Primal Urges

[Pho3nix]

No sex no problem?

Oh wait that is me

/foreveralone.png

Sometimes I can't even think about anything else until the monkey has been spanked, either by me, or my partner. Fapping gets rid of a lot of tension, and clears your head to help you focus on managing your time without constant day-dreaming about banging that hot ass that just walked past.

This is exactly where my issue lies and before I used to be able to function..Now.. not so much . Not really a fan of fapping which might be adding to the dilemma :erm:

 

[Caveat Emptor]

Does anyone here have any self control.

Or is it just deprivation causing such urges?

 

[Pho3nix]

Does anyone here have any self control.

Or is it just deprivation causing such urges?

Those are fighting words my friend.
While I understand the gib of what your getting at, my issue and the reason why the thread was created was because of the immense amount of will power to keep myself focused and sane. Hormones are fscking with me and most young men my age and I brought forth the question asto why we still need the pestering things.

OOC: Thanks for bumping the thread Welcome to the forum

 

[Caveat Emptor]

This forum rocks...

Everyone is bat**** crazy

Its like a royal rumble

Love it

 

[STS]

This is exactly where my issue lies and before I used to be able to function..Now.. not so much . Not really a fan of fapping which might be adding to the dilemma :erm:

go to Lollipop Lounge with R1000

 

[Tw171]

In Japan (for example), sexual activity is on the decrease. So it may be that in some countries, people are evolving to be less sexual. On the other hand, less developed nations are experiencing a population explosion. The brutes may keep primal instincts in the human gene pool because they are the ones having the most offspring.

The question, as I see it, is one of Birth-control. Particularly in relation to the possibility of achieving equilibrium, which could hardly be stable if some nations increased their population much more rapidly than others. At present, birth-control is increasing in all civilized countries, though in most it is opposed by governments. This opposition is due partly to mere superstition and desire to conciliate the religious vote, partly to the desire for large armies and severe competition between wage-earners, so as to keep down wages. In spite of the opposition of governments, it seems probable that birth-control will lead to a stationary population in most civilized nations within the next twenty years.

The increase in the practice of birth-control is an example of a process contrary to that seen in industrialism: it represents a victory of individual over collective passions. Collectively, Englishmen desire that England should be populous, in order to be able to defeat her enemies in war. Individually, they desire that their own families should be small, in order to increase the inheritance of their children and to diminish the expense of education. The individual desire has triumphed over the collective desire, and even, in many cases, over religious scruples.

It remains only then in 3rd world countries, where there is an increase in population size; so disregarding any silly prejudices (To simply dismiss those unfortunate people who have not enjoyed the privileges of an education, as brutes -is a mistake), the cause of their population size must belong to the combined blight of ignorance and poverty. Many father as many children as possible, for the purpose of either using them for their labor, or, in the case of girls, selling them off into marriage. On a global scale, these 'excesses' in poor populations are highly desired by industrial processes. They are pitted against one another to find the lowest possible wage price. To that end, they are never educated, never taught how to read or write; they lead their lives, from birth till death, in utter ignorance, because the global economic system so desires it.

 

[Rocket-Boy]

Sometimes I can't even think about anything else until the monkey has been spanked, either by me, or my partner. Fapping gets rid of a lot of tension, and clears your head to help you focus on managing your time without constant day-dreaming about banging that hot ass that just walked past.

Hahaha! classic flatty.

 

[Sherbang]

In Japan (for example), sexual activity is on the decrease. So it may be that in some countries, people are evolving to be less sexual.

This doesn't really make sense to me. Those that are less sexual are less likely to reproduce therefore unlikely to evolve, as evolution requires reproduction. Those that are more sexual are more likely to reproduce, thus continuing evolution.

 

[Caveat Emptor]

Sexual activity is outdated. Human beings are more than primal urges.

 

[Sherbang]

It remains only then in 3rd world countries, where there is an increase in population size; so disregarding any silly prejudices (To simply dismiss those unfortunate people who have not enjoyed the privileges of an education, as brutes -is a mistake), the cause of their population size must belong to the combined blight of ignorance and poverty. Many father as many children as possible, for the purpose of either using them for their labor, or, in the case of girls, selling them off into marriage. On a global scale, these 'excesses' in poor populations are highly desired by industrial processes. They are pitted against one another to find the lowest possible wage price. To that end, they are never educated, never taught how to read or write; they lead their lives, from birth till death, in utter ignorance, because the global economic system so desires it.

I don't think population growth in the 3rd world is really the problem - the problem is population distribution - some places are already extremely overpopulated and need to decrease the population, not just slow down population growth. This image really brings to light where most of the people in the world are living:



http://io9.com/more-than-half-of-the-worlds-population-lives-inside-t-493103044

 

[Tw171]

I don't think population growth in the 3rd world is really the problem - the problem is population distribution - some places are already extremely overpopulated and need to decrease the population, not just slow down population growth.

The two most populous countries are China and India, respectively. Both form the world's largest manufacturing hub, with the lowest wage cost to capital investment. Incidentally, China's population is on the decline, however I am not entirely sure what you mean with

some places are already extremely overpopulated and need to decrease the population, not just slow down population growth.

I can't be sure as to whether or not you're advocating eugenics. Which, if it be the case, I must strongly disagree. Eugenics is a poisoned chalice. Through its history, men of science have always thought of it in ambitious terms; whether eliminating undesired types, or increasing desired types, they have their reasons. But they all make the same mistake: They imagine that a reform inaugurated by men of science would be administered as men of science would wish, by men similar in outlook to those who have advocated it. These are, of course, delusions; a reform, once achieved, is handed over to Power. So, if eugenics reached the point where it could increase desired types, it would not be the types desired by present-day eugenists that would be increased, but rather the type desired by the average official. Prime Ministers, Bishops, and others whom the State considers desirable might become the fathers of half the next generation.

If we knew enough about heredity to determine, within limits, what sort of population we would have, the matter would of course be in the hands of State officials, presumably elderly medical men. Whether they would really be preferable to Nature I do not believe. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative.

 

[Jehosefat]

At present, birth-control is increasing in all civilized countries, though in most it is opposed by governments. This opposition is due partly to mere superstition and desire to conciliate the religious vote, partly to the desire for large armies and severe competition between wage-earners, so as to keep down wages. In spite of the opposition of governments, it seems probable that birth-control will lead to a stationary population in most civilized nations within the next twenty years.

Or its a problem because an older population increases dependence on social spending (think hospitals, nursing homes, pensions, old age grants etc.) while decreasing the tax base (more retired people, less productive workforce). No need to be so cynical

 

[Sherbang]

The two most populous countries are China and India, respectively. Both form the world's largest manufacturing hub, with the lowest wage cost to capital investment. Incidentally, China's population is on the decline, however I am not entirely sure what you mean with
I can't be sure as to whether or not you're advocating eugenics. Which, if it be the case, I must strongly disagree. Eugenics is a poisoned chalice. Through its history, men of science have always thought of it in ambitious terms; whether eliminating undesired types, or increasing desired types, they have their reasons. But they all make the same mistake: They imagine that a reform inaugurated by men of science would be administered as men of science would wish, by men similar in outlook to those who have advocated it. These are, of course, delusions; a reform, once achieved, is handed over to Power. So, if eugenics reached the point where it could increase desired types, it would not be the types desired by present-day eugenists that would be increased, but rather the type desired by the average official. Prime Ministers, Bishops, and others whom the State considers desirable might become the fathers of half the next generation.

If we knew enough about heredity to determine, within limits, what sort of population we would have, the matter would of course be in the hands of State officials, presumably elderly medical men. Whether they would really be preferable to Nature I do not believe. I suspect that they would breed a subservient population, convenient to rulers but incapable of initiative.

I'm not advocating eugenics, no, I thought my statement was quite clear and didn't involve selective breeding.

I'm advocating decreasing the population in the over-populated zone (china, india).
Practically, this means continuing the one child policy in china and introducing it in india.
When that child reaches the age of 21 his/her parents must be euthanased.
Problem solved.

If you don't want to be euthanased then don't have any children.

 

[Tw171]

I'm not advocating eugenics, no...
When that child reaches the age of 21 his/her parents must be euthanased.
Problem solved.

If you don't want to be euthanased then don't have any children.

???
Forced Euthanasia, by definition is eugenics

 

[Sherbang]

???
Forced Euthanasia, by definition is eugenics

No, it's not, not as I understand it.
Eugenics refers to selective breeding in order to 'improve' the gene pool, which I'm not advocating.
Forced euthanasia based on traits that are seen as 'bad' is eugenics. For example, "mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups — such as the Roma and Jews — as 'degenerate' or 'unfit'; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the case of Nazi Germany, their mass murder." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Thus forced euthanasia in order to 'weed out' so called undesirable traits from the gene pool would be eugenics. That's not what I suggested. My suggestion applies to everyone who has a child, no discrimination.

 

[Tw171]

No, it's not, not as I understand it.
Eugenics refers to selective breeding in order to 'improve' the gene pool, which I'm not advocating.
Forced euthanasia based on traits that are seen as 'bad' is eugenics. For example, "mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups — such as the Roma and Jews — as 'degenerate' or 'unfit'; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the case of Nazi Germany, their mass murder." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Thus forced euthanasia in order to 'weed out' so called undesirable traits from the gene pool would be eugenics. That's not what I suggested. My suggestion applies to everyone who has a child, no discrimination.

Technically there is discrimination; between those with children and those without. If, for some reason, anybody would choose to have a society like this, the more privileged sectors would simply pay surrogates to have their children for them, and childbearing would just be delayed till much later in life. So such a policy would just favor the wealthy. However, I can't see the point of entertaining this, even hypothetically.

 

[Sherbang]

Technically there is discrimination; between those with children and those without. If, for some reason, anybody would chose to have a society like this, the more privileged sectors would simply pay surrogates to have their children for them, and childbearing would just be delayed till much later in life. So such a policy would just favor the wealthy. However, I can't see the point of entertaining this, even hypothetically.

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...

Limit everyone to having one child.
Kill the parents when the child is grown up.
Halve the population.

 

[Caveat Emptor]

The earth fan support the needs of all. Butnot the greed. Cut the greed instead of the population.

 

[STS]

I'm not advocating eugenics, no, I thought my statement was quite clear and didn't involve selective breeding.

I'm advocating decreasing the population in the over-populated zone (china, india).
Practically, this means continuing the one child policy in china and introducing it in india.
When that child reaches the age of 21 his/her parents must be euthanased.
Problem solved.

If you don't want to be euthanased then don't have any children.

you're just a basket of rainbows aren't you

 

[Caveat Emptor]

Has anyone ever tried humping a tree that has a small gat?