Post here if you're openly white supremist.

[Pie]

sorry. Didn't see any rebutle of evolution creating the plesure of sex, so i made one.


but I WILL BE BACK TO EDIT THIs PosT!! BEWARE!!!

[swymir]

*Sigh* evolution is a concept and therefore a noun that I can personify as I see fit. And what I was saying by it is that the idea of having sex solely for pleasure is a relativly new concept. I'm a little hesistant to believe the fact that other animals have sex for pleasure only. They might and there is nothing really preventing it from being possible, but I haven't heard any clear proof yet. When I do I will gladly embrace the concept.

And your statement

animals arn't as intelegant as humans(By any means) and mostly they run on instinct. The animals of 5 or whatever bilion years ago would have been EVEN MORE DEPENDANT ON INSTINKT AND PLESURE STIMULATION THAT THE ANIMALS OF TODAY. So do you really think that they would have EVEN HAD SEX ENOUGH TO MAKE EVOLVING HAPPEN?!?!?!?

is the entire concept of evolution. The first organisms on the planet only functioned on their genetic coding. Their DNA told them exactly what to do, and when to do it until they died (if reproducing wasn't part of this, then the organism would die without reproducing, but the organisms who did have the drive to reproduce carried on.)The animals that did not gain pleasure from sex would also become extinct from lack of reproduction. This is not saying that they didn't reproduce, just that their likeliness to reproduce would not have been as high as those that did gain pleasure from sex and slowly the gene that inspired pleasure from sex would completely take over the gene pool kicking the "not getting pleasure" gene out. And I doubt that from the start all animals had pleasure from sex. For one thing nothing evolves that suddenly. The first forms of sexual reporduction were done by plants, not animals and intercorse was done through distance. The organisms that reproduced never even made contact.

As for your point about caring for children, this too is a result of evolution. Many animals who took care of their young (through a nuerological instinct) had a higher success rate in offspring that survived which was a good counter to not being able to reproduce as rapidly as other animals that don't take after thier young. Like fish and insects (who reproduce in mass with a high death rate of their offspring).

All animals (including humans) are born with the instinct to self-propogate. Are genetics are programmed that way, that is how we got them, because our parents felt the need to self-propogate, and their parents before them, and their parents before them, all the way to when the mutation was first introduced to the gene pool.

When pondered, evolution (natural selection) makes sense in many ways, there are a few holes in it which could use tightening, but it is easier for me to disregard the holes that are in the evolutionary chain (where the fact that not every animal that ever existed has been preserved in rock somewhere, seems to be overlooked) than it is for me to believe the joke that is the bible (which has more contradictions in it's pages than my Senior thesis).

In the end it really depends on the individual. If you believe in creationism, you will say humans and all animals were created with getting pleasure from sex. If you are an evolutionist, the first organism was only a single cell which luckily enough had been blessed with the ability to reproduce (which could very well have been it's only action before it died in a matter of minutes)

[formerly known as hf]

So do you really think that they would have EVEN HAD SEX ENOUGH TO MAKE EVOLVING HAPPEN?!?!?!?

Erm... sex is what makes evolution - sex, reproduction, produces offspring. The offspring will have the genes of the parents, combined through sex... etc. etc.

Although, Swymir, I similarly agree with pie that it is wrong, or at least misleading, to personify evolution. Whenever I see people doing that, it always seems to imply that 'evolution' is some kind of 'intelligent force' - one which makes intelligent decisions. Evolution is nothing more than a process, one that is a mixture of chance and gene survival.
Personifying it makes people sound like intelligent creationists, implying that there is some kind of intelligent design to evolution - whether the designer is 'evolution', 'mother nature' or 'god'.

And pie. Please read a discussion before you jump in. Also, try to be clearer. I hardly understood what you meant. But at least I tried, when I expect most others will have just ignored your post.

[swymir]

Well that was not my intent, but the human species has evolved down a path that is so unique, with the development of intelligence and abstract thought. That is what messes with intelligence. Natural selection no longer applys to the human race as it does for all other creatures on the planet.

[Floris]

Then where do mules and muledeers come from?

Although the result of intercourse between a donkey and a horse is a living creature, that creature in itself is sterile. Proof enough that it is against nature, yet.............

That's because sex is pleasurable, guy. It's pleasurable. That's why they're doing it. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Homosexual sex does not end in reproduction, but it's still fun for the people doing it.

I truly don't think the anyone really cares as long as their getting laid.

And the thing is, the animals don't know anything.

And, perhaps you've forgotten that it's the OFFSPRING of those two that are sterile, not them. There you are.

So then, if sex is pleasurable, why not allow people to have sex in Cantr?

As it is a thing that people like to have sex, why would cantrians do not?

Humans like to sing, read, talk and sport, entertainments which are not necessary for a person. I have seen many cantrians do the same things. If singing makes both humans and cantrians more happy, why would not cantrians be allowed to have sex and feel more happy(especially but not necessary in a bond between two persons(characters)) as humans do?

[Sunni Daez]

Cantrians RP sex... so whats the problem?...if you want to waste minutes cybering then do so.... A few of mine have... but never again... It turned out that a couple of the partners were only there for that exact purpose... Once the sex was initiated, it was all they wanted to RP..... the others.. RP'd for the bonding aspect of it...and that was it.

Because of this, I have changed my outlook on the idea of Cantrians having sex... maybe because those couple made it sour, and ruined it for the others. There are to many young people (and older ones too), who do not wish to be put into that situation, and not to break RP they are 'forced' ,per say, to RP something they don't want to..

Cantr is not a place for cyber.... Find a chat room!

[Lauren]

I think I have three sides of ths issue.

I have one girl who her boyfriend or whatever he is RPs sex every so often. Once a Cantr year, I'd guess. Not too bad.

I have a guy who's fiance seems like that's all she's around for. That really irritates me, not only because I find it strange to RP from a guy's perspective, but because she's no fun to play the game with.

I have another girl who's been married for years and never RPed any sexual things other than kissing, and I'm perfectly happy with her.

Of the three, my favorite to play is the first one (unrelated.) So, in a roundabout way...I agree with Sunni. People who use Cantr just for cybering are stupid. If the cyber fits in with the character, though, I don't have an issue with it.

[Sunni Daez]

Do you realize...if you are an adult and you even RP sex with a minor..you can get in major trouble?

[swymir]

But It wouldn't hold up in court in Cantr as it is anoynmous and there is no way to tell if the person is a minor or not. Unless they (OOC) told you.

[Sunni Daez]

I do believe you can contact the PD to find out if they are a minor.... Not who the player is... but if they are of age to consent to such an activity... so the option is there... and trouble could follow...

[Mafia Salad]

Or they might decide that because it is anoynmous, and that their are minors who play, then you should assume that anyone playing is a minor.

[Savanik]

Don't be silly, all people in Cantr are at LEAST 20 years of age...

And for my part in the debate, I'll say the following: Cantr characters are plants. They have sexes, but don't actually have sex. That is why there have to be characters in an area to spawn more characters.

Sav

[swymir]

Asexual reproduction thus far.

[Torch]

Cantr characters are plants. They have sexes, but don't actually have sex. That is why there have to be characters in an area to spawn more characters.

Interestingly this is about the closest thing to my opinion of reproduction in Cantr I've seen.

IG sex is solely based on OOG assumptions: that sex is pleasurable, and that the parts even work. The whole evolution argument is pointless. Unless somebody finds some fossils while digging for stone or something, there's no evidence of IG evolution as we think of it. Jos could easily end the whole thing by stating that all organs defining sexuality aren't functional, or vestigal parts like the spleen that have no purpose, and also don't respond to stimulation.

In my opinion, sex is one of those things carried over from the player, not something the characters themselves think of in those terms. It's sort of like all the people who say "Bless you" when someone sneezes. There's no IG basis for this to my knowledge, and every time I see someone do it I'm tempted to ask why they do, to see if they even know. Of course most people OOG don't know the original reason this was said, but at least there was one. I doubt the same happened IG though, since I haven't seen any successful religions yet with the same beliefs that started that.

And as for the minor issue, it doesn't matter whether someone knows or not if the other person is a minor. It's also not the minor's responsibility not to lie about it. If they were seen by the law as responsible and able to make such decisions they wouldn't be a minor. The responsibility lies with the other person(s). PD has stated that they will tell whether or not someone says they're of age. Truth of the matter is though, without some form of age verification, even that wouldn't cover everyone if some parent saw it and made a stink. (And PD shouldn't have to keep track of that anyway, at least not for such a silly reason.) Seems to me the best thing would be just avoid it completely.

[Floris]

I think I can understand your points here, Torch.

But then: where is the physical basis for me rp'ing a character smiling, laughing, winking, waving,......

I find no where an exhaustive lists of body parts and organs that do funtion or do not function.

I'm wondering about the theoretical question: if cantrians laugh and sing, if cantrians can make friends, why can't they love each other and have sex. Or in some cases, do not love each other and have sex.



And about freaks that are only into this game because they want to have cybersex and other freak stuff, leave them out. I think that if you get turned on about the sex(the lines of text featuring two entries in a database) in cantr, that you're probably going the wrong way. That has nothing to do with the concept: it's about characters, male and female (or possibly two of the same sex, no problem for me) doing a physical activity they enjoy. An activity that can give a person(=character NOT player) a certain satisfaction and increase his or her happiness and self value.


Understand me well, I've only had one char engage in intercourse and she was more or less the dominated side in the event, so I'm not pleading for sex by cantrians all around town. I just don't understand why people condemn it and claim it does not belong in Cantr.