truth dancer wrote:No, I'm saying that the primitive animalistic urge to spread one's seed among as many females as possible is maladaptive. What was once essential to the continuation of various animals is no longer necessary and is, from an evolutionary perspective, maladaptive.
Okay, so if I'm reading you right, you're saying, as an example, the urge to eat is always there, we have to eat to live, just like we have to have sex to keep the species going, but we don't have to eat junk. Is that a fair comparison?
I'm not in any way saying repression or denial is the way to go here and of course it is not the norm by any stretch nor is it easy. I'm suggesting that what was once hardwired can be altered to some degree in some men.
This will be the biggest evolutionary leap in time.
In other words, the idea that men have to behave as animals or even have to fight the animalistic urges will most likely be a thing of the past in another few thousand years because it is not only no longer necessary but again, maladaptive.
Well I'm obviously one of the maladaptive links, but even with my present "animalistic urges" I have hurt no one, and I think I'm a pretty good single father. I'm not sure I want to eat carrots and never look at women. Besides, single women have sexual urges too. And TD, we are animals, but we don't hump visitor's legs or behave like dogs. We don't fornicate under street lights. My question, I suppose, is how can we get rid of what we biologically are? I mean, there's something like a 1% genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees. So this evolutionary leap will be something like chimps becoming human. I think religious ideals have tried to facilitate this leap, that's if you're not expecting 73 virgins in Paradise or eternal polygamy.
What purpose is an animalistic desire to spread seed make, when everyone is using birth control?
Pleasure? (I do like Hungry Jacks too)
And obviously spreading one's seed is harmful to offspring (or monogamy/male parental care would not have evolved as it has over the last few million years).
I'm wondering if monogamy ever evolved. I see a lot of serial monogamy. Ask Tom Cruise. Or better, Liz Taylor.
I would say this primitive urge is maladaptive similar to the need to store fat... at once it meant the difference between survival or death, (death of the species in the case of spreading seed in various animals), today this propensity causes death.
I still don't think it's a primitive urge, and it's designed by nature for a purpose. It becomes maladaptive in rape, child sexual abuse, or child porn, and when used to control people. There are obviously cases where sex is abused, and that is primitive behaviour.
Does that make sense?
In a Utopian perspective, yes. Nothing wrong with trying to envision something that may be better than a 50% divorce rate. We are clearly not doing very well, but success also depends on everyone finding their soulmate. You've heard of the "seven year itch", I'm sure. I'm just observing what I see in the real world, a lot of stupified people enduring relationships when romantic love died three weeks after the honeymoon. Okay, I exaggerate.
I'm also suggesting that there are those for whom this animalistic tendency is no longer a motivator in one's life... not something that needs to be repressed or denied.
Still don't see how we can deny biology. I'm not "clicking" with this idea that we can be different to our biological nature, unless religious belief dominates, and that often results in repression, and to me the porn stats coming out of Utah are extraordinary. What that seems to indicate to me is that religion may only mask our real biological nature. I have plenty of confirmation from what I experienced in the church too. People are people, and even if Jesus says "don't get angry", people are going to get angry. How many truly
live their religion? This is what Gandhi called the "schizophrenia of nations", the divide between creed and deed. Is it possible for humans to evolve beyond anger, another "animalistic" urge? Is it even realistic?
For example, I sat next to a man on a plane a few months ago and we got into a discussion on this topic. He truly, TRULY did not have any desire or wish to view porn and didn't find it even remotely tasteful or intriguing. He was not religious as all but VERY happily married. The thought of viewing porn not only didn't appeal to him it was distasteful. (I got the impression it was like watching someone brush their teeth or something... LOL!(, anyway, I know many men like this... it seems to me that there are those who have found something better to embrace than the cheap thrill of using a body for their purposes.
I know men like that too. But I think this too may have a biological influence as well - they're usually sexual duds. Not everyone has the same level of hormones, and not everyone has the same sexual drive, and our genetics and biology influence this. Nymphs and satyrs don't happen by accident. It's biological.
Again, I know this is rare and unusual... I just have a feeling (if our species is to continue), humankind will move to a new experience beyond the animalistic tendencies.
No, it's very rare.
Also, as I have shared before, in another hundred years folks won't even have to view porn or have sex to have the pleasure center of the brain stimulated in much more powerful ways than currently exist. Who was it (Keene?) that this of course already exists! :-)
Then we won't need relationships either. We could just generate everything in the brain. We could evolve a "love gene", and we won't need sex or love from others. That will solve the divorce problem. LOL. But seriously, TD, I have read that anything is possible, and humans could eventually evolve to be asexual. Thankfully, I will have been in my grave for a million or two years. It's nice to speculate anyway.