That could very well be true, i suppose it'd be hard to say for sure, my inkling is different than yours as i think sex drive may have much deeper roots in a lot of negative human action (as well as positive of course) , but i certainly think you could be very well right.
Oh, it's definitely an interesting question. Humans are social animals, also biologically programmed to procreate, and one could argue that the pursuit of any power, status, or money is either directly or indirectly related to the need for sexual status. It's so deeply tangled together that it would be hard to sort if we would pursue the same social markers without the impetus of sexual power.
It's one of those questions you can't really answer.
I guess it depends on how cynical you are.
I'd argue that sex has the potential to create many positive things as well as negative.
You said in your second and third sentence what would take me 6 sentences of rambling. Essentially my thoughts exactly, only so much more eloquently worded than I could ever do as you can see below in my wall of text comments to others haha.
and yes, I suppose you're right, It is perhaps impossible to answer. Im not so sure their are many real life ramifications/benefits to be had from pondering such a question either.
You get me wondering now about how much our capacity to love and empathize with others is also reliant on these desires and things that branch off of them. It does seem to be all rather entangled as you say. Of course you could say that most of us have some form of love in our life that is completely detached from the lustful side/sex drive. But i wonder how much our ability to love people intimately when fulfilled echoes out into those other areas of love. Perhaps if their was no intimate-love-void (no pun intended) to fill, it would effect other areas of love. Then again, authentic Asexuals aren't psychopaths... orrrr are they? *cue illuminati music*
Man, lost in a word salad now.. trying to articulate fleeting thoughts..not sure if it's for any good, non the less, I really love your last response, thanks for taking the time to share it.
Oh thank you! That's such a nice thing to hear. I don't think I'm particularly eloquent when it comes to the big questions- million thoughts an hour.
I suppose I think of sex as one of the many things we require from another as a social species. If there weren't needs, wants which required other people to fulfill, I suppose we'd just blob around on our own, like independent little bacteria cells. The need itself creates a need to interact with other people.
Needing anything, of course, opens the window for pure selfishness, the desire to manipulate others to meet that need, but it also opens the window all of the good things that come from interacting with others: communication, the sharing of knowledge and ideas, the notion of having a community, etc etc
Would humans interact at all if we didn't WANT something from one another, be it security, food, sex, emotional fulfillment. All the getting & giving, the exchanges of these social currencies - they're inherently open to abuse, but offer a lot as well.
Like I said, it's a crazy complicated question.
Anyways, you did not write a bunch of word salad. I find your thoughts interesting. It's an interesting subject to think about!
I word saladed Haha. Let's sprinkle some philosophical croutons on that fucker together
M'kay. Major consideration: Monogamy. Here's why. Human evolution depends on two outcomes of sexual selection.
1) Concentrating the genes of inferior people into loser offspring who will be eliminated from the gene pool.
2) Concentrating the genes of superior people into winner offspring that will fuel evolutionary change of the species.
The problem is that if everybody fucks everybody, you are only creating offspring with high sex drives. Winner and loser genes are not separated. As a species, humanity goes nowhere.
My conjecture says there is an optimal level for sexual drive. Too much and life becomes an orgy. Too little and procreation fails. But, just the right amount and you have monogamy, families, education, better institutions, and a torch of human enlightenment being lifted ever higher thru the centuries.
You're one of the few who rises well to the challenge of critical thinking. I know you won't disappoint me. Your go.
Would the world be better if everyone had lower sex drives?
← View full post
Nah, it's only one of the many reasons people act like cunts. If it ceased to exist, they'd just have more time to focus on their other cunty pursuits
--
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That could very well be true, i suppose it'd be hard to say for sure, my inkling is different than yours as i think sex drive may have much deeper roots in a lot of negative human action (as well as positive of course) , but i certainly think you could be very well right.
--
CountessDouche
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Oh, it's definitely an interesting question. Humans are social animals, also biologically programmed to procreate, and one could argue that the pursuit of any power, status, or money is either directly or indirectly related to the need for sexual status. It's so deeply tangled together that it would be hard to sort if we would pursue the same social markers without the impetus of sexual power.
It's one of those questions you can't really answer.
I guess it depends on how cynical you are.
I'd argue that sex has the potential to create many positive things as well as negative.
--
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You said in your second and third sentence what would take me 6 sentences of rambling. Essentially my thoughts exactly, only so much more eloquently worded than I could ever do as you can see below in my wall of text comments to others haha.
and yes, I suppose you're right, It is perhaps impossible to answer. Im not so sure their are many real life ramifications/benefits to be had from pondering such a question either.
You get me wondering now about how much our capacity to love and empathize with others is also reliant on these desires and things that branch off of them. It does seem to be all rather entangled as you say. Of course you could say that most of us have some form of love in our life that is completely detached from the lustful side/sex drive. But i wonder how much our ability to love people intimately when fulfilled echoes out into those other areas of love. Perhaps if their was no intimate-love-void (no pun intended) to fill, it would effect other areas of love. Then again, authentic Asexuals aren't psychopaths... orrrr are they? *cue illuminati music*
Man, lost in a word salad now.. trying to articulate fleeting thoughts..not sure if it's for any good, non the less, I really love your last response, thanks for taking the time to share it.
--
CountessDouche
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Oh thank you! That's such a nice thing to hear. I don't think I'm particularly eloquent when it comes to the big questions- million thoughts an hour.
I suppose I think of sex as one of the many things we require from another as a social species. If there weren't needs, wants which required other people to fulfill, I suppose we'd just blob around on our own, like independent little bacteria cells. The need itself creates a need to interact with other people.
Needing anything, of course, opens the window for pure selfishness, the desire to manipulate others to meet that need, but it also opens the window all of the good things that come from interacting with others: communication, the sharing of knowledge and ideas, the notion of having a community, etc etc
Would humans interact at all if we didn't WANT something from one another, be it security, food, sex, emotional fulfillment. All the getting & giving, the exchanges of these social currencies - they're inherently open to abuse, but offer a lot as well.
Like I said, it's a crazy complicated question.
Anyways, you did not write a bunch of word salad. I find your thoughts interesting. It's an interesting subject to think about!
I word saladed Haha. Let's sprinkle some philosophical croutons on that fucker together
--
McBean
4 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
M'kay. Major consideration: Monogamy. Here's why. Human evolution depends on two outcomes of sexual selection.
1) Concentrating the genes of inferior people into loser offspring who will be eliminated from the gene pool.
2) Concentrating the genes of superior people into winner offspring that will fuel evolutionary change of the species.
The problem is that if everybody fucks everybody, you are only creating offspring with high sex drives. Winner and loser genes are not separated. As a species, humanity goes nowhere.
My conjecture says there is an optimal level for sexual drive. Too much and life becomes an orgy. Too little and procreation fails. But, just the right amount and you have monogamy, families, education, better institutions, and a torch of human enlightenment being lifted ever higher thru the centuries.
You're one of the few who rises well to the challenge of critical thinking. I know you won't disappoint me. Your go.
turing test failed
turing test failed