|
orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Healthy Addiction? (2/18/2014 10:23:42 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
I think men and women mostly react different and are stimulated by different things, it's simple nature and biology. When you boil it down to sex drive, it's not that different from animals:
Except that we are VERY different from animals. In fact, if you compare the sexual habits of every other organism on the planet, they probably have more in common with each other, than any of them have in common with humans.
Animals very rarely masturbate to orgasm, yet that is one of the primary ways for humans to orgasm. I have never seen an animal wear rubber, worship feet, drink urine, whip another animal or orgasm to cartoon films of other people having sex. It is fair to say that the human sex instinct is almost completely creative, original and almost without limits in terms of what it is capable of eroticising. Unlike any other animal on the planet.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
Survival instinct of the species for most males is to spread seed around as much, hence easy arousal by visual clues.
When examining the sexual behaviour of a species, it's always helpful to look at what they *actually* do, rather than what we may think they should or ought to do.
In this case, the vast majority of males seek to avoid impregnating females at every opportunity. If behaviour gives an indication of drive or preferences, then it would be fair to say that most males are not attempting to spread their seed in the slightest. So one can either assume that it is not in the nature of males to spread seed, or that nurture is so powerful that it overrides the natural sex instinct, in which case it disproves your entire theory about sex drive and biology.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
Women hindered by pregnancy want a good provider to chase wild beasts away (helps survival if you and offspring not eaten by wild beasts) and the best genes for the offspring to give offspring best chance for survival, and also male to feed them when they can't gather and hunt due to looking after offspring...
Most hunter gatherer communities are a) unconcerned about driving wild beasts away and b) more reliant on gathering than hunting, an occupation which women excel in. I know we all like to fantasise about cavemen and women being attacked by tigers, or packs of men hunting down woolly mammoths, but they really bear very little resemblance to the reality of most of our human ancestors during the periods in which it is assumed that modern humans acquired their 'instincts' or 'programming'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze
A few decades of having reliable contraception can't make up for several thousand years of evolution and genetic programming, so the commitment factor and knowing somebody is pretty deep with most of us X types, because it boils down to security and possibly survival, stuff a guy doesn't have to deal with.
And yet, a few decades of modernity have apparently been enough to cause the desire for the removal of all female bodily hair amongst sizeable portions of the western world. Evolutionary theories of human sexuality suggest that men and women ought to be instantly visually attracted to humans with body hair, since it very reliably indicates sexual maturity and / or fertility. So if men can learn to be attracted to hairless women in just a few decades, what is there to suggest that women can't learn to be attracted to penises? If, in fact, they were not already attracted in the first place? (Something for which nobody has yet provided data.)
I could even make a case to suggest that pre-modern woman was much more interested in the penis than might first be thought - and cite the popularity of phalluses as symbols of good luck and fertility. For example, the Cern Hill giant with his massive erect penis has long been visited by women wishing to get pregnant, so we really can't say for sure that pre-modern woman was not at all interested in seeing penises.
Finally, there is nothing at all to suggest that sexual behaviour, or any other behaviour, is caused by genetics. No-one has ever found a gene for promiscuity, or faithfulness or any other sexual behaviour. If behaviour cannot be caused by genes, then it is not genetic, however simple and obvious any theory may seem. Likewise, if behaviour is not genetic then it cannot be selected for at a genetic level and it is not an evolutionary trend. So until such a time as scientists can reliably point to the effect of genes on behaviour, any such theory is simply a 'just-so story' - a work of fiction, with no evidence to support it.
Source: Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, also see the work of Richard Lewontin or Stephen Jay Gould.
|
|
|
|
