I'm too individualist to have a partner. I don't want to share my bed with a girl and have to see her from morning to night no matter how sexy she is since I know attraction is useless and all pretty girls become old ladies with no sexual appeals one day (or unfortunately died before getting old).

I want to live my life in peace (Shalom/Salam/Shlama) and do not want to have a girl bother me from morning to night, having to consider her wishes and having to serve her needs.

your problem is you need to find a girl that you love. not you just want to fuck, that's stupid. Like I don't want to marry someone for their body. I want to marry someone because I love hanging out with them, making them happy. not to raise a family or pass my sperm on, That sounds depressing as fuck.

"Pretty" means nothing. No human is as pretty as the trees and grasses, cats and rabbits. You feel that a girl is pretty but she is actually not. You are merely deluded because you are sexually attracted to her. If you marry her she will one day no longer be sexually attractive.

i guess. but if i think she looks beautiful why should i care if other people don't?

I'm not the only one that gather threads to downvote.

O.o

First of all, sexuality and activities related to sexuality are not beneficial in nature to the individual. Humans don't have it that bad for the sake of sexuality. Many animals die after mating. Some male animals actually get eaten by their partners but still choose sex over life. Male peacocks also become vulnerable to predators just for the sake of sex. How good is sex? Not at all.

k, but we are humans. they can't enjoy sex, that's not how those animals function. however humans do.

Secondly there is no freedom in sexuality since humans are compelled by evolution to have sex and reproduce against their own interests. Humans do not choose to have sex, instead they are forced by evolution and societies to do so. Hence anti-sexualism is freedom unlike sexuality which is slavery.

so ... then are virgins not human? and where do i sign up to have my government provided sex? like ... how am i forced to have sex? Like if two people decided that they didn't want to have sex and instead just adopt children, nobody would give a fuck, they pretty much just give them a thumbs up.

Hence anti-sexualism is freedom unlike sexuality which is slavery.

this is going in my quotes on my bio

This is not anti-individualist. Freeing individuals from sexuality is similar to freeing them from suicide attempts, drugs or slavery. It ultimately increases the degree of human freedom and reduces the degree of human authoritarianism hence it is individualist in nature.

but what if i wanna have sex, but then i wouldn't be able to because the government doesn't give me that freedom. aka less freedom. freedom = people choose weather they want to be addicted or not. However I can agree with your thought. Society would be better without addictions.

You must be Karl because he's a virgin too.

wait i'm karl?

^Karl

so before i thought your picture was a cat jumping, but then i realized it tabby's upside down.

You realized right.

I havent' decide which one I like better though.

I don't want to be liked, Karl.

Good. Cuz nobody wants to like you.

dv'd noisy flamey/trolly comments. uv'd thread. The OP is perfectly reasonable and polite.

If more folks dv the noise in the thread, the conversation could resume.

Tabby, your argument is based on 1) a questionable axiom, 2) several misunderstandings about sex and evolution.

In fact, sexual reproduction *produces* far more individualism than asexual reproduction. In fact, that's one proposed reason why it evolved: Asexual reproduction makes populations much less genetically diverse, leaving them susceptible to parasites. Sexual reproduction introduces a large amount of genetic variability/diversity, so that parasites have a much more difficult time infecting whole populations.

In other words, cloning produces copies of the same individual (a kind of 'collectivism'), sex produces completely new individuals (a kind of 'individualism').

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction

Edited 9/22/2016 22:50:32

^^They don't want to like me but they do?

I think you're disillusioned because everybody is talking about you.

^You hear voices? I'm so sorry to hear that.

Edited 9/22/2016 23:59:55

Seems like you're the one hearing voices.

Edited 9/23/2016 00:13:21

This is not collectivism since people voluntarily participated in a group

Why isn't sex individualist if it's voluntary?

First of all, sexuality and activities related to sexuality are not beneficial in nature to the individual.

It makes that person happy. That is the benefit.

there is no freedom in sexuality since humans are compelled by evolution to have sex

Everyone is compelled by evolution to do things, you're compelled to eat because you have genes that tell you that eating is good. Those that didn't died. Is eating collectivist now?

Humans do not choose to have sex

Yes they do. If they didn't, you would have had sex or be looking for sex by now.

Freeing individuals from sexuality is similar to freeing them from suicide attempts, drugs or slavery.

You're not freeing anyone, you are prohibiting actions which is authoritarian. You are taking away choices, you are not giving choices.

^^What voices? You aren't making any sense.

What... did... I... step... into?

(Awkwardly shuts door as slowly and quietly as possible)

What... did... I... step... into?

Hell.

FELIDAE GO GAS YOURSELVES (with clean air!)

skimmed those articles.

first one was about beetles.

second one said the results with worms, might not be comparable to humans.

third one showed there wasn't much difference. (and also said it needed to be tested more for proper results)

so you got nothin.

What I argued in that post is that sex is never voluntary. Sex is always a result of evolutionary, hormonal and social pressure.

why am i a virgin then. AND WHERE THE FUCK IS MY GOVERNMENT ISSUED HOOKER?????????????? ... second condoms, birth control?

Without these pressures there would have been no sex.

probably not as neanderthals, but i imagine people would still fuck if we took away evolutionary and social pressures (but i don't think there are social pressures)

Sex is inherently not beneficial to the individual but instead is simply an evolutionary procedure that exists so that a modified version of genes of an individual can be passed on at the expense of the well-being of the individual himself/herself

or like ... to have fun? cus what else is a one night stand for?

Any form of sex is involuntary.

so why does rap happen? like if i came up to a girl and told her i wanted to have sex with her she should be happy that someone wants to have sex with her right?

An individual is not happier with sexuality, either. If anything the individual is happy because the monster called sexual urges has been relieved. If there were no sexual urges to begin with there would have been no happiness related to sexuality.

it's not really an urge. it just dopamine being released in your brain. which makes you feel good, so your brain is like aye lets do that again.

Humans usually give in to this caninist pressure and do things that they otherwise won't have done, namely having sex.

don't cats have sex? and like i can't even with this one.

I'm only taking away bad choices. Removing bad choices is good for individuals in the long run. Also we won't ban sex. We should just modify human genes or make humans cyborgs (transhumanism) so that sexual urges will just naturally disappear. Without sexual urges sex will be unheard of.

sure i but i don't want my sex urges taken out.