| |
|
|
|
 |
Posted 2003-12-27, 10:25 AM
in reply to Demosthenes's post "So much for cyber sex"
|
|
|
|
Chruser said:
D3V said:
This is why I can't stand .... losers
LETS TYPE TO EACH OTHER AND PRETEND WE'RE HAVING SEX!!!
HAHAHAHAA, HOW COOL, HAHAHAHAHAHA LETS ... !!!!!CYBER!!!
How's about ... no
|
Ah yes, definitions of black and white , nad the neverlasting grayscales. Where goes the limit between geekiness and real sex? Is the mental or physical part more important? First off, cybering, almost everyone agrees it's a lame thing to do. What about phone sex, is that an useless waste of time as well? What about plugging your neural network into a computer to be able to feel the so-called "cybering" as a simulation, which feels just like having sex in "real-life", if not even better as all the downsides of bad environments and fear of getting someone pregnant might be removed? Think I'm just rambling? Check TechTV. It isn't the matrix yet, but the technology is slowly crawling in that direction.
It's all a matter of perception. Take oral sex for instance. Do you lose your virginity if someone performs it on you, or if you perform it on someone else? Oh no, of course not. "It's just called sex because... Umm, I dunno". It has ALWAYS been considered a form of sex until President Bill Clinton decided to say he has never had sex with you-know-who. Considering he only had oral sex with her, this act hereby did no longer count as having actual sex, including a loss of virginity.
Why isn't oral sex real sex? Because community believes so. Why isn't cyber sex related to sex in any way? Because community says so. Perception.
|
Okay, Makubex.
  |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|