No More Straight People!

malakos

Superior Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Posts
8,368
Media
30
Likes
6,563
Points
223
Location
Cumming, GA, USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I would argue that free will is a lie because we're governed by desires and impulses outside of our control.

This makes it sound like the desires and impulses are forces external to ourselves that impose themselves upon us. That would be a very strange conception of the human self, in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, the desires and impulses you say we are governed by, we are actually identical to them, or at least they are a part of us. Since they are part of us, when we act from them, we are acting from ourselves, rather than being compelled to act by something distinct from ourselves. So there is freedom in acting from our impulses, in a sense, in that we are acting from something that belongs to us, rather than being compelled by something alien to us.

Being motivated by our impulses may appear to be a constraining of our freedom when we identify overwhelmingly with the rational component of ourselves, but I would say that reflects an erroneous carving up of the self and dissociation from our more base aspect.
 

cofrader

Superior Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Posts
1,669
Media
3
Likes
2,643
Points
368
Location
Earth(mostly)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Haha people


A few things, I didn't put this here. The mods keep on moving this thread around. This isn't an attack on anyone. It's a question about how society would change. Not an attack at all. Especially not one on gay people.
Then I’ll be pan but loyal to my wife.

How society would change? It won’t, human must learn to live with others without tricks.
 

LPSG Simon

Superior Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Posts
8,835
Media
0
Likes
8,246
Points
433
This makes it sound like the desires and impulses are forces external to ourselves that impose themselves upon us. That would be a very strange conception of the human self, in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, the desires and impulses you say we are governed by, we are actually identical to them, or at least they are a part of us. Since they are part of us, when we act from them, we are acting from ourselves, rather than being compelled to act by something distinct from ourselves. So there is freedom in acting from our impulses, in a sense, in that we are acting from something that belongs to us, rather than being compelled by something alien to us.

Being motivated by our impulses may appear to be a constraining of our freedom when we identify overwhelmingly with the rational component of ourselves, but I would say that reflects an erroneous carving up of the self and dissociation from our more base aspect.
Nope that's all static.

*Everything that happens* is the result of something that came before it. Even the illusion that we are choosing is determined by the cheese sandwich someone a thousand miles away had in 1954, and that choice came from much earlier..... We can swerve the car, but everything that informs that decision and what led us there in the first place is the end result of something that happened before. We didn't ask to be here, and nothing we can do can separate us from what came before or what happens to us to inform our choices. There's literally no way out of it.

I wonder if Christianity came up with the whole notion of "God's plan" by stealing from Heraclitus, Leucippus, and Aristotle?

#teamdeterminism.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted1030587

Guest
Women would stop wearing heels. Domestic abuse and violent sex crimes would plummet. Everyone would be fatter (30-40lbs) and hairier (thickets). More plumbers. Less virgins. Public showers and toilets would only be cubicles thus limiting the parade of 2 star dick. Same sex aerobics classes to dwindle. Sex would have less mystique because you have the same parts. TV shows would be mostly terrible (no change). Fewer topless scenes in slashers. Gay union of men+women becoming popular after several generations. Uptick in Satanism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MickeyLee

LPSG Simon

Superior Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Posts
8,835
Media
0
Likes
8,246
Points
433
Women would stop wearing heels. Domestic abuse and violent sex crimes would plummet. Everyone would be fatter (30-40lbs) and hairier (thickets). More plumbers. Less virgins. Public showers and toilets would only be cubicles thus limiting the parade of 2 star dick. Same sex aerobics classes to dwindle. Sex would have less mystique because you have the same parts. TV shows would be mostly terrible (no change). Fewer topless scenes in slashers. Gay union of men+women becoming popular after several generations. Uptick in Satanism.
I disagree with all of this.

Except the Satanism. It's time to see if the other side can do a better job of enlightening people. #hailthebeast
 

LPSG Simon

Superior Member
Staff
Moderator
Gold
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Posts
8,835
Media
0
Likes
8,246
Points
433
Women would stop wearing heels. Domestic abuse and violent sex crimes would plummet. Everyone would be fatter (30-40lbs) and hairier (thickets). More plumbers. Less virgins. Public showers and toilets would only be cubicles thus limiting the parade of 2 star dick. Same sex aerobics classes to dwindle. Sex would have less mystique because you have the same parts. TV shows would be mostly terrible (no change). Fewer topless scenes in slashers. Gay union of men+women becoming popular after several generations. Uptick in Satanism.

Ok, so some of these I would argue against on the grounds that their premises dont hold, others by assumption:

- Lesbians like heels as well as hiking boots and Birkenstocks (and have we seen just how popular Drag Race is?).
Men would probably wear more heels.

- Sadly, domestic abuse and violent crimes aren't necessarily an affectation of the heterosexual segment of the population, and probably would not change. Some research conclusions would assert that abuse in MM and FF MT WT is just as prevalent and just goes unreported because of internalized stigma.
Probably numbers would go up, because without the presence of toxic masculinity that (might) come with heteronormative culture, that stigma would go away. More abusers might face justice however.

- People might actually be fitter, if keeping one'self in normative beauty ideals were a point of attraction that was not tied in with procreating, and more of an aesthetic concern, the opposite might hold true. Plus with less people having kids because it would be an opt-in scenario instead of, for what many experience as a life's eventuality, they'd have more time to focus on themselves. People might be more vain. Plus the extra money for beach vacations without pissing it away on kids....

- Ok Def. less virgins...

- Public showers and toilets designed by gay people would have anything but cubicles and curtains (...ummm cruising?). People would probably include fucking in the shower after a workout as part of the workout, honestly.

- Same sex aerobics might stay (half the fun of going to these things as a queer person is reliable scenery after all).

- Sex would have just as much mystique. I dont think that has anything to do with parts.... If anything men have more mystique between each other because they have a keener eye on how the experience impacts each other because they do have the same anatomy. Also: Where do trans people fall into this? There's mystique attached to exploring any body, really.

- TV shows could be terrible still. There might be better representation, but also storylines that might go beyond the heteronormative crap they love to stick to now. Maybe we can see some concept-driven stuff that isnt sci-fi. Or a story where the protagonist actually doesnt have to have a love interest for once.

- People still love topless scenes in slashers. That's never changing :p

- Interesting on the inversion of MM to M+W..... I wonder what for? Legal status, or maybe a small business venture breeding designer babies for other people....
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbkwp

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,050
Media
0
Likes
3,993
Points
333
Location
United States
If this happened, and women were only attracted to women and men to men, then I would think that the male of the species would become extinct.

Scientists claim they can create babies without men

I disagree. I think it would still be very beneficial to have male off spring, because they could still act as providers for their extended family and parents.

This of course all depends on how families woyld aork after the change, but I think a likely family structure is one where many women are basically single mothers who depend heavily on family for financial and other kinds of support. In this scenario it would be beneficial to have many male offspring and less female ones because the financial responsibility for future and older generations will fall on the males of the family. So it is just better to have more males. Women would of course have value but their value would be in continuing the family line while male value would come from financially supporting parents and female siblings.
 

EllieP

Worshipped Member
Gold
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
9,957
Media
4
Likes
22,261
Points
318
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Providers in which way? If we're going with stereotypes then I'll forward that women as creators are better providers.

Without males wouldn't employment compensation for women become balanced? It's probably the only way it'll get like that.

The family structure has evolved to something unrecognizable 50 years ago. A single woman having a child then was usually sent away to live with another family member. Now it's celebrated.

If you're envisioning a new world order then you have to be an iconoclast and rid yourself of outdated notions of society.
 

Motion-of-the-Ocean

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Posts
9,717
Media
423
Likes
23,181
Points
408
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Ok, I'll actually bite with a serious answer. What would change if such a thought experiment came true? Either nothing or almost nothing.

The only prominent effect would be natural reproduction and even that wouldn't be a given, since there might still be quite a few who would still choose to have sex with the opposite gender just for that purpose rather than rely on medical means.

But the bottom line is human relationships would still be human relationships. There would still be differences in gender interactions and roles, whether for good or bad. There would still be the same issues and power dynamics in some relationships. Children would still be raised in both positive, loving families and not so positive or even abusive ones. Those elected to lead society would continue to be both compassionate and corrupt. Political decisions would still determine the species' continued existence or inevitable destruction. Human society would neither more or less wither or thrive on the vine.

In fact one of the reasons I think the entire premise of the question is both nonsensical and maybe even offensive, is because it assumes on the surface an inherent superiority or inferiority based upon sexual orientation alone. Granted this is from a straight male opinion, but I believe having a world based upon only one gender (no more men or no more women) would have a far more substantial effect on society than one based upon who those genders are attracted to.

So there you go @wallyj84, I decided to actually throw one of your questions a bone. Try not to get used to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbkwp and T_Lurch

rbkwp

Mythical Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
80,321
Media
1
Likes
45,713
Points
608
Location
Auckland (New Zealand)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
y/n
makes little difference either way
always goiing to have those of us with alternative iews,straight r gay
iroically,i seem to recall
there seemed to be a lt more straights,ridiculing the gay lifestyle,in earlier days
like those chauvanist masles,who continually harrased the females,or anyother grender,but there own
to me,truth be known,wo7ldent surprice me re 'closeted'
why not assume
 
D

deleted5796621

Guest
yeah......!!!......death to extremists...!!
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,050
Media
0
Likes
3,993
Points
333
Location
United States
Providers in which way? If we're going with stereotypes then I'll forward that women as creators are better providers.

Without males wouldn't employment compensation for women become balanced? It's probably the only way it'll get like that.

The family structure has evolved to something unrecognizable 50 years ago. A single woman having a child then was usually sent away to live with another family member. Now it's celebrated.

If you're envisioning a new world order then you have to be an iconoclast and rid yourself of outdated notions of society.

Without males? Men wouldn't stop existing in this scenario. Just everyone would suddenly become gay.

As you pointed out there are ways to eliminate the male sex while keeping the human species going, but that elimination would take generations to completely work. Also things like cost and personal choices would prevent those kinds of methods from being used by everyone.

Honestly, if you take out the sexual dynamics, I think relations between genders become much better. This idea that women won't have male children if given the chance, comes from the eternal friction that exists between straight men and women. Remove heterosexuality and that friction disappears and the sexes are able to relate to each other on a much better level. I think just like today, some women will prefer having male offspring while others will prefer females, but there will be variety in what people choose.

As to why men will be better providers for the new extended family structure is simply because they won't have any other entanglements. A mother will have to care for her offspring and that is time consuming and expensive. Some women are able to do that and hold down a career, but not all. So it will be useful to have a few people with no entanglements who can focus on work and provide for the family.

I expect for families to live in multi-generational houses. With multiple sons working to provide for their mother, sister and nieces/nephews. Each family unit would probably only have 1 female of breeding age, 1 elderly female parent and 2 or 3 adult males. Adult males would live with their mothers, probably never leaving their mother until her death, and would give her their full paycheck and live off an allowance. Men wouldn't care about this as long as they got enough money to buy video games and travel to meet their sex partners. The life of a man in this world would be relatively short and similar to that of a babied manchild, except with a lot more sex.

I am thinking outside the box on this. My view of how families will change is very radical. Fatherhood, the nuclear family and even the concept of a patriarch is completely obsolete in my scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MickeyLee

EllieP

Worshipped Member
Gold
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
9,957
Media
4
Likes
22,261
Points
318
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
You know that if everyone became a homosexual then heterosexuals would be considered deviants, right? Not sure what kind of name they would be called or what derogatory term would be used. But you know there would be some heteros in the closet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbkwp and WilliamG

rbkwp

Mythical Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
80,321
Media
1
Likes
45,713
Points
608
Location
Auckland (New Zealand)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
gets funnier each time i see the thread title
thanks for its gracing of etcetc
long may it remain,encouraging active minds

quite nice in real life
when you dont have a real choice,but often do ones utmost re the pretence,or survival mode
 
  • Like
Reactions: T_Lurch

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,050
Media
0
Likes
3,993
Points
333
Location
United States
You know that if everyone became a homosexual then heterosexuals would be considered deviants, right? Not sure what kind of name they would be called or what derogatory term would be used. But you know there would be some heteros in the closet.

Nope. God would use his divine power to completely eliminate heterosexuality. It would be completely gone from humanity.