Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I read a short story in my youth, about a future world where everything came with a warning label, and nobody ate natural food anymore.  The popular aphrodisiac was called Glosex, which could lead to sudden death.  It was common in this world not to have sex without Glosex; presumably people were impotent without it, or/and addicted to its high.

 

That's what I thought of when I heard the term "chemsex."  As funny sex and funny drugs pierce ever deeper into the culture, reaching the culture's arteries, I can't help but think that we're heading towards a Glosex world where these drugs are legalised and normalised and accepted as part of the Futuristic Experience.

 

Chemsex: the alarming new trend of 72 hour drug-fuelled sex sessions

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11972817/Chemsex-the-alarming-new-trend-of-72-hour-drug-fuelled-sex-sessions.html

Posted

Is this sensationalism? Let's look at the title. Made up word to poison the well that we're not talking about something ordinary? Check. Use of sensationalistic terminology such as "alarming"? Check. Claiming widespread behavior with no basis for determining that it's actually happening and not just somebody repeating somebody else's fantasy repeatedly, complete with natural embelishment? Check.

 

I wonder how many people will go on to imitate the article only because they learned of it from the article. I can't believe that in 2015, there are still "journalists" that don't get that shining a light on something will increase its fame and popularity, not shame it or make it go away.

Posted

Is this sensationalism? Let's look at the title. Made up word to poison the well that we're not talking about something ordinary? Check. Use of sensationalistic terminology such as "alarming"? Check. Claiming widespread behavior with no basis for determining that it's actually happening and not just somebody repeating somebody else's fantasy repeatedly, complete with natural embelishment? Check.

 

I wonder how many people will go on to imitate the article only because they learned of it from the article. I can't believe that in 2015, there are still "journalists" that don't get that shining a light on something will increase its fame and popularity, not shame it or make it go away.

 

Lots of people use illegal drugs, dsayers.  Someone is going to those raves--are they still called raves?  I'll admit the article lacks quantification, but nevertheless, it fits the spirit of the times that these things happen.

 

Tangentially, what are your thoughts about spree killers?  Should their identities be concealed to deprive them of their desired infamy?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.