Jump to content

The "Sex" 'urge': Fact or Fallacy?


vega57

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Retrobot said:

Most people do have a desire and drive for sex, that's just the way it is as we reproduce sexually and those who don't have that drive and desire are less likely to have children and thus (if orientation is at least in part genetic) are less likely to pass on those genes.

I'm sorry, but I see the "It's just the way it is" "reason" as weak.  It tells me that the person saying it really hasn't delved deeply into themselves to try to figure out WHY. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mermaidy said:

huh? you're claiming the urge for sex is learned, not instinctual.  so you need to prove that claim.  You can't say "[claim].  prove to me I'm wrong"

O.k.  I'll bite.  WHY do you believe it's "instinctual"? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoLongerActive1234
41 minutes ago, vega57 said:

O.k.  Please prove to me how it's "innate".

Prove to me it can't ever be. :P If people wouldn't learn about what masturbation or partnered sex is, if they were sheltered from it or within a culture that says they *shouldn't* that doesn't stop people from seeking it out. That is a good indication that it isn't learnt. If it would be learnt people wouldn't be gay either because they would have been taught to be straight at least in the past when it was considered a crime and people didn't even know one could and yet people were still gay just not able to say it.
That is one point, another point is that we aren't programmed to seek out sex with others simply for the sake of orgasmic pleasure. Having sex with another human being adds the bonding both physically and emotionally. When we are close to someone in a sexual way bonding hormones are released. We usually feel the sexual desire in connection to someone who we have romantic feelings for....we wish to connect and be close to them. All incentives to create families to keep our species from dying out. I'd think that masturbation, orgasm, bonding chemicals...it is all originally a driving force for us to have partnered sex so we can procreate. Obviously that doesn't mean that everyone wants to have children or can say why each individual wishes to do with their lufe but our sexuality and wish for anything sexual is derived from something very innate and natural to us, at least in the majority. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if I may protrude here, the evolutionary and neurochemical basis behind the copulatory urge is hardly debatable.

 

The question is whether or not we are enslaved by this urge, to the point where we have made it a national fetish.

 

I have two grown children and remember their births as if they happened yesterday. I remember nothing about their conception. Nothing at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

I can, I should, and I do.

 

Why should asexuality be an object of study?

 

I don't fuck. I don't eat chorizo, either. Should I be studied to learn why I don't? What would be the underlying premise?

Dude, the world is 99% sexual and only 1% asexual.  Asexuality is not the norm and therefore does not apply to most of the population.  In that logic you shouldn't read history textbooks because of their white or European bias.  Sure it shouldn't be 100% believed and should be taken with a grain of salt to allow for this bias in skewing perceptions, but it shouldn't be discounted because of it.  Everyone has a bias and you can't rid yourself of it.

 

Also your argument of eating chorizo is not helpful.  No one cares about one person's eating habits.  Now, if there was a huge population of people who suddenly stopped eating chizoro (whatever it is) then maybe it's something worth studying.  Like vegetarians or vegans.  We're not the norm because we don't eat meat and while not a lot of academic research (to my knowledge) has been dedicated to studying this, most people are curious as to why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

The question is whether or not we are enslaved by this urge, to the point where we have made it a national fetish.

This seems like something soylent types can ask about cuisine. Make with that what you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

Because: 

 

Sorry, but I don't know to quote what you quoted. 

 

But to respond, yes.  Your partner believes it's not the same gratification.  But heck....if my back itches, I have the ability to scratch it myself.  Just because I don't have the desire, doesn't mean I don't have the ability.  It feels good emotionally to be 'served'. 

 

But if your partner was no longer getting the 'gratification' from you, He/she would probably leave....and find someone else to get the physical gratification from; not emotional.  At least, not immediately. 

 

I've asked men why they left their wives, and they've said, "Because she didn't show me her love for me by giving me sex".  Those same men found SEX after their divorce.  Did they "love" THOSE women? 

 

Nope. 

 

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoLongerActive1234
5 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

if I may protrude here, the evolutionary and neurochemical basis behind the copulatory urge is hardly debatable.

 

The question is whether or not we are enslaved by this urge, to the point where we have made it a national fetish.

 

I have two grown children and remember their births as if they happened yesterday. I remember nothing about their conception. Nothing at all.

Well that isn't what Vega's post is about, it seems that they say seeking to masturbate is innate but seeking out partnered sex isn't and is in fact learnt which I disagree with.

 

Being enslaved by the urge....it would just be ones own personal opinion. If you feel that you are then you are. If another person doesn't think so, if it creates no problem for them in fact is an enrichment...then it isn't. I assume that both types of experiences exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vega57 said:

O.k.  I'll bite.  WHY do you believe it's "instinctual"? 

I never said I believe it's instinctual or not.  I'm just saying you're begging the question.  You're presupposing that the urge for sex is learned and asking for others to disprove it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoLongerActive1234
1 minute ago, Snao Çoñé said:

This seems like something soylent types can ask about cuisine. Make with that what you will.

LOL xD

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vega57 said:

O.k.  Please prove to me how it's "innate".

Because abstinence-only education does not work.  Teenagers have been shown to have sex no matter what they're actually taught.  If it's presented as bad or unholy or whatever, most will still have it.

People would never be gay or other non-hetero sexualities if it is taught.  How long before gay people were allowed to be gay on TV?  How many gay people come from straight families who are so anti-gay they're kicked out or disinherited?  

 

Your argument is very much like the outcry of not letting LGBT+ anything near kids or schools or on TV or whatever because it will convert impressionable children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sithgirlix said:

Dude, the world is 99% sexual and only 1% asexual.  Asexuality is not the norm and therefore does not apply to most of the population.  In that logic you shouldn't read history textbooks because of their white or European bias.  Sure it shouldn't be 100% believed and should be taken with a grain of salt to allow for this bias in skewing perceptions, but it shouldn't be discounted because of it.  Everyone has a bias and you can't rid yourself of it.

 

Also your argument of eating chorizo is not helpful.  No one cares about one person's eating habits.  Now, if there was a huge population of people who suddenly stopped eating chizoro (whatever it is) then maybe it's something worth studying.  Like vegetarians or vegans.  We're not the norm because we don't eat meat and while not a lot of academic research (to my knowledge) has been dedicated to studying this, most people are curious as to why.

Please don't call me "dude." Ugh.

 

The analogy is flawed. There is huge profit in challenging conventional historical wisdom, and no one who challenges history endures being described as having a mental disorder.

 

Asexuals do.

 

The food analogy is entirely apt. Vegans don't eat meat. Are they "oriented" to carnivores, or do they distinguish themselves from them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

Well that isn't what Vega's post is about, it seems that they say seeking to masturbate is innate but seeking out partnered sex isn't and is in fact learnt which I disagree with.

 

Being enslaved by the urge....it would just be ones own personal opinion. If you feel that you are then you are. If another person doesn't think so, if it creates no problem for them in fact is an enrichment...then it isn't. I assume that both types of experiences exist.

Evolution doesn't require, or even suggest, the frequency of partnered sex demanded by culture. Nor were relationships entirely predicated on sex, as they are now.

 

Culture presupposes sexual participation even after one has reproduced, even into old age. That participation is learned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Sorry, but I don't know to quote what you quoted. 

 

But to respond, yes.  Your partner believes it's not the same gratification.  But heck....if my back itches, I have the ability to scratch it myself.  Just because I don't have the desire, doesn't mean I don't have the ability.  It feels good emotionally to be 'served'. 

 

But if your partner was no longer getting the 'gratification' from you, He/she would probably leave....and find someone else to get the physical gratification from; not emotional.  At least, not immediately. 

 

I've asked men why they left their wives, and they've said, "Because she didn't show me her love for me by giving me sex".  Those same men found SEX after their divorce.  Did they "love" THOSE women? 

 

Nope. 

 

There seems to be a disconnect somewhere.

Sorry but it's not the same.  My partner has had sex outside our relationship while we've been together.  I didn't mind and we talked about the difference between sex with her and sex with me.  He said the emotional connection was not the same.  He got a feeling from her that he doesn't get from me because she desired him and enjoyed it more than I do, but he also gets something from me that he didn't get from her as he loves me and feels a connection to me that he doesn't get from her.  

 

Yes, we wouldn't be together if I refused to have sex with him.  However, friends with benefits is different from sex between partners.  I am not just scratching an itch he needs scratched unless you want to classify as an itch only I can scratch.  He can have sex with others but it's not the same.  It's better than masturbation, but still not the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

I think that evolution doesn't have purposes, only results. Humans didn't develop a sex drive in order to reproduce.  They developed a sex drive and, by chance, this helps them to reproduce. It also helps them to have some fun alone-time and it isn't helpful when somebody becomes aroused while trying to concentrate in class. In other words, sex drive and reproduction are connected, but sex drive exists by itself and in some people it is, in fact, not connected to reproduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

Prove to me it can't ever be. :P If people wouldn't learn about what masturbation or partnered sex is, if they were sheltered from it or within a culture that says they *shouldn't* that doesn't stop people from seeking it out.

That's exactly the point!  It's already been PROVEN that people wouldn't know what to do!  Unless they knew about the other's body, they'd have no idea what to do.  But it seems that many people belong the "Blue Lagoon" school of thinking; that if you put a girl and a boy together on an island with NO concept of language or knowledge, that we would 'somehow figure it out'.  No....we wouldn't. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season
1 minute ago, vega57 said:

That's exactly the point!  It's already been PROVEN that people wouldn't know what to do!  Unless they knew about the other's body, they'd have no idea what to do.  But it seems that many people belong the "Blue Lagoon" school of thinking; that if you put a girl and a boy together on an island with NO concept of language or knowledge, that we would 'somehow figure it out'.  No....we wouldn't. 

 

That SOME people wouldn't know what to do. Asexuals, for instance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mermaidy said:

I never said I believe it's instinctual or not.  I'm just saying you're begging the question.  You're presupposing that the urge for sex is learned and asking for others to disprove it.

Yes.  Yes I am.  And your point is....?:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoLongerActive1234
Just now, asexjoe said:

Evolution doesn't require, or even suggest, the frequency of partnered sex demanded by culture. Nor were relationships entirely predicated on sex, as they are now.

 

Culture presupposes sexual participation even after one has reproduced, even into old age. That participation is learned.

Yes but that doesn't say that it is learnt per se, it is what is innate and natural to the individual. People don't have sex because they learn that they should, they do it because they want to...I don't know how more natural it can be than that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vega57 said:

if you put a girl and a boy together on an island with NO concept of language or knowledge, that we would 'somehow figure it out'.  No....we wouldn't. 

 

I sure as shit would have tried.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Yes.  Yes I am.  And your point is....?:lol:

my point is that you can't tell someone to disprove your claim if you didn't prove it.  I mean, you physically can, but you're logically wrong

 

edit- meaning you have no argument worth considering

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoLongerActive1234
5 minutes ago, vega57 said:

That's exactly the point!  It's already been PROVEN that people wouldn't know what to do!  Unless they knew about the other's body, they'd have no idea what to do.  But it seems that many people belong the "Blue Lagoon" school of thinking; that if you put a girl and a boy together on an island with NO concept of language or knowledge, that we would 'somehow figure it out'.  No....we wouldn't. 

 

Well maybe but that shows that they don't learn to seek it out anyhow they do it by their own initiative. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

Because abstinence-only education does not work.  Teenagers have been shown to have sex no matter what they're actually taught.  If it's presented as bad or unholy or whatever, most will still have it.

 

Sexual "evolution" can not be based on what teenagers do "today".  In all honesty, we have no idea what teenagers did 1800 b.c.  We have theories; but not indisputable proof. 

 

Quote

People would never be gay or other non-hetero sexualities if it is taught.  How long before gay people were allowed to be gay on TV?  How many gay people come from straight families who are so anti-gay they're kicked out or disinherited?

Some people were born to be gay.  But if you're gay, does that mean that that you're not having sex to 'reproduce'? 

 

Quote

Your argument is very much like the outcry of not letting LGBT+ anything near kids or schools or on TV or whatever because it will convert impressionable children.

Where in the WORLD did you get that out of what I've been saying?  All I've been saying is that I don't think that the sex "urge" is about SEX so much as it's about ORGASM....

...which has NOTHING to do with the LGBT+ community!  Sheesh!

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

Sorry but it's not the same.  My partner has had sex outside our relationship while we've been together.  I didn't mind and we talked about the difference between sex with her and sex with me.  He said the emotional connection was not the same.  He got a feeling from her that he doesn't get from me because she desired him and enjoyed it more than I do, but he also gets something from me that he didn't get from her as he loves me and feels a connection to me that he doesn't get from her.  

Yeah.  But he did it anyway...right?  What does THAT tell you? 

 

Quote

Yes, we wouldn't be together if I refused to have sex with him.  However, friends with benefits is different from sex between partners.  I am not just scratching an itch he needs scratched unless you want to classify as an itch only I can scratch.  He can have sex with others but it's not the same.  It's better than masturbation, but still not the same.

Yup, you're right.  It's NOT the same....which is WHY he wants to do it.  But hey....whatever floats your boat. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

Please don't call me "dude." Ugh.

 

The analogy is flawed. There is huge profit in challenging conventional historical wisdom, and no one who challenges history endures being described as having a mental disorder.

 

Asexuals do.

 

The food analogy is entirely apt. Vegans don't eat meat. Are they "oriented" to carnivores, or do they distinguish themselves from them?

Lol sorry you don't like my informality.  How about:

 

My dear sir, perhaps my analogy is not the best to use, but I stand by it in the way of refusing to look at something flawed compared to accepting it for its flaws and pointing out the problems with it.  You cannot claim that something flawed should never be looked at or referenced purely because it is flawed.  How else is one to learn from its mistakes?  Pointing out that most research on sex and sexual things tends to center around sexuals and should not be applied to all sexuals equally or asexuals is different from saying you can't reference it at all.

 

And no the analogy is not "apt".  You mentioned your preference, not a trend.  One person is not worth researching but a trend is.  My continuation of non-meat eaters is more relevant because it is a trend and includes more people.

 

And I don't understand your mention of meat being "oriented".  Do you mean your argument about what constitutes orientation?  As for that, I believe it to be more of a spectrum as sexuality is.  Eating no meat is on one end and eating only meat is the other.  Humans cannot exist on both extreme ends, only the vegetarian ones, but one could make an argument around how meat-oriented a person is.  One could also argue that meat should only be looked at in terms of what meat someone likes and vegetarians are not on that scale at all.  I believe your view on sexual orientation is leaning more towards this second one, that asexuals do not feel sexual desire and so do not belong on something orienting that desire towards something, but others might say it's a spectrum and not feeling that desire is just part of the the spectrum that is one's orientation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

Yes but that doesn't say that it is learnt per se, it is what is innate and natural to the individual. People don't have sex because they learn that they should, they do it because they want to...I don't know how more natural it can be than that. 

You can want to have sex because of an unconscious motivation, and culture can feed and promote that motivation.

 

I think Vega57's central thesis is copulation has been imbued by culture with emotional significance never intended by evolution or biology. You'd think for all the fucking, the sexuals would be happier, and their relationships more secure, than they seem to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry everyone, but I can't type as fast as the posts are coming in.  In all honesty, I didn't expect this thread to get so many posts!  I can't keep up!  I guess I touched on a 'nerve' for many people, and I'm sorry if I 'triggered' some of you. 

 

But I'm happy that you all are expressing yourselves.  Yes, there will be this controversy until Jesus comes back to earth...or the sun collides with the earth...whichever you believe. 

 

Thanks.  You've all grabbed my attention and have given me food for thought.  Please forgive me if I don't respond in the next few hours and I have a few things I have to do  this afternoon. 

 

Keep the convo going!  *stuffs fist in air*

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vega57 said:
34 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

Prove to me it can't ever be. :P If people wouldn't learn about what masturbation or partnered sex is, if they were sheltered from it or within a culture that says they *shouldn't* that doesn't stop people from seeking it out.

That's exactly the point!  It's already been PROVEN that people wouldn't know what to do!  Unless they knew about the other's body, they'd have no idea what to do.  But it seems that many people belong the "Blue Lagoon" school of thinking; that if you put a girl and a boy together on an island with NO concept of language or knowledge, that we would 'somehow figure it out'.  No....we wouldn't.

I don't entirely understand. American education currently goes with the view that abstinence is the best way of teaching sexual education. Because of that (foolish) viewpoint, children aren't taught safe ways of having sex. But more to the point of this conversation, they are not taught how to have sex to begin with. I remember being taught anatomy (what a penis and testes are, what a vagina and ovaries are) but not that a penis goes into a vagina and friction causes pleasure which leads to orgasm and so on.

 

How has it been "proven that people wouldn't know what to do"? You even said yourself that you masturbated before you'd had sexual education. That shows that it's possible for people to explore and figure things out even when they're not taught. Thus, they don't need to be taught that masturbation feels good or that sex with another person feels good. Do they then need to be taught that sex with another person leads to children? I'm pretty sure they'd figure that out once the female became pregnant.

 

Also, to the point of "if you put a boy and girl together on an island with NO concept of language or knowledge, that we would 'somehow figure it out.'" I'm pretty positive they'd figure something out. If you mean babies, then no, they'd die by not having anyone to take care of them. If you mean children who have been isolated since birth, I think they'd figure out some way of communicating. Maybe not language, since it's unfortunately shown that children past the age of puberty who have had no exposure to language will never become fluent speakers, but they'd find ways of communicating since we are a social species.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Sexual "evolution" can not be based on what teenagers do "today".  In all honesty, we have no idea what teenagers did 1800 b.c.  We have theories; but not indisputable proof. 

 

Some people were born to be gay.  But if you're gay, does that mean that that you're not having sex to 'reproduce'? 

 

Where in the WORLD did you get that out of what I've been saying?  All I've been saying is that I don't think that the sex "urge" is about SEX so much as it's about ORGASM....

...which has NOTHING to do with the LGBT+ community!  Sheesh!

Sexual evolution is what teenagers do today.  If you're talking about purely the past then... sure.  But we're talking about today, aren't we?  That sex today is learned and not innate?  

 

You say people are born gay.  Being gay means they wouldn't connect sex as a means to reproduce as it's futile.  Which means it has to be an innate desire to have sex with someone impossible to reproduce with and not purely for reproductive purposes.  I was certainly taught this was what sex was for: creating a baby.  Wouldn't there be an innate desire to have sex, in that case, even if it's not to have a baby?  An innate desire for partnered sex, that is, and not just a desire to masturbate and feel good?

 

Maybe I went too far.  It's still the case of you thinking people learn their drive for partnered sex.  Some people desire orgasm, which is a sex drive, and most would prefer partnered sex to masturbation.  People masturbate because they're horny and they're horny because biologically most of us are hard-wired for sex and sexual reproduction.  I am of the mindset that humans are sexual creatures in nature and our bodies are supposed to get us ready to reproduce and make that act pleasurable.   Sure not all people are like this, I'm certainly not, but it's still a biological urge to reproduce and socialize that lets us have sex and enjoy sex.  

 

I am confused by your overall premise.  That people are driven to want to orgasm so they masturbate and feel good, but then later connect that to sex and reproduction?  

I am of the belief that our bodies feel desire to orgasm because we are sexual creatures who need to have sex to reproduce and are therefore driven with desire to have sex in order to achieve reproduction.  That we don't really think "Hmmm, I want to have kids and so will have sex to have kids" (unless you don't enjoy or desire sex) but rather "I enjoy sex, I want to have more sex, and sex just happens to lead to children."

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Yeah.  But he did it anyway...right?  What does THAT tell you?

That it gave him something different and I allowed it?  I don't understand your point.  I am in no way saying sex with me is perfect.  I'm not sexual, I neither desire nor enjoy sex.  He knows it is not pleasurable for me and is always worried during the act that I am in pain or want to stop or that he's pushing me.  This is different from having sex with someone else who wants it, enjoys it, and desires him sexually if not romantically.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...