Thread: Outlawing Anything Therapeutic - Advice

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.

Did I post this in the wrong section or something?

Originally Posted by S1E9A8N5

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.

Originally Posted by S1E9A8N5

Did I post this in the wrong section or something?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sam W

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.

Originally Posted by Sam W

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.

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?

Originally Posted by S1E9A8N5

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.

Originally Posted by Kat

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.

Originally Posted by Foxee

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.

Originally Posted by S1E9A8N5

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.

You have a sick and evil imagination, sean.

Originally Posted by Foxee

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.

Originally Posted by alanmt

You have a sick and evil imagination, sean.

Isn't that a requirement for writers? lol

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

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