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

[vega57]

1 minute ago, Math Otaku said:

I don't entirely understand. American education currently goes with the view that abstinence is the best way of teaching sexual education.

Not true.  American education spans a spectrum of sex education, and abstinence in only ONE possibility.  Christian education will teach that abstinence is the way to go UNTIL marriage. Then, it's anything an everything.  Catholic education teaches that oral sex is o.k. PROVIDED that sex ends with intercourse.  As for the LGBT+ community, their sexuality is in a different 'league', but nonetheless important to ALL of us. 

 

Quote

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.

The sex education I had was in Catholic school, when I was 12.  A NUN...of ALL people...was supposed to teach the girls about sex.  There was nothing said about orgasms, libido, sex drive, being 'horny' or anything else.  Basically, husbands were going to get hard when they saw you naked, and you were supposed to spread your legs for them. 

 

Quote

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

All that does was to show me that I wanted an orgasm; not sex. 

 

Quote

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.

We have too many uneducated people on this planet for that to continue to happen. 

 

Quote

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.

How do you know this for sure?

[JDP]

17 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

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.

I'm a grown man, not a gamer. Call me Joseph, please.

 

I'm not suggesting the research is merely flawed. I'm saying it's FATALLY flawed. The sexual bias is betrayed by deciding to study asexuality in the first place.

 

As for what defines asexuality, no purpose is served, in my opinion, basing it on something as vague as "desire." Asexuality ought to be based on behavior, something any child can understand.

 

Assuming, of course, the members of this forum want asexuality understood by the sexuals.

[NoLongerActive1234]

5 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

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.

Sure but that does not exclude an innate desire for sexual activity with another person prompted on because of how we are wired.

 

I doubt that emotional connection in sex is only culturally influenced. I think how one views that has to do with personality and that is also in some part about how we are wired from the start/being born. Also...cultural influence..that can also be considered natural.  People are aware of both casual sex as well as romantic loving sex, some chose either or both or some chose no sex at all. 
Sex isn't the only component needed in a relationship for people who are sexual....see it like this if there are other problems the sex being bad would just make it even worse. At least if the sex good it is something. 

[JDP]

2 minutes ago, MistySpring said:

At least if the sex good it is something. 

Until the divorce, of course.

[Math Otaku]

1 hour ago, vega57 said:

1 hour ago, Math Otaku said:

I don't entirely understand. American education currently goes with the view that abstinence is the best way of teaching sexual education.

Not true.  American education spans a spectrum of sex education, and abstinence in only ONE possibility. 

I will admit that you are more correct on this than I am. I apologize for my generalization and thank you for correcting me.

 

1 hour ago, vega57 said:

Quote

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

All that does was to show me that I wanted an orgasm; not sex. 

I think I'm starting to understand your point better. In response to this, I honestly don't know why people would be driven to have sex with another person. I once thought myself sexually attracted to someone, but it was more of a "I don't think I'd mind having sex with him" than a "I want to have sex with him." For this, I'd have to ask a sexual person.

 

I don't remember the exact post, but I know somewhere in the conversation someone commented on how you're asking about sexual desire to a group of people who are predominantly asexual and feel no sexual desire, or a desire to have sexual intercourse with another person. So, in order to get more useful information, I'd recommend posting a thread about this on reddit. Sure you'll get trolls, but it's the internet, and you might get a better representation of all humans of different libidos, orientations, and everything else.

 

1 hour ago, vega57 said:

Quote

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.

How do you know this for sure?

It's been brought to my attention that I focused too much on the language and knowledge part of your statement. I replied mainly to the fact that two people on an island would figure out how to communicate and survive on the island.  If by "figure it out" you mean figure sex out, I honestly don't know. I would hope that their natural instinct for procreation would cause them to somehow figure it out, but I don't know for sure.

[SithLord]

45 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

I'm a grown man, not a gamer. Call me Joseph, please.

 

I'm not suggesting the research is merely flawed. I'm saying it's FATALLY flawed. The sexual bias is betrayed by deciding to study asexuality in the first place.

 

As for what defines asexuality, no purpose is served, in my opinion, basing it on something as vague as "desire." Asexuality ought to be based on behavior, something any child can understand.

 

Assuming, of course, the members of this forum want asexuality understood by the sexuals.

Yo bro, chill out.  It's all good here, man.  We're all grown adults.  After all, I'm a grown-ass woman AND a gamer.  What up?

 

I'm going to suggest we agree to disagree then as I refuse to ignore the bulk of academia purely because you find it flawed.  It's a sexual bias, yes, but studying asexuality is no different from studying homosexuality or bisexuality or otherwise non-heterosexual orientations.  Besides, the 99% studying the 1% shouldn't be that big of a deal.

 

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree as I'm not getting into an argument about the definition of asexuality as I don't really care.  You can argue with others as there are plenty of other threads going into depth about this definition.

[m4rble]

It's possible that as someone masturbates less their body would become less accustomed to expecting it, just like how if someone eats a lot of sugary foods the body may become used to the constant influx of sugar so that when you first stop they might feel tired at first. Some people sort of train themselves to associate ejaculation with sleep by regularly masturbating before bed which is one of the reasons they may pass out after having sex. That's not to say people don't have sexual instincts, just that you can become accustomed to different physiological processes. 

 

There could be a case to be made that sex is more of a social ritual than a base instinct and that children raised in an environment with no way of getting information about sex wouldn't discover partnered sex.(though a lot of them would almost certainly discover masturbation) However, I don't think there's really any way of knowing the answer to this either way. 

[m4rble]

6 hours ago, Snao Çoñé said:

So do you think that all humans are asexual unless conditioned to believe they want sex? Like, what's the difference between an asexual person who's said "No thanks" and a sexual person who's had sex (or masturbated) and liked it, so they seek more of it? Can people choose to be asexual like they can choose to be vegetarian, and grow out od any cravings for meat?

Even if sexual desire is learned it doesn't mean you can force it to change. I think the difference between an asexual and a sexual in this instance would be that an asexual person would never grow to desire sexual activity even if they were in an environment surrounded by it. 

[Techie]

6 minutes ago, m4rble said:

 There could be a case to be made that sex is more of a social ritual than a base instinct and that children raised in an environment with no way of getting information about sex wouldn't discover partnered sex.(though a lot of them would almost certainly discover masturbation)

This is something that puzzled me for a long time. I often wondered if human children never got any form of sexual education would they ever figure it out. The answer eventually explained to me was yes they would. Whether we like to admit it of not, we are part of the animal kingdom. Rabbits, sheep, horses, primates, etc. do not have "the talk" or sex ed classes in school. At their, and our, basic level their is an instinctive biological programming for sexual reproduction. Frankly, if there wasn't and there was a failure or inability to pass on the necessary information through other means, such as through classroom education, a species would die off rather quickly. Humans complicate it because of our intellectual capacity. But our reptilian brain still has the ability to take control when necessary. 

[m4rble]

1 minute ago, Techie said:

This is something that puzzled me for a long time. I often wondered if human children never got any form of sexual education would they ever figure it out. The answer eventually explained to me was yes they would. Whether we like to admit it of not, we are part of the animal kingdom. Rabbits, sheep, horses, primates, etc. do not have "the talk" or sex ed classes in school. At their, and our, basic level their is an instinctive biological programming for sexual reproduction. Frankly, if there wasn't and there was a failure or inability to pass on the necessary information through other means, such as through classroom education, a species would die off rather quickly. Humans complicate it because of our intellectual capacity. But our reptilian brain still has the ability to take control when necessary. 

Other animals don't have sex ed, but it's conceivable some could learn through imitation because they likely see others of their species having sex. This would make more sense for animals that learn a lot through imitation, such as primates. While our ancestors may have definitely had sex instincts, that doesn't necessarily mean we have them in the same sense. If you lose selective pressures for a certain attribute, it won't necessarily be retained over time. 

[vega57]

1 hour ago, m4rble said:

Even if sexual desire is learned it doesn't mean you can force it to change. I think the difference between an asexual and a sexual in this instance would be that an asexual person would never grow to desire sexual activity even if they were in an environment surrounded by it. 

Based on my first post regarding the men who stopped masturbating an lost their libido, obviously you CAN 'force' desire to change.  Desire isn't simply physical; it's  also,psychological* (and by that, I'm including the emotional aspect).  Interesting, though.  It does seem that it's easier to lose 'desire' than to gain it. 

[vega57]

1 hour ago, Techie said:

This is something that puzzled me for a long time. I often wondered if human children never got any form of sexual education would they ever figure it out. The answer eventually explained to me was yes they would. Whether we like to admit it of not, we are part of the animal kingdom. Rabbits, sheep, horses, primates, etc. do not have "the talk" or sex ed classes in school. At their, and our, basic level their is an instinctive biological programming for sexual reproduction. Frankly, if there wasn't and there was a failure or inability to pass on the necessary information through other means, such as through classroom education, a species would die off rather quickly. Humans complicate it because of our intellectual capacity. But our reptilian brain still has the ability to take control when necessary. 

Years ago there was an experiment that was conducted involving primates.  A male ape was cultured away from all females, even human females.  Once the ape was 'of age' it was placed in an environment with a female. 

 

The male actually ran away.  It had no idea what to do. 

[JDP]

Sounds like me, until I turned 20.

[m4rble]

Let me be clear, I do think humans have sexual instincts. I don't think humans have clearly programmed innate behaviors. It might be instinct to find someone arousing or to feel good while having sex, but I don't think people necessarily inherently know how to have sex in the first place. 

[JDP]

What is there to learn. It's a two-piece jigsaw puzzle.

[m4rble]

5 hours 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.

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.

Not at all, the argument is that partnered sexual behavior isn't something that people would innately know how to do if they were completely isolated from it(even if teenagers have bad sex ed, they usually have at least some concept of what sex is). This is very different from arguing that everyone can learn to be straight, or gay for that matter. Some people are born to be gay, but that doesn't mean partnered sex is specifically programmed into people. Furthermore, nobody was saying any sexual orientation was more right than any other.

[m4rble]

 

4 minutes ago, asexjoe said:

What is there to learn. It's a two-piece jigsaw puzzle.

Nope, it really isn't.

1) Partnered sex does not equal intercourse.

2) Why would people think to connect a penis and a vagina just because they both feel an urge to masturbate?

3) The primary sexual organ of females is not the vagina. 

[m4rble]

I would like to point out that some animals can't seem to figure out how to have sex without being shown it. A lot of pandas don't know what to do without being shown panda porn, so to speak.

 

I think it's silly to assume all animals are motivated to have sex for the same reasons. A lot of humans want sex because they feel it's intimate, but I doubt snakes have sex for that reason.

[JDP]

5 minutes ago, m4rble said:

 

Nope, it really isn't.

1) Partnered sex does not equal intercourse.

2) Why would people think to connect a penis and a vagina just because they both feel an urge to masturbate?

3) The primary sexual organ of females is not the vagina. 

For most female sexuals, sex without penetration is less than ideal. All of my partners wanted it, and those attracted to me now want that too.

 

Your question is a good one. I certainly can't answer it.

 

As for the third statement, that probably depends on the female. While it's been said sex is mostly between the ears, in my experience sexual partners want more.

 

I don't but then that's just me.

[m4rble]

1 minute ago, asexjoe said:

For most female sexuals, sex without penetration is less than ideal. All of my partners wanted it, and those attracted to me now want that too.

 

Your question is a good one. I certainly can't answer it.

 

As for the third statement, that probably depends on the female. While it's been said sex is mostly between the ears, in my experience sexual partners want more.

 

I don't but then that's just me.

I think a lot of straight women desire to be penetrated, but I'm not entirely sure why. My point was that I think the clitoris is the more basic sexual organ for females, it is the true analog to the penis, not the vagina. Of course I suppose some women may have a different perspective.(I don't care about men's perspective on this issue) I'm not sure how much our sexual preferences are learned vs. innate. 

[JDP]

Perhaps the original question has no answer.

[SithLord]

45 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Not at all, the argument is that partnered sexual behavior isn't something that people would innately know how to do if they were completely isolated from it(even if teenagers have bad sex ed, they usually have at least some concept of what sex is). This is very different from arguing that everyone can learn to be straight, or gay for that matter. Some people are born to be gay, but that doesn't mean partnered sex is specifically programmed into people. Furthermore, nobody was saying any sexual orientation was more right than any other.

I guess I can see that point, but I still think people would figure it out on their own.

[vega57]

1 hour ago, m4rble said:

I think a lot of straight women desire to be penetrated, but I'm not entirely sure why.

Exactly.  WHY?  Is it because they're 'told' or they 'learn' that penetration is what they "should" desire?  If *I* didn't have a mirror, and if *I* didn't even look at my genitals, I wouldn't even know that I had a third hole 'down there' for the specific purpose of a male penis entering it.  And if *I* don't know, how can 'he' know? 

 

Quote

My point was that I think the clitoris is the more basic sexual organ for females, it is the true analog to the penis, not the vagina. Of course I suppose some women may have a different perspective.(I don't care about men's perspective on this issue) I'm not sure how much our sexual preferences are learned vs. innate. 

It has been said that the clitoris serves no other function other than to provide pleasure to the female.  Yet, during heterosexual intercourse, 2/3s of females do NOT experience orgasm.  The reason they don't is because the clitoris doesn't receive adequate stimulation through the male thrusting. 

 

I understand that the female orgasm isn't necessary to procreation.  On the other hand, the male orgasm isn't necessary outside of procreation. 

 

Hmmmm...

[vega57]

1 hour ago, asexjoe said:

Perhaps the original question has no answer.

Or maybe we just haven't found it yet...

[vega57]

1 hour ago, sithgirlix said:

I guess I can see that point, but I still think people would figure it out on their own.

Why do you think that? 

[vega57]

2 hours ago, asexjoe said:

For most female sexuals, sex without penetration is less than ideal. All of my partners wanted it, and those attracted to me now want that too.

 

Your question is a good one. I certainly can't answer it.

 

As for the third statement, that probably depends on the female. While it's been said sex is mostly between the ears, in my experience sexual partners want more.

 

I don't but then that's just me.

For most sexual men, it seems to be the same way, too.  Sex isn't sex unless there is a male ejaculation into a vagina. 

 

And yes, I DO agree that sex is mostly between the ears.  Unfortunately.....seems like many others don't believe that.  It's as if they see our bodies as having 'minds of their own'. 

[m4rble]

2 minutes ago, vega57 said:

Exactly.  WHY?  Is it because they're 'told' or they 'learn' that penetration is what they "should" desire?  If *I* didn't have a mirror, and if *I* didn't even look at my genitals, I wouldn't even know that I had a third hole 'down there' for the specific purpose of a male penis entering it.  And if *I* don't know, how can 'he' know? 

 

It has been said that the clitoris serves no other function other than to provide pleasure to the female.  Yet, during heterosexual intercourse, 2/3s of females do NOT experience orgasm.  The reason they don't is because the clitoris doesn't receive adequate stimulation through the male thrusting. 

 

I understand that the female orgasm isn't necessary to procreation.  On the other hand, the male orgasm isn't necessary outside of procreation. 

 

Hmmmm...

Well to be fair just because female orgasm isn't strictly necessary for reproduction doesn't mean it plays no role in reproduction. It can increase the chances of pregnancy. 

[vega57]

Just now, m4rble said:

Well to be fair just because female orgasm isn't strictly necessary for reproduction doesn't mean it plays no role in reproduction. It can increase the chances of pregnancy. 

I agree.  Perhaps the female orgasm exists to encourage reproduction, making it 'pleasurable' to have sex (for that purpose) and to have sex up until conception. 

 

Yet many women seem to lose interest in sex shortly after pregnancy and/or childbirth.  "Experts" try to figure out why but....could it simply be 'the norm'?  Could it be 'biology'?  And, if it IS 'biology', why do so many 'experts' try to 'fix' what ain't broke?

[m4rble]

Just now, vega57 said:

I agree.  Perhaps the female orgasm exists to encourage reproduction, making it 'pleasurable' to have sex (for that purpose) and to have sex up until conception. 

 

Yet many women seem to lose interest in sex shortly after pregnancy and/or childbirth.  "Experts" try to figure out why but....could it simply be 'the norm'?  Could it be 'biology'?  And, if it IS 'biology', why do so many 'experts' try to 'fix' what ain't broke?

It might encourage reproduction, but it also plays a role in physically getting women pregnant. The contractions sort of suck the sperm in. 

 

I don't know whether or not it's usual to lose sexual desire after childbirth, but I don't think it's always a problem. I question whether people want to 'fix' people with low desire because they genuinely want to be fixed or because their partners are dissatisfied. 

[JDP]

21 minutes ago, vega57 said:

the male orgasm isn't necessary outside of procreation.

Your honor, I would ask that counsel refrain from mocking. casting aspersions upon, or otherwise belittling my orgasms. Thank you.