Philosophy Now Forum

Without going into details, I've had my fair share.

I'm sure you have your own perspective as to what oversexed means. It's very subjective. Does being oversexed have a use or purpose? Could it lead to problems such as disease? (sexbots notwithstanding). I doubt it, but does it lead to overpopulation?

PhilX

My guess is that most people don't have enough desire/capability because they're too spun up over one thing or another in their daily lives.

Then there are those who can't think about anything BUT sex, and as with any addiction, they have surely lost touch with the greatest potentials of it.

Seems unfortunate to be missing out on such a divine, enriching feast due to the extremes we seem to gravitate toward.

Lacewing wrote:My guess is that most people don't have enough desire/capability because they're too spun up over one thing or another in their daily lives.

Then there are those who can't think about anything BUT sex, and as with any addiction, they have surely lost touch with the greatest potentials of it.

Seems unfortunate to be missing out on such a divine, enriching feast due to the extremes we seem to gravitate toward.

Are you suggesting that being oversexed is actually a norm from which we're getting distracted?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Are you suggesting that being oversexed is actually a norm from which we're getting distracted?

I'm suggesting that most people are distracted from being sexed in a balanced way.

It would seem healthy to me to have plentiful, naturally occurring sex (but not be obsessed to an addicted, mindless extreme). Do you think that plentiful sex indicates being oversexed?

Lacewing wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Are you suggesting that being oversexed is actually a norm from which we're getting distracted?

I'm suggesting that most people are distracted from being sexed in a balanced way.

It would seem healthy to me to have plentiful, naturally occurring sex (but not be obsessed to an addicted, mindless extreme). Do you think that plentiful sex indicates being oversexed?

Not plentiful, extreme possibly.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Without going into details, I've had my fair share.

I'm sure you have your own perspective as to what oversexed means. It's very subjective. Does being oversexed have a use or purpose? Could it lead to problems such as disease? (sexbots notwithstanding). I doubt it, but does it lead to overpopulation?

PhilX

This is the greatest most stupid question you could possibly ask.

On average people are exactly sexed averagely.

Allow me to illustrate the stupidity of your question.

GW Bush once reacted with horror that the suggestion that nearly half of American children have below average age reading capability.

Now ask yourself why you are as stupid as Bush.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Without going into details, I've had my fair share.

I'm sure you have your own perspective as to what oversexed means. It's very subjective. Does being oversexed have a use or purpose? Could it lead to problems such as disease? (sexbots notwithstanding). I doubt it, but does it lead to overpopulation?

PhilX

This is the greatest most stupid question you could possibly ask.

On average people are exactly sexed averagely.

Allow me to illustrate the stupidity of your question.

GW Bush once reacted with horror that the suggestion that nearly half of American children have below average age reading capability.

Now ask yourself why you are as stupid as Bush.

I'm not, but I think you're down to Bob's level.

PhilX

Undersexed in my opinion.

We should have a polyamorous culture where sex is far more common, from casual to multiple committed relationships.

Well there are 7.4 billion of us so I think that answers the question. And apparently men think about sex every five seconds, which seems a bit pointless to me.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Well there are 7.4 billion of us so I think that answers the question. And apparently men think about sex every five seconds, which seems a bit pointless to me.

Here's a good question for you. Would monks think even more about sex?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Well there are 7.4 billion of us so I think that answers the question. And apparently men think about sex every five seconds, which seems a bit pointless to me.

Here's a good question for you. Would monks think even more about sex?

PhilX

Probably. Isn't that why they whip themselves and chant all day?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Well there are 7.4 billion of us so I think that answers the question. And apparently men think about sex every five seconds, which seems a bit pointless to me.

Here's a good question for you. Would monks think even more about sex?

PhilX

Probably. Isn't that why they whip themselves and chant all day?

Then why is the earth underpopulated by them?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Here's a good question for you. Would monks think even more about sex?

PhilX

Probably. Isn't that why they whip themselves and chant all day?

Then why is the earth underpopulated by them?

PhilX

Duh. Because the don't fuck obviously!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Probably. Isn't that why they whip themselves and chant all day?

Then why is the earth underpopulated by them?

PhilX

Duh. Because the don't fuck obviously!

They don't need to remain monks.

PhilX

[Edited by iMod]

As they say, "all the children are above average."

If that applies to carnal interest then I guess people must all be oversexed.