Is sex really as good as you initially think?

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 26 Apr 2008 23:47

sex controls our whole psychology and defines the way we interact with one another. i wouldnt be so quick to discount it.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 27 Apr 2008 01:04

Erik Chan wrote:
Switch Kicker wrote:Post sex (average, non-crazy-good sex) seems so... empty, like there's something missing... like there should be something after... and it's just blank... other than the desire for a cigarette even if you don't smoke.
It's called "love". I highly recommend it.

Only been in love once. And to be quite honest, she was the best out everyone... perhaps that is why? Idk... Could be.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 27 Apr 2008 23:04

brian relly wrote:sex controls our whole psychology

Going as far as to say it controls our "whole" psychology is a bit over the top.

brian relly wrote:i wouldnt be so quick to discount it

I would.

brian relly · Post by **brian relly** » 28 Apr 2008 05:16

maybe i should say it comes right behind this thing called "staying alive," but who am i kidding, you're a fucking troglodyte.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 28 Apr 2008 12:32

Blue_turnip wrote:
brian relly wrote:sex controls our whole psychology
Going as far as to say it controls our "whole" psychology is a bit over the top.

brian relly wrote:i wouldnt be so quick to discount it
I would.

Speaking in evolutionary terms, our entire purpose in life is to reproduce, which means we are all hardwired to have as much sex, and produce as many offspring, as possible. The only reason we don't is because of the social norms impressed upon us by our culture.

mc · Post by mc » 28 Apr 2008 12:33

to answer the question,

it wasn't always... but when you have a GGG partner (good, giving, and game... thanks dan savage!) and you really care about each other's needs and wants, it can lead to busting some really awesome nuts.

Blue_turnip · Post by **Blue_turnip** » 28 Apr 2008 16:46

Slowsis wrote:
Blue_turnip wrote:
brian relly wrote:sex controls our whole psychology
Going as far as to say it controls our "whole" psychology is a bit over the top.

brian relly wrote:i wouldnt be so quick to discount it
I would.
Speaking in evolutionary terms, our entire purpose in life is to reproduce, which means we are all hardwired to have as much sex, and produce as many offspring, as possible. The only reason we don't is because of the social norms impressed upon us by our culture.

The only reason we don't is because of social norms? No. Just sitting around rooting 24/7 would not make the human race more successful than we are. Staying alive for a longer period of time surpasses just an urge to root. A pregnant woman has to hang around for 9 months just to get the baby out of her let alone the years it takes before the critter (i love that word) can fend for itself.

That is why we have interests in things beyond sex. We are curious because if we weren't, we'd just sit in one spot all day and just die out because we can't find shit to keep us alive (When I get stuck into some interesting maths or programming, all urges to bang simply disappear).

Anyway, despite my views which are atypical of what society expects, the 'social norms impressed upon us by our culture', which you argue is the only thing keeping us from having as much sex as possible, didn't just pop out of anywhere. They didn't just magically drift down for not reason at all - they are the result of our thinking and our minds: and there are quite a few different cultures that embrace [a good example pertaining to the topic:] monogamy. I doubt its by chance. I'm not an evolutionary scientist but I personally think we usually have one partner because of jeleousy: we're competitive and it makes us uncomfortable to see someone we love around competition. This is a trait I strive to eliminate. This is one of the reasons I find christianity amusing. They talk up marriage so much but then one of the seven deadly sins is envy, which I believe monogamy is borne out of.

Sex doesn't control our whole psychology: keeping the species alive does. Sex is just one of the crucial ingredients with which this is achieved: certainly not the whole. While the species can't live on without sex (If only, if only we were bacteria), there are a number of other things that they also cannot live without.

brian relly wrote:maybe i should say it comes right behind this thing called "staying alive," but who am i kidding, you're a fucking troglodyte.

No, it would be very valid to say it is of equal weighting to 'staying alive'. One second you're saying sex controls everything, the next you're saying it is second to keeping yourself alive: Jesus boy, make up your mind!

Yes, I did just write that last paragraph for no reason other than to stir shit up.

I went to look up troglodyte on dictionary.com because my vocabulary isn't extensive (or pretentious) enough to justify using 'troglodyte' casually on an internet forum. I got 5 definitions:

1. a prehistoric cave dweller.
2. a person of degraded, primitive, or brutal character.
3. a person living in seclusion.
4. a person unacquainted with affairs of the world.
5. an animal living underground.

I assume you were referring to definition 3 and even moreso definition 4 (Although I'd personally find definition 2 and 5 the most appealing if they were in reference to me). Regardless, I still don't quite understand how your use of the word was relevant to the debate at hand.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 28 Apr 2008 21:02

He was making a throw away comment, just shut the fuck up.

Switch Kicker · Post by **Switch Kicker** » 28 Apr 2008 22:31

BainbridgeShred wrote:He was making a throw away comment, just shut the fuck up.

I lol'd.

QuantumBalance · Post by **QuantumBalance** » 29 Apr 2008 17:33

Love + GGG = ideal combination = sex is always fantastic

bdams19 · Post by **bdams19** » 02 May 2008 09:43

Catching dome at the end of a night could be the greatest thing ever

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 02 May 2008 10:21

bdams19 wrote:Catching dome at the end of a night could be the greatest thing ever

This isn't true. Catching dome ANYTIME is the greatest thing ever. Nub.

Psilocybe · Post by **Psilocybe** » 03 May 2008 07:50

/hijack
Dome is overrated.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 May 2008 08:05

Slowsis wrote:
Blue_turnip wrote:
brian relly wrote:sex controls our whole psychology
Going as far as to say it controls our "whole" psychology is a bit over the top.

brian relly wrote:i wouldnt be so quick to discount it
I would.
Speaking in evolutionary terms, our entire purpose in life is to reproduce, which means we are all hardwired to have as much sex, and produce as many offspring, as possible. The only reason we don't is because of the social norms impressed upon us by our culture.

Speaking in evolutionary terms, you're completely wrong. The fact that we do reproduce is why we're alive, but it's certainly not our "purpose.' Life forms that don't replicate themselves become extinct when the individuals die. The better they are at replicating, the more likely they are to continue to exist. It has nothing to do with "purpose." That's like saying the purpose of water is flow downhill instead of uphill.

I also totally disagree with the assessment that sex controls our whole psychology. There are many aspects of our psychology that have absolutely no relationship with sex. In fact the majority of our brain processes information for our basic physiological survival (such as keeping or organs working and controlling our muscles) and our senses (especially vision).

Sex certainly can be important, but I feel like we live in such a materialistic and instantly gratified society that it is harmfully obsessed about and given much more meaning than it should be. I'm certainly not a virgin but when I think of the most important and rewarding things in my life, none of them have anything to do with sex. Luckily we're in a position where we don't need to choose between sex and other things.

james · Post by **james** » 03 May 2008 09:37

git on top, git ur jollies n git me a beer!

Princess Rockelette · Post by **Princess Rockelette** » 04 May 2008 12:59

Blue_turnip wrote: Anyway, despite my views which are atypical of what society expects, the 'social norms impressed upon us by our culture', which you argue is the only thing keeping us from having as much sex as possible, didn't just pop out of anywhere. They didn't just magically drift down for not reason at all - they are the result of our thinking and our minds: and there are quite a few different cultures that embrace [a good example pertaining to the topic:] monogamy. I doubt its by chance. I'm not an evolutionary scientist but I personally think we usually have one partner because of jeleousy: we're competitive and it makes us uncomfortable to see someone we love around competition. This is a trait I strive to eliminate. This is one of the reasons I find christianity amusing. They talk up marriage so much but then one of the seven deadly sins is envy, which I believe monogamy is borne out of.

Monogamy wasn't born out of jealousy. Monogamy (love and physical pleasure in sex, two almost unique features of the human specie also) exists because for the baby human, compared to others animals, it is extremely long and hard to reach independency. Thus, the male and the female humans need to stay together to support the baby until maturity. That's why we have love, monogamy and sexual pleasure from both sides. If you are interested in evolution, sexuality and cultures, I suggest you read The Naked Woman from Desmond Morris.

james wrote:git on top, git ur jollies n git me a beer!

I kindly suggest, sir, that you also look up troglodyte on dictionnary.com, second definition.

james · Post by **james** » 05 May 2008 03:25

Well that's not very nice at all, surely not a fair response to a minor jest.

Everyone knows you gotta get her flowers first

james · Post by **james** » 05 May 2008 03:26

Also I was referring to the girl being on top because I'm lazy

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 May 2008 03:52

Princess Rockelette wrote:
Blue_turnip wrote: Anyway, despite my views which are atypical of what society expects, the 'social norms impressed upon us by our culture', which you argue is the only thing keeping us from having as much sex as possible, didn't just pop out of anywhere. They didn't just magically drift down for not reason at all - they are the result of our thinking and our minds: and there are quite a few different cultures that embrace [a good example pertaining to the topic:] monogamy. I doubt its by chance. I'm not an evolutionary scientist but I personally think we usually have one partner because of jeleousy: we're competitive and it makes us uncomfortable to see someone we love around competition. This is a trait I strive to eliminate. This is one of the reasons I find christianity amusing. They talk up marriage so much but then one of the seven deadly sins is envy, which I believe monogamy is borne out of.
Monogamy wasn't born out of jealousy. Monogamy (love and physical pleasure in sex, two almost unique features of the human specie also) exists because for the baby human, compared to others animals, it is extremely long and hard to reach independency. Thus, the male and the female humans need to stay together to support the baby until maturity. That's why we have love, monogamy and sexual pleasure from both sides. If you are interested in evolution, sexuality and cultures, I suggest you read The Naked Woman from Desmond Morris.

Actually the modern evolutionary biological theory is that people fall in love for 4 years, which is long enough to raise a child enough to give it a good chance of survival, and then they fall out of love because it's a better survival strategy to have children with different people, than all with the same person. Of course that's not to say that you can't be in a loving and meaningful relationship for more than 4 years, just that over time you'll need to keep addressing the relationship if you want it to succeed.

Princess Rockelette · Post by **Princess Rockelette** » 05 May 2008 08:27

Jeremy wrote:
Princess Rockelette wrote:
Blue_turnip wrote: Anyway, despite my views which are atypical of what society expects, the 'social norms impressed upon us by our culture', which you argue is the only thing keeping us from having as much sex as possible, didn't just pop out of anywhere. They didn't just magically drift down for not reason at all - they are the result of our thinking and our minds: and there are quite a few different cultures that embrace [a good example pertaining to the topic:] monogamy. I doubt its by chance. I'm not an evolutionary scientist but I personally think we usually have one partner because of jeleousy: we're competitive and it makes us uncomfortable to see someone we love around competition. This is a trait I strive to eliminate. This is one of the reasons I find christianity amusing. They talk up marriage so much but then one of the seven deadly sins is envy, which I believe monogamy is borne out of.
Monogamy wasn't born out of jealousy. Monogamy (love and physical pleasure in sex, two almost unique features of the human specie also) exists because for the baby human, compared to others animals, it is extremely long and hard to reach independency. Thus, the male and the female humans need to stay together to support the baby until maturity. That's why we have love, monogamy and sexual pleasure from both sides. If you are interested in evolution, sexuality and cultures, I suggest you read The Naked Woman from Desmond Morris.
Actually the modern evolutionary biological theory is that people fall in love for 4 years, which is long enough to raise a child enough to give it a good chance of survival, and then they fall out of love because it's a better survival strategy to have children with different people, than all with the same person. Of course that's not to say that you can't be in a loving and meaningful relationship for more than 4 years, just that over time you'll need to keep addressing the relationship if you want it to succeed.

Wow. 4 years for a child to have good chances of survival. Right. Ah, science.