• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Is Copulation Good Or Bad for the Crops?

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
I remember reading a quote (but I can't remember where for the life of me where I read it), that I was spurred to remember by reading Wade's post on nudists that goes, "All religions can be categorized on based on whether copulation (sex, for those not in the know) is either good or bad for the crops," or something like that. What is your take on this?

In todays age of modern science, stigmas of our monotheistic religions are deeply steeped into our society. As I said above, Wade's post on Nudists is a great example. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam greatly frown upon sex outside of baby making. While polytheistic of old (greek/roman and egyptian just to name a couple) had sex routed deep in their mythology. Those people more readily accepted the nude body. Women walked around topless and athletes performed naked. A stark contrast to our "conservative" ways of modesty. In the context of nudity, in particular, why do we let such stigmas affect us, when we can clearly demonstrate with science that copulation does not in fact effect the crops at all? WHy do we still frown upon the nude form? I do not understand it. What do we have to be ashamed of? Why do we cling to these outdated ideas? Let the nude run free, asses hanging, dicks dangling, clams flapping, boobs popping!
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
If you think about it, Christian morality as far as reproduction goes makes a good deal of sense insofar as creating strong communities and nation-states is concerned, in those areas and time periods where it has been a powerful influence on peoples lives. It encourages reproduction, albeit only between married individuals, which makes for a fairly strong structure to raise a solid batch of laborers and soldiers. Where Christianity has lost its grip, is mainly in those places and with those individuals who are encouraged to--or simply choose to--marry late. Like where people are expected to attend college, for example.

It's interesting to think about.
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
I remember reading a quote (but I can't remember where for the life of me where I read it), that I was spurred to remember by reading Wade's post on nudists that goes, "All religions can be categorized on based on whether copulation (sex, for those not in the know) is either good or bad for the crops," or something like that. What is your take on this?
I don't remember ever posting about nudists (and can't find anything via Advanced Search)

If you think about it, Christian morality as far as reproduction goes makes a good deal of sense insofar as creating strong communities and nation-states is concerned, in those areas and time periods where it has been a powerful influence on peoples lives. It encourages reproduction, albeit only between married individuals, which makes for a fairly strong structure to raise a solid batch of laborers and soldiers. Where Christianity has lost its grip, is mainly in those places and with those individuals who are encouraged to--or simply choose to--marry late. Like where people are expected to attend college, for example.

It's interesting to think about.
I was just having a discussion about this a little while ago. In Bible times, people would often be married soon after becoming sexually mature. Our society often puts off marriage until 10+ years later.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
Ahhhhh, the ol' I-wanna-see-every-girl-ever-naked debate rears its head again.

It's always curious that our so-called 'rampant conservatism' is blamed on the Christians, as though clothing were a malicious concept cooked up by them yesterday with an openly declared mission statement of "Spoilin' all mah funz. :mad:" Curiouser still are the references to ancient civilizations that glorified an 'open book' policy; granted, the obvious refutation to that would be to point out that those civilizations all fell apart...but I'm not so pedantic. What I will say, however, is that those ancient civilizations were just that: ancient. 4,000 years is a loooong line of social evolution to try to program out of people, and we aren't going to just get back to those good ol' days overnight.

Now, despite my tone here, folks might be surprised to find out that I don't entirely disagree --> People are animals, and animals generally exist quite successfully disrobed.

That said, given the way things are now, I also completely disagree. We are probably one of the most sexually irresponsible civilizations to grace the Earth with our genetic materials (though, granted, it's possible we've always been this way) Lets take Magnum for example (it's nothing personal, but you are the OP): who out there going to take bets against how many threads/posts back from this one I'd have to go to find a phrase to the effect of "goddamn ugly bitch?" See, my point is that we aren't uber-conservative at all. In fact, we're damn near manic-obsessed with our bodies. People kill themselves because they're dissatisfied with their bodies.

Compare us with wolves, for example; they're social animals, much like people. Certainly, as far as wolves are concerned, there are attractive wolves and ugly wolves. Thing is, though, compared to people, the only thing the ugly wolves have to worry about in their rugged little lives is probably never having sex. Modern people, on the other hand, virtually do everything detestable short of kill/eat their ugly and undesirable.

So what, then, does a show-it-all policy mean for us? It doesn't mean beautiful women strutting their goods up and down the street day and night like so many people would hope. It means Big Bertha strutting her goods up and down the street too; and where will be the Pro-Nakkies, and their message of loosening up, in all of this? They'll be the first ones throwing stones and shouting "Get your fat, ugly ass back in the house!" See, the thing about all of this is, if you have a closer look at the civilizations that didn't/don't care so much about clothing.......they actually didn't/don't care!! I guarantee you that the tribal peoples out there today with women running around flaunting everything don't have a teenage suicide rate. Or a teenage bring-a-gun-to-school rate. Or any of those dandy rates.

So I don't entirely disagree. I just think people need to loosen up on the inside, well before they can safely loosen up on the outside.
 
Top