tronvillain

luvluv:
"Nature" does not really prefer anything over anything else. It is true that my genes would be wildly successful if every time I came I did it in a fertile female, but given that fertile females are not quite that accomodating or plentiful, exactly how does masturbating negatively impact my potential reproductive success? Oh, and I don't cum into a tissue. *ick*

luvluv

philechat:

That doesn't explain guilt feelings and social prohibitions around non-reproductive sexual activities. Ockham's razor and all of that.

Philosoft:

I also don't think that evolution would select against oral sex to the extent that it is removed from the population. But I don't see how this would prohibit it being "regulated" by feelings of guilt meant to spur us onto more procreative activities. These same feelings of guilt regulate our behavior in other areas, why not this one?

K:

Thanks for agreeing with me. That means you're right, by the way.

I don't think so. As I said, God's interests would mirror nature's. God, too, wouldn't want us to become sexually involved with anyone with whom we were not willing to share our resources to raise a child. I think all moral laws are functional and productive, they all have their origins in the real world in which God placed us.

tronvillian:

I totally disagree. I think we are very well designed in that respect. I think it is very good that women don't show open signs of ovulation, because if they did most men would avoid these ovulating women like the plague. I never said that reproduction was always OUR purpose when having sex (it almost never is) but that it is nature's purpose. There is some duplicity involved on nature's part, in that we are often tempted to act without INTENDING to procreate in order to ensure that we have enough sex to ensure that procreation does, in fact, occur.

If women openly siginified fertility, I think it is obvious there would be LESS people in the world, not more. That would be an excellent strategy for PREVENTING procreation.

Aside from the fact that it flies in the face of everything we know about male sexuality, I'd say sure. Suffice it to say, given the male tendency to look around, and the female tendency to gain weight about 2-3 months in, this strategy couldn't possibly ensure male cooperation long enough for the child to be cared for.

Since nearly all societies have such rules, it is more parsiomonious to assume that these notions have their root causes in nature, and it is readily apparent what these causes might be.

Why don't you want to consider that possibility?

southernhybrid:

As I mentioned to tronvillian, I think that helps rather than hurts this case. If female's only wanted sex when they were ovulating, it would be hard to fool men (supposedly rational animals) to respond appropriately. There has to be some plausible deniability. We can't really deny that the population is largely an accidental phenomenon. Very few of us were planned, or even considered, when we were conceived. I think there is some duplicity involved. I know this might seem to contradict my earlier statements, but I don't claim that any two people must intend to procreate to ward off the guilt feelings, only that they intend to be committed to each other.

I don't see what your nursing home anectdotes prove. Certainly some people engage in sexual activity after their prime, but is there any doubt that this impulse is signifigantly diminished after, say, 50? Wouldn't you agree that humans are generally most sexually aroused during the period when they are most able to bear and care for children?

The fact that people USE their sexuality for reasons other than reproduction does not at all interfere with the notion that sexuality's only purpose is procreation. It is almost painfully obvious that there can be no naturalistic purpose for sex other than procreation.

dangin:

No a chemical response would be like being terrified of the number 4, or feeling guilty about doing multiplication. Try and teach yourself to feel guilty about doing math, chief. See how far you get.

Your sarcasm-detector is as keen as ever, sir.

Do you really think I am actually seriously suggesting that you teach monkeys to be monogamous? You have such a seriously warped and stereotypical view of Christianity that I bet the answer to that question is yes.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting we can learn sexual ethics from apes?

Sorry if the fact that we are more succesful than the apes bothers you. In the future, I'll try to refrain from stating the COMPLETELY OBVIOUS.

I said in my first posts that there are exceptions to the rule, but that doesn't disprove the rule. The fact that a handful of people CLAIM not to have guilt about their some of their sexual practices does not in anyway alter the fact that most people in most cultures do. This cross-cultural phenomenon would lead one to assume that the feelings have their root causes in nature.

Actually, Quickdraw, I was refuting your notion that any succesful adaption produced by evolution would be likely to have been reproduced in several different animals. You said that guilt couldn't be an evolutionary trait, because we were the only animals who had them. I countered with the fact that rationality is obviously a selective advantage, and it has only evolved once.

I've already provided a good reason why our species might require more strict restrictions on procreation than any other, and I have a feeling you're just pulling that 950 million years gag from somewhere the sun don't shine. By "our" do you mean mammals? Again, this entire thread is about what is most effective for HUMAN children, who are much more dependant on their parents than any other primate.

Of course it's not limited to sex. Who said it was? But sex is one of it's native domains.

Only if you promise to misunderstand my argument even more next time.

southernhybrid

quote by Luvluv

I don't see what your nursing home anectdotes prove. Certainly some people engage in sexual activity after their prime, but is there any doubt that this impulse is signifigantly diminished after, say, 50? Wouldn't you agree that humans are generally most sexually aroused during the period when they are most able to bear and care for children?


I'm over fifty and *no*, my sex drive and enjoyment have not been *significantly* diminished, nor has my over fifty husband's. We enjoy it as much as we did when we were in our thirties. Your attitude is agist and misinformed. My nursing home references were simply to point out that sex remains an important part of life for those over the age of fertility. While that age is more blurred in men, older men are far less fertile than younger men. I've worked with the elderly since 1977 so I consider myself somewhat qualified to speak about sexuality in that age group. Yes, there are some age related changes with regards to sex but sex is still a vital part of life to many seniors.

I would say that teenage boys probably have the strongest sex drive of any age group and yet they are not usually emotionally mature enough to be parents. How does that fit into your assumptions that the natural purpose of sex is just for reproduction? I doubt that most teenage boys feel guilt over their adventures with masturbation unless they've been brainwashed into believing there is something wrong with the act. Masturbation is the safest, most innocent of sex acts. I once walked in on my son, when he was five and found him masturbating. He figured it out all by himself and didn't seem guilty. Obviously, he was too young to reproduce so it must have served some other purpose. Pleasurable I presume.


You have tried to convince us that guilt is a natural byproduct of certain sex practises. How do you explain cultures that have had totally open sexuality without guilt? I think someone else brought this up earlier.
Luvluv, you've made an awful lot of assumptions with no evidence or examples to back them up. My favorite is that "just a handful of people don't feel guilty about certain sexual practises." I think you must live in a very sheltered world if you honestly believe that. Contrary to what some people believe, we women often discuss sexualtiy with each other and while I would agree that not everyone shares the same sexual tastes, I don't know of any that feel guilty over the acts you mentioned. I would also agree that cultures that are dominated by religion often use guilt as a tool to control sexual behavior, especially where women are concerned.

I think it's pleasantly obvious that sex has many natural purposes other than reproduction. At least for our species and for some of our primate relatives this is obvious. Come to think of it, my parrot and one of my dogs regularly masturbate. I wonder if they feel guilty.

Ronin

When I was a teenager, my hamster, Vlad, would crank one off before and then after every meal...even when I hooked him up with his girlfriend, Bacon Sandwich!

Never once did I see him pray over it

philechat

luvluv:

Irrelevent. Most (non-Christian) societies do not discourage homosexuality or oral sex. Social prohibitions of non-reproductive sexual activities probably comes from a society where population is scarce, and reproduction is the priority. For non-prohibitary cultures, non-reproductive sexual behaviors do not arouse guilt feelings (e.g. ancient Pagan Roman texts depicted homosexual love as if they are heterosexual love stories)

Putney Swope

sohy, :notworthy :notworthy
if you ever decide to "trade up"

luvluv,
I found it interesting that you didn't include wet-dreams in your "list of guilt". In my experience (and believe me, it's considerable), I have 3 paths that I can go down sexually,
1. sex with another person.
2. spank the monkey {come on, wake up Little Putney}
3. wet dreams.

I have no choice but to go down one of those roads. And any man that tells you different has either been castrated, or he's lying. Number 3 does diminish with age, or so I've been told, I don't know cause I decided to take US 1 into retirement.

Interestingly enough, even though I am a recovering Catholic, the only guilt I ever had was an uninvited visit from the nocturnal fairy cause it messed up the sheets the most (and sometimes the wall and ceiling). All my guilt comes from my twisted and demented mother, who could care less about sex outside of her 2 conceptions. Dad had to spank the monkey on a regular basis, at least that's what I overheard him tell a friend one time. Mom would have killed him if he messed up the sheets.

Finally, I recently read that researchers have found a link that men who have sex regularly throughout their life also have a lower risk of prostate cancer. I don't think they necesarily meant "sex" as in between 2 people, but "sex" as in the regular release of spermicidal fluid. So I wish you all nice dreams. (Putney nods off with visions of sohy dancing in his head}

Philosoft

Certainly it's possible evolution might select for oral-sex-guilt for this reason, but I am deeply skeptical that individuals who engage in guilt-free oral sex would be at any kind of reproductive disadvantage.

Philosoft

I hope I don't release any of that at a crucial time!

Salmon of Doubt

Ok, luvluv, since no-one else has tackled your rather long post, I'll do it


I'll tell you what explains guilt feelings and social prohibitions around non-reproductive sexual activities. Religion. Religion wants to keep us living in fear and not having any fun on Earth so we more readily believe the claims of paradise in heaven.

Excuse me, what?! When you see your pet cat come into heat, toms from all over the neighbourhood rush over to try and get it pregnant. Human females evolved to conceal reprodction because it keeps men in a monogomous relationship. If the man can't tell when he's going to get her pregnant, he sticks around for longer to keep trying. If he could tell when she was ovulating, he could come along, have sex in the safe knowledge that she would be pregnant, and then wander off and do his own thing. But with concealed ovulation, he has to stick around to make sure she's pregnant, and that the baby is his.

Rubbish. What about all the other species of animals that adopt this strategy? I don't see them dying out from lack of reproduction.

I draw your attention again to the case of bonobo chimps. They use sex as a social tool. It is NOT painfully obvious that there is no reason for sex other than procreation! I can't understand how you keep coming to that conclusion.

No, not ethics. Apes practice rape too, you know. But we can learn where some of our sexual behaviours originated from, and therefore we can tell which parts of our behaviour are innate, and which are learned. So- using sex for non-reproductive social interaction = innate. Guilt over sex? = learned.

Or, they may also have root in the fact that most cultures in the world have invented religion, and like I said before, the aim of religion is to make people unhappy with their current lives so they worship god and heaven more.

Simply not true. The human brain evolved as a sexual selection tool. It impressed females that males were intelligent, and so the brain power increased. What impresses females of different species is totally random. How many birds have evolved the exact same tail as the peacock? None. Intelligence and rationality did not evolve as a survival tool, it evolved as a sexual attractant. And therefore we shouldn't expect to see it in any other species.

Putney Swope

Good catch. My bad. :banghead::banghead:
I was in the middle of a severe bout of Opto-Rectitis while I was typing that and couldn't see what I had written. Either that or sohy's comments had me quivering in delite.

footnote: Opto-Rectitis is an extreme medical condition where the optic nerve crosses with the rectal nerve resulting in a shitty outlook on things.