[ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality?

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 18:42:24 UTC 2018

Hey!!  Playboy DID have good articles.  It did.

I taught a sex class (no lab, sadly) and my take on porn is that unless one
gets truly addicted it is not worth thinking about.  In any case, what's
wrong with having sex 10 times a day?  One South Sea island has a tribe
that believes that if you don't have it that often, the women can't get
pregnant.  Convenient theory, I say.

I don't really know of any fantasies that are truly disrupting to one's
life.  Of course you can take anything too far, and spend your life
creating a 15 foot diameter ball of string.  We can watch 'Lifestyles of
the Rich and Famous' without going to rob a bank so that we can have those

Most fantasies are harmless.  Period.  And they provide things that we
cannot experience in real life, sometimes.  Where are all the pretty
girls?  Not at Kroger or Walmart, for sure.  On TV and videos.

Just tell me this:  where did we ever get the notion that any aspect of sex
was dirty?  The girls in Playboy - dirty?  Smutty?  Sounds like something
invented by prudes.  Viewing a naked body is sinful?  Huh?  Is lust
currently on your list of sins?  What could be healthier?  It wakes your
body up and tells it that you are still somebody important in this world,
and the body gears up to perform.  Healthy.  It's not just the mental
effects of sex in older age.  It's the physical things in your body that
help keep you young.  You know what they say about older age sex: use it or
lose it.  Very true in fact, esp. for men.

bill w

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:38 AM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of
> SR Ballard
> Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality?
> >...Now I always heard jokes, growing up, about how before the internet
> people used to buy the National Geographic magazine. And I thought it was
> just a joke. But it was mentioned on list a little while ago, but less as a
> joke and more as a fact.
> >...Did this legitimately happen?
> Two terms you used didn't apply: men and buy.  I suspect plenty of us who
> were gazing with lust at Miss July 1957 were about age 12 at the time, and
> we didn't buy the magazines, we found them in the bound periodicals at the
> public library (NG stopped doing nudes with the March 1963 edition (which
> is why if you find a collection of bound NatGeos, the binding is in perfect
> condition from 1964 onwards but the 1957 edition is a tattered ruin.)  A
> grown man has money, so he would buy Playboy (for the articles of course.)
> But Playboy wasn't available in our library or anywhere else if one is age
> 12 with no money in 1973.
> >...And if it’s as widespread as the joke suggests, what effect do you
> think it had on the sexuality on the generation (2 generations?) of men who
> purchased these magazines?  Do you think it lead to an interest in
> inter-cultural marriage? Or a dehumanization of the cultures featured? Or
> something else? Or no real difference at all?
> Hard to say.  Even now with all the free ogleworthies available online,
> any style any anything you can think of is out there somewhere (if you know
> where, do let me know.)  I don't see that it causes any kind of
> dehumanization.  I don't see the truth in the argument of fifty-something
> wives who complain she has to compete with 19 yr old athletes.  I don't see
> how a video image competes with her.  I don't worry that my bride has
> access to video of men with way more and better stuff than I have.  Shrugs.
> Interesting aside: if roboharlots get good enough, we might have the
> opposite problem: humanization.  Humans will be competing with literal sex
> machines, and this time it won't be just men.  Reasoning: plenty of married
> people whose sense of morality would not permit visiting a harlot might
> have to think about it before deciding the same ethos applies to copulating
> with a robot.  Is that adultery?  I am ready to argue it isn't.  It's
> more...emmm... technology... evaluation.  Engineers do this kind of thing
> always.
> But I digress.
> >...Are there studies done about it like we have studies of the effects of
> HD steaming internet porn?
> It would be interesting because the theories on the impact of free porn
> are contradictory.  One camp claims it distracts people (well, men) and
> anther claims it allows people (well men) to put things into perspective.
> Once one realizes that these video beauties are fun to look at but none of
> them are likely to be suitable long term life partners, it would cause
> people (men) to look beyond the chiseled abs and the tight buns.
> These gazeworthies are still fun to look at of course, but in the long
> run, we embrace our long term mates (I still do.)  My bride and I are
> approaching our 35th anniversary as the festival of Thanksgiving
> approaches, which is always an easy holiday for me, for I know I have
> plenty for which to be deeply and profoundly grateful: I know I am living
> my dream.  I don't see that anything is lost from that by an occasional
> gaze on the internet at the athletic bods and tight buns.
> SR what's your take on that please?
> spike
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181115/79cae752/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list