglican version, sort of. B/ >Libertarians are basically a flavor of Republican. The >Episcopal/Anglican version, sort of. We're a version that hasn't ever had power, so we are not yet corrupted by it. So basically, a Libertarian is someone who's in favor of individual liberty. Libertarians for instance, are generally against recreational drug laws. The current Republican party is in favor of Big Government, Big Business, and Big Religion. Practically, I recognize that when Big Business and Big Religion compete with Big Government, and help keep it from becoming totally despotic. That doesn't mean I like it though. Howard Brazee ha escrito: > >Libertarians are basically a flavor of Republican. The > >Episcopal/Anglican version, sort of. > > We're a version that hasn't ever had power, so we are not yet > corrupted by it. bull flucking sh.t, power is all your kind are good at. you're just a bunch of fascists too afraid of being called fascists so you call yourselves corporations, but then you also become afraid of being called corporations so you pick up the word 'libertarian'. all your 'libertarianism' is, is just siding with the rhetoric of power of the winners, and since all era of peace is preceded by an era of war, you're just the yes men of military power. So basically, a Libertarian is someone who's in > favor of individual liberty. Libertarians for instance, are > generally against recreational drug laws. bla bla bla, fascist moron trying to look cool. that's why i prefer the neo-cons a lot more to you crapheads, they dont try. you know where they stand. you're just a bunch of nazis in denial, which is what the nazis did you see, they denied their extremist nature, thats the difference between the moderate right and the extreme right, the latter denies, the former admits. > The current Republican party is in favor of Big Government, Big > Business, and Big Religion. what a whole load of f.cking poppycock. the only 'big government' the republicans are in favour of is in that of military spending, which is the one area 'libertarians' have since the break of time been so suspiciously fond of maintaining. big wars and big business responds to just another 'libertarian' fantasy map drawing, very similar to vietnam's. the interests that brought the u.s. to iraq, just like the ones that brought them to vietnam, were corporate 'libertarian' ones in the money, the big globalisation plans you 'libertarians' had for iraq or vietnam, moron. what the hell are you, stewe in disguise?and the way the information was treated pre-vietnam or pre-iraq are also very 'libertarian' in manner, the public wasnt informed or consulted, the info was top secret just like in any corporations, see 'libertarianism', money's pseudo-morality, outright fascism, corporate power, call it what you will, was once again the opposite of democracy. and big religion, what, are you kidding me? read gaza for a few minutes and you'll see why he's so fond of religion. big religion allows authority to go unquestioned, it's been like that always, turning the creator moral, thanking him for creating you, don't you see, thanking the superior corporations for giving you charity, believing money to be moral, money, like god, god also moral, don't you see? > Practically, I recognize that when Big Business and Big Religion > compete with Big Government, and help keep it from becoming totally > despotic. That doesn't mean I like it though. The KPA will resolutely smash the moves of the enemies to weaken the ideological might of the arms of the revolution and mete out merciless punishment to the aggressors and provokers - 02 Mar 2006 08:06 GMT Brian Mailman wrote... >> Libertarians have nice ideas about personal liberty but then have this >> starry-eyed. naive trust in the "market" as if it is utterly trustable >> and needs no oversight. > > Libertarians are basically a flavor of Republican. The > Episcopal/Anglican version, sort of. Even Ronald Reagan said that libertarianism was at the heart of conservativism, but one should be careful to distinguish a political party from the ideology it purports to represent. The current Republican party claims to be conservative but it's not, even Reagan's son vocally protested the neocon's attempt to cloak themselves in his father's mantle of traditional conservativism. I'm quite certain that a traditional conservative value is limited government, yet the Bushista neocons have created the largest, most expensive, and most intrusive government yet. It seems the only connection the rightarded neocons have to conservative philosophy is the belief in low taxes, but unlike real conservatives with real brains they can't do math and despite their stated belief in limited government, they always spend more than the low taxes they approved bring in. So while conservativism is a perfectly valid political philosophy it has been hijacked by rightarded neocons to promote a very unconservative agenda. So "conservative" is used as a synonym for "rightard" and becomes a dirty word. The term "libertarian" is probably a better choice of words today, it is much harder (but not impossible) for a neocon to claim to support civil liberties and constitutional rights while arguing for warrantless searches and life imprisonment for drug offenses. The KPA will resolutely smash the moves of the enemies to weaken the ideological might of the arms of the revolution and mete out merciless punishment to the aggressors and provokers - 03 Mar 2006 18:56 GMT GMCarter wrote... >>The Soviet Union denied it existed there, with the result that it was >>not uncommon of Soviet men to hug and otherwise touch each other in >>public. > > Soviet Union was NOT kind to gay people. Never has been. While few gay people would openly endorse the Soviet Union, they have no problem endorsing its political ideology. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "[B]efore the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just couldn't bear to put themselves in opposition to communism." -- The Unabomber Manifesto; Paragraph 225 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:56:41 GMT, The KPA will resolutely smash the moves of the enemies to weaken the ideological might of the arms of the revolution and mete out merciless punishment to the aggressors and provokers <kpa@dprk.com> wrote: >GMCarter wrote... >>>The Soviet Union denied it existed there, with the result that it was [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >While few gay people would openly endorse the Soviet Union, they have >no problem endorsing its political ideology. LOL. You're a stupid hysterical fuckwad. > On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 18:56:41 GMT, The KPA will resolutely smash the > moves of the enemies to weaken the ideological might of the arms of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > LOL. You're a stupid hysterical fuckwad. comma, Diablo. B/ >> LOL. You're a stupid hysterical fuckwad. > >comma, Diablo. Of course. check this out... http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/02/discussion_of_the_padian_paper.php GMCarter wrote..., On 03/04/2006 03:06: >>>LOL. You're a stupid hysterical fuckwad. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > check this out... > http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/02/discussion_of_the_padian_paper.php I'm wading through the dense technical crap and I see that the summary linked to above takes the data out of context to imply that HIV is not sexually transmissable. Reading it carefully it describes the 175 discordant couples who at the last followup of the 10-year study had zero seroconversions. But those 175 couples were all that were left, since a very large number of the HIV+ partners had died in that period. The couples were also counseled on HIV risks, financial costs, etc. and to use condoms. Many of the couples followed the advice to use condoms, a graph even charts a steady increase in condom use over that 10-year period, and I'm assuming that the longer you stay HIV- in such a relationship indicates how responsible you are in practicing safe sex, so only those people will make it to the end of the study (i.e. for all we know many or most of the HIV- partners in the first few years might all have eventually have seroconverted). Oh, and the part I'm reading right now even mentions that many of those in the final followup were abstinent and that preference for anal sex had dropped significantly from prior followups. What the article does not say is that HIV isn't a sexually-transmitted disease. Who wrote the deceptive summary and what it his agenda? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.