A r t i c l e s

Note: This Wiki is
outdated, personal views
may have changed.
L505 A.I. bot is dead
long live THX 1138

M a i n P a g e

D i r e c t o r y

Sex Oriented Programming

Since many programmers are men and many men think about sex often, it would make sense to make programming sex oriented instead of object oriented, procedural, or functional.

In a procedure:

  PerformIntercourse(jane, bob);
Or in a class, or structure:

Ultimately, sex oriented programming should revolve around the actions and emotions. The emotions are status codes. But how can we make emotions and actions part of programming in a current language, or would we have to develop a new sex oriented language, or would it be procedural, functional, object oriented, or sex oriented? If it was oriented in some manner, what would be the best way about designing the language?

Since I have a pascal compiler handy I have to try a few lines code using an existing language.

    TEnjoyFrequency = (none, occassional, alot);

    // note: the status needs to be a Set because sometimes the person will want more
    // and still fall asleep anyways. 
    TPerson = record
      AcceptsCaressing: boolean;
      AcceptsRomance: boolean;
      EnjoysRomance: TEnjoyFrequency;
      EnjoysCaress: TEnjoyFrequency;
      Status1: set of (sLeaving, sReadyForMore, sSleep); 
      Status2: (sWideAwake, sTired, sReallyTired, sDead); 
      EnglishResponse = (no, yes); 

  function PerformCaress(var p1, p2: TPerson): boolean;

    procedure HandlePerson(var p: TPersonRecord);

       procedure MoveArms(var p: TPersonRecord);
         // not sure what to put in here... where am I sending the arm movements?
         // are the arm movements a screen graphic, or are they through the serial 
         // port, or is it hooked up to the central nervous system, or perhaps a 
         // robot through 
         // the USB port?

       procedure MoveFingers(var p: TPersonRecord);
         // same issue here
      if person.AcceptsCaressing then
        p.status:= sReadyForMore
        p.status:= sReadyForMore;
    function IsTired(var p: TPerson): boolean;
      if sReallyTired in p.Status2 then
        p.status:= sSleep; 
        result:= true;
      if sTired in p.Status2 then
        p.status:= sSleep;
        result:= true;
      if sWideAwake in p.Status2 then
        p.status:= sReadyForMore;
        result:= true;

    result:= false;
    if IsTired(p1) then exit(false);
    if IsTired(p2) then exit(false);

  if LooksLikeCaressNeeded(p1, p2) then 
    PerformCaress(jane, bob);
  if (PerformCaress = true) and LooksLikeRomanceNeeded(p1, p2) then
    PerformRomance(jane, bob);

  // gets complicated because it all depends on whether or not the person looks like 
  // or sounds like they want a romance and if they are in a private enough place,
  // and if they don't have to go to work, attend chores, etc.


The important thing to note is that we pass in a lot of VAR parameters in order to keep the state of the persons alive throughout the whole situation. Two persons are manipulated based on the feedback they get from the other person, so passing in the two people as VAR parameters helps since their statuses can be closely analyzed inside the action procedure (there is always action going back and forth such as cells and ligaments moving, or breathing, etc.)


Did you know the word MANIPULATE has a NIPPLE embedded inside it. Find your bra today at pantiesandmore.z505.com

The advantage of passing two people in as VAR parameters into one procedure or function is that you can manipulate the two people in one area easily based on their immediate responses from activities or movements. If we kept the two people in separate action areas (procedures) I'm not sure how that would work so smoothly without continually passing back and forth information to the actions using status codes of all sorts.

If each person was a separate class then I have to think about how it would work.. maybe the two people can't be that separate, or maybe they have to be in a TPeople class, I haven't thought about it enough to know at this point.

Although I'm not finished the above program, basically what I have discovered so far is that we cannot always directly relate sex to computer systems and computer programs as it is a bit too complicated to make a metaphor that "sex is programming". In this sense, what about the metaphors such as "objects is programming" or "procedures is programming" or "functions are programming".. i.e. functional programming, procedural programming, object programming, sex programming.

Darn It (her)

I'm basically disappointed that I couldn't "get" or figure out the idea of sex oriented programming on my first day of experimenting with the idea.. but yet I can understand the ideas behind object oriented programming, functional programming, and procedural programming at this point - although I learned those several years ago and probably didn't get them on the first day. So it may take time, or there may be other issues. I suppose sex is a bunch of actions and objects or structures itself isn't it? Is sex just a subset of life, and therefore too specific to relate to programming? But aren't actions (procedures) just a subset of life.. and aren't objects (classes) just a subset of life too... Sex is something a bit different than most objects and actions in life since it involves emotions and feelings and climaxes and hormones, while other objects and actions such as driving a car or eating an apple are more simplified. Then there is gender oriented programming possibilities with one application being a female and another being a male.. But that wouldn't work too well unless there were always only two applications being discussed (Server client? but there is no birth of a child client or server client in many cases?).

At this point I feel like programming is something completely different than life, since it is so hard to relate it directly.. it is hard to relate programming to an apple, since an apple just grows and sits there. It is hard to relate programming to sex since sex is based on emotions and feelings.

It is easy to relate programming to driving a car, but cars are essentially machines.. and so are computers, so is there a point in relating computers to driving a car if driving a car is basically a form of a computer in some sense. I do notice that a car can be commanded, whether or not it has a computer in it - the old cars without computers could still be commanded, kind of like a slave without a conscience. I don't want to get into that on this page since slavery has nothing to do with sex.. maybe I should start a new page called Slave Oriented (SOP) Make Fucking Directory Now - COMMAND THE COMPUTER and don't expect it to give a shit - respect this but also use it to your advantage? I don't know. I'm losing it now. Maybe that will be COMMAND oriented programming, hence the whole idea of someone inventing the command line at one time. And what about Essay Based Programming or Novel Based Programming or even Drink Based Programming or Eating Based programming. Are these too specific metaphors? Procedures/functions/objects are very vague things while all the actions I seem to be mentioning are very specific, such as driving a car, romancing, apples, etc.

Forget it. Fuck it (now I get it!).

If you did not catch my sense of humor.. then you will be delighted to know that this article is an attack on Object Oriented programming, since programming is different. Relating programming to other life issues is dangerous and silly. Programming is not life. Programming is about control.

Note: This Wiki is outdated, personal views may have changed.

This wiki contains info on life, health, humans, nature, programming, database, fads, paradigms, poems, principles, theories.

Articles may contain statements which some may find helpful and encouraging, or even discouraging.

Beware, I believe in the Grand Justice system.
_ _ _