Brave New Worlds (fully sexual society)

So, this'll be the first of a series of discussions posing theoretical societies which act very different from our own, but are not implausible and may even be considered possible futures.

If none of you are familiar with the idea of a society where sex is seen as a normal thing rather than glorified to a higher level, read this (the fourth paragraph of The Kingdom of Adornia Prospers). That society's structure was based solely on art and creativity, so it isn't a perfect example of what our world would be like with no sexual boundaries, but it is still a reference sheet.

In a fully sexual society, sex is seen as something equal to breathing and walking. It's so very natural and has no boundaries concerning age, gender, class, or race. Though this is not always the case, people in general would tend to see it as something which would not affect them or their livelihood negatively in any way. The majority of people in that society would be pansexual.

The discussion here is NOT about whether or not you would like this kind of society. Any flaming or opinions related to the disgust at this kind of society or even the glorification of it will be reported, since they could lead to bloody arguments on this thread. Let's keep it civilized, people.

The discussion will be your opinions on what this society would be like. How would it affect the way we see parenthood and raising the next generation? If all STDs were cured, which would be necessary for the full extent of this society, what borders would be broken? If they weren't cured, would those desiring this society try to eliminate everyone with STDs? What stylistic changes would occur - would the body become more sexualized, due to further glorification, or even more sexualized because it would be seen as much more casual? Perhaps people would focus LESS on their bodies, outside of being healthy, since they'd be less inclined to care about preferred types?

How would this affect the view on true love? What other cultural changes - art, music, architecture, etc - do you think would be affected and how? Would there be ups and downs in concerns to cultural shift due to this? Do you think it will last? If people ended up altering their bodies, like with cybernetics, in a way that caused them to be unable to have sex, how do you think they'd be seen by the rest of society?

Once again, do NOT discuss whether or not you'd like or hate this society. Just discuss what you think it would be like, as a possible future.

I'm surprised you did not mention Huxley's Brave New World. Unless the point was for the title to imply such a reference.

Assuming the mindset of such a society is how I think it would be, things like parenthood and love would be unaffected. If sex is a quotidian thing, it wouldn't essentially be major factors in things like relationships and love, rather these things would be consecrated in different ways. For parenthood, even today, I'm leaning towards saying sexual activity has relatively little to do with parenting. Obviously in this world parents would either encourage sex or encourage their children making their own decisions, but ultimately the approach to raising the next generation shouldn't change. I do think bodies would become less sexualized by today's standards because of the majority of pansexuals. I'm not trying to generalize that pansexuals aren't affected by the degree of sexuality, I'm just saying that image doesn't become a priority if sex is more common.

Ultimately, I think if a society like this existed cohesively, there would not be much difference in many other aspects of life. Society would simply evolve to expressing love and personal identity in other ways.

These threads make me feel increasingly like a Marxist. I think we have to come to terms with the fact that society to a certain extent comes out of our material world. Society is a dynamic process - it had to have come from somewhere, from some context. We can't just impose a hypothetical society upon ourselves and theorize how it would turn out, because human nature is involved, technology is involved - we'd just be fantasizing with no plausibility.

However, if sex is as normal a behaviour as eating or breathing, then I think sex will be less conscious, not more. If people think nothing of it, then it probably isn't a big deal. But what does "normal" mean? There are so many ways to interpret the question.

I don't know if there's much else to say.

Flush'd said:

I'm surprised you did not mention Huxley's Brave New World. Unless the point was for the title to imply such a reference.

Click to expand...

^ This. Yes, I did have that as a reference. Unfortunately, it isn't so easy to link all the sections in the entire book that deal with this issue... But it's a great example, since sex is deemed a normal - even required - thing in that book.

Flush'd, so you think that things connected to sex in the modern day - like love and parenthood - would increase in importance, or be connected to something else other than sex, in that society? Interesting.

Blah, good point. What would be "normal", under those terms? I said this could be a possible future simply because society today, and with the internet - technology and culture combined - sex is becoming far more present and less judged, though it isn't too close to being at the level of breathing. Nonetheless, many people are deeming it "normal" now. However, there are still many boundaries. This thread does not consider the exact details connecting now and that future, only that society specifically, but that WOULD be a good discussion - just posted elsewhere.

I think seeing it as a matter of sex only is short-sighted. The way I'm seeing it is that sex would possibly be acceptable behavior on the streets, for example? Then the scope is much bigger, it involves a society in which people are ready to accept their naked bodies and live without fear of being ridiculed for walking around naked. Because I figure that a society where sex is commonplace must be a place where people can dress the way they want, including not dressing up at all.

I'd imagine people would still want to be monogamous, however, purely because of instinct. Parenthood would be much more determined by instinct than before, and in a society where everyone can have sex with everyone, I'd be inclined to think that cultural bonds between human beings like dating and marriage would disappear (marriage definitely would), and opposing males would be less inclined to respect a male who has a female with him, because they would want to pass down their genes.

Another thing of note is that I believe any rules on age of consent would become meaningless. Sex became commonplace, it's something that's no longer hidden and not something that should be taught to someone before they reach a certain age. I'd imagine puberty would become the drawing line for when sexual relations are permitted, like in less advanced but still existent cultures in the world. Virginity would lose its meaning, since people would be more willing to engage in sexual activities and the sentimental value of sex would be lessened.

Cerberus87 said:

I'd imagine people would still want to be monogamous, however, purely because of instinct. Parenthood would be much more determined by instinct than before, and in a society where everyone can have sex with everyone, I'd be inclined to think that cultural bonds between human beings like dating and marriage would disappear (marriage definitely would), and opposing males would be less inclined to respect a male who has a female with him, because they would want to pass down their genes.

Click to expand...

^This. Even in sexually permissive societies, like some native tribes in the Pacific islands where sexual activity at a young age is tolerated, teenagers do end up pairing up. Interestingly enough even though children are sexually experimenting, pedophilia isn't a problem. Apparently it just doesn't happen. Perhaps things like anti-pedophilia and monogamy, like Cerberus has pointed out, are instinctual.

And yeah, there are more variables - like public nudity - that I don't think would correlate with a sexually liberal society. It's up to our imagination.

I suppose we'd have to find other ways to show intimacy with people. I think we'd still want to pair up to some degree, to have some kind of privacy with people who matter more to us. Marriage, I think, would still exist in some form if for no other reason.

Great answers! ^^ Hopefully I can get some ideas from more "conservative" people on here, as long as they keep it calm. And also much MUCH less conservative people... It would be interesting to see the difference in opinion concerning the outcome.

--

I actually created this thread, in part, due to my curiosity about sexual normalcy. I am asexual (physical). This means that I'm normally not physically attracted to other people. Though this doesn't mean I never have sex (I'll do it if my partner wants it), it REALLY isn't on the top of my list. So, I'm curious about what I'd be like if I was born and raised in a fully sexual society. To the end that sex is like breathing, I still won't think much of it - but would I count it as a normal routine?

How would this affect natural asexuals like me? I'm hoping to find that answer in this thread by posing this theoretical society. You all can also give your theories on what it would be like for natural asexuals, like me, in this society's context, but only as an addendum.

Rezilia said:

So, I'm curious about what I'd be like if I was born and raised in a fully sexual society. To the end that sex is like breathing, I still won't think much of it - but would I count it as a normal routine?

How would this affect natural asexuals like me? I'm hoping to find that answer in this thread by posing this theoretical society. You all can also give your theories on what it would be like for natural asexuals, like me, in this society's context, but only as an addendum.

Click to expand...

I would guess it would be like being a vegetarian in most societies. People expect you to do something because everyone else does it. No one will even notice until someone presents you with the offer and you refuse. There would be some stigma, probably, just because it would be something different and "unusual" but probably most people would just ignore it. You'd have to inform people who don't know you on a regular basis, but you probably wouldn't have much of a different life.

Scarf said:

I would guess it would be like being a vegetarian in most societies. People expect you to do something because everyone else does it. No one will even notice until someone presents you with the offer and you refuse. There would be some stigma, probably, just because it would be something different and "unusual" but probably most people would just ignore it. You'd have to inform people who don't know you on a regular basis, but you probably wouldn't have much of a different life.

Click to expand...

In a fully sexual society, sex is seen as something equal to breathing and walking. It's so very natural and has no boundaries concerning age, gender, class, or race. Though this is not always the case, people in general would tend to see it as something which would not affect them or their livelihood negatively in any way. The majority of people in that society would be pansexual.

Click to expand...

That's quite a long chain of suppositions, though. I certainly agree that it's possible for sex to be seen as simply a natural phenomenon (and in certain eras and cultures, it was) -- but does that necessarily mean a removal about all taboos? I don't think so. Recognizing it as a natural function doesn't mean throwing out all societal expectations.

For instance, relieving one's self is a natural thing. Yet as part of living in a civilized society, we don't do it in public. Moreover, there are other -- not socially constructed -- reasons for not doing that, such as hygiene and public health.

So consider, then, your list of boundaries. What reasons do we have for those boundaries? Well, some of them are health-related (incest) and some of them are socially constructed (age). And I'll add a note that social constructions aren't bad just because they're constructed; one shouldn't take constructed to mean arbitrary. One of the reasons behind statutory rape laws is mental capacity to consent, unequal power differentials and coercion, and impact on the developmental process. It's not simple prudery from not recognizing sex as simply a biological function.

Now, the general premise of your thread was not to discuss the desirability of such a state of affairs, but what that state would look like. And while I would like to say that it hopefully wouldn't look like the far end of the spectrum, I also think that it won't necessarily look that way either because while society may dismiss some hangups as backwards, society may well find good reasons for others.

Assuming we had methods to control, combat and even prevent spreading of disease as well as a 100% reliable method of preventing procreation from said sexual contact, I could easily see sex becoming a much less taboo topic.

Most sexual taboos are caused by the wish to prevent children from doing so, and being exploited for such purposes. Rape is also a concern, however I believe that too could also become less of a problem as sex becomes less of a "Forbidden" or "taboo" thing.

I would most certainly love to live in a more sex-positive culture; given that the problems that are caused by making it taboo are far worse in my opinion. If people were properly educated early enough on about sex, it would probably be a non-issue as they'd know and understand what it does, what it is, and why and how you should be careful and responsible if you choose to have sex!

Silais said:

I'd just like to point out here that most rape is not because sexual activity is taboo or seen as forbidden. Rape normally occurs as a play on power; an individual dominates another person in a struggle for power. Sexual pleasure is not normally a motivating factor for rape.

Click to expand...

It's oft-repeated, but I don't know how much of that is true. "Struggle for power" is very vague language - I don't can't imagine how to relate to it. Maybe for war rape it would make sense, but when I think about it in our own societal context it just doesn't seem to be an accurate description.

Silais said:

Monogamous relationships and marriage would not exist; free sexual activity would sever the strong, emotional bonds between two individuals and instead would value "free love". Thus, I can see personal relationships and human empathy suffer as a result.

Would adults feel the need to reproduce? That's a hard question to ask. On one hand, they may not feel it is necessary to use contraception and thus many children would be born, and likely be neglected. On the other, adults may use contraception to avoid creating children, which would stunt the population.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

In many hentai (esp. on Fakku, it's choc-full of this concept) and similar mediums focusing on sexual acts, it is believed that sex is the precursor to love. In religious terms, it is believed that love which comes after sex is NOT love but, instead, lust - which is deemed sexual desire without love. The idea there is that "pure love" will fail to exist without sex and thus why virginity is so important to those that believe such a thing.

However, this is based on the idea that sex = love, or something similar. If sex is no longer attributed to love, then love will not be something tied in with sex. Remember, sex is an act while love is an emotion. They have completely different natures.

Heck, love wasn't even a major thing until romanticism. The idea of Love in the Bible was seen as mutual respect and acknowledgement rather than as something you feel. Marriages occured as contracts which aided the prosperity of two individuals and their families. Love had absolutely nothing to do with it, the majority of the time.

Now, the idea that people HAVE to love one another in order to marry is a thing. Okay, sure, but people now get married even if they've both been "soiled" when they were in middle school. I'm pretty sure sex wasn't the thing that caused them to love one another, and I doubt a lack of sexual glorification would make them separate.

--

By removing the sex = love ideaology, sex won't go away. Neither will love. They'll be more separate which means that love will be even less of a physical thing...unless psychologists/neurologists get their way, atleast. This means that love could be elevated even higher, since sex will no longer "hold it down".


----


As for children, I want to have a daughter. Heck, I want 5 million daughters, atleast. But trust me, I can live without a "partner".

To an extent, sex is love. The two "behaviours" have closely linked neural pathways, to put it one way. One can lead to another. Humans are not capable of shutting down the hormonal cascades that accompany certain behaviour, for example, the release of oxytocin after orgasm. This is why there can be a certain anxiety after a one night stand - no matter what "you" tell yourself to think, there's still a neurological association going on. As such some of us have maintained that monogamy, or at least exclusivity will be maintained no matter what kind of societal setup we have - it's the impact of biology.

Rezilia said:

They'll be more separate which means that love will be even less of a physical thing...unless psychologists/neurologists get their way, atleast.

Click to expand...

BlahISuck said:

The two "behaviours" have closely linked neural pathways, to put it one way. One can lead to another. Humans are not capable of shutting down the hormonal cascades that accompany certain behaviour, for example, the release of oxytocin after orgasm. This is why there can be a certain anxiety after a one night stand - no matter what "you" tell yourself to think, there's still a neurological association going on. As such some of us have maintained that monogamy, or at least exclusivity will be maintained no matter what kind of societal setup we have - it's the impact of biology.

Click to expand...

And scene!

Darling, darling~

This shows a difference in fundamental beliefs!

You seem to believe that the brain creates emotions. I believe it can generate FAKE emotions but that TRUE emotions come from the etheric heart, something the brain doesn't control~

Your statement, and that of those ridiculous neurologists is that we are ruled by the body, which is controlled by the brain. I disagree.

The body is only one part of VARIOUS things that make up oneself~ Thus, the brain has limited control over us. The amount of control it has can easily fool people into thinking it's the only thing that controls us, when this isn't the case.

Rezilia said:

And scene!

Darling, darling~

This shows a difference in fundamental beliefs!

You seem to believe that the brain creates emotions. I believe it can generate FAKE emotions but that TRUE emotions come from the etheric heart, something the brain doesn't control~

Your statement, and that of those ridiculous neurologists is that we are ruled by the body, which is controlled by the brain. I disagree.

The body is only one part of VARIOUS things that make up oneself~ Thus, the brain has limited control over us. The amount of control it has can easily fool people into thinking it's the only thing that controls us, when this isn't the case.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, there's a nervous system that's coordinated by the brain which communicates through hormones and neurotransmitters. This stuff can be measured. I guess they can take blood samples from a couple post-coitus and measure their oxytocin levels. They can do experiments on animals to see what the effects of an elevated concentration of hormone would have after sex. At least they've realized oxytocin is associated with that kind of person-to-person bonding?

Perhaps I should clarify - the brain is the coordinating centre. We respond to stimuli, so I guess you could make a philosophic argument that the stimuli is the immediate cause - our environments control us :P Or we could take one step away from the environment and say that our genetics control us, because after all, why else do we have emotions the way we do? You could make the argument that the brain isn't "controlling" anything, nor is it responding, it's just coordinating.

I know it's not the easiest idea to swallow, but it makes sense. It's plausible that we have a system of coordinated action in our body, and since emotions tend to be pretty coordinated, well, emotions should be regulated by that same system eh?

What does an etheric heart have to do with anything?

BlahISuck said:

Well yeah, there's a nervous system that's coordinated by the brain which communicates through hormones and neurotransmitters. This stuff can be measured. I guess they can take blood samples from a couple post-coitus and measure their oxytocin levels. They can do experiments on animals to see what the effects of an elevated concentration of hormone would have after sex. At least they've realized oxytocin is associated with that kind of person-to-person bonding?

I know it's not the easiest idea to swallow, but it makes sense. It's plausible that we have a system of coordinated action in our body, and since emotions tend to be pretty coordinated, well, emotions should be regulated by that same system eh?

What does an etheric heart have to do with anything?

Click to expand...

*facepalm*

You're still looking at things through a taught perspective. That is to say, you're using logic WITHOUT using imagination - and the logic you're using is not your own, it's what other people having given you, taught you, etc.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

― Albert Einstein

You believe emotions are generated by the brain, that sex and love are wholly connected, etc, because you were TOLD that. It isn't a conclusion you came to yourself, on your own.

Imagination goes beyond the realm of possibility. It does not assume. It only envisions. When you write down that the brain generates love, you state it as fact rather than as only a possibility. This shows a lack of acceptance for OTHER possibilities, which is why you didn't get what I said when I talked about the etheric heart.

The etheric heart would be a metaphysical object, separate from the physical heart. That's easy enough to deduce. But I stated that TRUE emotions, in their "pure" forms, such as "pure love", come from the etheric heart, NOT the brain.

This means that the brain's fake love, which is connected to sex, is NOT the same as true love, which is NOT connected to sex.

Thus, the separation between sex and love being that fake love would not be deemed love as we have it in modern regard, but rather a slight wince which is a side effect of sex. True love, which is separate from sex, would be more recognizable in its effect since fake love would no longer have authority.