RE: Is It Really All About Sex?

RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (Full Version)

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

Message

crazyml -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 8:01:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fetters4U quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml QED Cogito ergo sum [;)] And there I was thinking that your whole point was Futuo ergo sum ;-)

crazyml -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 8:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather not a gambit babycakes, just a fact. you are of the "mine is pure and holy" crowd, so you're fucking wrong. its as certain as night follows day. Now you create an imaginary category, put me into it and claim victory. You should run for office.

Fetters4U -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 8:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: Fetters4U quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml QED Cogito ergo sum [;)] And there I was thinking that your whole point was Futuo ergo sum ;-) LOL!!! [:D] [:D] [:D]

RapierFugue -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 8:04:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fetters4U Well innuendo, condescension and an unfortunate attempt at semantics were not too persuasive. Mmmmmmmm ... the sweet, sickly smell of projection ... gorgeous :) PS: Your application of "logic" is the worst I've seen in a long time. I've given up trying to knock some sense into you though, coz it's wasted time & effort. Others seem to have more patience though, or more time on their hands, or quite possibly both, and fair play to them. For future reference though, if you want to be right instead of wrong, you might want to stay away from absolutes.

IceDemeter -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 8:06:51 AM)
Not to interrupt the witty repartee, but I have a question regarding the "ruled by instincts" concept. It has been proven that we do indeed have biological imperatives, such as procreation and survival, and I have no issue with that. Emotions have been shown to have a "chemical" (for lack of a better term) base, so that pleasurable emotions kick in to support following a biological imperative. Again, no problem with that. Where my question lies is just where does self-awareness and thought come in to this? From all that I have seen, nobody has been able to come up with a proven explanation of just what self-awareness is and how/why it originated. Same with thought. We do know, however, that people can and do act against instinct and biological imperative based on thought. (If someone has information on proven theories on this, please cite your sources - I am really interested in this subject and I haven't found anything proven so would love to learn more!) With this in mind, is it not possible (even probable) that some people are choosing a D/s structure to their relationship, or choosing to participate in BDSM activities based on thought as much as imperative? Would this not allow for some people having the personal experience that it's "all about sex" being correct for them, while also allowing for some people having the personal experience that it's "not about sex at all" being correct for them?

crazyml -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 8:21:24 AM)
Oh crap... please interrupt the witty repartee, especially with a brain hurtingly difficult question like that. Provable sources... that'll be a toughie since philosophers and anthropologists have been arguing about it for ages. Look at Kant, Heidegger, Singer, Nietzsche, Baudrillard. FWIW - Singer and Baudrillard are favourites of mine.

IceDemeter -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 8:29:57 AM)
That's what I mean --- tons of hypotheses, but nothing with enough evidence to even really be called a theory. I do enjoy Singer, but haven't checked out Baudrillard yet (but I will now - thanks!) Although I enjoy arguing that white is black and what color the sky really is (I'm partial to yellow), the whole area of where biological imperative ends and thought begins is so fuzzy that I have to just keep an open mind.

crazyml -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 8:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter That's what I mean --- tons of hypotheses, but nothing with enough evidence to even really be called a theory. I do enjoy Singer, but haven't checked out Baudrillard yet (but I will now - thanks!) Although I enjoy arguing that white is black and what color the sky really is (I'm partial to yellow), the whole area of where biological imperative ends and thought begins is so fuzzy that I have to just keep an open mind. Well, from my polarised view point, if you're able to acknowledge that the biological imperative ends and thought begins at all then you're probably onto a winner.

leadership527 -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 9:03:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter Would this not allow for some people having the personal experience that it's "all about sex" being correct for them, while also allowing for some people having the personal experience that it's "not about sex at all" being correct for them? No. A theory may or may not explain how it can be one way for some people and another way for other people but it does not allow it. What allows it to be about sex for some people and not about sex for others is that... drum roll please... for some people it's all about sex and for others it is not. I think I'll lean on actual reality here rather than theoretical logic chains. This whole thread is akin to someone who lives in the UK telling me, "I see it's raining there right now." So I look out the window and it's sunny and pleasant with not a cloud in the sky and say, "No, actually it's not." Then the UK person tells me, "Yes it is. I saw a weather report just a moment ago." The fact that so many people cannot see how ludicrous that is would be astonishing to me if this wasn't the internet. Honestly, if that happened to you, what would you think about the other person? For me, the phrase, "Totally disconnected with reality" comes to mind. Theories do not refute reality. Reality refutes theories. <insert fancy latin here to sound smart>

IrishMist -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 9:06:34 AM)
quote: its as certain as night follows day. Dayum I thought day followed night? [:o]

Arturas -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 9:21:18 AM)
quote: So tell me is it really about sex for most people? Let's talk less theory and talk about real life BDSM practices in real life clubs and why they occur, do they occur for purely sexual needs? Nobody can say if it is so for "most" people but certainly it is so for many but not for all. For example, one couple at the local lifestyle club will use caging and bondage and some breath play to warm up for intense passionate sex while another Dom is focused on sending a recently met sub into subspace and he already had great sex at home with his wife earlier and has that need already fulfilled. Yet another Dom spends two hours carefully placing small needles into an artistically self designed pattern into a girl and then spends the rest of the evening parading her around and taking pictures. So, in short we see BDSM practices practiced in a typical lifestyle club on a Saturday night to fulfill many different human needs for different people "in the lifestyle" and I will Maslow's hierarchic pyramid of needs to illustrate and relate these different BDSM practices as they are used to fulfill human needs other than sexual. On this typical night at the local lifestyle club we will see: 1) The couple involved in caging and breath play is doing so as a preceptor to passionate public sex fulfilling the base human need for sex using a scene of their making. 2) For the second couple, their BDSM practice includes no sex but rather fulfills the need for self-actualization with the the Dom working very hard on a scene to send the girl into subspace as his goal or "mark" or baseline measurement for excellence in being a Dom. 3) For the third couple, there is no scene and their actions include no sex but instead is a practice that fulfills the need for Self Esteem and recognition for the Dom and sub who are into artistic needle play. So, while you in your OP admittedly use BDSM for "sexual magic" or to fulfill a base human need there are many others who use BDSM practices to meet completely different human needs with no sex or sex substitution activities involved before or after the scene. Well wishes, Arturas

IceDemeter -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 9:29:41 AM)
Well ML, my personal hypothesis is that self-awareness and thought may originate spontaneously when there are sufficient synapses in the brain. This would allow for a future computer to develop self-awareness, without any biological imperatives. Pure sci-fi stuff, but it's an idea that seems to make sense when looking at the current animal kingdom and which animals appear to have thought processes above and beyond instinct. Allowing for this necessitates that there is a point where biological imperative ends and thoughts begin. And Jeff - sorry I wasn't clear on how I worded it! You are right in that hypotheses and theories don't "allow" things --- although I thought that saying it as "allow for" would indicate the concept of "encompassing" that I was looking for. I was creating a personal hypothesis to explain the disparate realities (I tend to do things like that). The turn this thread made seemed to me to be looking beyond the surface reality of "this is my experience" vs "this is your experience" to looking for the background motivation behind the experiences. Using your example of the weather, it truly is ridiculous for one to say that their local reality must be the same as the local reality for someone somewhere else. If you look at it the same way that I look at the subjects on this thread, the discussion went from "the weather here is this and the weather there is that" to whether the local weather (whatever it is) is created by it being a natural climate pattern of the planet or whether it is created by the current conscious actions of humanity. Make more sense now?

leadership527 -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 9:49:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IceDemeter And Jeff - sorry I wasn't clear on how I worded it! You are right in that hypotheses and theories don't "allow" things --- although I thought that saying it as "allow for" would indicate the concept of "encompassing" that I was looking for. Agreed and I got that. I would not have pointed it out at all except so many people seem to be opting for "theory trumps reality" that it seemed worth saying. Using your example of the weather, it truly is ridiculous for one to say that their local reality must be the same as the local reality for someone somewhere else. If you look at it the same way that I look at the subjects on this thread, the discussion went from "the weather here is this and the weather there is that" to whether the local weather (whatever it is) is created by it being a natural climate pattern of the planet or whether it is created by the current conscious actions of humanity. That's not how I saw it. I saw the discussion as going from one of "Tell me what your local weather is like" to "I'll tell you what your local weather is like and I'll invent some climate theory to support my point even though you actually know for a fact what the weather is in your locality right now." If I was discussing the local immediate weather with someone and they wanted to go down a climatology path I'd be sort of OK with that in a confused way. But the moment they told me that their climate models predicted rain so it must be raining despite the evidence of my own eyes as I glance out the window... well... yeah. Arturas above went down the same path and even then he limited his view to "whips & chains" part of BDSM. Carol and I don't do that which leaves even broader questions. But even in his limited example looking at the actual real world and the people he actually interacts with he has facts to refute the theory. When you broaden that to include questions like: "What do other people consider sexual?" and "How do other people define BDSM?" the water starts getting really muddy really fast. I personally find it telling when I find myself in a discussion that has only ever happened on the internet. Carol and I have met a fair number of kinksters. Predictably, many of them were a bit confused when we said 'It isn't about kink for us." Not one of them said, "Yes it is." Every single one said something more or less like, "Wow, that's confusing as hell. Can you explain?" Every single one of them accepted the explanation, possibly with a fair bit of Q&A, as given.

Arpig -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 10:10:49 AM)
quote: "Tell me what your local weather is like" to "I'll tell you what your local weather is like and I'll invent some climate theory to support my point even though you actually know for a fact what the weather is in your locality right now." We must have been reading different threads, because that isn't even vaguely how this one ran. Could you provide a link to the thread you're talking about.

IceDemeter -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 10:21:37 AM)
I wonder if you are correct that this is an internet thing, caused by not having body language cues or having less personal knowledge of someone, or if perhaps it is just a personality thing. The difference in personalities will always reflect in how different people will read different meanings out of the exact same statements. My personality includes loving discussions (even arguments), and assuming that others are the same way. It also includes an extreme interest in looking at the backgrounds/motivations/explanations of facts. When I see a flat out statement ("night follows day", for example, or "it's all about the biological imperative of procreation"), I see that as an invitation to discuss it, and dig a bit deeper. If the response I get is a repitition of the same statement, then I make the assumption that I didn't state my question clearly enough, or I ask for an elaboration of their argument because I apparently didn't fully understand it. Looking at the "night follows day" and the response of "day follows night" --- that, to me, is a great starting place for a discussion of why each looks at it in that way. Looking at the discussion here, where some are saying that all of our actions are based on biological imperatives and others are saying that the biological imperatives have nothing to do with their actions --- well, a great starting place for a discussion of why they look at it that way. For myself, I would base having a partner on the imperative of procreation. I would base my choice of who that partner is primarily on conscious thought, with some input on the instinctive level. I would base my submission to him on instinctive need for hierarchy, and the limitations to that submission on conscious thought. As for the hanky-spanky --- that's purely sexual! My personal belief is that every person has a different point at which their biological imperative ends and their thought processes take over. I also believe that these points will change for each person depending on circumstances. Thus, their observable "fact" of what their prime motivation is at this point in time is not arguable. There is, however, the opportunity for them to look at it a little deeper when presented with other realities, and either confirming that their original observation was correct or modifying their observation based on new input.

Fetters4U -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 10:33:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: Fetters4U Well innuendo, condescension and an unfortunate attempt at semantics were not too persuasive. Mmmmmmmm ... the sweet, sickly smell of projection ... gorgeous :) PS: Your application of "logic" is the worst I've seen in a long time. I've given up trying to knock some sense into you though, coz it's wasted time & effort. Others seem to have more patience though, or more time on their hands, or quite possibly both, and fair play to them. For future reference though, if you want to be right instead of wrong, you might want to stay away from absolutes. Ewwww... Like name calling is really gonna work. [;)] If you think there is a fault in my logic, please point it out. My lack of sense wouldn't be because I don't agree with you, would it? If you have a theory that is worth discussing, why not just state it? Theories are never, ever absolutes. One does, however, have to state a viewpoint for the purposes of debate. You make several derogatory and unsupported statements, then end in a trite but inapplicable adage. Why bother me with this?

Arpig -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 10:35:49 AM)
quote: I have claimed that our drivers are a complex mix of a biological imperative (to reproduce) and a whole host of other factors that are influenced both by nature (our genetic make up or "nature") and our experience (nurture). I would tend to agree here, except that the various other drives and needs can be seen as secondary motivators, serving to enhance the likelihood of successful procreation. If you accept that the perpetuation of the species is the entire point, biologically speaking, of the existence of any one creature, and I do, everything else can be seen as strategies toward that end.

leadership527 -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 10:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig We must have been reading different threads, because that isn't even vaguely how this one ran. Could you provide a link to the thread you're talking about. Nope, I stand corrected. As Crazy pointed out, I reinterpreted the question into something answerable. But the ACTUAL question asked was, "Do most people..." The actual answer to that is, "Without a ton of crisp definitions then a well funded and carefully laid out study I don't have a clue." I can't speak for "most people". That was my error. I reinterpreted the question to something I could answer... namely... "Is it that way for Carol and I?" But going back to the climate/weather analogy, you are correct. The question asked was a climate question and I'm not a climatologist. That does lead to an interesting question. Does anyone on this thread have a masters or PHD in either anthropology or sociology and what do they think of the questions/answers presented here?

crazyml -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 10:44:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: I have claimed that our drivers are a complex mix of a biological imperative (to reproduce) and a whole host of other factors that are influenced both by nature (our genetic make up or "nature") and our experience (nurture). I would tend to agree here, except that the various other drives and needs can be seen as secondary motivators, serving to enhance the likelihood of successful procreation. If you accept that the perpetuation of the species is the entire point, biologically speaking, of the existence of any one creature, and I do, everything else can be seen as strategies toward that end. Well I can't disagree with that. Yes they can be seen as secondary motivators. And there's a good healthy debate you and I could have about the extent to which they're secondary or primary motivators in our day to day behaviour and on the extent to which they, as motivators, have an impact on our lives/needs/wants etc. And we might just find that our only disagreement is one of extent. I would argue that for me personally, "sex" is certainly not always a primary driver in terms of my relationships, even my d/s ones. Sure it is a LOT of the time, make no bones about it. Again, to stress (and not for your benefit or Hannah's necesarily), that doesn't mean for a second I regard myself or my relationships as in any way "more evolved" or "better" than anyone else's.

IceDemeter -> RE: Is It Really All About Sex? (8/4/2011 10:47:56 AM)
quote: If you accept that the perpetuation of the species is the entire point, biologically speaking, of the existence of any one creature, and I do, everything else can be seen as strategies toward that end. Please take this as intended --- genuinely interested in discussion! Starting from this premise, would you agree that procreation itself would be a secondary driver? In a pack species, many animals do not procreate at all, as their places in the hierarchy are designed for the survival of the pack as a whole, without adding their own genes to the mix. What is your opinion on what conscious thought adds to the mix? Do you feel that it can over-ride biological imperatives or is it merely a "surface" thing? If you feel that it can over-ride biological imperatives at any time, do you think that individuals are correct in their judgement of their own motivations for any activity, whether they judge the motivation to be thought or a biological driver?

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875