Dictators and sex - does it ring a bell...

[Ciel_Rouge]

Today while on a train I read a book about dictators. There was a guy in Turkmenistan who banned sex for fun and just wanted his citizens to have it for procreation while he himself participated in massive orgies. Does it ring a bell for ya? Are you thinking what I am thinking?

[Angrboda]

I'm going to run this past the lawyers and Minister of Re-education first.

[Anomalocaris]

Well, evidence from the Y-chromosome study of modern human populations suggest genghis khan had enough orgies, and displaced enough other men from fertile women, such that a full 20-30 million men on earth today are his direct descendants.

[Ciel_Rouge]

I was thinking more along the lines of the clergy eradicating recreational sex and enforcing monogamy while secretly engaging in sexual conduct with women and even minors, but the Genghis Khan thing is a good one too

[Something completely different]

?
I guess everyone would fuck what he or she would want to fuck if he or she could.
It`s more a question of "can I get away with it".
Of course everyone is a bit more interested when Dominic Strauss Kahn or Bill Clinton get`s his nob polished, than in my neigbours wife shaging her husbands brother.
When the german army invaded the soviet union rape was so common that some generals threatened to report cases back home.
I guess everyone whos commiting a crime, not out of impulse but out of some other reason, will only commit this crime when he or she thinks no one is taking notice.

[Faith No More]

Are you thinking what I am thinking?

It's good to be the king?

[Ciel_Rouge]

I would rather distinguish a man simply fucking the gals he likes from a clergyman secretly assfucking children or anyone pretending to be "committed" while secretly killing away their boredom with a lover. But my main point is this: every dictatorship aims at eradicating recreational sex, making it as non-recreational as possible while the dictator and the "inner circle" engage in totally recreational sex

I am trying to say that maybe religion is a form of dictatorship with the difference being that rather than engage in healthy orgies the clergy engage in much more shady activity which oftentimes is quite harmful to the participants.

Furthermore, the obsessive pressure on lifelong monogamy might actually originate from dictatorship and locking men in their wedlocks so that all other women would become available for orgies and not be hit on by the "peasants"

[Something completely different]

"every dictatorship aims at eradicating recreational sex"

mhmmm probably because there never was a dictatorship which wanted it`s subjects to screw arround like they wanted and saw it as alright.
Most dictatorship use "traditional" conservative family values as a basis for creating a sociaty, there simply never was one which didn`t.

religion is totalitaran and always will be. the theocratic political argument is a totalitarian one because it claims "devine perfection" and supiriority above any opposition on the basis of that "devine perfection".
But every leadership cicrle which is untransparent - therefor shady, is likely to engage in activity seen as "antisocial" or maybe eaven be criminal, as long as that leadership cicrle believes that it`s untransparent structure will keep them protected from outside judgement. religions are not a special case - every untransparent organisation is the same.

well that is if you inforce monogamy by law or or as a social standerd.

[jonb]

You only have to think what would be the motivation to be a dictator? It is because they want control. And the ability to control others sexual practices, would be a proof of that control.

[Anomalocaris]

"every dictatorship aims at eradicating recreational sex"

Not quite true. Some dictatorships promoted recreational sex, but instead of promoting contraception, they promote state sponsored venues to get the unwanted babies off of the hands of accidental parents.