OK I've got this theory about the "no sex" thing: it's to remove the workers' ability to have personal lives. No sex = no children, whose childcare needs would potentially cost the company money, either as insurance, maternity leave (even if it's just temps), or covering for days off to take care of sick kids. And people with families might be inclined to advocate for better conditions ("I can take this, but I won't let my kids suffer" attitude.)
Re: this post.
The “no sex” rule serves a whole load of functions for the company. It also helps reduce solidarity between workers by discouraging relationships, and it reduces the chance of interpersonal friction which might cause disruption. The lack of privacy is what really disturbs me, because it essentially tries to prevent the formation of a personal identity outside of work. Encouraging the occupants to police each other is an attempt to turn all social interaction into an affirmation of the company’s values and interests, no matter what the cost to the individual worker.
Basically, to the company, the ideal worker is one who works until exhausted, sleeps as short a time as possible, performs the bare minimum of personal care, and then returns to work. The idea is to never have a thought that isn’t at work, because this outlook treats human energy as a resource to be consumed as efficiently as possible. The mental and social needs of those humans are irrelevant; if a component in the machine breaks, it can always be replaced.