RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (Full Version)

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



Message


PeonForHer -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/25/2012 3:25:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk
'submissive' killer whales..



I like to think I'm as open-minded as the next man, but that is just *wrong*.




PeonForHer -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/25/2012 4:21:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

How did literature evolve? To perpetuate the species?

How did music evolve? To create more children?

How did ice cream evolve? Does it help make us stronger?

We engage in a variety of activities for reasons other than perpetuation of the species.

Other species do a variety of things humans don't do. Why? Because they are different species.

As are we.


Yep, that resonates. Humans don't do anything else as simply and straightforwardly as, say, cattle, why should sex be any different?

Sex as an art form. Now, there's a thought. Why not? About time we went the whole hog in dragging it out from the Victorian era.




SexyThoughts -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/25/2012 5:42:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Sex as an art form.


There's a really cheap joke about bad modern art, just begging to be made. I'm too much of a sadist to release it. [:D]




mnottertail -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/25/2012 5:55:34 AM)

it aint only kinkin in advanced organisms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellate

Ipso facto ad hoc propter ergo id est hoctor props!!!!





Karmastic -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/25/2012 7:48:12 PM)

fr-

kink is just a variant of caveman sex in a sense. it's a ritual. not all sex is for reproduction, never has been even for lower species.




niceguy88 -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 1:08:22 AM)

(I write this post only for discussion, I do not believe in the completely nature over nurture sentiment of my post)

Ok lets just suspend disbelief for a second and assume if really is all in your genome.

I have a kink for financial submission and it has always seemed an incredibly strange and counter-intuitive kink to me, but when I think about it in survival terms it might just make a little bit of sense. I get sexual gratification from giving money and things to beautiful women without any expectation of something in return, I know there are women out there who would want a guy who would give them what they wanted and ask for nothing in return, as such there is a higher chance of making a connection and propagating with such a person and then having children who have a possibility of possessing that kink.

However this doesn’t work in the internet sense when I still get excited sending money with truly no chance of a real-life relationship, but I would eat my Trilby if Darwin saw that one coming!




IronWithVelvet -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 5:36:28 AM)

Animals and not just primates exhibit dominant and submissive behavior.




stellauk -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 5:45:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk
'submissive' killer whales..



I like to think I'm as open-minded as the next man, but that is just *wrong*.


That's not quite as bad as hippos engaging in oral sex.




PeonForHer -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 5:55:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stellaukx

That's not quite as bad as hippos engaging in oral sex.



Jeez, Stella, I've only just eaten.




leth -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 7:16:16 AM)

You mistake evolution for having a progressive direction and purpose. It doesn't. Genetic mutations occur at random and don't require, of themselves, anything more than luck to perpetuate although beneficial traits are passed more frequently due to sexual selection.

Additionally, the human brain is an incredibly complex bit of machinery. While I'm loathe to compare sex and kink to a psychological disease due to the negative history of association there, would anyone ask what purpose schizophrenia has served in humans? The question is absurd.




MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 8:49:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SexyThoughts
Depending on who you talk to human beings are either sculpted by a God 6000 years ago. Or are hundred thousand years of ruthless evolution. Either way we rode to the moon on a spare weapons system that we originally built to achieve nuclear overkill. As a species we really like to be at the top of the food chain, be it over big tigers or tiny germs.


Uggh. The rest of your post was pretty decent, but I'm pedantic:

1) 100,000 years? Lucy is 3.2 million years old and the anthropologists have found even older since her discovery. It's closer to 5 million years and that's still in the genus Homo. Also, evolution isn't ruthless; it simply doesn't care.

2) "spare weapons system." This sentence shows so much neglect of reality that it's disgusting. The moon landing was done with all purpose-built equipment, not leftovers from the cold war. The technological discoveries from that bold "Fuck You Universe!" gesture are still evolving our society.

As for "achieve nuclear overkill" let's bring that right back to natural selection. We just about naturally selected ourselves right out of existence. Or did we? The USA and the USSR were like two cats raising their hackles in a pissing match to determine who would win the fight without actually fighting. That is seen all over the animal kingdom and is a mixed metaphor.

3)"we really like to be at the top of the food chain" All lifeforms, at least on this planet, want this. I suppose that it is possible that there is some model where evolution was cooperative, rather than competitive, but that is outside my wheelhouse.

And a fourth thing: where are all these metaphors I have coming from? It can't be natural selection because they certainly don't attract females.




crazyml -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 9:28:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk
'submissive' killer whales..



I like to think I'm as open-minded as the next man, but that is just *wrong*.


Now, now, don't you judging other mammals for their choices, even if they are meant to be large predatory aquatic mammals they're entitled to decide how they get their rocks off.




crazyml -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 9:30:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk


That's not quite as bad as hippos engaging in oral sex.



Oh for the love of all things pure and good...




SexyThoughts -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/26/2012 7:53:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MalcolmNathaniel

quote:

ORIGINAL: SexyThoughts
Depending on who you talk to human beings are either sculpted by a God 6000 years ago. Or are hundred thousand years of ruthless evolution. Either way we rode to the moon on a spare weapons system that we originally built to achieve nuclear overkill. As a species we really like to be at the top of the food chain, be it over big tigers or tiny germs.


Uggh. The rest of your post was pretty decent, but I'm pedantic:

1) 100,000 years? Lucy is 3.2 million years old and the anthropologists have found even older since her discovery. It's closer to 5 million years and that's still in the genus Homo. Also, evolution isn't ruthless; it simply doesn't care.


After researching evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LucySmithsonian.JPG
vs
http://images.phun.org/phun/galleries/lucy_pinder_sophie_howard/lucy_pinder_sophie_howard_09.jpg

I'll sort of concede this one

quote:


2) "spare weapons system." This sentence shows so much neglect of reality that it's disgusting. The moon landing was done with all purpose-built equipment, not leftovers from the cold war. The technological discoveries from that bold "Fuck You Universe!" gesture are still evolving our society.


The moon landings used rocket technology based off existing ICBM technology
V2 (Bomb London from a great height) to ATLAS (Nuke Moscow from space)1954 predates Apollo (Man on moon), and even MERCURY (man in space) 1959

Rockets were weapons delivery first and human transports second.

quote:


As for "achieve nuclear overkill" let's bring that right back to natural selection. We just about naturally selected ourselves right out of existence. Or did we? The USA and the USSR were like two cats raising their hackles in a pissing match to determine who would win the fight without actually fighting. That is seen all over the animal kingdom and is a mixed metaphor.

We intentional held extinction like a gun to our heads, to stop the fight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

And right up to they discovered nuclear winter in the 1980's, both sides had plans and strategies to fight a nuclear war and win
Spoiler: Nuke their Capitals, Submarines and HQ's faster than they can unlock their code books, then nuke their nukes locked in their launch positions, then nuke their factories and schools so they can't build new ones for a century.

Because if you look on youtube under "self defense gun to head" as a species, as a species we like to have a bet each way on whether overwhelming force is overwhelming enough.

quote:


3)"we really like to be at the top of the food chain" All lifeforms, at least on this planet, want this. I suppose that it is possible that there is some model where evolution was cooperative, rather than competitive, but that is outside my wheelhouse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism like to be in the middle.
And a lot of plants spread and fertilise their seeds by being eaten, like to be at the bottom of the food chain.

quote:


And a fourth thing: where are all these metaphors I have coming from? It can't be natural selection because they certainly don't attract females.


Nah, females love to sleep with linquists, if only to make us stop talking.




GotSteel -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/28/2012 10:06:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blankpain
How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only?


Well sex isn't for reproduction only, I don't think reproduction is even the primary purpose of sex in our species. It's about bonding between humans.

I haven't come across any research into how kink fits into that but I suspect sticking tab a in slot b is only super awesome so many times and some natural variation has the result of spicing things up.




ResidentSadist -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/28/2012 1:25:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt

Many people think Darwin's theory is based on survival of the strongest. It's not. It's survival of the most adaptable. Human beings reign supreme on this earth b/c we are the most adaptable species.....................

Yup, it's survival of the fittest not fitness.




Muttling -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/28/2012 2:44:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blankpain

Understanding Darwinism, I fail to comprehend how kink evolved in humans.






Please don't take this in offense as I don't judge you by your interests. I am curious as to how you think your sexual orientation evolved in humans as homosexuality precludes reproduction even more than BDSM.


While I do agree with the theory of evolution and many of the expansions that have been applied to Darwin's concepts in the development of what we now call "Darwinism", I find it a poor model for explaining absolutely everything.

I was born this way and was submissive/ masochistic well before entering puberty, but I don't think evolution explains it. It's just the way I am.




hangemhigh1953 -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/28/2012 2:57:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blankpain

Understanding Darwinism, I fail to comprehend how kink evolved in humans.

Do other primates engage in perverse behavioral rituals such as D/s activities?

If we humans are alone in perversities, how/why would such mutual courtship behavior evolve to ensure species survival?

What was the threat that allowed us to evolve such complex perverse interactions?

What's "Darwinism"? That's usually only a word creationists use, the theory of evolution has been developed for 150 years after Darwin by thousands of brilliant minds.

Dawkins' concept of cultural memes might offer a decent explanation of how it could have happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme




Blankpain -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/28/2012 10:12:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Muttling
I am curious as to how you think your sexual orientation evolved in humans as homosexuality precludes reproduction even more than BDSM.


Apparently, in wolves, only the dominant male & alpha female mate - the rest aren't allowed to. This ensures the survival of the species.
I won't profess to explain homosexuality - but - I feel it certainly applies to survival of the species in many ways simply because it exists.
Some species turn from male to female depending on the environment - and homosexuality 'may' be no different.
Again, I'm not qualified to explain the origin of homosexuality - but - I do state that it easily 'could' be something that does indeed ensure the survival of the species - if perhaps in an indirect way (which is why I provided the wolves example).

The culture can ensure the survival of the components even if some of the components don't produce viable offspring in and of themselves.




hlen5 -> RE: How did kink evolve in our species? Is it for reproduction only? (5/29/2012 7:01:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

I remember watching two students once have a heated debate about the morality of oral sex.

"It serves no purpose!" exclaimed one, referring to having any role in reproduction.
"Oh, it has a purpose," retorted the other. "It's just not reproduction."


It has a special purpose!! (about 2:00)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJJA6WRpvlg





Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875