ArkAngel: kingoomieiii: Mugato: No VR helmet sex a la Demolition Man?

No one would ever agree to use one of those things face-to-face. They WOULD make long distance relationships easier.

Also, HOW BAD is that movie? WOW.

Thanks a lot you shiat-brained, fark-faced, ball breaking, duck farking pain in the ass.

Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.

I guess the massive societal changes that happen during the course of Haldeman's "The Forever War" are just too much...

From 1994:

If all restaurants in the future are Taco Bell, and suppose the seashells don't clean very well, you'd want to keep the pants on and go the helmet route too.

I will enhance my calm while waiting for a Cherry 2000 to show up...

/joy-joy!
//liked D-man too

Mugato: I kind of liked Demolition Man *shrug*. Once you get past the ridiculous premise, it's an entertaining flick.

I liked it too, my wife and I watched it a couple months ago as part of "Bad Movie Night" she said it shouldn't count as a bad movie because it was an entertaining 2-star movie.

Sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein was a noted advocate of sexual liberation and free love.

dude went off the deep end with Lazarous long

DjangoStonereaver: Polyamory (a la Heinlein and Larry Niven) will never be the norm in the US until we finally
get over our puritanical moral roots.

Nyet. Evolution has led us to the monogamy norm. It's in our genes.

That, and until most people who practice it aren't themselves crazy.

I love you.

DjangoStonereaver: Polyamory (a la Heinlein and Larry Niven) will never be the norm in the US until we finally
get over our puritanical moral roots.

That, and until most people who practice it aren't themselves crazy.

That has never really worked in any society in the past, don't see why it would work in the futur.

kingoomieiii: Mugato: No VR helmet sex a la Demolition Man?

No one would ever agree to use one of those things face-to-face. They WOULD make long distance relationships easier.

Also, HOW BAD-ASS is that movie? WOW.

FTFY

/have a joy-joy day

liam76: Sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein was a noted advocate of sexual liberation and free love.

dude went off the deep end with Lazarous long

went off the deep end with a shovel and started digging.

clovis69: Mugato: I kind of liked Demolition Man *shrug*. Once you get past the ridiculous premise, it's an entertaining flick.

I liked it too, my wife and I watched it a couple months ago as part of "Bad Movie Night" she said it shouldn't count as a bad movie because it was an entertaining 2-star movie.

Does your user name have anything to do with the cat from Sleepwalkers?

JohnAnnArbor: From 1994:

[dilbert.com image 640x194]

The holodeck is truly going to be mankind's last invention.

Huh, jerking off to the internet was absent -- I'd say that's more likely than these kookie predictions of consequence free sex with whoever you please fantasies.

DjangoStonereaver: Polyamory (a la Heinlein and Larry Niven) will never be the norm in the US until we finally
get over our puritanical moral roots.

That, and until most people who practice it aren't themselves crazy.

Polyamory would look just like always looks when practiced by primates -- a few dominate males and roving bands of violent adolescents that want to be dominate males.

jvl: DjangoStonereaver: Polyamory (a la Heinlein and Larry Niven) will never be the norm in the US until we finally
get over our puritanical moral roots.

Nyet. Evolution has led us to the monogamy norm. It's in our genes.

That, and until most people who practice it aren't themselves crazy.

I love you.


Monogamy arose by way of evolution in humans? Not so much apparently.

Read 'Sex At Dawn, The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. Its a very enlightening book. Not what anyone would call 'light reading', mind you.

DjangoStonereaver: Polyamory (a la Heinlein and Larry Niven) will never be the norm in the US until we finally
get over our puritanical moral roots.

That, and until most people who practice it aren't themselves crazy.

It's not just puritanism. It's possessiveness, prudery and jealousy too. Some people don't want to share. I don't want to share my wife for example. She doesn't want to share me. Thus we'd make terrible polyamorists and we aren't swingers. There are also more couples like us right now than there are swinger couples, and things will most likely remain that way for a while.

MagSeven: clovis69: Mugato: I kind of liked Demolition Man *shrug*. Once you get past the ridiculous premise, it's an entertaining flick.

I liked it too, my wife and I watched it a couple months ago as part of "Bad Movie Night" she said it shouldn't count as a bad movie because it was an entertaining 2-star movie.

Does your user name have anything to do with the cat from Sleepwalkers?

Heh, I didn't know about that, nope this has generally been my Internet handle since I got my first email account back in the early 90s. I just wanted to be Clovis, but 1 through 6 were already taken so in frustration I slapped 69 on the end.

DarnoKonrad: Polyamory would look just like always looks when practiced by primates -- a few dominate males and roving bands of violent adolescents that want to be dominate males.

So like a Fundamentalist Mormon community? Yea no thanks.

Lovebot?

I came in this thread just to use the term : Teledildonics.

Mystery still unresolved.

Cyber_Junk: Read 'Sex At Dawn, The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. Its a very enlightening book. Not what anyone would call 'light reading', mind you.

A book by a pair of psychs rather than a pair of evolutionary biologists? I'd rather read a book by "must be Aliens" guy.

/hot, like the Matmos

liam76: Sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein was a noted advocate of sexual liberation and free love.

dude went off the deep end with Lazarous long

Got to agree, loved R.A.H. as a kid but all that sex-with-mom stuff.....

Loved "Door into Summer" as a kid but you can sure put a different spin on it as an adult.

jvl: Cyber_Junk: Read 'Sex At Dawn, The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. Its a very enlightening book. Not what anyone would call 'light reading', mind you.

A book by a pair of psychs rather than a pair of evolutionary biologists? I'd rather read a book by "must be Aliens" guy.

Read Dawkins the Selfish Gene which provides evolutionary reasons for both polygamy and monogamy. I'm more inclined to believe that humans evolved to be serial monogamous. In general men since childbirth was such a dangerous event that at one point led to 1 in 5 womens deaths. Men needed to be on the look out for a young healthy female who could help care for his current brood and produce more offspring.

clusterfrak: jvl: Cyber_Junk: Read 'Sex At Dawn, The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. Its a very enlightening book. Not what anyone would call 'light reading', mind you.

A book by a pair of psychs rather than a pair of evolutionary biologists? I'd rather read a book by "must be Aliens" guy.

Read Dawkins the Selfish Gene which provides evolutionary reasons for both polygamy and monogamy. I'm more inclined to believe that humans evolved to be serial monogamous. In general men since childbirth was such a dangerous event that at one point led to 1 in 5 womens deaths. Men needed to be on the look out for a young healthy female who could help care for his current brood and produce more offspring.

You should also read An Urchin in the Storm to see criticisms with 'evolutionary sociology' advocated by people like Dawkins.

DarnoKonrad: clusterfrak: jvl: Cyber_Junk: Read 'Sex At Dawn, The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. Its a very enlightening book. Not what anyone would call 'light reading', mind you.

A book by a pair of psychs rather than a pair of evolutionary biologists? I'd rather read a book by "must be Aliens" guy.

Read Dawkins the Selfish Gene which provides evolutionary reasons for both polygamy and monogamy. I'm more inclined to believe that humans evolved to be serial monogamous. In general men since childbirth was such a dangerous event that at one point led to 1 in 5 womens deaths. Men needed to be on the look out for a young healthy female who could help care for his current brood and produce more offspring.

You should also read An Urchin in the Storm to see criticisms with 'evolutionary sociology' advocated by people like Dawkins.

Looks like a good read, Hopefully my Library has it

DarnoKonrad:
Polyamory would look just like always looks when practiced by primates -- a few dominate males and roving bands of violent adolescents that want to be dominate males.

I think you are mistaking it for "polygyny". Polyamory = your girlfriend has another boyfriend... but you have another girlfriend too and you all know each other and sometimes hang out and play Modern Warfare together and maybe have group sex once in a while. Or you all live together and consider the arrangement a marriage.

clovis69: Mugato: I kind of liked Demolition Man *shrug*. Once you get past the ridiculous premise, it's an entertaining flick.

I liked it too, my wife and I watched it a couple months ago as part of "Bad Movie Night" she said it shouldn't count as a bad movie because it was an entertaining 2-star movie.

I surprised the hell out of my landlord/roommate when I offered this up for movie night a year or two ago. He was blown away by how "good" a movie it was. It's still the standard by which I judge all dystopian/future sci-fi movies.

// I'm a SEAMSTRESS?!

clusterfrak: jvl: Cyber_Junk: Read 'Sex At Dawn, The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. Its a very enlightening book. Not what anyone would call 'light reading', mind you.

A book by a pair of psychs rather than a pair of evolutionary biologists? I'd rather read a book by "must be Aliens" guy.

Read Dawkins the Selfish Gene which provides evolutionary reasons for both polygamy and monogamy. I'm more inclined to believe that humans evolved to be serial monogamous. In general men since childbirth was such a dangerous event that at one point led to 1 in 5 womens deaths. Men needed to be on the look out for a young healthy female who could help care for his current brood and produce more offspring.

Yes. I know I was painting a black-and-white picture from a world of grays. I just was avoiding all the complications like "women have different survival needs than men which makes them have different levels of various impulses" and all that. It's the same old "sickle-cell gene frequency depends on the inputs" story.

But I will stick with primary point than monogamy is the evolutionarily-driven norm, which too many people blow off as "repressed."

/ Rant regarding how the sexual promiscuity of recent decades follows male-evolutionary patterns and therefore demonstrates the increasing social dominance of men over women available on request.

DjangoStonereaver: Polyamory (a la Heinlein and Larry Niven) will never be the norm in the US until we finally
get over our puritanical moral roots.

That, and until most people who practice it aren't themselves crazy.

Heinlein actually dealt with that specifically and early in his works; Methuselah's Children is some of the early Lazarus Long stuff (before he's a crotchety motherhumper). The basic premise is that a fundamentalist revolution occurs in the US, and there's a group of people who've been engaged in a voluntary (but financially rewarded via payments from a trust) breeding program designed to breed humans for longetivity. Basic idea is if you marry someone on "the list", you get a monthly stipend that's pretty hefty. Anyone can be added to the list if they have four grandparents who lived to their 80s or so.

So you get this group of people who are selecting marriage partners in a generally rational and reason-based process, being harassed by the fundie nutjobs, and eventually they have to flee the planet to get away from it. For basically precisely the same reason you mention; until you throw off that yoke, it'll be the one that controls you.

clusterfrak: DarnoKonrad: clusterfrak: jvl: Cyber_Junk: Read 'Sex At Dawn, The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha. Its a very enlightening book. Not what anyone would call 'light reading', mind you.

A book by a pair of psychs rather than a pair of evolutionary biologists? I'd rather read a book by "must be Aliens" guy.

Read Dawkins the Selfish Gene which provides evolutionary reasons for both polygamy and monogamy. I'm more inclined to believe that humans evolved to be serial monogamous. In general men since childbirth was such a dangerous event that at one point led to 1 in 5 womens deaths. Men needed to be on the look out for a young healthy female who could help care for his current brood and produce more offspring.

You should also read An Urchin in the Storm to see criticisms with 'evolutionary sociology' advocated by people like Dawkins.

Looks like a good read, Hopefully my Library has it

Anything written by Steven J Gould is a good read. One of the clearest and most entertaining writers on evolutionary biology I've ever read. Pity he had to go and die at a relatively young age.

Dr Dreidel: I surprised the hell out of my landlord/roommate when I offered this up for movie night a year or two ago. He was blown away by how "good" a movie it was. It's still the standard by which I judge all dystopian/future sci-fi movies.

It's campy as hell, but it has a great underlying debate about authoritarianism and the invasive monitoring of all behavior we see with the internet vs anarchy.

JohnAnnArbor: From 1994:

[dilbert.com image 640x194]

The holodeck equivalent will be mankind's last invention.