# Outlawing Anything Therapeutic - Advice



## S1E9A8N5 (May 7, 2010)

I'm trying to create a dystopia where anything therapeutic is outlawed.  Three of the things I'm outlawing are sex, intimacy, and affection.  But then I'll also have to consider the emotion of happiness...  I know dystopia's have their flaws but how far is too much?

I don't want the reader thinking "Well if these things are outlawed, why are the characters able to smile and/or experience happiness?".  Or "Why are the characters able to _feel _at all?" Or some such reaction.

Advice would be appreciated.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 9, 2010)

Did I post this in the wrong section or something? :-k


----------



## Foxee (May 9, 2010)

S1E9A8N5 said:


> I'm trying to create a dystopia where anything therapeutic is outlawed.  Three of the things I'm outlawing are sex, intimacy, and affection.  But then I'll also have to consider the emotion of happiness...  I know dystopia's have their flaws but how far is too much?
> 
> I don't want the reader thinking "Well if these things are outlawed, why are the characters able to smile and/or experience happiness?".  Or "Why are the characters able to _feel _at all?" Or some such reaction.
> 
> Advice would be appreciated.


One thing you might think about is _why_ the good therapeutic things in life might be outlawed. Was there a major paradigm shift in priorities as a culture? Have the elite become something like Vulcans in Star Trek, eschewing emotion? Has there been a worldwide virus that makes personal contact dangerous? Or has technology advanced so that people interact with machines rather than with each other? Are there laws strictly regulating reproduction of the masses to avoid using resources? Has the human race been enslaved by dispassionate aliens? 

Look for the reasons behind what you want to do.


----------



## Sam (May 9, 2010)

S1E9A8N5 said:


> Did I post this in the wrong section or something? :-k


 
Not at all. 



> I'm trying to create a dystopia where anything therapeutic is outlawed. Three of the things I'm outlawing are sex, intimacy, and affection. But then I'll also have to consider the emotion of happiness... I know dystopia's have their flaws but how far is too much?
> 
> I don't want the reader thinking "Well if these things are outlawed, why are the characters able to smile and/or experience happiness?". Or "Why are the characters able to _feel _at all?" Or some such reaction.
> 
> Advice would be appreciated.



I'm not sure I follow you on this. You're creating a dystopia, yes? To wit: A place or society containing everything that is bad. Are you proposing that in your novel sex, intimacy, and affection are good and therefore subject to outlaw? Perhaps I'm reading into it wrong, but I'm thinking maybe you trying to create a "utopia". 

Either way, the decision of how far is too far is entirely up to you. It's your novel. 

NB: Just because they're outlawed doesn't mean they don't exist. People can still experience them; they're just not allowed to. You could play on that.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 9, 2010)

Perhaps I should have stated why therapeutic things are outlawed.  Anything therapeutic is considered bad because it effects the _function _of the body.  Sex is therapeutic because it has positive health benefits.  Those positive health benefits effect the function of the body.  Anything that effects the function of the body interferes with drugs and the absorption of drugs.

I'm going for a drugs are good, nature is bad future.



Sam W said:


> I'm not sure I follow you on this. You're creating a dystopia, yes? To wit: A place or society containing everything that is bad. Are you proposing that in your novel sex, intimacy, and affection are good and therefore subject to outlaw? Perhaps I'm reading into it wrong, but I'm thinking maybe you trying to create a "utopia".


I guess it depends on how you look at it.  I'm still not entirely sure which one it will turn out to be but I'm going for a dystopia.



Sam W said:


> NB: Just because they're outlawed doesn't mean they don't exist. People can still experience them; they're just not allowed to. You could play on that.


I'll keep that in mind.  Thanks.


----------



## Kat (May 10, 2010)

I think your readers reaction depends on how far you are going with this. If you are outlawing anything that would positively naturally effect the bodies function that could also include forms of exercise and eating properly. But it seems you are more dealing with relationship issues. 

People can find happiness without having a sexual or even romantic relationship. I don't think you are dependent upon your relationship with others strictly for your happiness. So people could find some happiness outside of relationships. 

Okay no sex, how are they reproducing? Also infants physically need touch, affection, in order to survive. So is there some age cut off? Is it only romantic relationships or any affection?


----------



## Foxee (May 10, 2010)

S1E9A8N5 said:


> Perhaps I should have stated why therapeutic things are outlawed.  Anything therapeutic is considered bad because it effects the _function _of the body.  Sex is therapeutic because it has positive health benefits.  Those positive health benefits effect the function of the body.  Anything that effects the function of the body interferes with drugs and the absorption of drugs.


 Fair enough. I think you still need to go a bit farther with why this is being done. Why are things that have positive health benefits considered bad? Pretty much all the content in my previous post could be repeated here.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 10, 2010)

Kat said:


> I think your readers reaction depends on how far you are going with this. If you are outlawing anything that would positively naturally effect the bodies function that could also include forms of exercise and eating properly. But it seems you are more dealing with relationship issues.


No.  I'm also dealing with exercise and nutrition.  I was just focusing on the relationship aspect. 



> People can find happiness without having a sexual or even romantic relationship. I don't think you are dependent upon your relationship with others strictly for your happiness. So people could find some happiness outside of relationships.


That is true.  But happiness is also a positive emotion which is... therapeutic.  You know what I mean? Thinking about it, some level of happiness should be okay since the benefits of happiness (longer life, success in work, more likely to be cooperative, etc.) outweigh the "risks" because they would want people to be productive and live as long as they could.  To use them.



> Okay no sex, how are they reproducing?


In-vitro.  The man would undergo a testicular biopsy to retrieve sperm.



> Also infants physically need touch, affection, in order to survive. So is there some age cut off? Is it only romantic relationships or any affection?


Any affection but there would be an age cut off at 5.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 10, 2010)

Foxee said:


> Fair enough. I think you still need to go a bit farther with why this is being done. Why are things that have positive health benefits considered bad? Pretty much all the content in my previous post could be repeated here.


Positive health benefits are considered bad for that very reason.  They want people sick and on drugs and anything natural that has a positive affect on the body competes with that.  And in their mind, nutrition interferes with drugs rather than the other way around.  That's how they're making money.  Greed and power.


----------



## Foxee (May 10, 2010)

S1E9A8N5 said:


> Positive health benefits are considered bad for that very reason.  They want people sick and on drugs and anything natural that has a positive affect on the body competes with that.  And in their mind, nutrition interferes with drugs rather than the other way around.  That's how they're making money.  Greed and power.


 So it's a plot by Big Pharma who is probably in bed with the government? Sounds more like a documentary. 

This is where having a look at life probably wouldn't hurt. Outlawing sex, for instance, would be really difficult because it's such a powerful human appetite. Big pharma is arguably doing a lot better using that intrinsic urge to sell Viagra and other ED and performance drugs. In other words...tons more drugs sold because they get guys to believe that they'll be So Much Better in bed with these drugs than they would have sold by outlawing sex. In the dystopia you plan to create, for instance, how would the 'no sex' law be enforced? 

With all your above examples I'd say dive into research. Have a look at each thing you're thinking of outlawinig to gain a really good understanding just what the benefits are and how they work. You could gain some really excellent insights that would make your story really come to life.


----------



## alanmt (May 10, 2010)

You have a sick and evil imagination, sean.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 10, 2010)

Foxee said:


> So it's a plot by Big Pharma who is probably in bed with the government? Sounds more like a documentary.


lol.  Pretty much.  I started out with writing a current near future time piece but I got bored with it.  I wanted to up the ante to a "1984" level of severity.



> This is where having a look at life probably wouldn't hurt. Outlawing sex, for instance, would be really difficult because it's such a powerful human appetite. Big pharma is arguably doing a lot better using that intrinsic urge to sell Viagra and other ED and performance drugs. In other words...tons more drugs sold because they get guys to believe that they'll be So Much Better in bed with these drugs than they would have sold by outlawing sex.


That's true.  I may have to think about it.


> In the dystopia you plan to create, for instance, how would the 'no sex' law be enforced?


By measuring the sex hormones that are released in the blood.  Everyone would have a blood monitoring chip implant.



> With all your above examples I'd say dive into research. Have a look at each thing you're thinking of outlawinig to gain a really good understanding just what the benefits are and how they work. You could gain some really excellent insights that would make your story really come to life.


:thumbl:


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 10, 2010)

alanmt said:


> You have a sick and evil imagination, sean.


Isn't that a requirement for writers? lol


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 10, 2010)

Somebody considers sex therapeutic??????   Interesting.


----------



## NathanBrazil (May 10, 2010)

Outlawing sex doesn't mean they're not having it.  Why not block the impulse- using some new fangled drug.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 10, 2010)

Like alcohol?


----------



## NathanBrazil (May 10, 2010)

lol- not really an inhibitor but surely can kill performance


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 10, 2010)

lin said:


> Somebody considers sex therapeutic??????   Interesting.


Somebody?  I'd say it's a fact.  It has many health benefits that are considered therapeutic.



NathanBrazil said:


> Outlawing sex doesn't mean they're not having it.  Why not block the impulse- using some new fangled drug.


That's another option.


----------



## Linton Robinson (May 10, 2010)

Has many, many, many health drawbacks, too.   
Keeps trying to kill me, as a matter of fact.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 10, 2010)

lin said:


> Has many, many, many health drawbacks, too.
> Keeps trying to kill me, as a matter of fact.


Yea... I don't know how to respond to that. lol


----------



## NathanBrazil (May 10, 2010)

How did you see this sex angle playing out?  Sex deprived people, eventually, attacking each other in public.


----------



## moderan (May 10, 2010)

Everyone is completely covered, all of the time. The sight of an earlobe is a turnon.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 10, 2010)

moderan said:


> Everyone is completely covered, all of the time. The sight of an earlobe is a turnon.


lol


----------



## moderan (May 10, 2010)

Logical, ain't it? Think about sexually repressed or repressive societies in the present day.


----------



## NathanBrazil (May 10, 2010)

yep- so if you just want to outlaw as opposed to controlling the brain- it really depends how you see this playing out in your story.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 12, 2010)

NathanBrazil said:


> yep- so if you just want to outlaw as opposed to controlling the brain- it really depends how you see this playing out in your story.


It's definitely something to think about.

Thanks for the help guys.


----------



## alanmt (May 12, 2010)

Hey sean,

Is whoever is controlling the misery - drug companies, government or whoever, composed of a human elite who are not subject to the rules?  Like in that old movie metropolis where the practical enslavement and misery of many is necessary to guarantee the rarified beautiful lifestyle of the few?


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (May 12, 2010)

alanmt said:


> Hey sean,
> 
> Is whoever is controlling the misery - drug companies, government or whoever, composed of a human elite who are not subject to the rules?


I'm not sure yet.  I'd like to say yes but I like the idea of the "Big Bad's" actually believing what they're preaching.  That they are above God and nature.  But the fact that they're trying to rid these things means they know they're beneficial to ones health.  So it would make sense that there would be a select few (those in power) that support the Big Bad where the rules don't apply to them.  At least IMO.

Why?


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (Dec 17, 2010)

I decided to revive the thread.  Another question.

I've come to the point where I'd like to outlaw colors as well (I want to go crazy with this) because colors also have therapeutic affects on the body.

What do you think?


----------



## Guy Faukes (Dec 18, 2010)

I would take a look at Animal Farm, 1984 for similar, dystopia-like scenarios. Orwell was especially good at creating semi-believable "hell-on-earth" societies. He started from the ground up, basing his ideas from the ground up (I think) on how Soviet and other dictatorships maintained 'legitimacy' with their peoples as well as their ultimate failings. 

I think problems you are (and have been running into) is that you're working from the opposite direction top down, which is a very difficult thing to do.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (Dec 19, 2010)

guy_faukes said:


> I would take a look at Animal Farm, 1984 for similar, dystopia-like scenarios. Orwell was especially good at creating semi-believable "hell-on-earth" societies. He started from the ground up, basing his ideas from the ground up (I think) on how Soviet and other dictatorships maintained 'legitimacy' with their peoples as well as their ultimate failings.
> 
> I think problems you are (and have been running into) is that you're working from the opposite direction top down, which is a very difficult thing to do.


 I've read Animal Farm and 1984.  As well as a whole slew of other dystopian/utopian fiction.  I've done a lot of research on dictatorships but things still have to make reasonable sense to be accepted.  That's why I asked the question.  But I think I figured it out.  I do believe I'm working from the ground up.  I don't know what gives you the idea (or anyone for that matter) the opposite impression.  I'm still creating my world.  Writing and coming up with new ideas.  That's why I'm throwing things out there.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Dec 19, 2010)

Yeah, completely disregard my last post. That was just fairly bad assumptions/lazy reading on my part.

The colors thing does sound plausible, especially with tying it with disease, witchcraft and illness since it does occur in superstitious, present day societies. Though these same societies tend to promote a set of colors over others. 

I am interested on how people dress in this society and how you're gonna work the colors of natural human appearances (eye color, hair color... maybe even skin) in this twisted little universe.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (Dec 19, 2010)

guy_faukes said:


> The colors thing does sound plausible, especially with tying it with disease, witchcraft and illness since it does occur in superstitious, present day societies. A problem might be "well, how do people dress?" and the issues with natural beauty (eye color, hair color... maybe even skin).


For how people dress, I'll have to familiarize myself with different fabrics and styles...  Lots of white and shades of gray.  Very little black, if any.  Black would be left to authoritative figures.  As for the body, I was thinking genetic manipulation for the majority of the population but some would be born "all natural" but have to resort to hiding their differences in fear of being ridiculed and unpatriotic.


----------



## Guy Faukes (Dec 19, 2010)

Giving new meaning to the phrase "well... don't you look gray today!" 

You could maybe go a step forward with the naturals and have them be persecuted and demonized as the enemy for being nature incarnate.

I do thoroughly retract my "read 1984" comment. Looks like you've got some of Orwell's lines of dark thinking down hehe


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (Dec 19, 2010)

guy_faukes said:


> Giving new meaning to the phrase "well... don't you look gray today!"
> 
> You could maybe go a step forward with the naturals and have them be persecuted and demonized as the enemy for being nature incarnate.


That's certainly an option.



guy_faukes said:


> I do thoroughly retract my "read 1984" comment. Looks like you've got some of Orwell's lines of dark thinking down hehe


Not a big deal.  :thumbl:  As for the dark thinking, I'm trying to go as dark and crazy as I can.  I've also read that writers when writing need to acquire a sadistic license.  At first, I wanted to have it take place in the _near future_  but I think it's a lot more fun to go even further.  Someone on this  board (I can't remember the quote) said to go as far as you can with the  idea.  Don't hold back.  It might even be a popular writing quote on the web.   Not sure.  But it's good advice.  There's so much more to the world  (rules and regulations etc.) that I've created that I think it will be a  lot more interesting to read and discover.


----------



## Cambyses (Dec 19, 2010)

Have you read Brave New World?

It is basically the opposite of whether you seem to be going for.  Rather than outlawing "therapuetic" things, the powers that be have drowned the populace in those things, so to speak.  It might give you some ideas.


----------



## S1E9A8N5 (Dec 20, 2010)

Cambyses said:


> Have you read Brave New World?
> 
> It is basically the opposite of whether you seem to be going for.  Rather than outlawing "therapuetic" things, the powers that be have drowned the populace in those things, so to speak.  It might give you some ideas.


Yeah, I've read Brave New World.  I'm trying to do the complete opposite of that.  I'm aiming for a 1984/Fahrenheit 451 type of setting.


----------



## WolfieReveles (Dec 24, 2010)

@Lin: well if Big Pharma sells anything antidepressant or stress relieving, then sex would be the first thing they'd want to get rid of.

@NB: Chemically induced impotence as a side effect to various other drugs could do the trick as far as men go. Removing the impulse would work but it would be more dramatic if they had the urges but were incapable of doing anything about them


----------

