Desire for sex

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Saint, Aug 10, 2016.

  1. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Is it wrong for a man to have sexual desire when seeing a sexy girl?
    Thinking about to have sex with her in his mind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    So, let's make it equal...
    Is it wrong for a woman to have sexual desire when seeing a sexy boy?
    Thinking about to have sex with him in her mind.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    It's natural. Whether it is "wrong" or not depends on your morals, worldview, religion etc.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Guy, you are good with your answers.
  8. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    It's not a good thought-habit to take up when there's consanguinity involved.
  9. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Not wrong. Never wrong.
    Millions of years of evolution set the structure.
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    A note on the formulation: Try, "Thinking about having sex with her".

    Such as it is, "in his mind" is redundant.

    But the real problem here, and probably not helped any by the smiling emoji, is a particular vagary; there are multiple ways of parsing "thinking about to have":

    • "to have" ― The most likely meaning of your phrase, just change this to "having".

    • "about to" ― This is the problematic vagary, and part of it has to do with the fact that neither reading results in a complete sentence. But this parsing of the sentence expresses a belief that sexual intercourse with this woman is imminent. And in that case, the smilie is a bit creepy.​

    Your intended meaning is more apparently the first, in which case the gerund, "having"―and yes, I've argued with myself now for like twenty minutes, and I'm calling it a gerund―eliminates any possibility of vagary.


    More to the point of inquiry: It's a bit more complicated than that, but insofar as the question itself goes, Billvon↑ makes the point.

    But let's try it this way: A sexy girl? Does this mean ...

    • ... you want to get together and make a baby with her?

    • ... you want to get together and share extraordinary trust with her?

    • ... you just want to get off?​

    The impulse is what it is; how we translate it is something else.

    For instance, there are many for whom thinking about "having sex" with her involves some pretty extraneously brutal behavior. And, honestly, if a guy's mind goes to skullfucking, rough anal, hard bondage, or any number of such behaviors, it's not quite the natural impulse in and of itself.

    Think of it this way: I once listened to a discussion between an advice columnist and an inquiring wife whose husband was really into throwing pies at her genitals. It really was one of the most astoundingly awesome discussions because there really is no way to say stuff like, "As for pudding in your vagina? I'm not a doctor, but that just sounds like a bad idea," with a straight face. Nor any sentence that starts with, "I mean, if you're packing pudding up into your vaginal canal ...". And how does a gay dude remind a woman that, "he can't hit you in the crotch with a pie hard enough to get it into your uterus", without ... er ... ah ... I mean, come on. That ... was ... I mean, nigh on nine years later↱, it's just one of the most hilarious bits I've ever heard.

    At any rate, yeah. If he sees a woman he finds attractive and his first thought is chucking pudding pies at her reproductive anatomy, I'm going to say that's not quite the natural sexual impulse in and of itself.

    By contrast, my impulse when I see a woman tripping my "sexy" alarms, or some such, is not to have sex with her, but, rather, that I want to be her while she's having sex. In truth, her body is exactly none of my business and I really ought to learn to quash that impulse. Meanwhile, if I generally keep it to myself, that's good enough for me. Whether it is good enough for her is beyond my knowledge, and it really would seem invasive most days to actually find out.

    And I feel the same way about the random guy who passes on the street and all I can think for a few seconds is how much I need him to get inside me right fucking now. Yeah, I get the impulse, but redefining him according to my lust is no more appropriate than redefining her to accommodate my imagination.

    But I can't tell you or anyone else what you must necessarily think.

    In truth, your question unsettles me generally. Not because of you, in particular. Rather, once upon a time this question was a nod and wink among men just like the idea that cornering her and trying to intimidate her into sexual intercourse is mere conversation intended to nicely pay her a compliment. Somewhere along the way, it seems, a number of my American brothers actually started believing this stuff.

    Is it wrong? As Billvon notes, the moral aspects are separate from the natural impulse.

    Should we define a hardline? Okay, if your impulse is toward a vigorous rut intended to create a pregnancy, sure, it's natural according to traditional assertions that sexual impulses are purely reproductive. By that standard, a vigorous rut just to get off is wrong. I tend to skip out on the holy books in this case. Anarchy Panty, for instance, reminds the boys, "us girls, full time horny, too". And generally accepting, for instance, Freud and Brown's summary thereof―e.g., narrowing from polymorphous pleasure to genital focus―I tend to assert that some degree of sexual intimacy is requisite to mental health. So, no, I'm not going to tell anyone a lustful impulse to get off with another person is in and of itself wrong. Beyond that, most people don't want their lustful impulses psychoanalyzed in such a manner, so it's true we rarely actually know quite what they're referring to when discussing "sexual desire"; a lot of it isn't actually sexual.

    Still, though, there are other answers far more simply expressed. To wit, Billvon notes moral constructions, and one of the most obvious in my own American society is Christendom. And with Christian Scripture it's pretty straightforward: If one identifies as Christian, then that lustful impulse is wrong.


    Savage, Dan. "Savage Love Podcast #49". Savage Lovecast. 24 September 2007. 10 August 2016.

    Edit: Revise and extend my remarks; 10 August 2016, 17.32 PDT.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Instincts are curious things defying logic and reason for a "higher"(?) purpose.
    The flock ain't got a rooster, and still, 4 of the chickens are brooding a clutch of eggs.
    Maybe they're feminists (we don't need no man), or Christians expecting a miracle?
    If one of 'em hatches an egg, I'll post it here.
  12. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Common, no. Natural, who knows? One thing that has become clear in exploring this brave new world is that human sexuality is all over the map. There is no such a thing as normal. There is typical behavior but so much more. I had no idea. Many men and women get turned on by the strangest things.

    I about died laughing when there was a Furry convention in Chicago. The Hotel had a problem with some kind of chemical accident that forced an evacuation. On the news they showed all of the wide-eyed children in passing cars gazing at a street full of Furries!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now that I think about it, food fetishes are pretty common. And you have to admit that from an evolutionary pov, it is highly efficient. You can eat and reproduce at the same time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I often ask women I date if they have any fetishes since I'm generally glad to accommodate.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In one case, without even hesitating she blurted out "ROPES!" It was as if she had been waiting her entire life for someone to ask. In fact, she had been waiting but never had the nerve to initiate the conversation.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  13. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    Common but not natural: All of the guilt complexes many of us have or had due to our upbringing religion, or culture. I finally had to let go of that to find happiness in my life. I did and I did. In a moment, a lifetime of brainwashing was washed away. Suddenly I realized how silly all of this sexual repression is. In the deepest and most profound sense, sex is life. There is nothing more natural than sex [between consenting adults, of course].
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Two words: Redefining 'piehole'.

    Two more: You're welcome.

    Gotta love compound words. I do, actually, think the most part of the rising new openness is pretty fun; most of what makes me look twice or thrice really isn't my business to judge. It's just that I remember the days of encouraging open communication between couples, which brought mixed results at best. Today's discourse seems to forget history; there was a time when "doggy style" was itself scandalous. I occasionally make a joke about parlor games, and even a board game, challenging people to reveal scandalous details about themselves, and, it usually involves the idea that I don't really believe that the height of one's sexual adventures is giving her husband a hand job in the car in the parking lot after the Def Leppard show six months before they married, but if that's the story she's going to tell of her own free will in that situation, that's the story we're going with. And, you know, it's not really mine to judge. Nor will I say a word about the look in her husband's eye; he's embarrassed because now the guys think he's whipped. More generally, I'm not going to knock these people for having what would seem to me rather bland and boring sex lives. Indeed, I only worry about them at all because of the sheer number who have been climbing up other people's asses for decades in search of sexual morality.

    But, yeah, by the time I'm listening to a professional advice columnist specializing in issues romantic and sexual struggling to strike the proper tone for a serious discussion of not even quick-made whipped cream pies like you use for comedy, but actual pie crusts and pudding, and throwing the damn things at her genitals like they were a clown's face, I would suggest we're in a whole different world.

    Is instant sufficient? A box of powder, some milk, and a whisk do not natural foreplay make.

    Artifice is not natural.

    To the one, for instance, I hold that the masculine reproductive impulse is actually the spreading of seed in general; we're happy enough to piss it away, put it in a woman, put it in her ass, put it all over her face or in her hair, wipe it off our own bellies with a sweatsock, and, you know, every once in a while we hear some astounding stories from our friends about someone humping a tree, or a Chevrolet. (Know the guy who tells the story about the time he humped a tree; I'm the one who tells my friends the story about seeing a guy trying to hump his Chevy.)


    It's not sexual, and it's not wholly a natural impulse insofar as even as an animalistic assertion, say, in heat of battle, it requires a particular artifice of civilization in order to properly escalate the act. That is, even as violence it cannot be wholly blind because it requires recognition of a pretense in order to explicitly violate that pretense.

    Within the context of intimacy, it is not a sexual act between partners but, rather, submission to dominance.

    If it's important enough? If you love him enough? Actually letting someone do that to you seems nearly a crazy question; if a boyfriend wanted to beat me up like I was the asshole at his work who needed his teeth kicked in, would I let him? Do I (cough! hack! retch! wheeze!) love him enough?

    And that's kind of what I mean. It wouldn't be a sexual urge I'm accommodating. Sexual urges do not require one prevent a partner from breathing, and whether he's strangling with his hands or choking to blackout with an eight inch erection, beating with his fists or fucking a skull so as to bloody or break the nose and blacken the eyes.

    It's one of the weird things about being male animals; rage and lust are driven by the same chemicals. At some point we need to attend the difference.

    Oh, right. I digress. At any rate, there comes a point at which Las Vegas is natural, being the product of natural things. At which point there is no such thing as artificial.

    The natural impulse is the natural impulse. If, however, I require a twenty-seven stage Rube Goldberg device, process, or pretense in order to fulfill that natural impulse, that's a big hunka hunka burnin' artifice. Twenty seven hunks, or thereabout.
  15. Saint Valued Senior Member

    How about to go to whore house and have sex with a girl?
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Personally, I'm generally unsatisfied with the way the industry treats comfort workers. The real crime of prostitution is inflicted upon the workers, not committed by them. There is only so much a society can do about this insofar as even in a legalized, regulated, marketplace complete with proper union representation, there will still exist a dangerous market outside the regulatory structure. At that point the ethics of purchasing services become particular and circumstantial.

    To that end I would suggest it is up to each consumer whether they wish to participate in the marketplace.
  17. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    There is a reason it is called [and perhaps is] the oldest profession. Right or wrong, good or bad, it has always been a part of civilized society. My personal option is that what two consenting adults do is up to them and them alone. In some cultures, mistresses had a respected role in society. Some even carried a lot of prestige if they made the right friends. It has been a tradition in many cultures that a successful man had a wife and a mistress [a kept woman]. The marriage was sometimes more about economics and social status. The mistress was purely for sex and fun and companionship.

    I guess the women often had their way with a lowly male worker of some sort - the historic version of the pool boy.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  18. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Respect... Enough said.

    Other than than that, do human females have pheromones like other animal species? The wiki was indecisive and I'm not a biologist.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Sexuality is natural, with the natural purpose of sex, reproduction. It is where genes merge and blend, helping to create genetic diversity, for natural selection. Confusion has been created, based on the idea of sexual identity. This is where one can pick which sex, they think they are, regardless of their majority genetic makeup. This has made the natural connection of sex to reproduction, less clear cut. Homosexuality cannot reproduce in any direct way. If we assume homosexuality is natural, for the sake of argument, then sex cannot be equated to reproduction, since it would leave out a natural demographics, who have sex.

    Sex is a prime directive and is necessary for the survival of the species, as well as for its evolution. If humans stopped all sex, the human species would go extinct in one generation. Because sex is so important to survival and genetic progress of the species, nature has added a carrot on the stick; blind desire. The analogy is, say you know the horse needs to drink extra water for the long journey ahead. However, he is not thirsty, just now. Nature, like the driver, adds a carrot on the string to lead him into the water, so he does what is necessary, in spite of himself.

    The question of this topic is about the difference between the carrot on the stick versus the prime directive of reproduction. Religious morality about sex is geared around the prime directive of reproduction. It limits sex to the structured environment of marriage, between one man and one women, since this the bare bones for what is needed; fugal like nature. Modern psychology is more about the carrot on the stick; recreation. All types of carrot scan be used to lead the horse anywhere; relative sexual identity.

    Religion understands the hooker or gigolo can add extra motion to the carrot, to get the horse's attention. This may even lead to conception. However, survival of any species in nature, tends to be regulated to optimize survival results. They did this via marriage, since it requires the least resources, since humans, as a whole, will put more effort into their own children than into strays. The gigolo or hooker may not want the child. He may need to be aborted or put up for adoption, which is not as optimized for the child; future.

    The answer to the original question is if the carrot rules then a guy can act as conditioned. If prime directive is more important, then optimized children are important.
  21. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    You would think so if you believe everything heard in commercials and don't question your sources, but we don't really know.

    Beyond that, there is little to no good evidence that we have a pheromone receptor.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  22. Ivan Seeking Registered Senior Member

    The question in my mind is whether all men have male-sexed brains, and all women have female-sexed brains.

    Limiting sex to marriage or reproduction is not a function of evolution. It is purely cultural and arguably not natural. This may well explain in part why marriage has failed so dramatically in modern culture where economics no longer forces people to stay together.

    Some men and women seem to be driven to serial cheating and we assign a moral judgment on that. But perhaps it is just natural for some and these people are trying to fight their basic nature.
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016
  23. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Another Facet, Just Because

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Primacy: #108 argues with #9 over who gets to be Minato's first and favorite wife, while #2 enjoys the spectacle.
    Click for "baby girls" learning the "textbook of love".

    These people choose to marry.

    Furthermore, family organization has been vital to the advance of the human endeavor within the pretense of civilized society; indeed, civilized society is built around the cooperative instincts that first arise between kin.

    It is true that some people are incapable of participating in the common standards of civilized society, and as long as they're not harming people, that's all well and fine.

    However, considerations of individual conduct―does this person cheat?―cannot be removed from the context of civilized society.

    This results in a question and answer that seem odd at first glance from my general political perspective. To the one, I am sympathetic toward human frailty. To the other, when that frailty would seem to demand or require particular accommodation by the societal endeavor, we tend to scrutinize it.

    In the end, I think the idea I'm hung up on, driving these paragraphs, is how many times I've witnessed people come together under a societal convention called marriage, violate the―often divinely invested―convention they have pledged themselves unto, and then make this excuse about monogamy violating basic humanity. The truth is that as a belief, you know, fine, whatever; but this person still chose to engage a societal convention, so it doesn't really count as an excuse.

    I just spent twenty-five years securing my right to enter a monogamous marriage according to societal convention; perhaps it's selfish, but I really would like to think it wasn't all for nothing.

    And I don't mean you, in particular; I'm familiar with this trend in society, and it is often expressed viciously. But millions of Americans just spent decades reiterating the primacy of monogamous heterosexual marriage being so important as to reserve privilege. And at least that long, we've also been hearing this faction suggesting monogamous heterosexual marriage is some manner of imposition against human nature. Honestly, it's been going on even longer.

    I would suggest that if we intend to give this question of natural polyamory―itself the wrong term if it's just an evolutionary drive to rut―serious consideration as a societal belief, it's time to either redefine marriage or simply call it off. I know, sound simple, doesn't it? Either acknowledge monogamous heterosexual is a fraud and call it off, or simply revise the convention in order to strike monogamy from the expectation.

    At the same time, though, the post you're responding to is chauvinist and presumes male sexuality evolved in order to deliver seed specifically into female uteri, but this ignores prehuman and pre-mammalian phases of our evolution. At some point, the purpose was simply to distribute seed; it's not a point he ever intends to address.

    So perhaps I'm changing your subject a little, but the thing with answering our neighbor is that it's all for naught; you gave some thought to the issue, so we might as well see what we can get out of it.

    The short version: I get what you're after, but doesn't that open another can of worms?

Share This Page