The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least three characters.

To the claim that sexual/reproductively related motivations underlie the majority of our social interactions, I say, well, yuh.

But with the following I must disagree.

"Our tremendous brain has made the drive to know more powerful, incredibly powerful, and this is the foe that the human body is up against- an enemy that given the chance would rid itself of such a vulgar, ugly thing it despises."

I don't see the brain and the sex drive as opposed. In your first thread, you posted a quote from Gazzaniga stating that the brain is (mostly) 'for' enhancing sexual success. That's largely true; so why see them as in conflict? In most human beings, the brain *serves* the sex drive, rather than despising it.
There are a few unusual human beings in which the drive to know is stronger than the drive to procreate (Isaac Newton springs to mind), but these people are rather rare.

"So sex, clever bitch, creeps up in morality and ethics, and fills the human world with innuendo that keeps men fascinated with sex."

Ah, no. Morality and ethics are *based* on sex (as well as on the need for social organization). The fact that so much of human morality revolves around sexual behavior is a demonstration of the degree to which sex rules us at our very core. Sex doesn't have to work very hard to seduce us away from the pull of intellectual pleasures. For most of us, our nature is to be interested in sex first, and academics later.

"In the clothes, the speech, the humor, art- any medium possible so that a reasoning animal no longer subject to estrus will capitulate to the corrosive effects of intimidation."

Again, I think the reason our sex drive pops up in fashion, repartee, and fine art is because a large part of the brain is devoted to sex and other forms of social interaction. All the other uses we have found for our brains are colored by its basic reproduction-oriented design.


"That oblivious mind, obsessed with truths and reason, atones for this "vulgarity" and calls it love."

I wouldn't say that love is the mind's way of making sex prettier. Rather, I would say that cooperative parents produce healthier children; so we have evolved a network of social and emotional responses ('love' for short) conducive to parent-parent bonding.

Hypatia:
I don't see the brain and the sex drive as opposed. In your first thread, you posted a quote from Gazzaniga stating that the brain is (mostly) 'for' enhancing sexual success. That's largely true; so why see them as in conflict?
Because the brain has emerged something wholly Other, a reasonable mind.
I never quite saw it this way- my own discipline has always concerned a rebellious reason.
Until my body woke up..

There are a few unusual human beings in which the drive to know is stronger than the drive to procreate (Isaac Newton springs to mind), but these people are rather rare.

And nature keeps them few and far between because they are, quite frankly, aberrations.
Don't get me wrong- you bring up excellent points.

Ah, no. Morality and ethics are *based* on sex (as well as on the need for social organization). The fact that so much of human morality revolves around sexual behavior is a demonstration of the degree to which sex rules us at our very core. Sex doesn't have to work very hard to seduce us away from the pull of intellectual pleasures. For most of us, our nature is to be interested in sex first, and academics later.

This is true.
I guess I'm seeing it from a purely intellectual slant.

However, humanity has largely come to emphasize monogamy (and please don't bring up some obscure island where the natives fuck children, those are tiresome)- love, purity, commitment.
All qualities that go against a program of fucking and keep fucking to continue as planned, so to speak, in life’s answer to death.
Something reason refuses to even think exists.

I wouldn't say that love is the mind's way of making sex prettier. Rather, I would say that cooperative parents produce healthier children; so we have evolved a network of social and emotional responses ('love' for short) conducive to parent-parent bonding.
No.
I side with Russell- the base nature of "love", is anarchy. We like to make it something else.
And it rebels against marriage- all one needs to look at is statistics.

"Because the brain has emerged something wholly Other, a reasonable mind."

This is true - blind evolution brought us the independent mind, which then conceived its own ends and purposes. But I don't think the mind can wholly break away from its origins as a sexual organ, and I still don't see any reason to believe that it should ever come to *oppose* its original reason for existence.

"However, humanity has largely come to emphasize monogamy (and please don't bring up some obscure island where the natives fuck children, those are tiresome)- love, purity, commitment."

Heheheh. From an evolutionary standpoint, I think monogamy is each gender's way of trying to manipulate the other into serving its own procreational advantage.

If monogamy were truly our best reproductive strategy, then we would simply be monogamous, without any desire to cheat, poach, mate-swap, etc. But in fact, what is really in our interest is for our *partner* to be monogamous, devoting all of his or her resources to our offspring, while we play the field, casting a wide net for the best set of genes to pass on to our children. Meanwhile, of course, our partners are thinking the same thing.

(Optimal strategies differ for men and women, but I don't want to write a treatise here, since the longer the post the less of it gets read in general.)

So we've come up with a whole bunch of social rules to encourage monogamy, while most of us will try to get away with bending those rules as far as we can without incurring a social penalty.

(The social injunctions against extramarital sex are usually stronger for women than for men, because a woman's infidelity is potentially more costly to her male partner's reproductive success than his is to hers.

Also, this fits with an anatomical analysis of human males that places them in the 'mildly polygynous' category, with a testicle:body size ratio in between those of the rampantly polygamous chimps and the more sedate and devoted gorillas.)


"All qualities that go against a program of fucking and keep fucking to continue as planned, so to speak, in life’s answer to death."

Look, reproductive success isn't just about random rampant sex. There's a whole set of complicated calculations that go into it. Are this person's genes worth combining with mine, or could I get a better deal elsewhere? Is there a possibility that this woman will cheat, leaving me the evolutionary lemon of raising someone else's kid? Is this man likely to devote his resources to our combined offspring, or will he be a deadbeat dad? Etc., etc., etc.

Love is an important part of reproductive success. As I mentioned, pair-bonding enhances offspring survival. There's no reason to believe that love arose in opposition to sex, or as a euphemism for it.


"I side with Russell- the base nature of "love", is anarchy."

Can you expand on this?

Gendanken,

For a consciousness that not only reviles the very idea of its mortality but outright refuses to even contemplate it, thinking itself immortal, the body must resort to insurgency in order to conquer its own host and continue its species.

This 'insurgency' is hardly new. You're using hyperbole here, of course, but it should be stated that of all the animals on the earth only we are capable of contemplating our mortality. And, only we are capable of rationalizing the possibility of immortality. Both as a possible function of eternal life for the mind or eternal life for the gene.

Man knows this. Not ape. Not dog. Not beaver. Only man.

Other animals merely follow their instincts. They don't have sex in order to continue the species. They have sex because they are driven to do it. Just as we are.

And, just like us, some animals are able to repress the sexual drive. The difference being that only man has the mental capacity to come up with good reasons to do so. And bad reasons, too. This capacity to reason allows us to choose... within limits (subject to all the problems of free will and self)... whether to have sex or not. And to choose whether sex should be for entertainment or for reproduction.


That oblivious mind, obsessed with truths and reason, atones for this "vulgarity" and calls it love.

I would say deluded and deluding rather than oblivious. Perhaps that the mind is unable to see the forest because of the trees. Or vice versa. An oblivious mind would hardly be a mind at all. And such a mind would fall prey to the whims of the body without any resistance.

And, I'm not so sure that it's so simple as to say that the sex drive has been renamed and forced into a new, more hygienic container. Rather, I think that the sex drive has been cut up and mixed in with the cut up remains of other base emotions (and the instincts which the emotions spur) and this Frankenstein's Monster is love.


Our tremendous brain has made the drive to know more powerful, incredibly powerful, and this is the foe that the human body is up against- an enemy that given the chance would rid itself of such a vulgar, ugly thing it despises.

First, I want to comment on your use of brain here. It's a point that's already been made, so I'm not going to harry it, but it is the mind that wages the war. Not the brain. Yes?

Second, I think that pitting the 'drive to procreate' against the 'drive to know' is not quite the battle that we are witnessing. Rather, it would be the 'drive to self' that denies sexuality. These concepts seem to blur somehow in a strange (or not so strange) way. It could be said that self-awareness and knowing go hand in hand. Or rather, knowing that you know. Or convincing yourself that you know that you know. (The recursion can go quite deep and is likely tied into consciousness in some way. A feedback mechanism.)

Mind (self) goes to extremes to prove to itself that it is in charge of the show. As mind grows stronger, it goes to more and more extremes to prove that body is subordinate to mind. It is this drive to control that is the issue, I believe.


And, yes, I think most minds would cast off the body in an instant were it possible. Who hasn't dreamed of the pure energy scenario? Becoming light. One with the blah. The body is a chain and an anchor and the mind wishes to fly above it all. The metaphors come to the tongue so easily. Why? Because even knowing that the mind cannot exist without body, still it wishes that it were so. We are inspired by tales that affirm this sense of ethereal longevity of mind because the mind desperately wants it to be so.

A mind floating free, deep in contemplation. The whims and vagaries of the body long behind. Shed in the ancient past of deep time. How... idyllic. Admit it, it appeals.

So sex, clever bitch, creeps up in morality and ethics, and fills the human world with innuendo that keeps men fascinated with sex. In the clothes, the speech, the humor, art- any medium possible so that a reasoning animal no longer subject to estrus will capitulate to the corrosive effects of intimidation.

A couple of points.

First, it's interesting to note that the use of sex in advertising has become a science only in the past 50 years or so. Before this, it was a blind sort of thing. It surely had it's place, but it was for the most part subconscious rather than intentionally subliminal.

Second. I don't really think that man needs to be kept fascinated with sex. We can convince our minds that we are free from sex and instinct because we are such rational beings, but the boys in the basement know better. We are just as instinct driven as the basest animal. Ok. That's hyperbole. But, we are certainly not free of instincts. We've just rationalized them. And have the ability to push them around a little. Crudely steer them, so to speak.

Take the biological clock that women feel ticking in their mid-30's. Men peak sexually in their teens. Women peak in their 30's. Many women don't really get horny until this time. Many women don't really orgasm until this time. This is not to say that they haven't had sex. But, the sex that they had before was more about acceptance. The sex that they have with the body clock ticking loudly is carnal lust. It is rampant heat. It is instinct driven through and through.


Damnit. Getting long. Couple of quick points.

And nature keeps them few and far between because they are, quite frankly, aberrations.

Aberrations, yes. But perfect for use as an archetype. As an ideal.

However, humanity has largely come to emphasize monogamy (and please don't bring up some obscure island where the natives fuck children, those are tiresome)- love, purity, commitment.
All qualities that go against a program of fucking and keep fucking to continue as planned, so to speak, in life’s answer to death.
Something reason refuses to even think exists.

Remember, Gendanken, lip service. That's all most of this is.

Did you know that women are more likely to become pregnant when cheating on their husband?
Did you know that men will ejaculate more when having sex with someone other than their wife?
Or when they return home from a long trip?

It is the appearance of monogamy. Not the actual state. It is the lie. It is the lie that you apparently accepted until recently.


Hypatia,

There are a few unusual human beings in which the drive to know is stronger than the drive to procreate (Isaac Newton springs to mind), but these people are rather rare.

It's true that few humans 'escape' the drive to procreate but these few are shining examples of the ideal that is under discussion.

The ideal of chastity takes advantage of the mind's instinct to be in control. There is no act that is more viscerally connected to the body than sex. (Except for maybe pissing and shitting and not much can be done about that.) So, consequently, there is no greater perceived victory over the body than defeating the sex drive.

This ideal is passed down from generation to generation by various means. Religion. Cultural mores. Etc. Those who 'live up' to the ideal are remembered as shining beacons and moral role models to others. And, while the others may not go to the extent that ascetics and celibates go to, they still value this repression of sexuality for the most part.

The age in which we live is in many ways an aberration from the trend in human morals for the past 1000 plus years. While we still value chastity and tend to look down upon excessive promiscuity (especially among females), we are far more free sexually and accepting of the body than most of the generations that have led to us. For the most part, religion is the unifying force that promoted chastity in the past and the sexually free age in which we live is partly a consequence of the collapse of the utter faith of the christians in western culture.

But, a thousand plus years of social conditioning is not so easily broken. Even now the taboos of the past linger. Even now the ascetic path appeals to those that seek 'discipline'. Control the body. Control the mind.


Morality and ethics are *based* on sex (as well as on the need for social organization).

Yes. But, they are based on repressing and controlling sex. Channeling it into socially acceptable avenues of expression. Especially


This is true - blind evolution brought us the independent mind, which then conceived its own ends and purposes. But I don't think the mind can wholly break away from its origins as a sexual organ, and I still don't see any reason to believe that it should ever come to *oppose* its original reason for existence.

You've just said something telling here. Independent mind. Independent of what? This is what the mind does. It attempts to prove itself master. It describes itself as independent.

You're right that it can't wholly break away from it's origins but it can pretend that it is. And, in this pretense there are those few, rare indivduals who wholly accept the premise that the rational mind creates and throws off the 'shackles' of the body.

I just had the oddest notion. I was talking earlier about man being the only animal that knows what sex is for. That knows that he and everyone he knows will someday die and rot. That knows about evolution and mitochondria and dna and so many other things. Only man knows these things.

Could this rejection of the body be something like Nietzsche's footbridge?
“There was a time in our lives when we were so close that nothing seemed to obstruct our friendship and brotherhood, and only a small footbridge separated us. Just as you were about to step on it, I asked you: “Do you want to cross the footbridge to me?”—Immediately, you did not want to any more; and when I asked you again, you remained silent. Since then mountains and torrential rivers and whatever separates and alienates have been cast between us, and even if we wanted to get together, we couldn’t.” – la sciencia
Could it be that the distaste might come from being used by nature in such a way? The knowing is like a pointing to the footbridge. It's a pointing to the connection between past and future. A bridge. And, in some ways we are the past. In some ways we are the future. And in some ways we are the bridge.

A bridge is constructed to span a gap. Man doesn't like the idea of being constructed. Man wants to be through an act of self-will not just as a temporary unit in an ever-expanding construction.

Cogito ergo sum, says man.

I am not an animal.

I am not a number.

I am a free man.

Man has been successful in distancing himself from the basic qualities that make him an animal- scent, he clouds with hygiene. Hair, flesh, and bone he softens with accoutrements that make his condition more palatable to his reason.

While this may be true, biologically women are drawn more to the man who has a natural musk about him, one that looks healthy, virile and capable unless our own reason is clouded by emotions. For instance, Motherliness clouds us by going for men who are ill, or poorly taken care of. Emotions of a domineering nature would have women going for men who are weak or stupid, to feel physically or mentally superior. And even denial, which tricks women into going for the male who is a social outcast or ugly just to feel like they’ve done a good deed to serve their own ego.

The violent pangs of hunger and thirst he too has come to soften- but no will, no power, no discipline or desire however strong can seemingly combat that powerful instinct to survive- there's always some background noise to hassle all three. Again, none of this is novel.

For a consciousness that not only reviles the very idea of its mortality but outright refuses to even contemplate it, thinking itself immortal, the body must resort to insurgency in order to conquer its own host and continue its species.

You are right in saying that man’s drive to copulate, unheeded by reason, is instinctual. To become immortal, man must create another in his image and pass down his solid genetics, and indoctrinate the childe with all his knowledge and splendor. But then poses the question, as to why people with serious genetic deficiencies who are otherwise intelligent people would propagate with regularity. Does the need for sex really come solely from instinct, or also from a need for intimacy and closeness with another human? Or even more banally, a drive to assert his prowess to attract more females to have a bigger pool of which to choose from when his ego so desires.

How vindictive is that impulse in that even the comatose and the invalid maintain that need to procreate and would have a man curse his food for sex.
That oblivious mind, obsessed with truths and reason, atones for this "vulgarity" and calls it love.
Our reasoning mind does the same with sex as its done with death- it has tenderized its “horror” by making it more acceptable, so that even the act of pesticide is made hygienic.

I don’t think the impulse is vindictive as it is not a force, but the minds obsession with completing the cycle. This doesn’t address, however the obsessive who will masturbate 12-20 times a day in order to feel better. That is a psychosis that is hard to explain, and does not seem to have it’s root in instinct or emotion. It simply seems to be driven by the need for release, and one which I have no answer for.

Our tremendous brain has made the drive to know more powerful, incredibly powerful, and this is the foe that the human body is up against- an enemy that given the chance would rid itself of such a vulgar, ugly thing it despises.

I wouldn’t say it’s the brain that has made sexuality vulgar and ugly, but that society itself, with all it’s confused morality and standards. Getting rid of sexuality from the human brain would not make it more intelligent, or fill it with more wisdom. It may even do the reverse, as instinct will help to draw the focus away from it’s purposeful mission of knowing and revealing all, simply by placing a woman with wide motherly hips and robust milk-producing breasts within it’s sight.

So sex, clever bitch, creeps up in morality and ethics, and fills the human world with innuendo that keeps men fascinated with sex. In the clothes, the speech, the humor, art- any medium possible so that a reasoning animal no longer subject to estrus will capitulate to the corrosive effects of intimidation.
The corrosive effects of innuendo.

These corrosive effects, cause men to be intimidated into taking medications like Viagra and the like, just to continue the copulation cycle long after their need has moved into the other bedroom so he gets more sleep at night. But again, it may not be instinctual at all but a need for closeness and intimacy that some only get with sex. Sadly, they are tricked into believing that only through sex can you have this intimacy. In college, I fell in love with a beautiful girl who was sexually attractive to many men. While we were not sexually attracted to each other, we loved each other for our minds and did spend evenings giving each other massages, and even cuddling up next to each other for a long nights sleep. The benefit was that there was no sex, and yet we were still intimate with each other. I have also had boyfriends who I shared the same experience with, and never had the need for sex. A completely asexual relationship is not only possible, but fulfilling and satisfying. This is the myth that society denies, hurting only itself.

Somehow, we have labeled the man who does not have a sex drive as an abomination, rather than simply a normal man, with other goals in his life. It pressures him into believing that sex is a prize to be won from a woman and therefore is the driving goal in almost any relationship. Procreation is also a societal pressure that proves that you are able to exist and continue contributing to society. That is another myth that society forces upon it’s victims with frightening regularity. A childless couple is seen as “barren” or “selfish” in the grand scheme that society has plotted for us.

And yes, for all of those wondering- I read many books and fornicate with cadavers.

That’s very interesting dear. Fetishes and wuv. ;)


However, humanity has largely come to emphasize monogamy (and please don't bring up some obscure island where the natives fuck children, those are tiresome)- love, purity, commitment.
All qualities that go against a program of fucking and keep fucking to continue as planned, so to speak, in life’s answer to death.
Something reason refuses to even think exists.

Monogamy is based on the societal instinct not to inbreed. If, people were free to fornicate with anyone they choose then the result could fornicate with ones half sister without his knowledge of doing so. It also was based on personal responsibility and ego. A man wants to know who his offspring are so that he can shape and conform him to his own way of thinking as a way to propogate his own ego. And a woman wants to know who the father is so that he can take care of his child and her. It’s more a matter of pride, than about monogamy.


I side with Russell- the base nature of "love", is anarchy. We like to make it something else.
And it rebels against marriage- all one needs to look at is statistics.

Marriage fails because of money, and sex the majority of the time. This is undeniable. However, we would need to remove the stigmas of society to even begin to change that if monogamy is the way that society can advance. If, monogamy is really where the path should lie. I am not convinced.

Whoa, whoa whoa-
I had tons to say here but got culled in by a tangent:

Arditezza:
In college, I fell in love with a beautiful girl who was sexually attractive to many men. While we were not sexually attracted to each other, we loved each other for our minds and did spend evenings giving each other massages, and even cuddling up next to each other for a long nights sleep
Yes, I'm being childish- mee mee mo tickle me Elmo- but you're a lesbo?
I realize you mention this for asexual purposes, but the 'falling in love' and cuddling is bizarre.

I'm not a lesbian. But this girl was just amazing, incredible, and completely lovable even in a romantic sense. But I was not sexually attracted to her. Have you ever had a friend who you wish you could spend every moment with because you just love being in their company? And cuddling isn't bizzare either, you cuddle with your parents as a child and it's comforting and soothing. Why not cuddle as adults and have it be just as comforting and soothing? Be open minded. I could have lived with her, sexless for the rest of my life and still have been happy. Sadly, her father got laid off and she couldn't continue paying for college the following semester and she had to move back home. Got caught up in the small town thing, and ended up barefoot and pregnant. We still talk regularly, and I still love everything about her.

Now, please continue.

To understand sex you need to understand that sex is not for the purpose of reproduction. Actually what we know as sex (or social sex) is a hindrance to our species reproductive success. The females of most species advertise their time of peak fertility but the females of our species do not. This means that any male wanting to ensure he has offspring needs to make love to his female partner at all times throughout the menstrual cycle. He must also guard his female from other males all the time if he is to be confident that any progeny his partner has are actually his own.

This should not be considered as a necessary part of a reproductive system. As mentioned above most females of their species advertise their time of peak fertility. They will copulate only once to get pregnant and often give birth to litters; thereby having a better then one to one ratio of offspring to copulation. Robin Baker and Mark Bellis (in Human Sperm Competition Copulation, masturbation and infidelity) page 83 report on a survey of 3,679 human subjects in the UK with a total of 2.5 million copulations that produced 800 children; (i.e. 3,200 copulations/child.)

We must also recognise that women are generally sexually active for a number of years before they first ovulate and for many years post menopause. This means they are recruiting sexual partners at a time when they have zero chance of producing offspring. The males they choose having no chance of gaining reproductive success in exchange for time and energy provided.

About 10% of both male and female gender express a preference for same gender sex with about 1% having lives of exclusive homosexuality. Baker and Bellis argue that this 10% figure should be taken as a whole. By including bisexuals with homosexuals they argue that there is no disadvantage to reproductive success. This section of the population is generally far more sexually active and will on average have more children than the remaining 90% of the population. But if sexuality was for reproduction then presumably homosexuality would not exist. The focus of this most sexually active 10% of our population would therefore be concentrated solely on the opposite gender and would likely confer an even greater reproductive success.

Darwinism can not explain this excessive sexuality. It is sometimes suggested that mothers offer sex to their partners in an attempt to recruit paternal support for their offspring. This is unlikely to be the case for the excessive male sex drive is likely to have broken up more pair bonds than it has ever held together.

In my book God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen I argue for a purpose in life and that this purpose is to evolve greater complexity. The God Gametes theory holds that there is an external genetic code for life and that our human consciousness sources information from this external gene pool. We also pass this genetic information backwards and forwards between sexual partners in an attempt to build better and more complex offspring. This probably sounds a little loopie but Darwinism can not explain the evolution of greater complexity or our human reproductive system where sex has evolved as a hindrance to reproductive success.

I just had the oddest notion. I was talking earlier about man being the only animal that knows what sex is for. That knows that he and everyone he knows will someday die and rot. That knows about evolution and mitochondria and dna and so many other things. Only man knows these things.

Could this rejection of the body be something like Nietzsche's footbridge?
“There was a time in our lives when we were so close that nothing seemed to obstruct our friendship and brotherhood, and only a small footbridge separated us. Just as you were about to step on it, I asked you: “Do you want to cross the footbridge to me?”—Immediately, you did not want to any more; and when I asked you again, you remained silent. Since then mountains and torrential rivers and whatever separates and alienates have been cast between us, and even if we wanted to get together, we couldn’t.” – la sciencia
Could it be that the distaste might come from being used by nature in such a way? The knowing is like a pointing to the footbridge. It's a pointing to the connection between past and future. A bridge. And, in some ways we are the past. In some ways we are the future. And in some ways we are the bridge.

A bridge is constructed to span a gap. Man doesn't like the idea of being constructed. Man wants to be through an act of self-will not just as a temporary unit in an ever-expanding construction.

Cogito ergo sum, says man.

I am not an animal.

I am not a number.

I am a free man.

The only problem I can see with that is that one becomes caged by the desire to be a free man.

Condemned to be free.

This deserves some attention:

Cogito ergo sum, says man.

Unfortunately, Descartes' motto has been completely torn out of context. This motto has made a history of its own, and what has been build upon it is a house of cards.
Descartes wrote his Meditations for the purpose that the Catholic church would have ready-made arguments when meeting non-believers and opposing them.
See Descartes' Letter of Dedication (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/LoD.html).

The desire to cum and the frustration that comes with that desire begins as a physical one which we feel we have to do something about. It is normal healthy desire.
It only becomes dangerous when a man's self-control is not exercised and he seeks sex with the first open gate he comes across in order to free himself of his frustration.
This is bad because the man is not 'choosing' his partner based upon his love of her soul first above all other women. In fact speaking as a man I have not found any 'open gates' to be particulary likeable in the long run.
Better to be patient. This I have learned.

I think that human sexuality in most people is a natural occurance, and that the need to release is animalistic in nature and has nothing to do with wanting sex or there wouldn't be so many men who masturbate. It's more about release than anything else, and is definately more prevelant in the male than in the female. Women know this, and often use it as a means of control or power instead of a release. Women also often confuse sex and love as if the two are inseperable, and as if you can't have one without the other. Women who are overtly sexual, usually have something else they are covering for ranging from self-esteem problems, prior abuse, or even just trying to prove their own dominance. Men, more often than not just want to fuck for the sake of getting off. They don't care if it's in their hand, a tissue or in a girl... they just need to blow their load somewhere and it has little to do with sexual desire and more to do with sexual need. It's biological in the male, and seems to be more psychological in the female. The female has to be woo'ed, where as the male just simply wants to do it. I liken the male to a puppy and chew toys. They tend to like to chew on anything and everything in sight, but they can be trained to selecting one toy and chewing it to death.

I just love chewing that one toy to death ;) Little naughty puppy that I am!

Fenris,

The only problem I can see with that is that one becomes caged by the desire to be a free man.

Condemned to be free.

Just so. I don't claim that this is a philosophy that one should live by. In fact, I would counsel against it. It is dishonesty towards and about the self. Man must realize that he is not completely free. That he can never be completely free unless he accepts the reality of his body. The body is. This cannot be denied. The body acts. This too cannot be denied. The mind is not the end all and be all of existence. Much of our mind's function is to hide from our consciousness the dirty mechanics of the body.

The brain is composed of hundreds and thousands of automatic processes that perceive, filter, compute, and predict the environment in which we live. Our conscious minds are handed a nearly-finished product that has been produced by all these processes. And the product is not reality. It is only perceived to be reality.

Rosa,

Descartes wrote his Meditations for the purpose that the Catholic church would have ready-made arguments when meeting non-believers and opposing them.

Yes. But this doesn't deny the validity of the motto. Cogito ergo sum sums up this idea that our minds are central to reality perfectly. It perfectly sums up the idea.

And, by the way, his most influential works are the first two meditations which were models of skepticism. Cogito ergo sum being one of the final 'truths' that Descartes' skepticism couldn't eradicate. So he then takes this foundation and begins to work up a carefully constructed proof of god's existence. Does this invalidate his earlier words? Even without any of the words that goes with cogito ergo sum, it stands alone. It is self-evident.

c2OH25N3o

This is bad because the man is not 'choosing' his partner based upon his love of her soul first above all other women. In fact speaking as a man I have not found any 'open gates' to be particulary likeable in the long run.

So you're a believer in monogamy then? And, how important is sexuality to this 'love of her soul'? What happens if you have patience and fall in love with her soul only to find out that her snatch isn't acceptable? That she is into different sexual fetishes or styles or positions than you?

By the way, I like how you speak of 'love of her soul' and 'open gate' in the same statement. Beautifying and objectifying at the same time. How marvelous.

Arditezza,

While this may be true, biologically women are drawn more to the man who has a natural musk about him, one that looks healthy, virile and capable unless our own reason is clouded by emotions.

You mention a good point here and then just totally blow by it in your attempts to make man more than an animal (subconsciously, I'm sure.)

Musk.

Smell is a direct tap into the limbic system. One of the most primitive areas of our mammalian brain. Smell affects us in a way that no other sense has the power. It is a direct chemical connection and is strongly linked to emotions and memories. Modern man covers his scent with all sorts of god-awful scents. From whale oil to god-knows-what. All in an effort to conceal vital information about the body that might have detrimental effects if they should be known to others.

Man is a machiavellian animal. Intrigues and deceptions are central to our social construction. Woman hides her time of fertility. Man hides his cock size. Both hide their pheremones.

Animals commonly sniff and lick crotches to determine sexual readiness. It's likely that cunnilingus began in a similar manner. Man's sense of smell is the least sensitive of his senses. But, by digging in and rooting around. Tasting, sniffing, snorting, snuffling, it is likely that a trained nose and tongue could determine if the female was receptive for fertilization. I suppose dipping in a finger and tasting would have a similar effect, but with our poor sense of smell it might not be sufficient for the task.

If a strong-man of a tribe determined that the woman is not fertile, then he would be more likely to allow a lesser man have a go with her. Another branch of our social structure. Reciprocal altruism. By allowing sub-dominant men in the tribe the chance to have sex (even if the odds of fertilization are low) the leader curries their favor and promotes peace in the tribe. This leads to the question of how soon did man equate sex with childbirth. Was sex about procreation or merely pleasure in these early peoples?

Another question that needs to be answered for any of the above to be determined true or false would be a more direct knowledge of the nature of early human tribes. What was the division of the sexes like? Did man have power? Did woman? Was it shared equally? Were they almost seperate, only coming together for fertility rituals? So many unanswered questions in this area that we can only hope will be answered someday.

It is interesting to note that in Catalhoyuk, one of the earliest cities of man, heads were removed from the dead to be placed in living quarters. Presumably the heads of respected dead. There appears to be a roughly equal proportion of male and female heads removed in this manner. This speaks of an equality in early man. At least in this area of central Turkey.

But then poses the question, as to why people with serious genetic deficiencies who are otherwise intelligent people would propagate with regularity.

I don't see why any question is begged here. The only genetic deficiency that would prevent one from desiring to have sex would be just that, a genetic deficiency which removes the sexual instinct. And, even then they might be coerced into reproducing because of societal standards.

This doesn’t address, however the obsessive who will masturbate 12-20 times a day in order to feel better.

Monkies in laboratories often fall victim to chronic masturbation. As did Genie, the neglected child who was tied to a potty chair for most of her young life.

I should think that these two examples show that it is not a need for release (except for perhaps from captivity) but rather a need for stimulation.


I wouldn’t say it’s the brain that has made sexuality vulgar and ugly, but that society itself, with all it’s confused morality and standards.

Yes, but isn't sex dependant upon society? And isn't society dependant upon sex? It's a feedback mechanism with control lines going in both directions. And who's at the reins? Certainly not us as long as we continue to deny the body.

Monogamy is based on the societal instinct not to inbreed. If, people were free to fornicate with anyone they choose then the result could fornicate with ones half sister without his knowledge of doing so. It also was based on personal responsibility and ego. A man wants to know who his offspring are so that he can shape and conform him to his own way of thinking as a way to propogate his own ego. And a woman wants to know who the father is so that he can take care of his child and her. It’s more a matter of pride, than about monogamy.

I could agree with you here. But, I wonder if it's more material than you make it out to be. You bring up these mental points, responsibility and the morality of sister-fucking, but I should think that monogamy's biggest selling point is in the distribution of inheritance.

You mention a good point here and then just totally blow by it in your attempts to make man more than an animal (subconsciously, I'm sure.)

Heh. By the way, you can tell I'm a man. I just blew past the female perspective and went directly into the male side of determining fertility.

Women, as well as men, also use smell to determine physical fitness and compatability. Once again, perfumes and other tricks to obscure and alter our natural body odors are a form of trickery on this natural ability. I wonder if our sense of smell decreased before or after this trickery began? Probably before, but it would be interesting to find out otherwise.

Man is separated from beast by free will and conscience. While they do revert back, they are more than mere instinct and intuition as animals are. If anything, woman is closer to beast in that she generally trusts instinct and intuition before knowledge and conscience. Man is only beast when sex comes into the picture, but can be trained to be attentive and giving to his mate and be less animalistic. However, this will not stop him from getting erect at the site of a beautiful woman, or even just thinking about women. It's what he chooses to do with the physical reaction that determines man or beast.

Fenris,



c2OH25N3o



So you're a believer in monogamy then? And, how important is sexuality to this 'love of her soul'? What happens if you have patience and fall in love with her soul only to find out that her snatch isn't acceptable? That she is into different sexual fetishes or styles or positions than you?

By the way, I like how you speak of 'love of her soul' and 'open gate' in the same statement. Beautifying and objectifying at the same time. How marvelous.



I really do not see the person I love in a monogamous way as being able to have something that was 'unnacceptable to me'.
Does it matter that she may be into different things than me? Surely when you love someone you are willing to let them have their way as well. I think you are saying here "You might love her but how can you really love her if you have neve had sex with her?"
I guess you just trust that if you love this person and you are loving them because they are open and honest with you and it is 'that' that you love, then the rest will follow and if there are problems ( for better for worse) then you will just work them out. You seem to want guarentees in love which really is not to understand the nature of love at all.
Love is long-suffering!

Consider this- a dog when erratically happy will hump your leg.
A 'good time' usually leads to a great lay when the mind shuts off.
And a wife, neglected, depressed and needy, when consoled by a girlfriend, will unconsciously be driven to kiss her on the mouth.

Underneath these feelings of happiness around others, the sexual impulse betrays its presence when they transmute to mindless sexual activity- and yes, Ariditezza, cuddling is one of them.
It seems that this happiness is a reward for fullfilling a mission oriented towards acceptance and a need for it.
And depression a punishment for having failed.
But underneath both is a sex drive manipulating the controls, giving each of our little passions an erection.


I've grown insane- between mind and body I dreamt I had a little old man flagging me with his penis. He's come to shatter my reason, emotional troll.
He always has attempted it, but now he's finally shown me how- with his penis.
I call him Sade.

Hypatia:
Heheheh. From an evolutionary standpoint, I think monogamy is each gender's way of trying to manipulate the other into serving its own procreational advantage.

Ha-ha.

Indeed. But you do realize there is only one gender stupid enough to obsess over it, yes?
You'll find it in cheap satin fighting others of its gender for a fucking bouquet at weddings.

(Optimal strategies differ for men and women, but I don't want to write a treatise here, since the longer the post the less of it gets read in general.)

No, I read everything.
It just becomes tedious having to respond to it all.

Robert:
About 10% of both male and female gender express a preference for same gender sex with about 1% having lives of exclusive homosexuality. Baker and Bellis argue that this 10% figure should be taken as a whole. By including bisexuals with homosexuals they argue that there is no disadvantage to reproductive success. This section of the population is generally far more sexually active and will on average have more children than the remaining 90% of the population. But if sexuality was for reproduction then presumably homosexuality would not exist. The focus of this most sexually active 10% of our population would therefore be concentrated solely on the opposite gender and would likely confer an even greater reproductive success.

Pause.

You wrote a book didn't you?
The numbers are small, why? Happenstance?
Or because sex is for...procreation?
They’re the most 'sexually active' of the population because they can afford to be or because the data is biased.
I say it’s the latter.
That said- homosexuals are like prime numbers.

Rare, compared to the largess of all other numbers- but still numbers.
This sentence from you is so silly it warrants a copy-paste just to gawk at it:

"This section of the population is generally far more sexually active and will on average have more children than the remaining 90% of the population. "

What??!

Arditezza:
While this may be true, biologically women are drawn more to the man who has a natural musk about him, one that looks healthy, virile and capable unless our own reason is clouded by emotions. For instance, Motherliness clouds us by going for men who are ill, or poorly taken care of. Emotions of a domineering nature would have women going for men who are weak or stupid, to feel physically or mentally superior. And even denial, which tricks women into going for the male who is a social outcast or ugly just to feel like they’ve done a good deed to serve their own ego.

Blasphemy!
I love ugly men because they are hideous.
And hung.

Kidding.
What you are saying here applies to both genders.

Does the need for sex really come solely from instinct, or also from a need for intimacy and closeness with another human?
All of them are instinct.
Physically, we are a weak speices.
As are sheep.
Dogs.

So all gather and swarm, as strength comes in numbers. The physically strong are usually loners and antagonistic to its own species, found scattered with sex being the only thing driving them together.
Its only the panda that gets in the way.

I don’t think the impulse is vindictive as it is not a force, but the minds obsession with completing the cycle.
Oh, but it would be vindictive to you if you sought control of yourself to such a degree that it scared you- and found that this thing from the body kept getting in the way.

By control I don't mean the sexual need- I mean the emotions rooted in it that fucks up your reason.

Invert:
This 'insurgency' is hardly new. You're using hyperbole here, of course, but it should be stated that of all the animals on the earth only we are capable of contemplating our mortality. And, only we are capable of rationalizing the possibility of immortality. Both as a possible function of eternal life for the mind or eternal life for the gene.

Man knows this. Not ape. Not dog. Not beaver. Only man.

I ..know that.

From reading your post, I see we are seeing it differently.
You imagine....................baaaaah.

I'm getting a headache here. I read your post, down to the metaphor (nice, by the way).
I'm taking a break. Pardon.

So sex, clever bitch, creeps up in morality and ethics, and fills the human world with innuendo that keeps men fascinated with sex. In the clothes, the speech, the humor, art- any medium possible so that a reasoning animal no longer subject to estrus will capitulate to the corrosive effects of intimidation.
The corrosive effects of innuendo.
Ever read Plato's Phaedo?
Sex is not the only thing that creeps up in morality and ethics...

EDIT: Actually, let me rephrase that. Sex is not the only thing that keeps human from evolving beyond the animal nature - as you say "the basic qualities that make him an animal".

Which makes me wonder what we could do about that....
What if we stop repressing sex?

Truthseeker:
Sex is not the only thing that creeps up in morality and ethics...
You're right.
There's also the cannivign plague of Christian blood to pollute the waters.
No, this is not right.

The water is pollution.
Reminds me, there's a love thread where you are being mutilated. See you there.

Edit:
What if we stop repressing sex?

Then Sciforums would lose every last one of you losers.

You're right.
There's also the cannivign plague of Christian blood to pollute the waters.
No, this is not right.

The water is pollution.
You make so many valid arguments.... :rolleyes:

Reminds me, there's a love thread where you are being mutilated. See you there.
Don't remember having a thread like this....

Then Sciforums would lose every last one of you losers.
What you don't see is that the loser is you... :rolleyes:

This place is a waste of time anyways. I haven't seen a single person around making a single valid argument. It's all personal attacks all over the forums.
You even want to go to hell anyways... :rolleyes:


You probably brought up the worse arguments I've ever seen around...
Sad, sad thing.....

Truthseeker:
You probably brought up the worse arguments I've ever seen around...
Sad, sad thing.....
Actually, you've got the worse timing- considering.
You are actually looking for a valid, reasonable argument when I'm in a mood antagonistic to reason today.
Trust me.

I might put a thread, feeling silly.

But want it, you got it.
You say:
EDIT: Actually, let me rephrase that. Sex is not the only thing that keeps human from evolving beyond the animal nature - as you say "the basic qualities that make him an animal".


I'm saying sex is the strongest, most inclusie of all impulses as it dominates all drives.
Do you disagree?
And its stronger foe is reason.

This place is a waste of time anyways. I haven't seen a single person around making a single valid argument. It's all personal attacks all over the forums.

Well, its a waste if you come here to waste.
Nay?

Gendanken,

I ..know that.

I never meant to imply that you didn't. I guess sometimes I just feel the need to state the obvious. Basically so that I can build up later points on it. And for those who might come later and not understand what presumptions might have been made.

From reading your post, I see we are seeing it differently.
You imagine....................baaaaah.

I'm not surprised. We often see things differently. On the surface at least.

I imagine.... Hmm. What is it that I imagine, I wonder?

I'm getting a headache here. I read your post, down to the metaphor (nice, by the way).
I'm taking a break. Pardon.

There's a new wonder drug called aspirin. Give it a try. ;)

Well, its a waste if you come here to waste.
Nay?

My thoughts exactly.

Waste not, Want not.
Shame on you, Truthseeker.
Don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

Actually, you've got the worse timing- considering.
You are actually looking for a valid, reasonable argument when I'm in a mood antagonistic to reason today.
Trust me.

I might put a thread, feeling silly.

But want it, you got it.
Sure! We can discuss it, if you want. Just don't backtrack with personal attacks.

I'm saying sex is the strongest, most inclusie of all impulses as it dominates all drives.
Do you disagree?
Yes, I do disagree. In fact, the basic drive is the libido, which consists of both sexual and agressive energy. Those are the basic drives of the id, the body. It also includes things like hunger and thrist. But as you said, those are minor compared to sex and violence (which comes from hunting and fighting for survival).

And its stronger foe is reason.
Actually, reason follows on the ego category, which is often influenced by the id. So in reality, its stronger foe is the superego, which is the part of yourself that wants freedom from your body. Unlike Freud thought, the superego doesn't repress the desires of the id. The superego is created to help you detach yourself (ego) from the id and liberate yourself from your body's needs. You feel repressed because your id doesn't want that to happen. So the superego doesn't repress, even tough the id feels repressed.

Well, its a waste if you come here to waste.
Nay?
It's a waste when we follow into personal attacks.

Arditezza:

Blasphemy!
I love ugly men because they are hideous.
And hung.

Kidding.
What you are saying here applies to both genders.


Actually, I disagree when it comes to sex. Men, more often than not, will prefer any woman to setting aside their ego and meeting their hand for a midnight rendezvous. As long as their friends aren't watching, it doesn't really matter what the woman is like, or what the woman looks like. Women are much more choosy and emotional about their choices, less pragmatic and even strangly less logical.

Sexually, men look for women to satisfy a need.
Women look for men who need to satisfy her.

There's a new wonder drug called aspirin. Give it a try.


There is an ancient drug called darvocet that is much more effective. And cheap.

Now, for serious matters.

Arditezza:
Women are much more choosy and emotional about their choices, less pragmatic and even strangly less logical.

There is nothing strange in it- women are, by nature, averse to logic.
This is why one that isn't is reviled and made to feel small by the commentaries.
This keeps the brand rare and for those that can see, precious.

This goes for men as well, who are feminized for their intelligence. Its almost as if we have farce here- a smart girl is made manly. A smart man is made girly.

Sexually, men look for women to satisfy a need.
Women look for men who need to satisfy her
This is an excellent point and now that you've clarified- completely agree.

Truthseeker:
Yes, I do disagree. In fact, the basic drive is the libido, which consists of both sexual and agressive energy. Those are the basic drives of the id, the body. It also includes things like hunger and thrist. But as you said, those are minor compared to sex and violence (which comes from hunting and fighting for survival).

So which, to you, comes first?
Sex or libido?

Libido is just a word Freud used in his Puritan mentality- he thought the genitals ugly and even took offense with his fiancé for being chummy with a girl that 'married before marriage'.
In other words, had sex before marriage.
He couldn't even handle the language of sex- even if those in his time and some now thought him provocative.

Actually, reason follows on the ego category, which is often influenced by the id. So in reality, its stronger foe is the superego, which is the part of yourself that wants freedom from your body. Unlike Freud thought, the superego doesn't repress the desires of the id. The superego is created to help you detach yourself (ego) from the id and liberate yourself from your body's needs. You feel repressed because your id doesn't want that to happen. So the superego doesn't repress, even tough the id feels repressed.

Ok.
Now, apart from psychoanalytic terminologies, reason has the abilities to either combat these emotional distractions or enhance them into one powerful tool.

Look how powerful the mind is- just go to a library or witness a V-2 lifting off the ground. Its no longer just brain matter, and if it can conquer the skies, well- no reason to think it cannot conquer body.
The id, if you like to talk about ids, has a destructive element tied to it- or Thanatos.
I feel that this 'invisible' force can be harnessed and turned on to self, not to destroy emotion, but to manipulate it at will.

So which, to you, comes first?
Sex or libido?
Sex is a manifestation of libido, the "life energy".

Libido is just a word Freud used in his Puritan mentality- he thought the genitals ugly and even took offense with his fiancé for being chummy with a girl that 'married before marriage'.
In other words, had sex before marriage.
He couldn't even handle the language of sex- even if those in his time and some now thought him provocative.
At that time, sex was very repressed. And in some ways, it is still repressed nowdays. I guess it's pretty controvertial. People shouldn't feel repressed, but at the same time, you can't just jump over a hot girl on the street, ya know? :D

I think the idea of libido can be expanded. It has been expanded before by Reich when he introduced his "oregone energy" or whatever. But yeah... libido is a life energy. It is not just sex.

Ok.
Now, apart from psychoanalytic terminologies, reason has the abilities to either combat these emotional distractions or enhance them into one powerful tool.
Yes, that's right. But behind that reason is the superego, which advises the ego what to do. So, then, the ego uses reason to decide what to do. I think... maybe reason can combat emotional distractions by itself, but it would just become a distraction itself. Like... when you can't get laid you might become a nerd, since you have nothing better to do.... :D

Look how powerful the mind is- just go to a library or witness a V-2 lifting off the ground. Its no longer just brain matter, and if it can conquer the skies, well- no reason to think it cannot conquer body.
Certainly. That was the entire idea behind the philosopher's purpose. That's why I cited Plato's Phaedo, because Socrates talks just about that. The question is: how do you do it? Because your senses might deceive you. Maybe we live in a dream world or we are deceived by an evil demon like Descartes say. Maybe we can't really trust our senses. Which, than, gives us two perspectives: the platonic one and the cartesian one.

In the platonic perspective, reason conquers the body by transcending the perception of the body. Socrates basically said that our senses deceive us. (I should cite some passages later, when I bring the book to school.)

But in the cartesian perspective, the senses are actually right and can be trusted. So reason conquers the body by looking to the world and finding objective realities (i.e. scientific method). Which is our method for the moment.

But which one is right? Can we really trust our senses? Or maybe we live in the matrix? Well... this is not what we are discussing here, so..... if you want we can always begin a new thread... ;)

The id, if you like to talk about ids, has a destructive element tied to it- or Thanatos.
I feel that this 'invisible' force can be harnessed and turned on to self, not to destroy emotion, but to manipulate it at will.
Do you mean tame the id? Well.... the eog already does that. Like... for example... the ego can "delay gratification" as Freud puts it. But if you are talking about changing the id.... maybe that is not possible. Because you will always need food, water, sex and rest. If you can satisfy all of those at the same time and continuously, then and only then you can tame the id. Otherwise, it is all pure self-control.