Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopelessly Hopeful)
    Do grow up if you're going to take personal offence at a mere fabricated idea.

    Withold the antidote? No, not at all - it would merely be more freely available here than it would be in 3rd world countries, just as everything else pretty much is at the mo.
    I'm not taking personal offence, I'm just telling you why your idea is stupid. That's what you asked for, isn't it? I just trying to help out, sport.

    As for the second part, let's take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?

    (Original post by Hopelessly Hopeful)
    Sounds stupid, I know, but should sex feel painful? Painful enough that it hurts, but not so painful that it's physically impossible to bear?

    Say for the richer countries, some sort of drug/an 'antidote' was freely available to get rid of this 'pain' and make sex feel pleasurable, but in poorer countries - in order to decrease the spread of HIV/AIDS and decrease overwhelming population sizes, sex would be painful enough to act as a deterrent for a significant majority of the populace? That way, it would pave the way for success in terms of a stable population, less disease,marked less rape .....
    So according to you, the pain is MEANT to act as a DETERRENT for "bad behavior". No matter how much backtracking you try to do now (and I see it's substantial), it's pretty obvious what you were saying in the OP. If you disagree with yourself now, congratulations, you're smarter than you were an hour ago.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BumperBo)
    Yeah basically. The OP has obviously

    1) Lied about her gender on here
    and
    2) Not had enough sex for it to stop being painful.

    Cheers ^_^
    Do grow up and if you're going to spam, please do so elsewhere.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopelessly Hopeful)
    But how exactly am I doing something deliberately if it's entirely natural? :confused:

    And we're not at all denying them anything - if you read the post (I quote: ''And with the developed countries doing everything in their power to help the 3rd world countries in terms of this antidote'').
    Because you've decided it would be better if they didn't get the 'antidote' because you want them to stop having sex. Your motive in thinking this whole scenario would be good is that you want to make sex painful for some people and cause them suffering. The scenario is in your head, you're controlling every variable, and you have decided that it would be better for poor people in developing countries to suffer in this way. You can't blame it on being 'natural', because it isn't, you've created the scenario.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    I'm not taking personal offence, I'm just telling you why your idea is stupid. That's what you asked for, isn't it? I just trying to help out, sport.

    As for the second part, let's take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?



    So according to you, the pain is MEANT to act as a DETERRENT for "bad behavior". No matter how much backtracking you try to do now (and I see it's substantial), it's pretty obvious what you were saying in the OP. If you disagree with yourself now, congratulations, you're smarter than you were an hour ago.
    I don't think you still understand. There isn't any backtracking involved in any of posts at all, mere clarification of the logic I thought anyone could understand tbh.

    YES, in the long term it will obviously be a deterrent because of it being NATURALLY PAINFUL. BUT... if you read my posts:

    ''
    Okay - sex is naturally painful. Antidote relatively MORE SO freely available in the western world than in 3rd world countries. Whilst we'd still donate and ship over the antidote (just as aid, clean water, food etc are), RELATIVE proportions of the antidote would be more so freely available here. So, somehow by natural evolution, with this painful sex (And with the developed countries doing everything in their power to help the 3rd world countries in terms of this antidote) the developed countries WOULD be acting positively, it would be NATURE causing this apparent suffering, which will ultimately lead to success. ''

    AND:

    ''But how exactly am I doing something deliberately if it's entirely natural?

    And we're not at all denying them anything - if you read the post (I quote: ''And with the developed countries doing everything in their power to help the 3rd world countries in terms of this antidote'').''

    ... you should be left thoroughly enlightened.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    By saying it would be 'natural', you're just trying to absolve yourself of responsibility. "Wouldn't it be great if this bad thing happened, but I wasn't responsible for it so I didn't have to feel bad?"
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    Because you've decided it would be better if they didn't get the 'antidote' because you want them to stop having sex. Your motive in thinking this whole scenario would be good is that you want to make sex painful for some people and cause them suffering. The scenario is in your head, you're controlling every variable, and you have decided that it would be better for poor people in developing countries to suffer in this way. You can't blame it on being 'natural', because it isn't, you've created the scenario.
    Okay, this argument is clearly going to just go round in circles, but:

    YOU: ''you've decided it would be better if they didn't get the 'antidote' because you want them to stop having sex.''

    ME: Ultimately, yes, this is the preferred goal. Yet still the developed countries would be doing everything in their power to help the 3rd world countries in terms of this antidote and thus to minimise this NATURAL 'sexual suffering' (i.e. painful sex), but it will - in the long run - not be enough, however much the developed countries commit to aid, to ENTIRELY curb the sexual suffering .... i.e. enough of the suffering will still persist to gradually decrease the population size, cut out rape, etc etc and ultimately allow these 3rd world countries to flourish + hence completely cut out ALL suffering...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopelessly Hopeful)
    Okay, this argument is clearly going to just go round in circles, but:

    YOU: ''you've decided it would be better if they didn't get the 'antidote' because you want them to stop having sex.''

    ME: Ultimately, yes, this is the preferred goal. Yet still the developed countries would be doing everything in their power to help the 3rd world countries in terms of this antidote and thus to minimise this NATURAL 'sexual suffering' (i.e. painful sex), but it will - in the long run - not be enough, however much the developed countries commit to aid, to ENTIRELY curb the sexual suffering .... i.e. enough of the suffering will still persist to gradually decrease the population size, cut out rape, etc etc and ultimately allow these 3rd world countries to flourish + hence completely cut out ALL suffering...
    But you've created this scenario in your head. You have decided that there wouldn't be enough antidote to go round, while saying that that would be a good thing.

    I still can't believe I'm arguing this.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopelessly Hopeful)
    Do grow up and if you're going to spam, please do so elsewhere.
    Well when I read your first post the first time (before the edit) I thought you were talking about how it's painful for the girl the first dozen times or so and you hadn't had enough to realize that that pretty much goes away :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopelessly Hopeful)
    I don't think you still understand. There isn't any backtracking involved in any of posts at all, mere clarification of the logic I thought anyone could understand tbh.

    YES, in the long term it will obviously be a deterrent because of it being NATURALLY PAINFUL. BUT... if you read my posts:

    ''
    Okay - sex is naturally painful. Antidote relatively MORE SO freely available in the western world than in 3rd world countries. Whilst we'd still donate and ship over the antidote (just as aid, clean water, food etc are), RELATIVE proportions of the antidote would be more so freely available here. So, somehow by natural evolution, with this painful sex (And with the developed countries doing everything in their power to help the 3rd world countries in terms of this antidote) the developed countries WOULD be acting positively, it would be NATURE causing this apparent suffering, which will ultimately lead to success. ''

    AND:

    ''But how exactly am I doing something deliberately if it's entirely natural?

    And we're not at all denying them anything - if you read the post (I quote: ''And with the developed countries doing everything in their power to help the 3rd world countries in terms of this antidote'').''

    ... you should be left thoroughly enlightened.

    Thanks for pulling out some of the spectacular backtracking posts I was talking about, lovely illustration of my point.

    Sorry pal, but no matter how you slice it, the opening post is the topic for discussion, not any subsequent flailing about. Also, just because would be "natural" doesn't mean that it's okay to wish it on people. Polio's pretty natural, you know, so is a tsunami (speaking of decreasing populations). Whether or not you say now that we would do "everything in our power" (which is clearly against the opinion you had in the opening post, we're not stupid), the fact remains that you're the one who wished it would happen in the first place!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    But you've created this scenario in your head. You have decided that there wouldn't be enough antidote to go round, while saying that that would be a good thing.

    I still can't believe I'm arguing this.
    Liken the antidote to current day 3rd world aid - there never is enough to go around.

    And yes, I just thought about this suddenly whilst lying in bed..... silly, I know. :o:

    I think I'll just call it day then, eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    But you've created this scenario in your head. You have decided that there wouldn't be enough antidote to go round, while saying that that would be a good thing.

    I still can't believe I'm arguing this.
    I was just thinking the exact same thing!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopelessly Hopeful)
    Liken the antidote to current day 3rd world aid - there never is enough to go around.

    And yes, I just thought about this suddenly whilst lying in bed..... silly, I know. :o:

    I think I'll just call it day then, eh?
    Okay, but as I've said, it's you who has decided there would not be enough 'antidote' and that this is a desirable thing. As Doberman said, you are basically wishing it on people, but without having to take responsibility for it.

    Edit: and I would like to say congratulations, because this is the weirdest debate I have ever taken part in.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    Thanks for pulling out some of the spectacular backtracking posts I was talking about, lovely illustration of my point.

    Sorry pal, but no matter how you slice it, the opening post is the topic for discussion, not any subsequent flailing about. Also, just because would be "natural" doesn't mean that it's okay to wish it on people. Polio's pretty natural, you know, so is a tsunami (speaking of decreasing populations). Whether or not you say now that we would do "everything in our power" (which is clearly against the opinion you had in the opening post, we're not stupid), the fact remains that you're the one who wished it would happen in the first place!
    Okay, you're still arguing from the same perspective as nolongerheartthemusic + I can't really be bothered to reply individually anymore, so do have a read through the posts I replied to her with. :yy:

    And no, I genuinely am not backtracking at all - just filling out the OP with more clarification whenever you ask me of questions/for further clarification.

    Meh, I'm off to bed now - so.... we'll continue this debate about my little dream another time, darling.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what a stupid question
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carter.)
    what a stupid question
    Agreed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    sorry, what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP, you're argument is illogical.

    First, sex is not only about pleasure, it's about intimacy and bonds. People in relationships use sex to express love. Why should this be stopped?

    Second, outercouse exists. Breast sex, handjobs, fingering, oral sex, etc. all are forms of sex that feel good (duh..) don't necessarily lead to pregnancy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Please think this over, OP.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Floofy)
    Please think this over, OP.
    I have.

    Will you?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    OP, you're argument is illogical.

    First, sex is not only about pleasure, it's about intimacy and bonds. People in relationships use sex to express love. Why should this be stopped?
    Why should it be stopped? Well, I think I've outlined my stand quite clearly in the other posts. :cool:

    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Second, outercouse exists. Breast sex, handjobs, fingering, oral sex, etc. all are forms of sex that feel good (duh..) don't necessarily lead to pregnancy.
    Well, quite clearly. It would only be ordinary vaginal intercourse (the main spread of HIV/STI's etc) that would be the painful deterrent - everything else would just be the same - the whole point of my argument.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.