How do you view sex?

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:39 pm

Just a thought, with all the "sex is much better when it's with someone you love / are in love with." stuff...

Everyone here knows the fairly simple evolutionary reason why that is, right?

Alter alias · Post by **Alter alias** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:35 am

There are solid evolutionary reasons for it? I would have assumed that logicaly it would make more sense (for a male at least) to prefer sex with as many different partners as possible as this would be the most effective way for them to spread their genetic code to future generations.

But to answer the question in caveman terms: sex good, love and sex better.

Aeridus · Post by **Aeridus** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:19 am

It's to ensure that *someone* sticks around to take care of resulting babies. Though, that doesn't rule out polygamy....

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:54 am

Honor wrote:Just a thought, with all the "sex is much better when it's with someone you love / are in love with." stuff...

Everyone here knows the fairly simple evolutionary reason why that is, right?

Excetionally simplified and broad sweeping biotalk below:

Elevated levels of oxytocin excreted in to the cerebral cortex causing an increased level of pleasure, resulting in harder, better, faster, stronger fucking, which gives a better chance of impregnation.

The oxytocin production is stimulated by a host of factors, but attraction is one of the main ones. We're attracted to mates because of the qualities we want our offspring to inherit.

Short answer. Eugenics.

Kingofthemorlocks · Post by **Kingofthemorlocks** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:34 am

Eugenics! *jacks off*

Alter alias · Post by **Alter alias** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:02 am

Oh, fair enough then, cool. Serves me right for not taking that biology A level.
Kinda occours that the annoying boyfriend line "you would if you realy loved me" could now have scientific backing though.

Goddessmisca · Post by **Goddessmisca** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:54 am

Honor wrote:Just a thought, with all the "sex is much better when it's with someone you love / are in love with." stuff...

Everyone here knows the fairly simple evolutionary reason why that is, right?

Evolutionary or not it's truuuue!

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:52 pm

Suiderino wrote:Short answer. Eugenics.

Yer playin' pretty fast and loose with the deifnition of the word "eugenics" there, Hon.

"Eugenics" kind of strongly implies artificial or intellectual control to reinforce intellectually or socially desirable traits, despite the whims of biological desire, doesn't it? Maybe "Short answer: The natural version of Eugenics."?

alter alias wrote:I would have assumed that logicaly it would make more sense (for a male at least) to prefer sex with as many different partners as possible as this would be the most effective way for them to spread their genetic code to future generations.

Wow... This next bit ended up being awfully long and rambly... Fair warning to anyone who doesn't wanna read it.

That is, indeed, the best strategy for male creatures built like humans... And they have a whole seperate and powerful mechanism for that. A few notable self-identified exceptions notwithstanding, no matter how "in love" a normal, healthy male is, especially after the initial high-intensity mating period, he's still going to be very tempted to plough anything that turns tail to him. IIRC, current studies seem to indicate that at least 80-90% of "monogamous" males yield to that temptation at least once in a while.

Not that lots and lots of women don't "cheat" too. We just do it differently, for slightly different reasons.

Both males and females "fall in love". Both experience initial, passionate love (or "Limerance", although I wish Dr. Tennov had come up with a better word) and both experience lasting, devoted love... But there's pretty solid evidence that they experience it quite differently.

It's like that old thought experiment: If I say "green", everyone knows what I mean... But, most likely, even if we point at grass and say "that green, right there!", everyone is thinking of something slightly different.

Well, people are thinking something slightly different when they say or feel "love", too... And the foremost of numerous division lines seems to be along the lines of gender.

We each (both males and females) have our own persistant biological mechanisms to make sure we:

find certain people attractive,
enjoy sex more when it's with a bonded mating partner,
make an effort to stay with that partner for a fairly fixed period of time (a period which is, unfortunately, different in males and females),
look for specific situational opportunities to cheat on that partner (again, different for eash sex),
have a protective attitude toward our offspring, and stay put til they're "ok" (again... timing varies),
don't spend too much time sticking around and being sexually attracted to that mating partner after the business of mating has been seen to, to a reasonable degree of effort and/or demonstrable success/failure, and
(usually) form strong social 'friendship' bonds that border on familial intensity with those we interact closely with over long periods of time... Particularly if we share "family" type activities with them.

So, in the course of a "successful" modern long term relationship, we start with curiousity, move on to courtship, pass through a brief and wonderful period of passionate breeding frenzy, settle into LTR mode, cheat a bit (whether intellectually, emotionally, or physically), stick around for the children (or cats, dogs, friends, hobbies, mortgage payment, parents, etc), start to stray sexually, intellectually, or emotionally, suffer a crisis of relationship, and then stay together because we realize we "love" our partner (now, as our best friend, whom we sometimes schtup... But our instincts aren't good at making these distinctions. They recognize a deep and powerful survivial tied bond (this person helps me survive, and I need to help them survive), and our concious mind calls it "love".)

Sociological expectations and pressures have worked awfully hard to defeat a lot of these natural behaviours... To control the reasons and the ways humans breed, because, since breeding is such a powerful and overriding biological need, controlling the ways that humans breed is an excellent way of controlling human beings. It's not accidental that every religion in the history of mankind has a great deal to say about controlling the hows and whys of every biological imperative the human animal feels...

The basic patterns are still there, though, good and strong. We just have admonishing, disapproving names to hurl at people when they behave naturally now.

So... Did anyone make it through all that?

Indigo Violent · Post by **Indigo Violent** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:21 pm

Honor wrote:So... Did anyone make it through all that?

*waves hand*

Awkwardschoolgirl · Post by **Awkwardschoolgirl** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:53 pm

I'll admit, I only skimmed it.

Tha_Pig · Post by **Tha_Pig** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:32 pm

Indigo Violent wrote:
Tha_Pig wrote:
Indigo Violent wrote:Fulfillment of a biological imperative, enjoyable in the same way eating, urinating, sleeping, etc, are.
You are a virgin, aren't you?
If you didn't have your first orgasm until you started sleeping with other people, then I feel kind of bad for you. (Oh, and to clarify - no, I am not.)

I had my first orgasm masturbating, like everyone else. I don't see how that is relevant to the topic.

What I mean is, if you rate the experience of sex on the same level of urinating and other biological functions, then you are a virgin, regardless of how many times you slept with someone.

I would feel bad for you if I was able to experience pity.

Indigo Violent · Post by **Indigo Violent** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:55 pm

Why not? Reasonably, that's what it is. Yes, sex feels a million times better than taking a piss, but it's still on about the same intellectual level as far as I'm concerned. It feels good because it satisfies a certain basic instinct, not because it's some kind of amazing transcendant spiritual experience.

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:14 pm

Indigo Violent wrote:It feels good because it satisfies a certain basic instinct, not because it's some kind of amazing transcendant spiritual experience.

Damn, you're having the wrong kind of sex.

Queenhank · Post by **Queenhank** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:40 pm

There is no WRONG kind of sex!

Nithos · Post by **Nithos** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:06 pm

Maybe you're taking the wrong kind of piss.

Indigo Violent · Post by **Indigo Violent** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:06 pm

squidflakes wrote:
Indigo Violent wrote:It feels good because it satisfies a certain basic instinct, not because it's some kind of amazing transcendant spiritual experience.
Damn, you're having the wrong kind of sex.

Hey, the more basic the instinct, the better it feels to satisfy it.

RantinAn · Post by **RantinAn** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:22 pm

Good grief, i missed you guys. *hugs everyone*
For me sex is qwhat it is. no more, no less.Its different every time, so i dont go categorizing it.

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:53 pm

RantinAn wrote:Good grief, i missed you guys. *hugs everyone*

Annie-chan!!!

*pouncehugtacklekissrape!!*

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:02 pm

Tha_Pig wrote:What I mean is, if you rate the experience of sex on the same level of urinating and other biological functions, then you are a virgin, regardless of how many times you slept with someone.

I would feel bad for you if I was able to experience pity.

Maybe your ability to feel pity was lost at the same time as your ability to understand the meaning of the word "virgin"... Or, for that matter, much of the rest of the language.

She didn't say it was enjoyable on the same level, or to the same degree of intensity as other biological functions, she said it was enjoyable in the same way other biological imperatives were... And in that, she's 100% correct.

You're confusing experience type with intensity of benefit.

Let's try another analogy... Getting paid a million dollars to design a building is earning an income in the same way that getting paid ten dollars to sort and stack buttons is.

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:02 pm

awkwardschoolgirl wrote:I'll admit, I only skimmed it.

*sniff!* But... I expected so much more from you...?