[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 179 KB, 800x1206, 4665rytgfggv0'877r.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9979813 No.9979813 [Reply] [Original]

If sexuality was pleasureless, how much do you think this would have impact on our world and humanity? Would we have a better society?

Some little thoughts about it.

>sex wouldn't be a hedonist goal but reduced only to a mechanical act of simple reproductive intent, entirely based on decision by who wants it
>no objectification of the other, more empathy towards the other, we would see the other as someone to discover, to be fascinated and attracted by his inner qualities, maybe actual love could exist
>no pornography
>no rapers, no sexual abuses, less abusive relationships, no libido, less frustration, reduced depression cases
>humanity possibly more organized and well functioning, both ethically and morally
>less waste of money and resources to pursue merely hedonist aesthetic needs
>more transparency and neatness in social interactions, no subtle sexual tension, more controlled emotions and less negative impulses, more harmony in communication
>overpopulation problem significantly reduced

>> No.9979817

Humanity would be extinct.

>> No.9979828

Most higher forms of animal life would not exist.

Why do you think the orgasm even evolved?

>> No.9979848

>>9979817
Why do you think in such a drastic way? It's about having minor humanity in quantity but better in quality literally. You still have all your reproductive functionality, the difference is the better person probably would reproduce because would have rational reasons to do it, but not only them, even "normal" people still would reproduce probably.

>>9979828
We're talking about sentient beings, animals need impulses to live, but we have consciousness, it's different. There would be several reasons to actually reproduce, not only to experience orgasm, don't you think? There are people in this world who actually make babies because they want them and not only because they are a result of sex.

>> No.9979849

>>9979848
Better people believe life and consciousness are evil. There is no "good reason" to reproduce. You're literally yanking into existence a new living thing to suffer and die horribly all so you can have your selfish needs fulfilled.

>> No.9979852

>>9979849
Evil is a meme used to control the unimaginative.
Go fuck yourself.

>> No.9979857
File: 214 KB, 699x919, val8c57a6mv01.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9979857

>>9979849
>we reproduce because we orgasm

>> No.9979863

>>9979849
What about carrying on your legacy and your culture? Not talking about genetics only, but in general, thinking in a philanthropic way.

Think about great composers of history for example, they had huge genealogical trees of parents who were like them, carrying on their cultural legacy and their goal. Someone like Mozart came from a huge genealogical mass of virtuoso musicians like him, you literally can build up genius offspring if you put your work and effort of a lifetime into a "baby".

>> No.9979872

I don't think love is possible without pleasure. If sexuality was completely pleasureless (obsolete), I don't think men would hang out with women at all.

>> No.9979887

>>9979813
this would cause a lot less population on Earth. Less population = less chance of things being invented. Less chance of things being invented = having to reproduce for longer period of time to even reach the current technology and socium that we now have. Does that make sense?

>> No.9979901

>>9979872
You cannot know, also reducing love to a pleasure seek is somehow narcissistic and actually sad.

>> No.9979905

>>9979813
I think I might prefer a world that is more like this.
However, it might instead of fostering true love, it might actually usher in a transactional view of relationships.

I'm no relationship expert or nothing, but if we take sexual pleasure out of the equation of being with a partner, it might just relatively encourage gold digging and marriages of convenience (citizenship)

>> No.9979912

>>9979872
>>9979905
Define actual "love".

I mean, what is love if not a deep empathic connection between people who want the good each others? Why this couldn't exists if sex was pleasureless?

>> No.9979914

>>9979872
thats cause you think with your dick, step out of your moms basement and meet actual women retard

>> No.9979918

>>9979813
>sexuality was pleasureless
Why don't we ask OP's gf?

>> No.9979919

>>9979905
isnt it the other way around? dont gold diggers dig and mail order brides ship because cash strapped men look for easy sexual pleasure and comfort?

>> No.9979920

>>9979848
>the better person probably would reproduce because would have rational reasons to do it
Nobody does anything for rational reasons. They just use rationalisation after the fact.

>> No.9979924

>>9979887
by that logic bigger populations should be more technologically advanced
but i havent seen china or india shitting out nobel prize winners like hot masala since ever

>> No.9979929
File: 117 KB, 774x809, 1535958385276.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9979929

>>9979849
There's this beautiful continuum known as life, which gives meaning and order to the literal hell and its echoing chaos that is the universe, and you've decided to opt out and let your lineage die.

Just because you are capable of criticizing something, and internalizing your reductionism doesn't mean you're correct, or should be listened to. If by your nihilism, we exist only to perpetuate ourselves, then by your very definition, you have utterly failed at the only thing, the only job, you existed for. Thankfully, someone more competent and level-headed will take your place. Plus, culling yourself from the dating market makes it easier for myself and others to swoon women, with decreased competition.

THE FUTURE WILL LOOK LIKE ME, IT WILL BE ME, AND IT WILL BE BEAUTIFUL!

So long, sucker. You're like an asteroid that got bored of waiting to collide with a planet, so you whisked yourself into a star instead.

Dumb.

>> No.9979936

>lpkj
can all of humanity's current social problems be reduced to sexual repression, ethinic differences and overpopulation?

>> No.9979946

>>9979919
I think I mean more like "simultaneous" gold digging. It was the wrong word to use in retrospect, but yknow how lords would marry off their daughters for political gain? I mean in that sort of sense. If a lawyer met a cashier in a bar, they might hit it off and be a thing if they thought they could get some nice sex at least.
(I also interpret OP's world to mean that people do not find people sexually attractive either.)
But without sex for pleasure, the lawyer would just nix the cashier instantly, because the dating game just becomes so much less about short term stuff. People will think about the long term.

OKCupid allows you to search by attractiveness now, but without sexual pleasure? I think that might instead be search by income.
>>9979929
Where can i get this?
>>9979912
I agree with you, but if you imagine a pie chart of what you look for in a partner, on it, there's
>emotional compatibility
>sexual compatibility
>financial + worldly desires and security offered from them
If we got rid of the sexual pleasure aspect, who's to say its share of the pie wouldn't be eaten up by the financial one? Or any other possible factor for that matter?
>>9979936
No. It can all be reduced to the concept of scarcity.

>> No.9979953

>>9979813
i guess it would solve a lot of those problems but i dont know about overpopulation, i mean most women are sensible and have a 1-2 kids but i know some women who keep shitting out new kids every year, they mostly do for maternal instincts(i think?)
for the most part i think it would be cool and for those retards who think sex is an absolutely essential part of love, rethink your relationships fuckers

>> No.9979957

>>9979920
>Nobody does anything for rational reasons

What do you even mean by this? Are you responding to me in this malaysian anime cartoon board because you're just passively driven by your instinct of "responding" or because you're actually try to argument actively with your thought?

>> No.9979981
File: 460 KB, 480x480, 1535781209220.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9979981

>>9979946
The one I posted was made by a Sergeant from the 15th (UK) Psychological Operations unit, deployed to Kandahar, in 2006. He made only a handful, to boost soldier morale, so it's impossible to get the original.

Someone did recreate the patch, and sold it here,
http://www.thecrimsoncaravan.com/store/p257/PSYOPS_%28embroidered_patch%29.html
; but the store sold out 6 months ago, so it's unlikely the guy will make anymore, at least not for a long while, assuming he's still alive / has access to equipment.

I'm afraid my friend, both you and I are out of luck.

>> No.9979986

>>9979957
>malayasian board
you lost bro?

>> No.9979997

>>9979986
No, he's not. Are you?

>> No.9980000

>>9979946
>yknow how lords would marry off their daughters for political gain?
isn't this a completely political thing, couples like this rarely get together 'cept lunch parties and are almost always involved in affairs/sex scandals?
>If a lawyer met a cashier in a bar, they might hit it off
Yeah, unless they're exactly emotionally and intellectually compatible i don't see this working out in any scenario
>People will think about the long term.
And that is a bad thing why?

Personally i feel lack of sexual lust could mean more meaningful long term loving relationships, but one-night stands may almost never happen.
i kinda like it that way.

>> No.9980050

>>9979946
>Or any other possible factor for that matter?

In this kind of society the most intelligent and skillful people would go far more ahead than the average, so relationships surely would be based much more on affinities/skills and not aesthetic/sexuality.

Also I think artistic capacities would be considered much more attractive, and an actual reason to be fascinated by. Generally if an ugly person is artistically talented that person is considered "to compensating" for his "ugliness", in this utopian society this would not exist probably.

>> No.9980077

>>9980000
>i kinda like it that way.
t. incel

>> No.9980079
File: 2.55 MB, 750x1334, 1532929897153.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9980079

>>9979813
It would be the ideal world indeed.

>> No.9980080

>>9979813
>It's another "Breeders are stupid and emotions should be purged" thread on /sci/
>>>/r9k/

>> No.9980084

>>9979813
Prehistoric humanity could exist, not sure about current humanity. Lust would still an urge, even if sex becomes pleasureless.

This is not a scientific question anyway. Science deals with natural history, not alternate ones.

>> No.9980091

>>9980080
>I'm a brainlet and I cannot argue over something hypothetically complex

>>9980084
Lust would be based on something else, you don't have any actual proofs you need orgasm to have the instinct to reproduce.

>> No.9980203

>>9979912
Love doesn't exist.

>> No.9980245

>>9979813
somebody watched a little too much franxx

>> No.9980310

>>9980079
the absolute state of roasties

>> No.9980600

>>9980000
>one-night stands may almost never happen

Why do you need one-night stands? Just masturbate, fuck.

>> No.9980687

_

>> No.9980709

>>9980079
Damn, the perfect girl

>> No.9980739

>>9979848
If you put this issue in a larger perspective it can be seen as a matter of evolutionary paths. Choosing between the swarm or the fewer and more resilient. Humanity could do both with space travel and time. Personally, I think sex as just pleasure helps cope with non-natural stress from other aspects of life and so isn't bad for now.

>> No.9980763

>>9979813
Animals that wouldn’t drive pleasure from sex would go extinct. There has to be a reinforcement mechanism to reproduce in the first place.

>> No.9980800

>>9979813
You forgot to mention that if we remove sex from the equation, women are objectively inferior versions of men (lower height, strength, intelligence, etc.) and thus would have no place in this society other than as breeding cows.

>> No.9980806

I don't think our species would be here otherwise. Maybe if we had another mechanism that made us want to reproduce in the past but imo we would probably arrive at a similar society.

>> No.9980929

>>9980763
We are not animals since we have consciousness, you can leave pleasure to them obviously.

>> No.9980935

it's funny isn't? the entire continuation of our species revolves around 2 or 3 second orgasms

evolution is a hell of a thing. take away the orgasm and sex is an especially grizzly and disgusting bodily function when you think about it.

>> No.9980964

>>9980935
Sex is an especially grizzly and disgusting bodily function Especially with orgasm.

>> No.9980975

>>9979813
This was one of the main goals of the party in Orwell's 1984.

Probably not such a great idea

>> No.9980996

>>9980975
Yeah, let's just bathe in degeneration, it's better because it's natural afterall.

>> No.9980998

>>9979953
>i know some women who keep shitting out new kids every year

Who and where are these kind of women?

>> No.9981004

>>9980996
cringe

>> No.9981019

>>9979813
>maybe actual love could exist
>what is oxytocin
Anyways, I think sex can still enhance love. You want to make your partner feel good and happy, and sex is a great way to do that. It's something you both like that you can share with each other.

>> No.9981031
File: 143 KB, 1080x1044, Dbtu8JgV4AAbO73.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9981031

>>9980935
Now that you mention it, sex without sexual pleasure would seem very undesirable, maybe be even stigmatized as "that thing we have to do to beget children".
Could cause rapid depopulation and extinction of the human race but whatevs, got pussy to pound

>> No.9981046

>>9981019
>hurr let me just mention the "love hormone" since we are talking about love
cringe

>> No.9981058

>>9979813
I think sex in our species has transcended
reproduction and kinda has its own thing.

>sexuality was pleasureless
>overpopulation problem significantly reduced
even if true aren't there people in developing countries who still think that making more babies is priority number one, is sex drive the only major factor contributing to overpopulaiton?

>> No.9981091

.

>> No.9981094

>>9979863
Animals don’t give a fuck about culture or philosophy and wouldn’t have evolved far enough to ever conceive of them without the pleasure

>> No.9981102
File: 21 KB, 500x292, ALL GENDER RESTROOM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9981102

It would probably feel more like a chore, and we would reproduce far less quickly

>> No.9981541

>>9979813
My relationship would actually be perfect since the only problems we're having is sexual stuff. God dammit OP, things would really be better in the world.

>> No.9981550

>>9981541
haha smol benis

>> No.9981567

>>9981550
not him but i cum in ~5 seconds so i basically just went asexual

>> No.9981856

>>9979813
Funny you ask this OP. I have had this question rolling around in my head for the last year or so but never got around to posting it.

I initially thought it would be a net positive for humanity for most of the reasons already discussed, however, I then thought it would be quite possible for women to be treated a lot worse than they are treated today.

There could be a strong divide between the sexes, and woman could be treated like cattle.

inb4 'whats the problem with that'

>> No.9981867

>>9979813
There would be no women- just asexual self-reproducing men.

>> No.9982027
File: 57 KB, 640x887, 1520861224795.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9982027

>>9981567
How do you even cum in 5 seconds literally?

>> No.9982043

>>9980800
>>9981867
>>9981856
Women would still be considered as important as today since you need them to reproduce, you cannot self-reproduce yourself you retards.

>> No.9982050

>>9979813
would you eat if food didn't taste good to you and you never felt hungry?

>> No.9982060

>>9982050
Yes because I rationalize the fact that if I don't eat I'd die. You can still live without the useless sex libido though.

>> No.9982125

>>9979813
Also endless natural NOFAP.

>> No.9982168

>>9982060
>>9982060
>Yes because I rationalize the fact that if I don't eat I'd die
of course. but you basically learned that you needed to eat because not eating resulted in hunger or even hunger pains.

>> No.9982181

>>9981031
This.
Most actual humans are pretty ugly with their clothes off.
Genitals tend to be poorly maintained, particularly vaginas.
I imagine it would be about as gross as having gay sex if you're straight.
I probably wouldn't have kids if I had to have gay sex to get them.

>> No.9982185

>>9982060
You're wrong, and there's data to support it. Most fat people are fat because they have an excessive urge to eat. Rationally they should know that they have enough surplus, and that pounds upon pounds of shitty food is too much. But they still eat it, because they crave it. That also means that if they didn't crave it, they wouldn't get or stay fat.

The same applies to human procreation. Without an urge or internal drive to do so, people stop doing it sufficiently. Our wants and needs are fundamentally not rational.

>> No.9982265

>>9981567
so you just stick it in and you're done? gee that sucks

>>9982043
women are weaker at least in the physical sense(smol bods, weaker muscles etc), it wouldn't be very difficult to dominate and enslave them as breeding machines
(and they have been for a long time in many societies)

but then many of those societies have undergone waves of gender reform/feminism and modern women have importance comparable or equal to that of their male peers,

sooo......basically the same as today's society?

>> No.9982280

>>9980709
You do understand it's fake, right?

>> No.9982318

>>9982185
This has nothing to do with rationalizing something to survive. Fat people are fat because they are psychologically ill or they have severe disfunction problems.

Yet none of us can have the proof that without the ability to orgasm you wouldn't have any urge to procreate. Probably sexual evolution would have developed into a different path, you cannot know.

>> No.9982352

>>9982265
>sooo......basically the same as today's society?

You auto responded to yourself

>> No.9982458
File: 325 KB, 750x743, 1534931755986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9982458

i want pusspuss....

>> No.9982525

>>9979813
No one would pursue it, the population would crash through the basement.

>> No.9982715

re

>> No.9982734

>>9981058
Muslims have kids because they consider it a religious duty. They always have desu.

>> No.9982764

>>9979813
>>no rapers, no sexual abuses, less abusive relationships, no libido, less frustration, reduced depression cases
untrue. people fucking eat chalk or dirt, they kill people for no reason and have deviances in all things with absolutely zero motivators.
>no pornography
big whoop
you think by removing the driving force behind sex, the whole world would improve without considering that the human race would likely hone in on some other metric for success and become ever more cancerous.

>> No.9982873

>>9981046
>hurr let me just ignore a valid point because it's overused in popscience and I ain't no faggy normie nuh-uh not me
We are literally talking about sex and it's implications with love, there has never been a more relevant time to bring oxytocin up and it's use with pair bonding.

>> No.9982899

>>9979813
Rape has nothing to do with pleasure. People would still rape just to dominate and hurt the other person and feel the fear.

>> No.9983017

>>9982458
god i wanna fugg now.

>> No.9983021

>>9979924
Because their best come to the first world

>> No.9983022

Imagine being this stupid.

There is no species like Humans that exist without orgasms. If they existed, they didn't make the cut and died out.

DUUUUUUHHHHHH

>> No.9983061

>>9979813
Honestly I think the whole idea that sex being pleasure less would be a good thing is moronic. Think about this. Young attractive women are basically the most valuable things on earth. Everything that men do is to impress and attract these young attractive women. It has been said that if it weren't for women that men would still live in caves. Not because women got us out of caves but because men compete with each other for women (among other things as well, but those other things mostly come back to women).

If sex lost all pleasure we would probably, through the forces of evolution, be incredibly ugly troglodytes that have little contact between the sexes except for some caveman mating upon occasion mostly dictated by the seasons followed by hunting and gathering food as we have done for hundreds of thousands of years without change.

>> No.9983067

>>9979849
Think about this friendo... if you don't have a child in your lifetime, you're the first person/creature in your direct line to do so since the dawn of time. You fail it...

>> No.9983166
File: 69 KB, 600x605, R-2507-1232757780.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9983166

>>9983061
>the reason why we want to explore universe is still to conquer pusspuss

I think your hypothesis is too much reductive and simplistic, and also somehow applies just to a primitive state of humanity.

There are countless elements and things that make the human an ever growing complex entity. Reducing everything to sexual teleology seems nihilistic, evolution brought us from literal animals to sentient rational beings with consciousness. I believe here lies the beauty of being human, in understanding consciously what we are. If we were lead only by impulses and chemical reactions we would be no different from the troglodytes you're talking about.

>> No.9983167

>>9979813
Is this the ultimate goal of liberalism?

>> No.9983183

>>9979929
>10 out of 10 pottery
Someone else said men wouldn't hang out with women if it weren't for sex and the pleasure of it. This is a fact. Women are insufferable, and there aren't many that can think like a man does. They are a sex that has evolved as the home makers of a warrior species, and will turn on you the instant your clan looks like it is losing, in order to protect there genes from going extinct.

Women are not your friends. They are your submissives. Take control of them and raise a family, but know they don't love you unconditionally. They love you because you provide. And even then they will still fuck you over. I pretty for the weak men and women's sake that the day of the rope never happens, because it's gonna be nasty for anyone not willing to grab life by the balls and take what they want.

Life doesn't work without hard coded goals and rewards. Pleasure in sex is a hard coded reward. Nobody actually likes having offspring. They are annoying as fuck and time and resources consuming. However, pleasure based procrestion basically guarantees that we have a continued existence. This isn't the first time feminism has whiped out civilization.

>> No.9983200

>>9983166
But we're always led by impulse... we're not governed exclusively by it, but... Imagine a super intelligent computer that had no desire, needs wants etc... what would it accomplish? the answer is nothing. Entropy is the most logical course if nothing is needed or desired. Without empathy there is no need to improve the lives of others and without any need or desire for sex there's no need to do all the things that we do to get it.

I would like to address one thing directly though. The "we explore the universe to conquer puss puss" Well I wouldn't say that... but I will say that we organize ourselves into hierarchy's such as businesses, governments, organizations and social groups for the purpose of competing our way to the top. Those at the top get all the benefits of that position and not the least of those are being far more attractive to the opposite sex. In fact according to the science, the ability to climb hierarchy's is the number one most attractive trait... even more than being at the top of one hierarchy.

Once in those hierarchy's the competition pushes us to do things that we may not have ever personally contemplated. For example, competing your way through college might push someone into aerospace engineering and a desire for material benefits may drive one to excel at it which might get one recruited by NASA which may drive one to create technology to aid in exploring the galaxy. All because some kid knew that he wasn't getting any "pusspuss" working at McDonalds forever.

Granted I've laid out an extreme case for my hypothesis but it IS all hypothetical. Most likely we'd just have died out long before we got far enough to worry about it : 3

>> No.9983204

>>9983022
Alternatively, they just didn't exist and it has never been tested.

>> No.9983207

>>9983200
You can have impulse without sexual attraction. You are conflating lust with all human desire and all human actions as having to do with sex.

>> No.9983208

>>9982280
Only the words. The sentiment is all too real.

>> No.9983213

>>9983207
If you read the post before that one you would see that I grant that humans could still have the impulse to procreate without there being any pleasure in sex. I laid out the idea that it would lead to humans being cave dwelling troglodytes as they don't need to be attractive to procreate and we would likely avoid each other only coming together to mate and doing so more like insects...

And I'm not saying that man kind has no other desires... just that most of those other desires lead back to making ourselves more attractive to the opposite sex as potential mates.

>> No.9983241
File: 1.15 MB, 245x320, tumblr_nxkj6timVH1usj0smo1_r1_250.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9983241

>> No.9983272

>>9983200
>>9983213
So standing by what you say, it is true afterall that scientists were all former incels that turned to science for compensating.

>> No.9983285

>>9979813
Well, I mean, to begin with, it's impossible that we'd get here. If we have no drive to reproduce, we would have been dead before our intelligence developed. At that point in time, we wouldn't have to reproduce "for humanity" because we'd not know about it. At that level of intelligence, we'd be driven by what our bodies want. You feel hungry, you eat. You feel thirsty, you drink. You feel arousal, you have sex. We'd have no impulse to procreate. Not without an incentive.

You also seem to be forgetting that having sex is, like, exercise. I mean, you wouldn't know, but let's pretend you know. Sex is a tiring act. If you had no incentive to work really hard for an hour, would you do it? You're not getting a meal out of it, you're not benefiting from working out back in the hunting-gathering time of human history. There's plenty of other things that are going to make you just as tired. Go hunting, get some food instead.

Anyway, let's go over your arguments. That'll be a laugh.

>sex wouldn't be a hedonist goal but reduced only to a mechanical act of simple reproductive intent, entirely based on decision by who wants it
I covered this already, but there'd be nobody who wants it. There'd be no mechanical benefit. Nobody wants to exercise more than they have to, or if they do, there's better things to do to work out that hard.

>no objectification of the other, more empathy towards the other, we would see the other as someone to discover, to be fascinated and attracted by his inner qualities, maybe actual love could exist
Let's break this down...

>no objectification
If not objectifying over sex, there'll be something else. We'll always have a drive to have attractive and unattractive qualities, as a consequence of needing to know who's part of our "tribe".

>more empathy
Why? Because we don't want to bone someone, we can't feel empathy? I empathise heavily with my girlfriend.

1/2(?)

>> No.9983291

>>9983213
My point was that humans might actually LIKE each other. I have lots of female friends because I like their personalities. More than that, there is still a reason to explore, research, or develop shit: making your life better. The reason that some people go to stupid lengths to get pussy is because it makes their life better, or at least they think it will, so they go for it. The motivation to make your life better remains, as does the want for friends and company (which would include the company of the other sex). My last point is this: there are people out there who legit have no interest in sex or masturbation and yet they like to cuddle. They also like having an SO.

>> No.9983309

>>9983291
name one person that is the embodiment of the criteria you listed

>> No.9983311
File: 356 KB, 1920x1080, U FUCK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9983311

>>9983241
>filename

>> No.9983316

>>9983309
Me anon.

>> No.9983319

>>9979817
Probably better to say humanity would have never came to be at all. We have the ability to make a logical decision to have children yes, but if the animals which we evolved from had this trait then it's unlikely they would have survived.

I think OP has a point though, humans should go into heat twice a year like dogs so we can focus the rest of the time on being productive.

>> No.9983323
File: 1.74 MB, 500x265, 588fffe324cb4bf62380088a92ffdbd0.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9983323

>>9983316
can't wait to see you fall into despair
your suffering would be most exquisite to behold

>> No.9983350

>>9983285
>we would see the other as someone to discover, to be fascinated and attracted by his inner qualities
... Or, you could just talk to the other person to learn about them? Literally, you just need to speak to them to learn about them. For example, from your statement, you're either female, gay or trolling. There's plenty that one can learn from other people by talking to them.

>actual love could exist
It does? Love's just being extra special friends ++. If your partner isn't your friend as well, maybe that's something YOU need to be introspective about. Sex is just a bonus.

>no pornography
If there's interest in it, there'll be videos about it. It'd be more medical, but there'd be videos of how the sex works to create the baby.

>no rapers, no sexual abuses, less abusive relationships, no libido, less frustration, reduced depression cases
Another one to break down

>no rape
Rape is about power, in like well over 50% of the cases. Probably at least 80%. Even then, there'd probably be another thing that would be considered as bad as rape is these days.

>no sexual abuses
as above

>less abusive relationships
No, because even without sex, there'd be other "reasons" to abuse.

>no libido
We ARE discussing the effective removal of libido, after all.

>less frustration
read section about abuse

>reduced depression cases
Depression is about many factors. It would be untouched by loss of sexual pleasure.

>humanity possibly more organized and well functioning
No? Why would it be?

>both ethically and morally
Once again, no. Why? Why wouldn't something else take the place of sexual attraction?

>less waste of money and resources to pursue merely hedonist aesthetic needs
Insert witty art joke here.

>more transparency and neatness in social interactions, no subtle sexual tension, more controlled emotions and less negative impulses, more harmony in communication
Geez, lemme break this one down too...

2/3

>> No.9983354
File: 47 KB, 668x500, aQ3eQnw_700b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9983354

>>9983350
dude what kind drugs are you on
i want that shit

>> No.9983412

>>9983350
>more transparency and neatness in social interactions
There's other sources of people being assholes in society than sexual attraction. As if something else wouldn't take it's place.

>no subtle sexual tension
You are correct, someone with no sex drive will have no sexual tension.

>more controlled emotions
No. There'd be no reason.

>less negative impulses
Read where I talked about rape. Something else would crop up which is just as bad. Negative impulses are mostly about controlling the other person.

>more harmony in communication
Why would there be? People are dicks. If not sex, then something else. Maybe the utopia you envision replaces sexual urges with the rush of hunting and killing prey. Murder would be rampant.

>overpopulation problem significantly reduced
True, there'd be no population.

>> No.9983417

>>9983354
My drug of choice is being bored at work with nothing to do.

>> No.9983464

>>9983417
what kind of deformed workplace would grant the likes of you an economic relief?

>> No.9983472

>>9983309
>>9983323
>he doesn't know about the life of people like tesla and pitagora

The absolute state of brainlets.

>> No.9983479

>>9983472
who are you quoting

>> No.9983487

>>9983323
I hope you get adenocarcinoma and you get your dick cut off. Your suffering would be most exquisite to behold.

>> No.9983491

>>9983464
Small retail business. Most fridays are slow around midday.

>> No.9984317

>>9983061
>Young attractive women are basically the most valuable things on earth

I don't want to sound harsh anon, but you seem a huge whiteknight cuck, you're way too much overvaluing roasties here. Also it seems you're confusing sexual lust over simple reproductive urge I think.

>> No.9986166
File: 2.01 MB, 480x252, deb.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9986166

>>9979849

>> No.9986219

imagine if it was possible to turn the sexual pleasure mechanisms towards something useful

like if you were a writer, you'd get waves of pleasure from writing a book and once you finished the book you'd have the greatest orgasm of your life just without your dick spraying anything anywhere

>> No.9987068

There is no reason to reproduce without pleasure. You have turned it into a fixed idea.

>> No.9987188

>>9983067
Fail what?

>> No.9989077

>>9979929
>>9983183
>>>/r9k/

>> No.9989930

>>9979813
I think, it's already possible with hormonal treatment. Go for it, anon.

>> No.9990031

>>9979813
sexuality is pleasureless for women so they get good at hiding and pleasant for men so they get good at hunting

>> No.9990064

>>9990031
>sexuality is pleasureless for women

lol

>> No.9990108

>>9981094
[Not OP here]
I think we are talking about just humans not being able to experience orgasm and how it would (or will) impact human society and culture.
We are not discussing the possibility of animals evolving without the strong desire to have sex. This is a very interesting question but we should leave it for another day.

Also in the distant future where we will be able to fully re-engineer the human race and become immortal it would be a good idea to remove orgasm from humans since the population would not die off and the problem of reproduction would entirely loose it's vitality because
>LGBT EXISTS

>> No.9990117

>>9990031
Yeah that’s why they masturbate. Fuck off incel.

>>9990108
Some animals only have libidos for certain periods and some are horny enough to fuck humans like horses during these periods, and others are horny all year like dolphins, humans, and bonobos which just like to bang. Unsure if bonobos are down to fuck humans but dolphins are.

>> No.9990136

>>9981867
Reminds me of the cult movie Gayniggers from Outer Space. If that's what is awaiting us, then the future indeed is bright.

>> No.9990154

>>9983272
Why people can't people derive pleasure from describing and exploiting natural phenomena to their advantage? Why does everything have to be reduced to courting potential mates and improve one's standing when it comes to societal status?

>> No.9990169

>>9990154
Freudian retards can’t think without thinking about dicks going in holes because they are the psychology equivalent of five-year olds.

>> No.9990186
File: 1.70 MB, 450x240, idiocracy_family_tree_cletus.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9990186

>>9979929
>and you've decided to opt out and let your lineage die
Due to being by far the smartest organism in that lineage, sapient and capable of rejecting nature.
>doesn't mean you're correct
No, but of course I am correct.
>If by your nihilism, we exist only to perpetuate ourselves, then by your very definition, you have utterly failed at the only thing, the only job, you existed for.
In which case there's nothing more noble than giving the middle finger to that "job" and refusing to perpetuate the cycle. Amazing that you take pride in being a slave to a mindless process, that being evolution.
>THE FUTURE WILL LOOK LIKE ME, IT WILL BE ME, AND IT WILL BE BEAUTIFUL!
Not really. With each successive generation of your monkey family, your individual genetics will become less relevant. Very quickly they will all but disappear entirely. May as well take pride in the fact that your scattered atoms will become a part of everything.

>> No.9990241

>>9979813
Is that a girl (male)? I hope so

>> No.9990272

>>9990241
It's not, sorry faggot.

>> No.9990292

>>9983067
You've to consider that a significant number of lineages alive today couldn't have come to existence one to two millennia before due to harsher conditions and scarcity of resources. Even people with minor disabilities would've been culled from the gene pool without the safety net of civilization and technology, leading to the current dysgenic trend, culminating in a generation of people who are incapable of even partially functioning in society, which incidentally constitutes a large proportion of the population of this website, of course I won't be dishonest as to lie about my membership in that group, but I digress.

If so, isn't abstaining from reproducing a noble duty for those aware of their condition if suicide is not an option?

>> No.9990297

>>9990292
*dishonest as to deny my membership

>> No.9990621

Not even half population would be here but it would be better population.

>> No.9991297

>>9979813
absolute brainlet

>he didn’t realise that the greatest drive in life for most men in life is to attract women (due to sexual pleasure)
>many of mankind’s accomplishments would never have happened if there weren’t being driven by their desire to attract women

>> No.9991495

>>9991297
You know those great achievements you're talking about wouldn't have been accomplished if those men hadn't a strong ideology and vision of life, apart from "scoring some pussy", not every action someone does is originated from the balls and from the ovary. Reducing everything to sexual teleology is just stupidly simple.

It's seems like being absolutely dependent and programmed solely to one ultimate function is the only thing that matters, and our consciousness, our unique capacity to being conscious and to choose, does not matter at all. It's not.

>> No.9991524

>>9989077
Digits checked, but I get laid. A lot of this vitriol towards women comes from spending a lot of time with them and cohabitation. Outliers aside, women are pretty horrible to live with, especially when you are inexperienced with how they work.

If it weren't for a drive to procreate and the immense satisfaction all the way up to right after orgasm in sex, I honestly think being gay would be the route to go from a logical standpoint.

Just you and your bro's hanging out all day, comfy as fuck, playing video games and going out to bars at night to get wasted and do bro-shit. Going on hikes where your SO can actually keep up with you, being able to have real deep conversations without dealing with emotions getting in the way of logic..

Too bad dicks and man-ass are repulsing and women look so fucking good.

>> No.9991633

>>9991495
>thinking the mind rules the body

toppestkek

>> No.9991904

>>9990117
Well, all mammals can fug with each other, they are just races.

>> No.9991932

>>9991495
Yeah, extinction doesn't originate from the balls, it originates from the jews.

>> No.9992578

>>9979813
I think what you mean is that it would be better if humans had no lust, but we could still feel pleasure/orgasm. If we felt lust and desire but felt no sexual pleasure then we would all be very frustrated.

>> No.9992585

>>9991524
>Too bad dicks and man-ass are repulsing
speak for yourself faggot

>> No.9992602
File: 695 KB, 1910x472, 1523919083386.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9992602

>>9991524
This, is absolutely what I feel. I'm total straight and never had a girlfriend in my life. I am in the art world, specific experimental music, literally we are all males in my class at uni, no females. When I look at the other classes full of different normie couples I feel a deep sense of agony within me. Wish I was gay since in this kind of academic world there are a lot of very interesting-thought provoking gay people to hang with, my life could have been completely different. Instead I'm living a life deprived of love because I cannot find any chance of meeting a girl with some affinity with me.

Sorry for the blogpost.

>> No.9992627

I won't read all the bullshit in this thread. The reality is that pandas feel no need to fuck, and they're not extinct only because we force them to fuck.

>> No.9992642

>>9992602
what's that picture from

>> No.9992691

>>9992642
It's a spectral visualization of sound.

>> No.9992694

>>9992691
i figured that but what music is it

>> No.9992699

>>9992694
I don't remember correctly, probably Autechre.

>> No.9992765

>>9992602
I get you somehow anon, what kind of music do you make?

>> No.9992776

>>9979813
if you want the /his/ angle instead of the simple instinct one, early civilization would have been completely different since it was a hyper-patriarchy which progressed into a simple patriarchy. the early years of agriculture must have been crazy based on what our genetic history demonstrates (https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2015/03/13/gr.186684.114.abstract))

>> No.9993037

::

>> No.9993227

>>9993037

>> No.9993245

>>9992776
Can you elaborate, anon? Sounds like a dank story that has chosen you as it's narrator.

>> No.9993343

>>9979863
Mozart worked like a dog since a young age to achieve elite musical dexterity, his bloodline is totally irrelevant

>muh jeans
>muh denim

blank slate, all of us, science bakcs this

>> No.9993345

>>9979872
ur dumb bro, is is actually where true selfless love is born but it is too elite a level for most


even jesus says in the bible in heaven no one is married or interbredding like the angels, we are all totally complete, fullfilled with love (GOD)

>> No.9993418

>>9993343
Mozart had absolute ears though, which was something congenital, this surely lead him to have more musical dexterity.

>> No.9993441

>>9979813
>incels so mad they can't get any that the want everyone not to like sex

>> No.9993442

>>9993343
brainlet or bait
>>9993418
lol

>> No.9993452

>>9993442
>lol

Are you implying everyone can develop absolute ears just by training?

>> No.9993465

>>9993441
>not being a volcel in 2019

Remember kids, if you have sex because you want to "enjoy" it and not because you want to reproduce, you're actually a simple degenerate.

t. Freud

>> No.9993596

>>9993418
sure from being exposed early in development there is no argument suggesting that this cannot be ingraned into anynoe, in fact there are arguments that you can mold excellence


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3_Polg%C3%A1r
>>9993442
charlatan

>> No.9993921

>>9979813
>If sexuality was pleasureless, how much do you think this would have impact on our world and humanity? Would we have a better society?

It would be 100% unconceivable, sexuality is a core part of what makes us humans, you cant have humanity without it.

Even asexual people are manifesting their sexuality in some way, its not just pepe in vagoo, it goes way beyond that, every little thing everyone does is influenced by sexual hormones, sexual behaviour and most importantly the sublimation of sexual urges

>> No.9994194

>>9979813
Can't answer on any level. Lack of any of the types of pleasure, sensual, psychosocial, sexual, and so forth, would render humans improbable and too fundamentally different.

Looking at the Abrahamic religions is as close as you can get to an answer. Jews with their male genital cutting and trauma programming, muslims with male and female genital cutting. Certain types of brain damage and encephalopathies can provide a lens into other aspects, though you're still left looking at individuals relative to a functional environment.

>> No.9994213

>>9979813
all females would starve to death or be killed because of how useless and inferior they are, they would quickly go extinct, men would use artificial womb and artificial egg technology to reproduce and any female fetuses would be aborted. the world would be a far, far better place.

>> No.9994350

Have you met a woman in her 30s?? The desire to parent is so strong they fret over dogs and cats if they don't have children ... That has nothing to do with orgasms. Even men desire to parent and have family on a lesser level

>> No.9994398

>>9982458
fuck, me too

>> No.9994572

>>9984317
Hes talking about the value men historically have given to pussy you retarded fag

>> No.9994642

History has passed, reality is that actual age is made by incels and volcels alienated by society and who prefers the company of a computer to another human being.

>> No.9994653

>>9994350
Everyone has dogs and cats even if they have kids

>> No.9994658

>>9993596
Why didn't my parents make me a genius

>> No.9994673

>>9993596
>Polgár said in 1992 that he now wanted "to break the racial barriers in the virtually all-white chess world" by adopting "a black infant from the Third World" whom he would train to become a chess prodigy.[2] Susan recalled in 2005 that, about 15 years earlier, "a very nice Dutch billionaire named Joop van Oosterom" had offered to help Polgár "adopt three boys from a developing country and raise them exactly as they raised us." Polgár, according to Susan, "really wanted to do it, but my mother talked him out of it. She understood that life is not only about chess, and that all the rest would fall on her lap."[5]
REEEEEEEEEEEEE.
His racist wife stopped him.
He could have btfo everyone

>> No.9994691

>>9994350
>That has nothing to do with orgasms.
You're correct in saying that; however, it has more to do with companionship than sexuality. I believe that even if you strip humans of libido, they would still have a desire for companionship; a desire to share their lives with another. I think what OP is arguing is that people would be seeking partners based more on their merits as individuals rather than a means for reproduction.

>> No.9994890

>>9994691
>OP is arguing is that people would be seeking partners based more on their merits as individuals rather than a means for reproduction

This, but I guess it's not easy to understand and most people when talking about sexuality immediately get on the defensive about it.

>> No.9995654

Would you make sex to girl in OP picture if you know you wouldn't feel any pleasure?

>> No.9995664

>>9995654
If genital sensation / sexual pleasure was the only kind of pleasure missing, then yes. If all types of pleasure were missing, it'd be pointless.

>> No.9995692

>>9995664
Only genital obviously, you can't climax and orgasming precisely. That's the whole thread about.

>> No.9995701

>>9994642
the blackpill