Edited by GTA3Freak-2001, 03 September 2007 - 08:39 AM.
Posted 11 September 2007 - 11:28 PM
Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:03 AM
Posted 24 November 2007 - 01:11 AM
Posted 24 November 2007 - 02:50 PM
Posted 24 November 2007 - 03:12 PM
|QUOTE (K^2 @ Nov 24 2007, 02:11)|
|I think art and pornography may intersect, but to say that porn is automatically art is taking it a bit too far.|
If someone can put a bucket in a bath tub, take a picture of it and call it art, then pornography is definitely art.
The 'artists' have brought it upon themselves by classing everything as art.
Posted 25 November 2007 - 12:50 AM
Artists who "push the boundaries" of what is and isn't art by claiming that a toilet, or a heshian bag filled with bricks, or a pile of spaghetti, or a dogturd with a flag in it, etc. are art, aren't really artists. They are just idiots who have no freaking talent or clue but want to be all wankey and controversial to make up for their ineptitude. Proper artists, who actually can paint (and like, proper paint, not just slap streaks around on a canvas like a monkey), or actually sculpt, know what art really is, just like everyone else in the world.
It's like "musicians" who call themselves "avant-garde" and just play a bunch of random f*cking noises they recorded while walking around. That sh*t isn't music, and the only people who think it is are the dickfaces who made it.
The way I look at it is like this:
Real art is something that both the artists and the public identify as art intuitively (they don't have to be told what it is), and there is consensus as to what is being evoked. ie: if an artist paints a beautiful landscape, the public will be easily able to identify it as a beautiful landscape, and appreciate it as such. If the artist paints their impression of torment, then the public will should similarly be able to pick this up without prompting. If there is a drastic mismatch between artist and public, then the artist is a tw*t. Also they eat babies and f*ck their dismembered entrails.
This is also true of music. If the musician wishes to convey beauty through song, then the public should be able to easily associate with that beauty and appreciate it. If the music is supposed to evoke power, anger, love, sex, etc, then if the public who hear it can easily and readily identify this, then the musician is successful and it is proper music. If the "musician" makes "songs" which people ask "what the f*ck is this supposed to be?", then it's not music, it's masturbating upside down and cumming on your face. Then rubbing it into your nose and blowing cum bubbles.
Which brings us to porn. If the intention of the actors and producers is to make the public horny enough to f*ck the nearest f*ckable object, be it a hand, a vibrator, or another person, and the videos/pictures that they produce succeed in this, then it's porn. But if, say, the actors and producers have this intention, and go about it via goat-rape, sh*t-eating, physical torture, mutant-f*cking, etc, and the public don't so much get the urge to reach orgasm as much as they get the urge to exclaim "oh my f*cking god who the f*ck would do something like that?", then it's not porn, it's gross sh*t, designed solely to satisfy morons and freaks on the extreme fringes of humanity who can barely be thought of as human. I would think of a funny insult to insert here except that people who film themselves blowing pigs and swallowing their pig semen are fairly invulnerable to insult.
And if you think that's too harsh, ask yourself: could you befriend, and respect, someone who jerked off while eating someone else's sh*t out of a cup? Could you fall in love with someone who got really turned on by the idea of eating your vomit? If you met a girl who wanted you to piss inside her and then drink your piss out of her, then spit it into her mouth where she would gargle it and rub it all over her face, would you be all like "Aww hell yeah this bitch be tight"? No, they're not real humans, they're freaks, sad products of our campaign to annihilate all selection pressures, resulting in people breeding who would never even survive in any "real" environment.
I guess my point is that the fringe elements cannot be considered when defining and understanding human endeavors like art, music, porn, etc. They just throw everything out of whack because there is no method by which they are selected. They are just the result of random untempered noise, which in any real environment would be forced to either succumb to or triumph over survival and breeding pressures.
And yes I am equating "artists" who think that hanging string from a coathanger is art, to "pornstars" who will sh*t a big warm sh*t onto a dick and then suck and lick that dick, spreading sh*t all over it and their mouth and face, and then have a big make-out session with the dude, swapping chunky globbules of sh*t with their tongues, then bending over while he f*cks her with his dirty sh*t-covered dick. They are both equally f*cked up in my mind.
In conclusion, some things are art, and some things are not art. Some things are porn, and some things are not porn.
Posted 25 November 2007 - 08:07 AM
|QUOTE (Mr Ginge @ Nov 24 2007, 10:50)|
|Today everything is classed as 'art' of some sort, and porn is no different, even though saying that porn is art can be debatable but there are nude art classes where people paint/draw etc a nude man/woman in the centre of a circle is that considered porn or just a harmless art piece.|
You are confusing porn and nudity. They are entirely different things. You can easily have nudity without it being porn, and you can even have porn without nudity. Ravien classified it rather well.
|Which brings us to porn. If the intention of the actors and producers is to make the public horny enough to f*ck the nearest f*ckable object, be it a hand, a vibrator, or another person, and the videos/pictures that they produce succeed in this, then it's porn.|
Note that there is no requirement for nudity nor anything related to nudity in such definition.
|then it's not porn, it's gross sh*t, designed solely to satisfy morons and freaks on the extreme fringes of humanity who can barely be thought of as human.|
And you just went completely out of bounds. You have to accept the existence of variations in what turns people on. You don't have to like it, but it is a fact. Now, if there was a way to draw a clear boundary, you'd have an argument, and its validity would depend heavily on social norms, but you really cannot even do that. First, note that there are plenty of non-reproductive sexual acts that are socially acceptable in most places. Oral sex being the number one on that list. Next, note that even we go by what turns on the majority, you immediately have problems with pornography depicting homosexual relations. Then you go to specific body-types. Fat people don't turn me on, just the opposite, but apparently, there are a lot of people who do get turned on by them. Is that porn? Then we go into trans-gender. Porn or gross sh*t? And there is a continuous spectrum of weird things from uniform fetishes to eating vomit. Hey, I don't get a lot of it either, but I wouldn't try to mark a solid line even for myself. Sure, there are a lot of things that I don't want to see or participate in. But then, there are also a lot of things that neither turn me on nor bother me in any way, like urination. So would I have discounted something as not being porn just because it has urination, or would that be fine?
Posted 25 November 2007 - 02:54 PM
|You have to accept the existence of variations in what turns people on. You don't have to like it, but it is a fact.|
I would think that my posting about such things would be pretty good evidence for my "accepting" of the existence of stimulus variation. I'm well aware of the myriad fetishes that exist, and since I'm not denying their existence, nor claiming to know nothing of their existence, I must therefore accept their existence. No?
I don't dislike this fact. I think such things are gross, but the fact that some people get their rocks off to such things is a fact I am completely ambivalent about. Much as I don't dislike the fact that the thought of eating vomit grosses me out (I'm rather thankful of this fact, actually), but I am still grossed out by such thoughts regardless.
Thing is, the fact that some people do things is not by any means an argument that anyone else should tolerate or endorse such things. For example, some people like to cut themselves. Should this be tolerated as "well, to each their own"? Some people like to have other people eat them, and as a corollary, some people like to eat other people. Again, must we then just shrug it off as "to each their own"?. Some people like to cut off parts of their own body for "aesthetic" reasons. Some people like to stretch out their asshole wide enough for a fist and then squeeze out their intestinal muscles in one massive prolapse and then rub things on it.
Some people are really f*cked up.
See, it's not about whether or not they are harming anyone else. It's about them being dysfunctional. They are broken. If there were a manual for how a human should live as a successful individual of their species, such people would be doing it all wrong.
Let's look at some easy examples. Necrophilia and Incest.
By your argument, hey, these are totally ok and we can't judge people who choose to do such things. I'm deliberately leaving out pedophilia simply because the argument that it hurts other people can apply. But with necrophilia and incest, who gets hurt? Dead people don't feel anything, and consensual incest is a victimless crime. So what's the big deal?
Simple. They are f*cking broken. Incest is incredibly likely to produce mutant kids. Which is f*cked up. They are doing it wrong.
Necrophilia is basically masturbation with a corpse right? So besides the whole, "desecration and disrespect of the dead" thing, what's wrong with it? Well, basically, if you're f*cking someone that is dead, you are f*cking broken. You're doing it wrong.
We, as humans, have innate reactions to other people doing things wrong. This is because there is actually a right way of doing things, and that is the way that we evolved to do them. If you try to eat by sticking food up your ass, you're doing it wrong, and nobody will be all like "oh that's just how he likes to eat". They will be like "dude you are totally f*cked up.... I'm going to have to kill you now".
Yes the line is a continuum of f*cked-up-edness. But there IS a line. And that line is defined by the majority of the species. This is true of all animals on the planet. Don't be fooled by the movie "Happy Feet". That motherf*cking penguin would have died with no heirs, instantly destroying his stupid tap-dancing genes from the penguin gene pool. No penguin would f*ck him, because he's doing it wrong. Birds must sing, fish must dance, lions must fight, humans have to be not-f*cked up. It's a pretty simple game really. But there IS a win condition, and there IS a lose condition, and so we can extrapolate that there is a RIGHT way of doing things (those that lead to the WIN condition) and a WRONG way of doing things (those that lead to a LOSE condition). Oral sex is part of the RIGHT way of doing things because it leads to a much higher chance of successful successive sexual encounters. sh*tting on someone, f*cking animals, and raping corpses are all WRONG ways of doing things, because they all lead to a far diminished chance of reproductive success.
Posted 26 November 2007 - 08:45 AM
We are way past the point where sex has anything to do with reproduction. It is still a popular method of reproduction, but even that isn't true for everyone anymore, and in vitro will be becoming only more and more popular. Even know, I know that most of the women I see that I find to be most attractive physically are also not the ones I'd want to have children with. The whole system of sexual appeal as the drive for mate selection is already breaking down. We still look for attractive mates, but we really look a lot more for other things. Personality, career, etc. Using sexual reproduction as the check on normalcy of sexual preferences is a dead end in this society.
Going back to your example of incest, what is wrong with it? Single generation doesn't actually make a difference. Increased odds of mutations is an old wives tale. But over multiple generation you do get pure lines, genetic degeneration, increasing frequency of recessive genes, bottlenecking, and all other problems of small gene pool. But what if you take reproduction out of it. What is wrong with it? Really?
Posted 26 November 2007 - 09:48 AM
|But what if you take reproduction out of it. What is wrong with it? Really?|
What do you mean if you take reproduction out of it? That's like taking the "=" sign out of maths. Everything breaks down without reproduction. Everything.
Why do you eat? To stay alive. Why stay alive? To reproduce. What if you can't reproduce? Then your genes disappear. What if you live long enough to reach the age where you can't reproduce anymore? Then your body starts shutting down because it is useless now.
Why do we work? To buy things. Why do we want to buy things? Because we think they will make us happy. Why do we think they'll make us happy? Because we think that having things will make us more attractive to the opposite sex. Is this true? How many hot girls f*ck homeless guys? Would we work our asses off in boring jobs to make money to buy things we don't need if sex had nothing to do with it? Hell no.
Why do we learn things? To impress the opposite sex. Why? In the hopes that they will sleep with us. Why? Because making babies is more important than anything.
Why do we care about looks? Why do we care about intelligence? Why do we care about fame? Social status? Wealth? Power? Style? Talent? Strength? Possessions? Hot bodies? Knowledge? Being unique? Having friends? Fast cars? Big guns? Excelling at things we do? etc etc etc.
One word: Sex.
Why do we care about sex? Because sex = reproduction. It's the only way our bodies know of to carry our genes on to the next generation. Horniness is our body's way of telling us to have sex. Nobody gets horny thinking about artificial insemination, freezing their sperm, IVF, or test tubes. Why? Because despite that these things are possible, we aren't equipped to deal with them, so we don't get the instinctive drive to pursue them like we do with sex.
So saying "if you take reproduction out of it" is really like saying "if you take everything important away". It is wrong because of what it means to our genes. Because we evolved these responses genetically through selection. Abhorence of incest is precisely the same as fear of spiders, disgust at the thought of eating feces, and repulsion from infections. Because avoiding these things (and many more things) over time resulted in us being us, while those who were indifferent or attracted to these things died out. Only the successful genes survive. Since we are the ones who have inherited the successful genes, and these genes tell us that incest is wrong, obviously, incest is wrong, because it is less successful than avoiding incest. If the reverse were true, or if incest truly was neutral to genetic survival through the evolution of our species, then we'd either all be sleeping with our siblings or we'd at least not care about anyone who did. That's not the case. Ergo, incest is wrong.
If you're trying to get me to claim some ipso facto reason for anything being right or wrong, it's not going to work. Evolution only defines right and wrong by successful and unsuccessful. There are no absolutes, only relatives. Some things are more or less right than others, relative to each other, but never to any absolutes.
|By that count homosexuality is the wrong way, because it has zero chance of reproductive success.|
Are you claiming that homosexuality is the right way of doing things? No, you're not and I know that, so you must be implying that it is merely an alternative way.
No, you're wrong. It's the wrong way. If the goal of all life is to carry on genetic material to the next generation (it is, those that don't carry on their genes have zero contribution to the people of the future, immediate or otherwise). In 100 years, all currently living homosexuals who don't cheat and use an egg donor (this is cheating because they are still piggybacking on sexual reproduction) will be dead and every single one of their genetic lines will end with them. From the moment of their death, their impact on the world will cease, and not a single human living in 100 years will be descendant from them.
On the other hand, on 100 years, all heterosexual people who manage to contribute genetic material to at least one surviving child will have an heir who will carry on their legacy to the future of humankind. If you have talents or qualities that you think would benefit humanity, the only way to actually make a difference is to reproduce. Or from a different perspective, every single one of us alive today is here because of heterosexuals, who did things the right way. The future will be the same. The future will be made up of all the people descendant from everyone alive today who does things right. This is evolution.
How then, can you argue that homosexuality is merely an equally valid alternative to heterosexuality? It is only equally valid for exceptionally small values of valid across exceptionally small periods of time.
Is it as bad as bestiality? No. Because being attracted to the wrong gender is a much smaller deficiency than being attracted to the wrong species. Our instincts are often in tune with the degree of defect. Someone has a foot fetish? That's mostly just a little weird. Someone likes to rub feces on themselves, well that shows not only a defect in identifying and correctly responding to potentially harmful material, but also a sexual pre-occupation with something which can cause serious diseases and infections, so it's more than a little weird, it's f*cking disgusting. Bisexuality is more acceptable than homosexuality, because it is less of a defect. Bestiality is more acceptable than necrophilia because it is less of a defect (a living creature of a different species has infinitely more chance of giving you offspring than a corpse of any species). Incest is more acceptable than pedophilia because your sibling is more able to consent and make babies with you than a child is.
We're very fine-tuned to the various degrees of genetic abnormalities and their resulting behaviour, and the implications of that behaviour for future generations. And we should be, with millions of years of evolution to fine-tune us. And it's only really been the last thousand years where the survival and sexual pressures have waned to abysmal levels that we've seen so many people occupying the f*cked up fringes of humanity. With zero controls in place, the bottom end of the gene pool will continue to expand and spread. Maybe one day we'll all reach a point where we really are completely accepting and nonchalant about pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, faecophilia, vomerophilia, acrotomophilia, simply because so many of such genetically inferior people are breeding with the rest of us that we all inherit their deformed tendencies and the human gene pool begins to resemble a tepid puddle of homogenous vomit.
Until then though, I can argue quite easily for the rightness and wrongness of certain behaviours within the only relevant context for anyone ever: sex.
Posted 26 November 2007 - 10:08 AM
A homosexual individual will still have a sex drive. But their sex drive urges them to participate in activities that cannot lead to reproduction. And guess what, they still reproduce in ways that sometimes don't require them to even see their mate.
Sure, sex drive used to be for reproduction, but it isn't anymore. Just like our hands with opposable thumbs used to be necessary to hang off branches. When was the last time you used your hands to hang on a branch of a tree? When was the last time you used them for some other purpose? Are you "broken"? Or are you just finding another use to an otherwise vestigial appendage?
Similarly, the sex drive, which is no longer required for reproduction, is now used for entirely different things. Some people use it as a social tool. Some use it to make money. Others use it for things that make even me gag, but none of it is strictly speaking wrong.
Edit: We do need stricter genetic control, but we need an entirely different mechanisms for it. We need to figure out what is essential for our society, and filter out genetic deviations that contradict it. Some of the things you mention might be on the list as socially destabilizing. Note that we should not prevent the individuals possessing said defects from reproducing all together, but rather require a stricter control on which genes make it through to the offspring.
Edited by K^2, 26 November 2007 - 10:13 AM.
Posted 26 November 2007 - 12:25 PM
You feel hunger. Why? Because your body requires energy to function, and hunger what the drive to eat feels like. We don't feel hungry because we like food. We like food because our body tells us that we like food, because it needs food to survive. Now, as we evolved, we were in an environment of scarcity. High-energy foods like fruits and fats were really rare, but very valuable due to the benefits they confer in terms of long-term energy yield. There were no orchids or supermarkets where we could just grab some grapes or some chicken, hell, neither of those foods existed. We had to scavenge for berries and shriveled fruits (have you ever seen wild fruits? They're nothing like the domestic kinds we are used to) that were not infested with insects or already eaten by birds. Meats were nearly always lean (there are no fat cows in the wild), tough, and gamey. So when we ate sweet fruits or fatty meats, our bodies rewarded us disproportionately to encourage us to seek out more of these foods which make survival so much easier.
But nowadays those exact same instincts which served us so well in the past, are leading to ludicrous and dangerous levels of obesity almost unheard of until only a few decades ago.
As another example, we are terrified of social ostracision and romantic rejection. The thought of being rejected by a member of the opposite sex is almost crippling. Why? Simply put, as social creatures who evolved in small tribes of anywhere from 50 to 150 individuals, we were heavily dependant on the tribe for our survival and reproductive potential. As humans, our chances of surviving alone in the wild were slim at best. And when everyone you know, knows everyone else, being rejected by one person guarantees that everyone else you know will find out, and your social status will fall, and your chance of being accepted by anyone else becomes drastically diminished. After all, who wants to not only be your second choice, but also who wants to accept someone who was rejected by one of their peers? As a result you had to be pretty damned confident that you'd succeed in your mating attempts before making your intentions obvious, lest you risk severely handicapped chances of reproducing. And in a worst case scenario, if you offended someone important or stepped out of place, you could find yourself cast out from the tribe, left to either fend for yourself until you die alone, or find another tribe who will hopefully not kill you on sight. And even if they were to accept you, your position would be tenuous at best as they'd implicitly know that you'd been cast out from your original tribe. These are the sorts of pressures which led to very real and life altering consequences during the millions of years we were evolving in the wild. So we evolved all sorts of complicated social instincts, fears, and behaviours to deal with these, and fear of rejection and ostracision has always been one of the most powerful.
But nowadays it's just redundant and stupid. Anyone you meet who you might be interested is pretty much certainly completely isolated from anyone else you're ever likely to meet. If you go to a club and hit on a girl and get rejected, you can turn around, walk 5 meters, and hit on another girl who is completely disconnected from the first. In any city, you can do this thousands of times a week, every week of the year, and never see the same girl twice, nor meet any girl who is associated with any previous girls. Our instincts for fear of rejection were perfectly fine-tuned for social circles of about 50-150, but are just laughably inaccurate and useless in populations numbering the many millions.
So what's my point with these two examples?
Simple. Our evolved instincts are completely mismatched to our modern circumstances, and have not in any way changed to keep up with the times. After all, these circumstances, such as huge populations, abundance of high-energy foods, and artificial reproduction, are less than a century old, while we evolved over thousands of centuries.
We don't eat because we like food. That's tautological and myopic. We aren't afraid of rejection because it's scary, that's likewise circular and stupid. And we don't pursue sex because it feels good.
Sex feels good because it leads to reproduction. The fact that sex is the best anyone can ever feel (through natural means) only reinforces that nature deemed it more important to pursue than anything else, even food. Sex doesn't feel less good now that we have invented IVF.
Eating IS used for energy. The fact that people abuse the system to get the reward and f*ck their bodies up in the process has no impact on the fact that this very behaviour is compelling evidence for the success of the system in motivating behaviour. Sex IS used for reproduction. You might consciously think that you don't want to have a child, but your biology disagrees with you and frankly it doesn't give two sh*ts what you think you want. Let's face it. I mean really, sex is pretty gross. Imagine, if you will, sex without any of the hormones and endorphins and orgasm. It's sloppy, sticky, sweaty, and ugly. Boobs are lumps of fat with dark lumps on them, vaginas look like poorly healed stab wounds, and dicks look like sausages that are popping out of the skins with a wrinkly hairy sack of lumps swinging under them. The smell is terrible and the mucus exchange is just gross. Can you imagine anyone eating bubblegum that tasted like semen? or drinking a soda that tasted like vaginal lubrication? That would just be disgusting. If you're having trouble disassociating your programmed reward system from the stimulus, just imagine cows instead. Picture a bull's penis entering a cow's vagina and thrusting about until he ejaculates into the cow in a sloppy mess. Because minus the reward system which is fine-tuned for human stimulus, that's exactly how gross human sex is.
But if you throw in the hormones and sexual reward system, suddenly all those things become incredibly arousing and beautiful. We want to touch, smell and taste all these things which outside of another human are vomit inducing. Why?
Really K^2. Why? If you're so adamant that sex has been disassociated from reproduction, then why is sex still species specific? What difference does it make to achieve sexual pleasure with another person or a goat? Would you f*ck a goat? Why not? If you can answer the question to why not, in a truly insightful and comprehensive way, then you'll understand what I'm saying. And no, "because it doesn't appeal to me" is not even remotely in the vicinity of maybe perhaps being an answer if you look at it sideways with squinted eyes at dusk while high through a kaleidoscope.
Sex is not disassociated from reproduction. Sex is still, and always has been, a drive to reproduce. Our conscious awareness of this fact is completely irrelevant and unnecessary to achieve the ends.
And just to attack your argument from another angle briefly: statistically speaking, since 99.999999% of all human reproduction on this planet is still achieved through sex, I'd say that any claim such as yours is specious in the extreme. There are probably more people eating feces than there are people conceiving artificially.
Posted 26 November 2007 - 04:04 PM
|You seem to be operating under the dramatically erroneous assumption that technological advances have in some way influenced our programmed behaviour.|
Didn't we just establish that for some people the programmed behavior is inherently different? Either programmed behavior is what defines normalcy, and then if a person has an urge to f*ck a chicken, it is perfectly normal for that person to f*ck a chicken. Or the ability to reproduce is what defines what is normal, and then it has nothing to do with sex at all. You can't have it both ways.
Personally, I don't think it should be either of these. We should accept as normal anything that is not destabilizing to society. Homosexuality and incest have no destabilizing effects, bar reproduction. Pedophilia and necrophilia do. Simple, no?
|But nowadays those exact same instincts which served us so well in the past, are leading to ludicrous and dangerous levels of obesity almost unheard of until only a few decades ago.|
Far from all of us. I don't like food. I do not like eating. I check to make sure that I consume sufficient amount of food every day to keep me functioning properly, because I do not exactly feel hunger either. I have never had problems maintaining a healthy weight. Does that make me a social outcast? Au contre. It makes life easier. Who's more defective, me with a "broken" hunger dive" or a 400 pound kid eating a third helping of a super-sized meal?
I still have a fairly standard sexual drive, though. I am attracted to members of opposite sex that appear to be fit. I have no attraction for animals, children bellow age of reproduction, dead people, or members of my own family. It is clearly programming that remained from the days when this was key to propagating genes. But just like my hunger instincts don't work anymore, for many people these don't work like that anymore either. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing. I sometimes think about how many problems of heterosexual relationship the homosexual couples avoid all together.
Point is, most of us still have the same sex instincts as we did before the age of technology, but it is neither beneficial nor should be a reason to consider the rest of the people as somehow defective.
Posted 26 November 2007 - 06:44 PM
Forgive me, but when the arguments begin to fly around here, we all, at times, tend to be unnecessarily verbose and by extension the conversation becomes rather convoluted.
Edited by Otter, 26 November 2007 - 11:42 PM.
Posted 27 November 2007 - 09:01 AM
|What is, exactly, your argument, Ravien? Aside from your narrow views on contemporary art, what are you getting at? That some porn is wrong because it's enjoyed by "broken" people? Are you one of those fellas unfortunate enough to believe that our sexuality is an immediate expression of our genes?|
I was responding to a comment someone made about anything (including pornography) being art. We kinda got side-tracked from there I guess.
Also, if you don't think that sexuality is biologically determined, then I challenge you to be gay for the next month. Just do it. Just go out and be attracted to other guys. Touch them suggestively. Make out with them. Suck their dicks. It's really easy if you're attracted to them (just ask girls and gay guys). So let me know how that goes.
|Didn't we just establish that for some people the programmed behavior is inherently different? Either programmed behavior is what defines normalcy, and then if a person has an urge to f*ck a chicken, it is perfectly normal for that person to f*ck a chicken. Or the ability to reproduce is what defines what is normal, and then it has nothing to do with sex at all. You can't have it both ways.|
Well there's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.
We don't consciously define "normal". "Normal" is programmed into us through evolution. I'm not going to repeat myself but if you re-read my last post you can easily see how social responses can evolve to select for people having biases against other types of people based on criteria which end up making them more fit. If a we have two lions, and one lion has a powerful violent drive to kill anything resembling competition, and the other is completely nonchalant about competition, the violent one will be the one that survives best in the long run. If responding aggressively to individuals who exhibit abnormal and potentially harmful sexual tendencies is a trait which ensures more reproductive success than ambivalence about such fetishes, then eventually most humans will respond negatively to sexual freaks. Since this is the case, obviously evolution has selected for it, ergo it is right.
"We" have nothing to do with it. Logically trying to create rules for what defines normal is futile and infantile. Our intuitions about normal and our base instinctual reactions to those who are not normal will evolve in whichever direction grants more reproductive success or more survival capability (which translates to reproductive success... someone who survives for a thousand years and then dies with no offspring will never be able to pass on those survival genes).
|Homosexuality and incest have no destabilizing effects, bar reproduction. Pedophilia and necrophilia do. Simple, no?|
Again, you attempt to dismiss reproduction as if suddenly all humans of the future will be the same humans who are here today because we will all live forever from now on. Our species exists solely because of reproduction. You exist solely because of reproduction. I really can't believe that you're finding it this difficult to grasp the true worth of reproduction. It is the only thing which has any actual value that means anything to humans. All objects, knowledge and places are meaningless without future generations. All the money in the world means nothing if you are dead and can't use it to improve the lives of your children and their children. On the other hand, through reproduction, other things gain value. Like I just mentioned, money is actually very valuable if it makes your family rich, because this will have a huge impact on the propagation of your genes. Property and houses and other assets can ensure that your genes continue to contribute to what makes humans human.
So seriously, stop just trying to dismiss reproduction out of hand, as if it is inconsequential to assessing the effects of something. It is the opposite of inconsequential. Your attempts to claim otherwise reek of ignorance.
Secondly, please show me how necrophilia destabilizes society. No, you can't include murder. Just the urge to f*ck corpses. Please show me why this is destructive to society, based on your logic.
|Didn't we just establish that for some people the programmed behavior is inherently different?|
Yes. In fact that was a point I brought up first, re: sexual freaks.
However, you claimed that technological advances had in some way influenced programmed behaviour. This is ludicrous. Any variances we see have nothing to do with technology, and instead have everything to do with a complete lack of quality control to temper random genetic mutations. If you are attracted to un-feminine ugly fat chicks, great. You almost certainly have more opportunity to f*ck than the rest of us due to the abundance of repulsive women and their reluctance to reject any advances that come their way. I wish you the best in that. Or if you're perfectly content to jerk off into a cup and then freeze it for some random defective chick to use for IVF, while you shrug off the shackles of your sex drive and sit content and relaxed with no worries about pursuing sex and all the issues and baggage that come with it, then fine. You're genes may end up in a baby somewhere... though the mother will obviously not have the best of genes since she's using IVF (what fertile healthy heterosexual woman would use IVF?), so your children will inherit those poor genes that made the mum, and your poor genes will killed your sex drive... but whatever.
Posted 27 November 2007 - 10:01 AM
I'm more interested in the root of this debate with K^2, though. Are you trying to say that pornography is entirely an extension of reproduction, and that sexuality for pleasure's sake simply doesn't exist?
Edited by Otter, 27 November 2007 - 10:04 AM.
Posted 27 November 2007 - 12:22 PM
|Are you trying to say that pornography is entirely an extension of reproduction, and that sexuality for pleasure's sake simply doesn't exist?|
What does that mean: "sexuality for pleasure's sake"? That's like "eating for hunger's sake", or "pulling away from fire for pain's sake", or "avoiding spiders for fear's sake".
Of course on a conscious level we do things for the sake of the experience. That's all we need to know. "This hurts, stop doing it". "This makes me feel sick, I won't eat it again". "I feel terrified when I see snakes, I'll avoid them". "This feels really great, I'll keep doing it".
But to think that the entire reason we behave and react the way we do is simply for the sake of how we feel when we response is myopic.
Everything we do think and feel on a level we are aware of is driven by our unconscious instincts which are driven by our biological mechanics.
We experience pain, which is simply our gene's way of guiding our behaviour away from things, in response to events which could harm our survival or ability to reproduce. Even if we survive grievous bodily harm, we will become much less attractive to potential mates than competing humans who are perfectly fit and healthy. So anything that could kill us or reduce our attractiveness to potential mates is accompanied by fear and pain. Fear is much more liberally applied because avoidance is better than harm, and pain is such an awful experience because our body REALLY doesn't want us to f*ck up our chances to reproduce. Loneliness feels like crap because being alone is detrimental to your ability to mate (I'm talking about proper loneliness, not just temporarily not being around people, but that doesn't feel bad anyway, because it's not actually impacting your ability to mate in any way. Proper loneliness does).
Conversely we experience pleasure of varying degrees when we engage in behaviour that increases our chances to reproduce. Socialising with friends grants access to potential mates, helps us practice flirting, and itself makes us more attractive because people with friends are more fit than those with no friends. Eating feels good because of the immediate benefits to survival, and also because being fit and healthy makes us more attractive than being skinny and malnourished, because it indicates better genes. Engaging in novel and challenging activities gives us stories to talk about to impress other people, and indicates that we are fit enough that we can travel and overcome adversity in a wide variety of contexts. If you can think of something that makes you feel good, then a line can be drawn from it to the core reason: it feels good because it benefits your ability to reproduce.
So I guess when you ask if "sexuality for pleasure's sake simply doesn't exist?", I don't really understand what it is you're saying, because my immediate answer would be "no, nothing exists for its own sake".
So in regards to pornography, yeah. We aren't watching porn because it makes us feel good. I mean, that's why we think we're watching porn. But we're watching it because we are hardwired to watch other people f*ck for a few very good evolutionary reasons.
Firstly, forget television and magazines. The first porn was simply voyeurism, hidden or overt. Cavemen watched porn in full-size 3D.
Voyeurism confers a few advantages over disinterest. One: the most important; learning how to f*ck. We as a species do the vast majority of our learning by watching other people do things. Nearly all progress in any human endeavour is extrapolation, not innovation. By watching other people have sex, and seeing what appears to be working and what appears to be not-so-great, we can apply and extrapolate our lessons in our own sexual encounters. By watching and learning from other people having sex, we can become much more varied and skilled lovers than if we must learn everything from scratch on our own. As we all should know, girls demand myriad skills from their partners, so we need all the learning we can get.
Two: in certain circumstances we can become involved ourselves and thus gain a direct chance to procreate, where if we had been indifferent we would have lost that chance. This would usually only be possible if one were of significantly higher social status, or of near equal status and attractiveness and were also very good friends with the copulating couple.
Three: by watching people have sex, and becoming aroused by this (the reward for the behaviour), we become far more motivated and disinhibited about pursuing sex for ourselves. When horny we will take more risks and make stronger advancements towards our interests, dramatically increasing our chances of procreating with them. For our tribal ancestry, this would mostly involve moving to where our infatuation lies and whispering naughty things in their ears - which without the stimulus of watching other people screwing and without the subsequent arousal - probably wouldn't have happened.
And four: watching other people have sex also is very useful social information which is not directly related to our own sexual efficacy. We can see: how involved a couple are with each other, who is paired with who, who is being unfaithful to who (if the sexual encounter being observed is an affair), who has more social status than others etc. The sorts of things that girls spend 80% of their breath gossiping about. And we can also ascertain by the performance on show whether we could usurp the relationship due to confidence that we are vastly superior in the sack.
But learning is the most important one, and the one most applicable to porn. It is the primary reason why we rarely watch the same porn more than a couple of times, and why the porn industry will never ever become saturated. We constantly demand novel porn, because we can learn nothing from porn we've already seen a dozen times. On the other hand, we all enjoy listening to music, and most people can listen to the same music hundreds of times before they stop enjoying it.
So porn is very much about reproduction. It teaches us things about sex that would take ages to learn alone, and provides powerful motivation to seek sex with the nearest valid option. Unfortunately nowadays, this usually means your own hand.
Posted 27 November 2007 - 02:03 PM
And again, if you draw away from fire, it is primarily because it hurts. How do I know that? Because people also avoid doing things that carry absolutely no harm in any biologic sense because they are afraid. Some people won't go into elevators, others won't fly, and some won't get their teeth fixed from fear of dentist drills. That last one is just downright harmful to them. We do do things because of how we experience them. Yes, why we experience them this way is due to expressions of certain genes that were selected by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. But if we had these same genes for any other reason we would behave the same way.
A lot of our genetics is no longer consistent with today's society and technology. You already mentioned humans' need to overfeed themselves. Just because a lot of people exhibit similar behavior, it doesn't make it the right behavior, regardless of what biological pressures could have led to this behavior thousands of years ago. And if someone does these things different, they do it because they experience things differently, and they still do things for the experience, and not because it's something that would have helped them live in a cave.
Posted 27 November 2007 - 07:31 PM
When I say sexuality, or sexual pleasure, simply for the sake of pleasure - it is in line with K^2's comment about the reward centers of our brain. As with experimenting with food, we can find something pleasurable - yes, because it satiates our deeper biological functions, but we come back for more... simply for the high. This is why we pig out on sh*t that's not good for us, and yeah, it's why we love gym class and the "funny feeling" you get while climbing the ropes. Things touching our dicks feels good. And if something feels good, we want it simply because we want to feel good. [pursuing] Pleasure for the sake of [achieving] pleasure.
...I think K^2, you're barking up the wrong tree with the invitro argument. Why? Think of the world as revolving around your body. That's how your body feels... all the time. It doesn't want to produce progeny... it wants to f*ck. If you have children, your body won't stop trying to sleep with the babysitter. So, while you may have conscious peace of mind, there is such a drastic disconnect between what we call consciousness and our biological functions that you can not talk logic to your primal urges. Sure, you can deal with them on a nearly superficial face level, but you can't turn them off by explaining that "Don't worry, we've got sperm in a locker in Tulsa, smooth sailing!"
Edited by Otter, 27 November 2007 - 09:23 PM.
Posted 28 November 2007 - 03:22 AM
Posted 28 November 2007 - 03:42 AM
I agree... but I don't see why, then, you're at odds with Ravien. He's saying it's indicative of "broken" individuals, but not morally wrong. This disconnect you speak of is a disconnect in theory, in technology, and eventually maybe even practicality - but not within a single specimen's biology.
Edited by Otter, 28 November 2007 - 03:46 AM.
Posted 28 November 2007 - 03:45 AM
Posted 28 November 2007 - 03:49 AM
Posted 28 November 2007 - 04:40 AM
Posted 28 November 2007 - 06:51 AM
If sex were just pursued for pleasure, then we wouldn't be so damn picky about our mates. Sex as an act can stimulate the exact same sexual pleasure whether your mate is a smokin' hot supermodel, a hideously obese burn victim, or your mother. Hell, if we're talking about reaching orgasm, masturbation is more than adequate.
If it was just a matter of pleasure seeking, we wouldn't limit ourselves to partners who are the right balance between great genes and what we can get. We'd just happily f*ck anything that presented an orifice with no regard to things that only concern reproduction, such as genetic fitness of our mate, and the impact on our social status.
But we DO limit ourselves to those who would produce good offspring. We DO pursue only those who are approximately equally genetically fit (being drunk does not count, chemically altered states of mind have nothing to do with instinctual behaviour). The only reason we'd do this is if the gain from rejected immediate pleasure was enough to counter the benefit of accepting immediate pleasure. This gain is reproduction. Resources wasted raising inferior children become detrimental to the possibility and ability to raise superior children, weakening our genetic line.
It's simply a matter of fact that sex just for pleasure is an illusion.
As to K^2's continued arguments that IVF can allow any and all sexual behaviour to be totally acceptable with no impact on our evolution, well that's just plain wrong. Let's assume a scenario where all humans have easy access to IVF, and for some reason a great number of them actually choose to utilize it as their primary means of reproduction. This essentially cuts out the middle man in reproduction, removing all quality control. Over time, the removal of sexual selection pressures would guarantee the degradation of everything we know as human. Just like the removal of survival pressures has led to the tail end of humanity stretching out and dragging down the top-end with it, the removal of sexual pressures would amplify this into oblivion. Birds have been observed to lose their ability to fly in environments where they have no predators. What would we lose? Too much.
Technology has never ever increased pressures for humanity. It will never ever cause us to become fitter, except fitter within the environment afforded by technology, where "fitter" means, "as weak, fat, ugly, stupid and lazy as you can get because technology will compensate for all that". We will become the new domestic chickens. Utterly hopeless outside our coop which we have built around us.
So arguing that "it's ok to be sexually broken because we have IVF so we can reproduce regardless" is basically saying "it's ok for humanity to become less adapted to life on earth than chickens". Sexual biases and prejudices against the outliers are really the only thing keeping our heads above our own sh*t right now. Once that threshold gives, it's pretty much over for us.
Posted 28 November 2007 - 07:10 AM
2) IVF alone could be bad. But we have technology to do selection on what genetic material makes it through. We will select for these traits that make for a individual that is more fit in the society. As I said earlier, there are things that can be constructive and destructive. Sexual drive, in general, is constructive, because it helps people seek interaction. How each member selects partners is only important to a degree. Certain fetishes will be eradicated, while others will become more common simply because they are not controlled.
Posted 28 November 2007 - 11:53 AM
|Sex is not just direct physical stimulation of reproduction organs. It is all about stimulating reward centers. That includes touch, smell, sight, and sound. One is good, but the others help, and a negative on the others can kill the whole experience. That's why even if you don't intend to reproduce, you still want to find a mate that also looks good, smells good, etc. What is actually "good" to each particular person may vary, but we all have our criteria. Reproduction biology isn't even anywhere near the issue.|
Ok, since stepping through the logic in ABC form isn't working, I'm going to prompt you to see if you can do it.
Please explain to me why a mate that looks good increases the experience of sexual pleasure. No tautologies, and please follow the logic through to the natural conclusion.
Then please try to reconcile this with your statement "reproduction biology isn't even anywhere near the issue".
Posted 28 November 2007 - 03:30 PM
Posted 28 November 2007 - 06:36 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users