RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II

RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 2:51:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExistentialSteel There is so much more involved with sex on emotional and artistic levels. Good point. I agree, sex has a lot to do with personal emotional and social needs and can also be misused of course. However, this has nothing to do with function as there is same sex sex. Same sex is inpractical when it comes to procreation so it doesn't inpinge on any role that might be influenced by function.

SoulfulSadism -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 2:59:42 AM)
<< This is rather naive. We might construct our own perception of the world and create in our imagination our own little world in which we can comfortably exist, in reality we interact in a world shared by others and that is unavoidable unless we disappear into some uninhabited wildness. As for avoiding bullshit and facades, we all change our behaviour depending on the situation we are in and the people we are interacting with. A person might like to fool themselves into thinking they are above such nonsense but it isn't nonsense, it is one the the essential things we are, we are political creatures and we cannot avoid that. The world isn't fixed and to create a fixed position for ourselves is absurd. >> There's nothing more naive than a quick judgement gone wrong. Creating your own world is not going into wilderness. Nor does it exclude interaction with the rest of the world. To quote a cliche: reality is to perception as perception is to reality. For example - A pet lover may feel sad because there are 2 million pets out there in pet shelters living lovelessly. Another pet lover may feel happy for the fact that there are 20 million pets who do get love from their owners. Yet another one might accept emotionlessly that it will take 20 years to get that number down from 2 million to 0.2, and he/she will play his/her part in it. Yet another one decide to rejoice for the loved and mourn for the unloved. Reality can be chosen, constructed and lived - not just absorbed.

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 3:13:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExistentialSteel There is so much more involved with sex on emotional and artistic levels. And you think natural selection has no use for such things? All experiments are valuable, even those doomed to extinction. Everyone wants to think that what they are doing is important and spectacular - but in terms of the ages of this world and the workings of nature, not so much. Taking myself as an example: I haven't had any children that I know of. I may be the end of my branch of the family line. I tend to think of it as a "choice" I am making - but the fact is that there may be dozens of ways I am being cued not to reproduce by my own genetic makeup. For whatever reason I have never felt "driven" to spawn as some people do. But not sharing that feeling doesn't make me doubt such a drive exists for other persons. In truth, we gain nearly no significant insights into the workings of natural selection by looking too closely at a single individual. We are really dealing with a species wide phenomenon. That some of us deviate from a more normative pattern means nothing to a species population in excess of 6 billion.

cloudboy -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 3:18:51 PM)
I think its called "yanking your chain." You provided some good material to do it, and he's availing himself to it.

caitlyn -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 3:39:20 PM)
I'm considering color coding ... you know, blue for hyperbole, red for opinion, green for rhetorical questions. It would be colorful, and the moderators would prefer it to flaming. [;)]

thetammyjo -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 4:39:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn Roles or functions? I think bubbling underneath the resistance we see to the "biology" argument is the usual metaphysical issue of free will versus determinism. I weigh in heavily on the determinism side. I think what we normally conceive of as our personal "identity" is just a conceit and that what we really are is our individual nervous systems. The primary mission is reproduction - but seeing as there are 6 billion of us already I think nature has plenty of room for experimentation within our species. If we make exceptions to nature because of nurture (itself a planned and adaptive behavior that increases the chances of a species' survival) then we can allow for even greater variations in behavior - which easily accounts for the many variations in behavior we see in others. None of this changes the fact that nature decrees a very large portion of the human population will behave in an established "normative" manner to assure reproduction within our species. Whoa, if you are going to focus on reproduction then check this out. Having intercourse to get pregnant is in no way the same as being submissive or being dominant. It is just what is necessary. The male and female mate -- they can go on together or separately after conception or intercourse happens. The technical matter of how mating needs to happens (penis deposes seman in vagina) does not equal social or personal interactions beyond that event. Frankly after he's made his deposit, the male is argueably unnecessary to that one female -- he can move on as someone pointed out and impregnant other females. That pregnant female may need or want some help, though many do fine and bring their children into the world on their own throughout history, but how she gets help varies. Now I am in no way saying that males are deposable nor that people shouldn't pair bond. I'm just pointing out that using reproductive needs to explain social behavior can be interpreted and observed in many ways.

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 7:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo ...I'm just pointing out that using reproductive needs to explain social behavior can be interpreted and observed in many ways. This is a complex area and there is far more to it than you allow for in your brief description. I'll allow that much of the knowledge remains "theory" (as does everything in science) - but much of the theory is sound based on available evidence. Do you happen to know that a very high percentage of people are actually sired by a person other than the man they think is their father? Do you know that there is a pretty good genetics-based theory that explains the behavior of sexual infidelity? You even allowed for a similar genetics-based motive on the part of the man in your description (to range far and wide in an attempt to impregnate many women). I am merely saying that genetics explains even more about behavior than most people care to consider. Even "love" is ultimately just a flood of chemicals in the body. That's right, I am here to kill baby Cupid! I find it odd that you look at a situation and just assume there couldn't be a reason for things beyond the conceit of free will. As it turns out there is a genetics argument for a strikingly large amount of sexual behaviors.

BitaTruble -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 10:32:43 PM)
quote: Do you happen to know that a very high percentage of people are actually sired by a person other than the man they think is their father? High is a subjective term, but may I have the link which supports this statement, please? I'd like to read it for myself. Thanks, Celeste

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 11:11:09 PM)
It's somewhat hard to google this stuff. Here's one link to online and offline references: http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/misattributed_paternity.htm It includes a critic of the data collection methods, but common percentages of misattributed paternity range from 20% to as high as 50%. The numbers will become more accurate with time and as more people become concerned with establishing parentage. Noting the more recent years it's common to see an approx. range of 25%-30%. That seems pretty "high" to me, YMMV. Theory-wise, this is by no means the best link for this that might be available online, but since I have read about it extensively already offline I provide this as a primer link only: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_competition These are not new theories BTW, the foundational work is at least 36 years old.

BitaTruble -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 11:43:11 PM)
Neither of the links you provided supported your statement. In fact, the first one pretty much debunked it. Do you have another source because according to the research I did, such information has not been collected for such statistical analysis and there is no factual or empirical data available. Celeste

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/8/2006 12:05:45 AM)
I already said there was a critic on that page also - noticed that too. I'm not really looking for that info online, I was doing you a favor, trying to help out. Feel free to google it yourself, Mistress. Statistics are often a controversial area of any discussion. I wouldn't say the stats were debunked, but rather that we need better fact finding and analysis moving forward. I think the percentage of misattributed male parentage is high because all you really have to do is consider how many cheaters are out there, look at the divorce rate, and well - you can connect the dots. There is a reason that female parentage is a better way of tracing family lines. People tell jokes about this: "Gee, your son looks just like the milkman." A minor point surely. I'm not going to defend a series of statistics which are not in my field of expertise. Don't want to believe it, don't believe it. But when anecdotal info aligns with available stats - well, where there is smoke there is fire. I am confident of what results further research will yield. It does nothing to challenge the notion of sperm competition - which was my bigger point. This is more on topic in explaining a genetic basis for people's behavior. If it interests you read the book "Sperm Wars."

BitaTruble -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/8/2006 12:15:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang I already said there was a critic on that page also - noticed that too. I'm not really looking for that info online, I was doing you a favor, trying to help out. Feel free to google it yourself, Mistress. Statistics are often a controversial area of any discussion. I wouldn't say the stats were debunked, but rather that we need better fact finding and analysis moving forward. I think the percentage of misattributed male parentage is high because all you really have to do is consider how many cheaters are out there, look at the divorce rate, and well - you can connect the dots. There is a reason that female parentage is a better way of tracing family lines. People tell jokes about this: "Gee, your son looks just like the milkman." A minor point surely. I'm not going to defend a series of statistics which are not in my field of expertise. Don't want to believe it, don't believe it. But when anecdotal info aligns with available stats - well, where there is smoke there is fire. I am confident of what results further research will yield. It does nothing to challenge the notion of sperm competition - which was my bigger point. This is more on topic in explaining a genetic basis for people's behavior. If it interests you read the book "Sperm Wars." Nice transference. You are the one who made the statement and can't support it. It's hardly doing 'me' a favor to ask you to back up your rhetoric with some science, some facts or some empirical data. Get a clue on how to debate little boy. You can't support your statements, so get over it and yourself. You are dismissed. Celeste

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/8/2006 12:32:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Nice transference. You are the one who made the statement and can't support it. It's hardly doing 'me' a favor to ask you to back up your rhetoric with some science, some facts or some empirical data. I'm not gonna sit here googling stuff for you, that's why I threw out the first references I could find - good or bad. That was a minor point, and somewhat off-topic. In what way is this thread specifically about that minor point? For the bigger point, I am giving you references - if you choose not to pursue them, I don't care. Who says my data has to be online? My main point is discussed in various articles and books, offline. Sorry but there it is. Maybe you or someone else feels like googling it further. Do you even have a counter point to make? Perhaps you'd like to discuss how the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth? Is there some point to arguing against genetic motivations for sexual behavior?

NeedToUseYou -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/8/2006 1:11:56 AM)
Okay, I tried to kill this train earlier, because I was actually interested int he original topic. But since it's still going on about biology, I'll beat a dead horse for awhile. I have zero doubt genetics plays a part in our roles and functions for that matter. Functions are undebatable to a large degree. Roles are a bit trickier, but it's utterly absurd to dismiss it's impact on every one of us. A baby is born it instinctually goes for the tit to nurse. This would be a example of universal genetic programming. The baby knows nothing yet knows what to do. Now, is that a example of roles as adults, no but it does prove that genetic programming exists and can effect our behaviour. Now, it's obvious to me anyway, that there are huge broad tendencies that differentiate the sexes(barring anomalies). A little girl and a little boy almost always gravitate towards different activities(anomalies occur, but that in no way disproves that girls have general tendencies, and boys have general tendencies). Really, if someone needs Stats on that you really need to get out more often. So, why is it that, one camp is going to say oh it's just because we treat girls a certain way and treat boys a certain way(Everything is environment). That's hogwash(whatever that is), even girls growing up in all male households or boys growing up in all female households display different behaviours. Also, if it was just environment, then where'd the gay people come from, as most are born from hetero couples. So, how does one explain the differences in children, if it's not entirely dependent upon on how they are raised. And why would one believe that wouldn't have an effect on the roles we would select as adults. Of course lifes experience can make us change our views, or preferences. But to me it's like this the genetic code is really just a bunch of on off switches, sometimes one gets flicked the wrong way(or right way depending on your view). And out comes someone not quite fitting the regular definition. Sometimes this is good, sometimes it doesn't even matter, sometimes it causes us to have tendencies that wouldn't be regularly associated with our sex in the case of this discussion. Does that mean it's bad no, does that mean we are all at the will of our genetic code. Well, yes and no, you are what you are out of the box. You can't change that and honestly how would you know what to change because that is what you are mentally. But what that does mean is each of us has a predisposition from birth for certain roles. Environment can change that, but I'd assume most people don't question it. I've been attracted to women since I can remember, I had a crush on my neighbor before I was in kindergarten. I knew nothing of sex, or relationships or anything of the kind. But I wanted to be around her. Why would that happen if it wasn't genetic programming. Why would anyone be gay if that wasn't the case either, as most aren't exposed to a gay environment when growing up and there is plenty of evidence showing that they fight their genetic programming sometimes for decades in order to fit to their environment, but generally give in to there genetic disposition eventually.. So, that would be one of those pesky genetic twists getting flipped in a different way than the hetero crowd. Really I'm unclear why genetic programmed roles is even being debated. If anything the debate should be about what actually are those general roles. If the first action we do on this planet is a geneticly programmed behaviour, it would seem to imply that it wouldn't be the only one present throughout our lives(looking for a nipple to suck on), I'm sure no one is going to debate someone taught the baby. If men and women go threw dramatic surgeries to make their bodies match what they've felt they were since birth, then what's that. A choice, or genetic programing. Hmmmm. It's clear to me anyway, form your own opinions though. Thanks.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/8/2006 3:33:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble Neither of the links you provided supported your statement. In fact, the first one pretty much debunked it. Do you have another source because according to the research I did, such information has not been collected for such statistical analysis and there is no factual or empirical data available. Celeste In one survey that was the base for a documentry progamme that was shown world wide, DNA finger printing showed that around 10% of all children in the USA are sired by a different father than what the mother claimed. The interesting thing was the the fathers on the whole didn't disown these children, having initially accepted them as their own but carried on loving them as their own.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875