Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

The biggest question at the core of civilization

is sex for fun or procreation?

is balancing the two possible without breaking apart the core unit of civilization, the family?hasn't worked out well for the West.

Phoenix

Well by its very nature sex both is fun as well as leads to procreation, otherwise the species would not have perpetuated itself via survival of the fittest. Sex gives an obvious pleasure reaction, and obviously it works towards procreation. Why is an artificial dichotomy between the two the biggest question at the core of civilization?

Stuff that's uber kvlt doesn't always have to be depraved, it can also be fun sometimes. I may dislike the word "fun" as sounding pretty superficial, I may prefer to say "pleasurable", but I attribute this discrepancy merely to a general lack of sophisticated vocabulary.

The purpose of sex is procreation, this is common sense, cause-effect stuff. It is what sex exists for, the pleasure is a side effect. I don't think this is an important question for civilization at all, but it can be a marker for decline. If hedonism prevails, sex will primarily be for pleasure, with procreation a nasty (but grudgingly necessary) side effect that most would attempt to circumvent. I don't think it is too controversial that we live in an era of rampant hedonism (and by extension, birth control).

I think it's way too simplistic to reduce sex to Procreation and Fun. There is much more at stake here... It's one of the basis of human life, day-to-day life, psychological conditions, libido, energy, stress or relaxation, submission or domination, creation and destruction, etc...

Instead of procreation versus fun, how about intelligent versus stupid? We can then see that sexuality (like most human experiences) contains both Apollonian and Dionysian characteristics. Instead of getting ourselves lost in a neurotic obsession with morality, let's be sensible Hessians and look at practicality:

Are you having fun in an intelligent, selective manner (with a respected, trusted, and loved partner) or in a stupid, decadent manner (with cheap sluts)? Are you procreating in an intelligent, conscious manner (with regard for the offspring's well-being) or in a stupid, irresponsible manner (popping out a dozen and becoming a welfare queen)?

NHA

What about Genghis khan? Rape all the women, kill all the men, burn everything to the ground.

 0.5-1.0% of the global population descends from him.

Well by its very nature sex both is fun as well as leads to procreation, otherwise the species would not have perpetuated itself via survival of the fittest. Sex gives an obvious pleasure reaction, and obviously it works towards procreation. Why is an artificial dichotomy between the two the biggest question at the core of civilization?

It's about the family structure, and the incentives that go into it, essential to any civilization.
naturally we mate under r-selection. Native tribes all over the world follow the patter where they have sex with anyone for pleasure, and then babies just come, and the village of women looks after the kids because the fathers have no idea which one belongs to them. The fathers are more likely to invest in their sisters' offspring then their own because they know their sister actually shares their genes.

If sex is for fun, having it with many different partners is the same as smoking marijuana with many different friends. Are we here to chase a feeling, or something greater?

How is this the biggest question at the core of civilization? I would say the way a people view sex is more important than anything else. How people view reality seems to be the most important thing(sex would fall under this off course).

How is this the biggest question at the core of civilization? I would say the way a people view sex is more important than anything else. How people view reality seems to be the most important thing(sex would fall under this off course).

because mating structures affect how much men are incentivized to hold up civilization. With the family being there, the man has incentive to innovate and build society. If he gets no woman, he won't run for a carrot on a string that he'll never savour. Men do everything for pussy. Civilization depends on men.

If sex becomes for pure fun, women will seek the highest alphamales to get the best orgasms from, and the average male is no longer incentivized. This explains all the manchildren and high rates of male suicide in the modern West.

Feminism is largely to blame, here.
I notice more and more, that women no longer resemble women at all.
Men are slow to notice this, but subconsciously, they no longer give women the care and protection they once did.

Native tribes all over the world follow the patter where they have sex with anyone for pleasure, and then babies just come, and the village of women looks after the kids because the fathers have no idea which one belongs to them.

Any particular tribes you are referring to? As far as I am aware, only one group of people have ever had an ambiguity in the relationship between sex and procreation (Australian Aborigines). Other than them, pretty much every culture, no matter how primitive, regulates sex for community ends. Even for the aboriginals, this communal daycare sort of scenario doesnt exist as far as I know. Something similar was practiced amongst some pagan Arab tribes, but on a limited level.

Feminism is largely to blame, here.
I notice more and more, that women no longer resemble women at all.
Men are slow to notice this, but subconsciously, they no longer give women the care and protection they once did.

Agree. When I first travelled to Russia it was asthough I had never seen women before. They were just too pretty, and men didn't seem the least bit faggy, nerdy or undeserving of such women. Well anyway the western world is just a disgusting, unbalanced mess and I would certainly hope not to be reincarnated here again in any form.

Also found this interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22886668

Men are slow to notice this, but subconsciously, they no longer give women the care and protection they once did.

Could you provide some examples?

Well, let's see...
There's Frank, and there's Bert, and Al and Dave.
Lenny, Fred and Gary. Mick and Oscar, Marty and Phil.
Just to name a few.

How is this the biggest question at the core of civilization? I would say the way a people view sex is more important than anything else. How people view reality seems to be the most important thing(sex would fall under this off course).

because mating structures affect how much men are incentivized to hold up civilization. With the family being there, the man has incentive to innovate and build society. If he gets no woman, he won't run for a carrot on a string that he'll never savour. Men do everything for pussy. Civilization depends on men.

If sex becomes for pure fun, women will seek the highest alphamales to get the best orgasms from, and the average male is no longer incentivized. This explains all the manchildren and high rates of male suicide in the modern West.

It's men that decide all these things. As far as beta males getting laid it's the same shit it's always been. Alpha male gets the females he wants while the ones that aren't considered desirable by said alpha male have to settle for second string and so on and so on. You also forgot that women are needy parasites(that was very crass and rather harsh but useful for the sake of my argument) most women desire children and a high degree of social interaction. Off course that could all have been just conditioning....but I am skeptical. As far as men not protecting women you are right feminism most likely had something to do with that. If we are equal there is no reason to be a bodyguard for another man.