Sociopath Community

I have never tasted a wine so sweet as a satisfied woman.

LOL... I have never quite paid 100.00 for a bottle wine, fool...

Trust me, you have no idea what a good fuk is, and never will... boudoir? do your women allow you at them after you've paid your penance, said 12 hail mary's, put a ring on the finger, and a down payment into a car...

I said most women are dead fuks. That means you are sugar daddy, minus the sugar... go play chauvinist somewhere else mark...

if it was realistic and hot and i had a good fantasy to get off on

Looks like those sour grapes are giving you a dose of explosive diarrhea  there, Mr smeagle pie.

smeagle pie? who the fuk says that other than a fat couch potato that is knee deep in consumer culture?

Someone going for a reaction? lol

I am working to clear all the dead fuks out of here, and the ones that can fuk too, the weather is too nice. Go outside for christsakes.

Only for fish

you won't succeed.  you don't have what it takes.

by Etzel

What's wrong, nerd? You hate yourself? More than once I've seen you post this nerd bullshit. Why? You don't like being a nerd? At least that's what it looks like from where I'm standing! Like a homophobe who's secretly a fagot, really.

Talk of robots and sexuality is extremely interesting and anyone who's interested in the FUTURE of mankind must think deeply about these issues. Perhaps in the future there won't even be sex. When we get to the point where we make our babies in labs, women will be of no use. This is what Baudrillard termed "the revenge of the immortals" or "the final solution". How can stuff like that not be interesting? 

The answer to my question, by the way, is that it depends. However pleasurable fucking a woman may be, the purpose of sex is procreation. Sex with a robot amounts to sex with a toy, no more different than sex with a fleshlight (like a certain user from here may already know, lol), which is ultimately masturbation. Sex with a cyborg, however, can still lead to procreation and is thus not inherently decadent. 

"Decadent" is the main word here. I'm going through all the trouble of thinking about and analyzing this in order to pick apart health from sickness, and what I'm trying to allude to is that "sex" with a robot is sick and decadent, and only hedonistic fuckfaced weaklings will be interested in it. Because they base all their evaluations on PLEASURE, instead of the infinitely more healthy criterium of POWER. "Sex" with a robot (or "sex" in a virtual reality, it amounts to the same thing) may eventually even be MORE PLEASURABLE than real sex with real women â€” but what does that mean? Heroin gives more pleasure to the brain than sex, physical activity and good food do â€” does that mean we should turn all our kids into drug addicts? 

So sex with a cyborg is a possibility, since a cyborg is by definition an organic being, and not sick, because we would still use it as a means to procreate. 

I am not entirely sure, however, how the fight between immortals and mortals will head out! Perhaps there will indeed be no sex in the future! Or perhaps not...

 Yeah you got me, I'm a nerd, I brainorgasm twice a day by thinking about Plato. Or Aristotle, if I'm in a really crazy mood.

Your posts make me laugh so much Etzel. I fucking swear, you're immature as hell. The purpose of sex is whatever you want it to be. Why is it wrong to make it pleasure instead of what nature wanted from us?

And why do you think power is so great? Why even make power your purpose. Power is supposed to be a means to an end, not the end itself. What do you do with this "power" once you have it?

You did make a good point about heroin though. However, heroin isn't bad because it brings you pleasure, it's bad because later on it does more harm than good, and fucks up your life. The pleasure itself isn't wrong, unless you have the morals of a victorian/religious fanatic.

I'm not even sure wth you mean by cyborg. A man with artificial components? Grannies get hip/knee replacements and eye lenses and stuff, are they cyborgs? Or less human because of that?

by Etzel

By the way, according to my definitions and examples, fucking a woman with a condom (or for the sole reason of experiencing pleasure), could be seen as "sick" and "decadent", or even, ultimately, as "masturbation". But to say something as retarded as that you'd have to be an autistic pedant. My definitions and examples are mere guidelines which help me analyze the health of a process, and they are not set into stone. For what difference is really there between fucking a piece of metal, or a pie, or a woman, when your only concern is PLEASURE? It can all be seen as masturbation, in this perspective. But the point here is that some pleasures are more healthy than others, and inserting your penis inside a dog, however pleasurable it feels in your head, is sick and leads nowhere. It's never a matter of sickness OR health, but a matter of degrees of health. 

Which leads us back to fucking a woman with a condom (i.e. fucking a woman for the sole reason of quenching our desires and needs of pleasure). In this case, while it is more sick than fucking in order to impregnate, this difference is almost NEGLIGIBLE, and taking everything into account, sex with condoms is not sick nor decadent nor masturbation. Some people have simply inherited huge desires to thrust their penises inside teh sweet pussehs, but recognize having a child at these points in time of extreme need would affect negatively their lives ("negatively" here interpreted as something that would harm them), so they CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE to fuck with a condom, knowing full well that if they don't they can give birth to an unwanted child â€” or worse: catch a venereal disease. This is NOT sick â€” it is indeed extremely healthy â€” for these people would harm themselves if they lived a life of celibacy. They would indeed make  themselves sick by not fucking.

But all of this should go without saying, and I'm merely explaining myself for the benefit of the aspies in the audience.

 I just can't imagine who would go into such a lenghty debate about something as simple as fucking. Do you sit there overanalyzing everything... I just imagine you in a room with a hot horny woman, you talking non stop about the philosophy of condoms or whatever, SHOUTING words from time to time for EMPHASIS and heatedly gesticulating... the horny lady getting up and leaving and you not even noticing... then your brain orgasming at the end of the monologue screaming Nietzsche's name.

Btw, wasn't Nietzsche an atheist? Sorry, but your morals, what you consider healthy, and what sick, how you express yourself... All this seems to have deep roots into the christian religion. You'd make a great preacher. You make those SINNERS see the SICKNESS in their SINFUL lives! Don't fuck dogs!

by Etzel

The reason you think this thread's stupid is because you yourself are stupid and lack the proper brainpower to imagine what the world will be like in the next 1000 years. Everything nowadays points towards interactive porn via virtual reality (which is merely a fancy name for saying that we will be fucking "robots", since robots and virtual reality are both possible only with the aid of computers and algorithms, after all (i.e. we'll be fucking computers and algorithms, lol (and if you want to go deeper, which is what I've been trying to do since I joined this thread, "robot sex" and VR porn are both, ultimately, MASTURBATION)).

Now what do you think of this? That all men in the future may end up bona fide wankers? Do you think this pathetic future is DESIRABLE? Even nowadays we are pathetic compared to the man of Renaissance, and even he was still at an even lower level than the man of the classical period! To give an example, nowadays violence has been effectively banned from the physical world, there are barely any wars, and men are content with killing each other in Counter Strike (i.e. in a VIRTUAL reality). Perhaps in the next 1000 years sex will be next! Perhaps men will only have a taste of sexuality through virtual realities (i.e. TINY realities)! 

But no. For you this thread is stupid. It must seem stupid to you, because you lack the brainpower to imagine the future of mankind, by observing the present and studying the past, and drawing all the necessary consequences! The most your brain can do is perhaps imagine what tomorrow will be like! So of course "robot sex" sounds stupid. If only everyone thought like you!

 Again, you really sound like a preacher criticizing the sinful ways of today's mankind and the End of the Days.

You also sound like a kid who doesnt know what the fuck he's talking about. You think wars are smth desirable, and think lack of wars means decadent society? You're a fucking moron. You're so disconnected from reality, you should be the last person to preach against living in virtual worlds. You have made up a world inside your head, with your superhumans or whatever. You completely took your feet off the ground, just like so many other secluded philosophers whose social anxieties made them hide inside their little libraries and heads...

by Edvard

 

by Etzel

What's wrong, nerd? You hate yourself? More than once I've seen you post this nerd bullshit. Why? You don't like being a nerd? At least that's what it looks like from where I'm standing! Like a homophobe who's secretly a fagot, really.

Talk of robots and sexuality is extremely interesting and anyone who's interested in the FUTURE of mankind must think deeply about these issues. Perhaps in the future there won't even be sex. When we get to the point where we make our babies in labs, women will be of no use. This is what Baudrillard termed "the revenge of the immortals" or "the final solution". How can stuff like that not be interesting? 

The answer to my question, by the way, is that it depends. However pleasurable fucking a woman may be, the purpose of sex is procreation. Sex with a robot amounts to sex with a toy, no more different than sex with a fleshlight (like a certain user from here may already know, lol), which is ultimately masturbation. Sex with a cyborg, however, can still lead to procreation and is thus not inherently decadent. 

"Decadent" is the main word here. I'm going through all the trouble of thinking about and analyzing this in order to pick apart health from sickness, and what I'm trying to allude to is that "sex" with a robot is sick and decadent, and only hedonistic fuckfaced weaklings will be interested in it. Because they base all their evaluations on PLEASURE, instead of the infinitely more healthy criterium of POWER. "Sex" with a robot (or "sex" in a virtual reality, it amounts to the same thing) may eventually even be MORE PLEASURABLE than real sex with real women â€” but what does that mean? Heroin gives more pleasure to the brain than sex, physical activity and good food do â€” does that mean we should turn all our kids into drug addicts? 

So sex with a cyborg is a possibility, since a cyborg is by definition an organic being, and not sick, because we would still use it as a means to procreate. 

I am not entirely sure, however, how the fight between immortals and mortals will head out! Perhaps there will indeed be no sex in the future! Or perhaps not...

 Yeah you got me, I'm a nerd, I brainorgasm twice a day by thinking about Plato. Or Aristotle, if I'm in a really crazy mood.

Your posts make me laugh so much Etzel. I fucking swear, you're immature as hell. The purpose of sex is whatever you want it to be. Why is it wrong to make it pleasure instead of what nature wanted from us?

And why do you think power is so great? Why even make power your purpose. Power is supposed to be a means to an end, not the end itself. What do you do with this "power" once you have it?

You did make a good point about heroin though. However, heroin isn't bad because it brings you pleasure, it's bad because later on it does more harm than good, and fucks up your life. The pleasure itself isn't wrong, unless you have the morals of a victorian/religious fanatic.

I'm not even sure wth you mean by cyborg. A man with artificial components? Grannies get hip/knee replacements and eye lenses and stuff, are they cyborgs? Or less human because of that?

 

by Etzel

By the way, according to my definitions and examples, fucking a woman with a condom (or for the sole reason of experiencing pleasure), could be seen as "sick" and "decadent", or even, ultimately, as "masturbation". But to say something as retarded as that you'd have to be an autistic pedant. My definitions and examples are mere guidelines which help me analyze the health of a process, and they are not set into stone. For what difference is really there between fucking a piece of metal, or a pie, or a woman, when your only concern is PLEASURE? It can all be seen as masturbation, in this perspective. But the point here is that some pleasures are more healthy than others, and inserting your penis inside a dog, however pleasurable it feels in your head, is sick and leads nowhere. It's never a matter of sickness OR health, but a matter of degrees of health. 

Which leads us back to fucking a woman with a condom (i.e. fucking a woman for the sole reason of quenching our desires and needs of pleasure). In this case, while it is more sick than fucking in order to impregnate, this difference is almost NEGLIGIBLE, and taking everything into account, sex with condoms is not sick nor decadent nor masturbation. Some people have simply inherited huge desires to thrust their penises inside teh sweet pussehs, but recognize having a child at these points in time of extreme need would affect negatively their lives ("negatively" here interpreted as something that would harm them), so they CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSE to fuck with a condom, knowing full well that if they don't they can give birth to an unwanted child â€” or worse: catch a venereal disease. This is NOT sick â€” it is indeed extremely healthy â€” for these people would harm themselves if they lived a life of celibacy. They would indeed make  themselves sick by not fucking.

But all of this should go without saying, and I'm merely explaining myself for the benefit of the aspies in the audience.

 I just can't imagine who would go into such a lenghty debate about something as simple as fucking. Do you sit there overanalyzing everything... I just imagine you in a room with a hot horny woman, you talking non stop about the philosophy of condoms or whatever, SHOUTING words from time to time for EMPHASIS and heatedly gesticulating... the horny lady getting up and leaving and you not even noticing... then you brain orgasming at the end of the monologue screaming Nietzsche's name.

Btw, wasn't Nietzsche an atheist? Sorry, but your morals, what you consider healthy, and what sick, how you express yourself... All this seems to have deep roots into the christian religion. You'd make a great preacher. You make those SINNERS see the SICKNESS in their SINFUL lives! Don't fuck dogs!

 

 

by Etzel

The reason you think this thread's stupid is because you yourself are stupid and lack the proper brainpower to imagine what the world will be like in the next 1000 years. Everything nowadays points towards interactive porn via virtual reality (which is merely a fancy name for saying that we will be fucking "robots", since robots and virtual reality are both possible only with the aid of computers and algorithms, after all (i.e. we'll be fucking computers and algorithms, lol (and if you want to go deeper, which is what I've been trying to do since I joined this thread, "robot sex" and VR porn are both, ultimately, MASTURBATION)).

Now what do you think of this? That all men in the future may end up bona fide wankers? Do you think this pathetic future is DESIRABLE? Even nowadays we are pathetic compared to the man of Renaissance, and even he was still at an even lower level than the man of the classical period! To give an example, nowadays violence has been effectively banned from the physical world, there are barely any wars, and men are content with killing each other in Counter Strike (i.e. in a VIRTUAL reality). Perhaps in the next 1000 years sex will be next! Perhaps men will only have a taste of sexuality through virtual realities (i.e. TINY realities)! 

But no. For you this thread is stupid. It must seem stupid to you, because you lack the brainpower to imagine the future of mankind, by observing the present and studying the past, and drawing all the necessary consequences! The most your brain can do is perhaps imagine what tomorrow will be like! So of course "robot sex" sounds stupid. If only everyone thought like you!

 Again, you really sound like a preacher criticizing the sinful ways of today's mankind and the End of the Days.

You also sound like a kid who doesnt know what the fuck he's talking about. You think wars are smth desirable, and think lack of wars means decadent society? You're a fucking moron. You're so disconnected from reality, you should be the last person to preach against living in virtual worlds. You have made up a world inside your head, with your superhumans or whatever. You completely took your feet off the ground, just like so many other secluded philosophers whose social anxieties made them hide inside their little libraries and heads...

What the fuck!