The Nature and Purpose of Human Sexuality

[SuuT]

Discuss.:coffee:

[Lutiferre]

The nature is that there are two sexes, roughly speaking, one man and one woman. However, that is obviously the case for a purpose.

The purpose becomes clear in that these two sexes are from the natural make-up of human kind attracted toward each other to find support, love and unity. From this love and unity, new life springs forth.

[Liffrea]

Procreation, sex has no other point to it.

[Puddle of Mudd]

Procreation, sex has no other point to it.

^ What he said.

[Óttar]

Human sexuality is infinitely variable. It is a product of natural algorhythms. Nature "knows" exactly what it is doing, as it is so very old. It "knows" a Hell of a lot better than any one of us.

[Lady L]

Procreation, sex has no other point to it.

True but I disagree there is no other point to it. ;) I might go into that later when I have more time. :)

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lady Lyfing
True but I disagree there is no other point to it.

Personally I can’t see any other point to it, unless you’re saying it can be fun, which obviously it can be, as long as you don’t forget that, ultimately, the sexual urge is a tool of procreation, which is why men need to be responsible about where they put their organ and women need to be responsible about when they open their legs.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Reproduction. That is all.

No fun.

No playing.

There is nothing spiritual about it.

AMEN. :D

[Psychonaut]

I think a distinction can be made between the natural purpose of sexuality (which is obviously to propagate the species) and the purpose given to it by whatever society is up for discussion. In ours, where birth control is readily available and birth rates are sinking below the rate of replenishment, it's clear that our societal purpose for sex has shifted pretty far from the biological impulse's purpose. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I don't think so. Is it currently affecting our societies in a negative way? I think so.

[Paleo]

The reason in nature is to reproduce, a sex drive is simply beneficial from a evolutionary view point.

Quite simple:coffee:


Now, the psychology of human fetishes and obsessions would be interesting:icon_yawn::bored0:.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Prussian Blew
Reproduction and that is IT!

No fun.

No playing.

Nothing spiritual about it.

Just makin' babies.

AMEN.

I have wrote that sex can be fun and between two people who love each other it is the most intense intimacy, and indeed vulnerability, you will face outside of airport security……..

BUT it’s point is procreation, that’s why you have the urge in the first place.;)

[Lutiferre]

I think it is a false dilemma to put up a division between the unitive potentiality inherent and fundamental to human sexuality (in uniting man and woman in love) and the generative potentiality, the giving of life that is it's ultimate end (reproduction). It only shows that life and love are inherently connected, and life is the result of love. These two aspects, love and life are part of one whole, whose separation and isolation leads to perversion, and leads for instance, to the love-part to be replaced by (unloving and careless) lust.

[anonymaus]

The reason in nature is to reproduce, a sex drive is simply beneficial from a evolutionary view point.

This.

Also, it's for whatever I want and no sexless puritanical quaker is going to convince me otherwise.

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/sex_makes_babies.jpg

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Lutiferre
I think it is a false dilemma to put up a division between the unitive potentiality inherent and fundamental to human sexuality (in uniting man and woman in love) and the generative potentiality, the giving of life that is it's ultimate end (reproduction). It only shows that life and love are inherently connected, and life is the result of love. These two aspects, love and life are part of one whole, whose separation and isolation leads to perversion, and leads for instance, to the love-part to be replaced by (unloving, careless and irresponsible) lust.

That’s why I don’t agree with promiscuous behaviour, I don’t agree with abortions either (except if a women’s life is in danger) and, personally, I find both immoral. Call me "quaker" or "puritan" if you like, rest assured I don't give a damn and I'll get over it.:D

I also agree that to divide love from the sexual act is harmful; it degrades both the act and the partner. Sexual acts don’t need to be penetrative nor do they necessarily lead to pregnancy, but the sexual urge is one designed to facilitate procreation (and personally I can’t think of anything more spiritual or intimate than bringing life into the world).

Unfortunately we live in a society where you’re positively pushed into sex as young as possible and where there is a “quick fix” for your own lack of responsibility.

[Octothorpe]

Now, the psychology of human fetishes and obsessions would be interesting:icon_yawn::bored0:.

Some of that is purely neurological. For example: foot fetishes. The neurological mapping for awareness of and control over one's feet is amazingly close in location to the mapping for sexual arousal. When developmental damages (physical, chemical, et cetera) cause a shifting of neurological networks, the two can easily overap, causing one to be sexually aroused by feet.

Others are much harder to track, as they seem to be purely mental in nature, often being caused by traumatic events in childhood or early adolescence.

[Loddfafner]

I'll bet the percentage of human sex acts that have procreation as the goal is vanishingly small and that outcome is even generally avoided. The actual purposes could range from love to hate, meditation to defiance, transgression to conformity, playfulness to fulfilling duty, conflict to conciliation, pity, generosity, tension release, vengeance, adoration, admiration, contempt, showing off, domination, submission, communication, bonding, exercise... and on and on and on.

Even evolutionarily speaking, procreation is just one of the natural facts that sustain it. Many traits evolve to have multiple purposes, and with humans it is likely to be related to group formation, maintenance of hierarchies, etc.

[Lutiferre]

Some of that is purely neurological. For example: foot fetishes. The neurological mapping for awareness of and control over one's feet is amazingly close in location to the mapping for sexual arousal. When developmental damages (physical, chemical, et cetera) cause a shifting of neurological networks, the two can easily overap, causing one to be sexually aroused by feet.
Maybe in the case of extreme fetisches.

But it is overly reductionistic to pretend that this is valid for all cases; when it is something something that has a multitude of differentiated cases and potential causes.

If it isn't an extreme case of a fetisch, but more like a "preference", then it is more likely that the person has developed an aesthetic, a natural admiration of the given body part (like feet, or noses, or eyes, or any body part).

And even if it is extreme, the causes can be complex, but are often more emotional than purely neurological (e.g. also work on a higher level).


Others are much harder to track, as they seem to be purely mental in nature, often being caused by traumatic events in childhood or early adolescence.
Again, pop-psychology and reductionism. Your explanation is not necessarily true, as there can be many complex causes.


Even evolutionarily speaking, procreation is just one of the natural facts that sustain it. Many traits evolve to have multiple purposes, and with humans it is likely to be related to group formation, maintenance of hierarchies, etc.
It is not a coincidence that biologists call the faculties associated with it the reproductive system. Whatever the psychologically motivating factor, reproduction is certainly the prime end for which it developed.

[Loddfafner]

Whatever the psychologically motivating factor, reproduction is certainly the prime end for which it developed.

Just because reproduction is its prime end does not mean that everyone should be obliged to restrict it to that end. The tail evolved primarily to help fish swim. Descendants of fish have found a wide range of other uses for tails such as swatting flies, expressing emotion, keeping balance, distracting predators, attracting mates, and so on.

[Lutiferre]

Just because reproduction is its prime end does not mean that anyone should be obliged to restrict it to that end.
No, just like you are not strictly obliged to use your liver or any other organ, for the purposes which they serve and function within the human body; or the eyes for seeing, or the ears for hearing. Denying the reproductive system involved in human sexuality its reproductive end is ultimately as good as it is to deny the liver its detoxifying or biosynthesizing ends, and is ultimately a dysgenic perversion which leads to extinction.

[Loddfafner]

Those who insist that everyone should follow the most narrow guidelines of a constricted view of nature should live entirely as they preach and stop using technology to cheat in the struggle for existence. If they want to escape the charge of hypocrisy they must restrict their diet to what they can find in the wild and only use their fists, sticks, and stones to defend against predators, and allow any disease no matter how severe to take its course without medical treatment. They must ensure that their every sexual act leads to a birth and that the mother receives no medical assistance with that birth.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Loddfafner
Just because reproduction is its prime end does not mean that everyone should be obliged to restrict it to that end.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but one shouldn’t forget that procreation is responsible for the urge and (protected or not) a possible outcome from sexual intercourse. I wouldn’t say don’t have sex unless you want children but I would advise being responsible with what you do with your body and don’t forget what sex is ultimately for.

Personally I would never sleep with a woman I wasn’t prepared to have carry my child.

[Lutiferre]

Those who insist that everyone should follow the most narrow guidelines of a constricted view of nature should live entirely as they preach and stop using technology to cheat in the struggle for existence. If they want to escape the charge of hypocrisy they must restrict their diet to what they can find in the wild and only use their fists, sticks, and stones to defend against predators, and allow any disease no matter how severe to take its course without medical treatment. They must ensure that their every sexual act leads to a birth and that the mother receives no medical assistance with that birth.
Which is of course, a complete non-sequitur given what I said. Acknowledging the generative end of the human reproductive system and sexuality, does not equal to limiting it to that (e.g. human sexuality is also interpersonal, and has a fundamental unitive aspect between man and woman, which is clear even in the anatomy of the sexual organs), and neither does it equal to accepting that "every sexual act must lead to birth", since we are speaking about the intent and the nature of the act, not the workings of nature out of our control (e.g. we may die from a heart attack in a second, or there may be a miscarriage, and so on - not in our control, and not determined by our act or intention, and hence, beyond moral culpability).


(e.g. human sexuality is also interpersonal, and has a fundamental unitive aspect between man and woman, which is clear even in the anatomy of the sexual organs)In fact, I'd say the deeply embedded (inter)personal significance and meaning of human sexuality is exactly why there is such a thing as "sexual immorality". By intentionally denying it it's chief end, we are violating something that is embedded in all human persons, namely human nature, and even the very generative end from which we as human persons proceed (from our parents), since the chief end of human sexuality we are denying is a part of human nature, and hence, by disrespecting human nature, it is the very dignity of human nature in se and followingly the dignity of all human persons we are violating. We see how all such immorality is contrary to the good of the human person since, in it's disrespect of the dignity of the human person, it's psychologically dysgenic nature becomes apparent by preventing new life to come about.

The same would not be the case with the acts of animals, which are not persons, and do not have the moral culpability implied in the powers of reasoning and connection between intent/will and action that humans do.

And technology was itself something that was brought about by Man, for the good of Man, given the superior potential of human nature, in its integration between abstract intentionality and action, and powers of reasoning. Hence, using it contrary to the good of man (e.g. sexual immorality) is an intentional and immoral endeavour.

[Octothorpe]

Maybe in the case of extreme fetisches.

But it is overly reductionistic to pretend that this is valid for all cases; when it is something something that has a multitude of differentiated cases and potential causes.

If it isn't an extreme case of a fetisch, but more like a "preference", then it is more likely that the person has developed an aesthetic, a natural admiration of the given body part (like feet, or noses, or eyes, or any body part).

And even if it is extreme, the causes can be complex, but are often more emotional than purely neurological (e.g. also work on a higher level).

Again, pop-psychology and reductionism. Your explanation is not necessarily true, as there can be many complex causes.


It is not a coincidence that biologists call the faculties associated with it the reproductive system. Whatever the psychologically motivating factor, reproduction is certainly the prime end for which it developed.

Please notice that what I wrote said 'some.' And considering that I teach psychology, I'd say it isn't 'pop psychology.' This isn't a forum for professional sex counselors or therapists. It's a forum for the exchange of general knowledge, views, and opinions. I suggest a nice, long bath and a cool, frosty beverage.

[Lady L]

The purpose of sex to me is many things :embarrassed

I really don't think I truly understood them all and embraced them all until my marriage. The reason for that would be a couple of things. 1, I've never loved anyone like this before. 2, Being married makes it even more sexy to my brain :embarrassed

You know, they say the brain is the most sexual organ ;)

To feel as close as you can to the person you love. < a purpose.
From a woman's perspective ( that's me ) to feel dominated and woman like when the man is making love ( to me ) < a purpose.
To feel beautiful and desired. < a purpose.
To truly connect. < a purpose.
To feel skin on skin. < a purpose.
To make one feel good. < a purpose.
To feel good myself. < a purpose.
To have orgasms. < a purpose.
To complete nature. < a purpose.

...:embarrassed

...:D

[Aemma]

Discuss.:coffee:

I can just see it now. You'd be the type of Philosophy prof to set the PHI 101 Final Exam (which would be worth 100% of one's class mark mind you) as the following:

The scene: A university gymnasium replete with rows upon rows of brainiac angst-ridden young adults fidgeting in their seats, waiting with bated breath for Prof SuuT's infamous PHI 101 Final Exam.

The examiners, all harsh-looking and dowdy matrons (ya ya I know, you're looking for the babes in swimsuits. Ya well this is MY story right now don't forget :P), stroll the aisles handing out the examination booklets which inside possess Prof SuuT's notorious examination questionnaire.

The matrons are now all standing at the head of each row and upon Prof SuuT's mark they will slap their yardsticks onto the first desk (luckily empty) as the Go mark. Prof SuuT gives the word, and WHACK!

Booklets are furiously being flipped open and only a collective gasp can be heard emanating from the once deafening silence......

The questionnaire finally reveals Prof SuuT's set examination which contains the following, and ONLY the following set in big bold black type against a very white page:




WHY?

:P







Ohhh ya to answer this question now...a cursory answer in the interim: for pleasure and for pain. :)

[SuuT]

...
WHY?

LMAOx3.

You're bringing back memories, ma puce. ;)

[Óttar]

WHY?
If that is the question, this is the answer. :p

[Lutiferre]

Those who insist that everyone should follow the most narrow guidelines of a constricted view of nature should live entirely as they preach and stop using technology to cheat in the struggle for existence. If they want to escape the charge of hypocrisy they must restrict their diet to what they can find in the wild and only use their fists, sticks, and stones to defend against predators, and allow any disease no matter how severe to take its course without medical treatment. They must ensure that their every sexual act leads to a birth and that the mother receives no medical assistance with that birth.
After reading something about Aristotelian ethics, I was reminded how much this attitude is contrary to human nature. Meditate shortly on these paragraphs.

Aristotle holds a teleological worldview: he sees the universe as inherently purposeful. Basically, Aristotle claims that potentiality exists for the sake of actuality. Thus, matter exists for the sake of receiving its form, and an organism has sight for the sake of seeing. Now, each thing has certain potentialities as a result of its form. Because of its form, a snake has the potential to slither. Hence, we can say that the snake ought to slither. The more a thing achieves its potential, the more it succeeds in achieving its purpose.

Aristotle bases his ethical theory on this teleological worldview. Because of his form, a human being has certain abilities. Hence, his purpose in life is to exercise those abilities as well and as fully as possible. Now, the most characteristic human ability, which is not included in the form of any other organism, is the ability to think. Therefore, the best human life is a life lived rationally

It's an ethics of self-realisation, in that way: we are to realize our full potential, and the more we succeed in doing so, the more we are good and content.

In the same way, we humans because of our form, have the very specified potential implicit in our form, to unite sexually man and woman, and for the same reason we can say that we ought to do actualise that potential if we are to use our sexual faculties sexually at all, while uniting man and man are contrary to the potential of our form which is inclined towards dimorphic sexual union.

But the ways in which we actualize our potential is always in tension with the context, the outside world, and our other potentialities and our happiness and health in general, so the chief virtue in our self-realisation must be moderation in how we act and behave so our self-realisation is harmonious. Moderation is the ground of all other virtues; For example courage, a virtue, if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice. In the same way, in actualising the potential of our mouthes and digestive system whose utility is motivated by the appetite, whose end is the growth and subsistence and reparation of the body, along with the motivation of good tastes and the feeling of well-being, we must moderate our actualisation, and keep the end in mind, so we don't become either too skinny or too fat, both cases being contrary to the end of the appetite. In the exact same way the appetite for the sexual act needs moderation, so in actualising our potential for sexual union, we must keep the end in mind, so the union between man and woman is fulfilled in an appropriate way and neither too often or seldom, and so we don't bring too many or too few children into the world.

Obviously, it is the case that technology is a fruit of human rationality and of our form in general, such as our ability to use our hands to create tools, and hence, the creation and utility of technology is even fulfilling something that is in itself a potentiality of our form that ought to be actualised according to a teleological ethics. But that technology should not be used contrary to ethics in general, but rather only when it is protagonistic to be ethically fulfilling, that is, ethically positive, not ethically negative. Chemical weapons, for that reason, are not a good technology, because their end is not to reach a good or virtuous thing, or fulfill the human potential, but to induce in cheap ways painful mass deaths, which is an evil which is contrary to justice when there are more responsible (moderate) means of war, and especially considering the unnecessary suffering and pollution and destruction of the natural environment and biosphere they bring, which hinders the subsistence and health of the many, all of which is contrary to justice and good and the purpose of any justifiable means of war, which is not to inflict such damage, but to resolve conflicts as a necessary evil and reduce the suffering and damage to innocents as much as possible.

Contraceptive technology would be a better example of a technology which is ethically negative as well, because it is connected to a human act unlike the aforementioned example. It hinders the actualisation and fulfillment of the implicit potential and inclination of our form toward dimorphic sexual union, whose end includes reproduction, which is never fulfilled when such technology is applied.

And so, the same teleological argument against perverted use of the sexual faculties, is the argument in favour of rational thinking and it's fruits such as the (ethically responsible) use of technology.

[SuuT]

Aristotle bases his ethical theory on this teleological worldview. Because of his form, a human being has certain abilities. Hence, his purpose in life is to exercise those abilities as well and as fully as possible. Now, the most characteristic human ability, which is not included in the form of any other organism, is the ability to think. Therefore, the best human life is a life lived rationally

...
In the same way, we humans because of our form, have the very specified potential implicit in our form, to unite sexually man and woman, and for the same reason we can say that we ought to do actualise that potential if we are to use our sexual faculties sexually at all, while uniting man and man are contrary to the potential of our form which is inclined towards dimorphic sexual union.

But the ways in which we actualize our potential is always in tension with the context, the outside world, and our other potentialities and our happiness and health in general, so the chief virtue in our self-realisation must be moderation in how we act and behave so our self-realisation is harmonious. Moderation is the ground of all other virtues; For example courage, a virtue, if taken to excess would manifest as recklessness and if deficient as cowardice. In the same way, in actualising the potential of our mouthes and digestive system whose utility is motivated by the appetite, whose end is the growth and subsistence and reparation of the body, along with the motivation of good tastes and the feeling of well-being, we must moderate our actualisation, and keep the end in mind, so we don't become either too skinny or too fat, both cases being contrary to the end of the appetite. In the exact same way the appetite for the sexual act needs moderation, so in actualising our potential for sexual union, we must keep the end in mind, so the union between man and woman is fulfilled in an appropriate way and neither too often or seldom, and so we don't bring too many or too few children into the world.

...

Careful: Aristotle's gripe was not/would not be with per se homosexuality; but with the self-tyranny of sensuality and immoderate indulgence. Also, be careful with Greek teleolgy - for you would be charged with immoderacy (cf. The Politics: Book II, chapter XII; Book V, chapters X and XI).

[Poltergeist]

Reproduction. That is all.

No fun.

No playing.

There is nothing spiritual about it.

I think there is. To varying degrees in various cases.

[Lutiferre]

Careful: Aristotle's gripe was not/would not be with per se homosexuality; but with the self-tyranny of sensuality and immoderate indulgence. Also, be careful with Greek teleolgy - for you would be charged with immoderacy (cf. The Politics: Book II, chapter XII; Book V, chapters X and XI).
I don't need to be careful, since Aristotles own teleology can be used as an argument for the immorality of homosexuality (or indeed contraceptives) even if he didn't expound on it in detail, by using the principles of teleology put forth by Aristotle but developed further by others, specifically the (important) developments of Aristotelianism by Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics, both in teleology but also in Aristotelian psychology (eg. the contention in spite of the Islamic philosophers that, the nous pathetikos and poietikos are both simultaneously present in all individuals).

[Amarantine]

Discuss.:coffee:

what exactly?:cool:


:D

[Poltergeist]

what exactly?:cool:


:D

You want graphic details or what? :D

[Amarantine]

You want graphic details or what? :D

graphic details would be perfect under one condition...you have to draw...:)

[Poltergeist]

I am not good at drawing, sorry.:D

[Amarantine]

I am not good at drawing, sorry.:D

what a pitty:(

ah, I know...may be in showing, ha?:D

[Lutiferre]

Careful: Aristotle's gripe was not/would not be with per se homosexuality; but with the self-tyranny of sensuality and immoderate indulgence. Also, be careful with Greek teleolgy - for you would be charged with immoderacy (cf. The Politics: Book II, chapter XII; Book V, chapters X and XI).
Besides, since this thread is about the nature and purpose of human sexuality, teleological ethics are more relevant than ever. Nearly all Aristotelians and Aristotle himself would agree with my view on the purpose and nature of human sexuality, much rather than with the views of anyone else in this thread.

[Poltergeist]

what a pitty:(

ah, I know...may be in showing, ha?:D

Problems with my PC to transfer that :p

[Amarantine]

Problems with my PC to transfer that :p

cheap trick :rolleyes:

[Tolleson]

Nearly all Aristotelians and Aristotle himself would agree with my view on the purpose and nature of human sexuality, much rather than with the views of anyone else in this thread.

You are obviously a legend in your own mind. :rolleyes: :D

[Poltergeist]

cheap trick :rolleyes:

Then you find some more "sophisticated" explanation:D

[Lutiferre]

You are obviously a legend in your own mind. :rolleyes: :D
I wasn't suggesting that I was somehow an innovator, but rather that I take my view from those Aristotelians and therefore they would agree with my view rather than the others in this thread.

[Amarantine]

Then you find some more "sophisticated" explanation:D

I'm stupid swarthy woman:D everything needs to be shown me in graphic style


I wasn't suggesting that I was somehow an innovator, but rather that I take my view from those Aristotelians and therefore they would agree with my view rather than the others in this thread.

we understand...almost...;)

[Aemma]

I wasn't suggesting that I was somehow an innovator, but rather that I take my view from those Aristotelians and therefore they would agree with my view rather than the others in this thread.

Then might I suggest that next time you consider your words a tad more carefully, son, and say what you really do mean right from the get go.

[Lutiferre]

Then might I suggest that next time you consider your words a tad more carefully, son, and say what you really do mean right from the get go.
I did say what I really meant.

[Poltergeist]

I hope Aristoteles will register and log in here soon, to explain what he really meant.

[Aemma]

I did say what I really meant.

Not the first time you didn't.

[Poltergeist]

I'm stupid swarthy woman:D everything needs to be shown me in graphic style

I thought blondes were such...

[Lady L]

I wasn't suggesting that I was somehow an innovator, but rather that I take my view from those Aristotelians and therefore they would agree with my view rather than the others in this thread.

*cough* I said it best ....:D

btw, your head is fixing to pop! ;)

[Lutiferre]

I hope Aristoteles will register and log in here, to explain what he really meant.
Since my view was simply Aristotelian, it doesn't rely on Aristotles lack of complete exposition. Aristotles work I see as a beginning of a greater school of philosophy in which the later develpments are just as important as the initial work.

[Lutiferre]

Not the first time you didn't.

What are you talking about? I do still mean what I said the first time. Said Aristotelians would agree with my view because my view is Aristotelian and is itself taken from Aristotelians.

[Aemma]

What are you talking about? I do still mean what I said the first time. Said Aristotelians would agree with my view because my view is Aristotelian and is itself taken from Aristotelians.

Don't quarrel with me Lutiferre. Move on.

[Treffie]

What are you talking about? I do still mean what I said the first time. Said Aristotelians would agree with my view because my view is Aristotelian and is itself taken from Aristotelians.

Hmm, I wonder what view you would take once you've popped your cherry? :rolleyes:

[Lutiferre]

Don't quarrel with me Lutiferre. Move on.
I really don't see what your interest in the the argument was, anyway, if all you have to say is some correction to me which isn't even an argument against the substance of what I was saying, but just some stuff about the origin of it, which was essentially what SuuT's argument amounted to as well. Instead of endorsing or refuting my argument, he pointed to an ad hominem.

[Aemma]

I thought blondes were such...

Hey! I resent that remark!! :P :D

[Aemma]

I really don't see what your interest in the the argument was, anyway, if all you have to say is some correction to me which isn't even an argument against the substance of what I was saying, but just some stuff about the origin of it, which was essentially what SuuT's argument amounted to as well. Instead of endorsing or refuting my argument, he pointed to an ad hominem.

Lutiferre, what part of "Move on" exactly did you not understand?

[Lutiferre]

Hmm, I wonder what view you would take once you've popped your cherry? :rolleyes:Another ad hominem, and a really bad one.

What kind of logic is this? :rolleyes: If a person is really sex-starved and in their hormonal years, then their horniness and willingness to endorse or commit promiscuous acts should be even higher than if they were sexually fulfilled to some extent.

[Poltergeist]

Hey! I resent that remark!! :P :D

Sue the inventor of "blond jokes"....:D

[Lutiferre]

Lutiferre, what part of "Move on" exactly did you not understand?
I was trying to get a point across, that this "ad hominem" argument by SuuT and now by others is really irrelevant to the debate.

[SuuT]

I don't need to be careful,

No. But you ought to be.:)


since Aristotles own teleology can be used as an argument for the immorality of homosexuality (or indeed contraceptives)

Not 'his own' actually; but teleology (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/teleology) (telos: end, purpose) as a device can be used, yes...but thus far your use of teleology has not silenced the voice of Metaphysical Naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism) which would argue, in short, that your moral attachments - insofar as that have not always been - are arbitrary, if not capricious in regards to Homosexuality - insofar as it has always been. Understand?


even if he didn't expound on it in detail, by using the principles of teleology put forth by Aristotle but developed further by others, specifically the (important) developments of Aristotelianism by Thomas Aquinas...

Careful: peccatum contra naturam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peccatum_contra_naturam) was first and foremost a development of Theosophical Christianity - not of Teleology, which, as a tool, would remain morally ambivalent about the nature and purpose of Homosexuality and contraception, even though moral Principia (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principia") can be drawn by the use of Teleology. Understand?



Besides, since this thread is about the nature and purpose of human sexuality, teleological ethics are more relevant than ever.

For purpose driven arguments of finality, as well as first and last causes, yes: they are indispensibly "relevant".


Nearly all Aristotelians and Aristotle himself would agree with my view on the purpose and nature of human sexuality, much rather than with the views of anyone else in this thread.

:p

[Aemma]

Sue the inventor of "blond jokes"....:D

Can I sue you instead? Got money? :D

[Poltergeist]

Can I sue you instead? Got money? :D

Please, please, not now. In a month maybe, now I'm broke.:eek:

[Aemma]

Please, please, not now. In a month maybe, now I'm broke.:eek:

Oh good! I'll mark it in my agenda then?! ;) :P

[Treffie]

Another ad hominem, and a really bad one.

Erm, no. It's not an ad hominem. You're young, bright but also very immature. One's perception of things completely changes when you discover things like sex, relationships etc. It's part of growing up - none of us remain the same and it doesn't matter what vocation we choose.

[Lutiferre]

Not 'his own' actually; but teleology (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/teleology) (telos: end, purpose) as a device can be used, yes...but thus far your use of teleology has not silenced the voice of Metaphysical Naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism) which would argue, in short, that your moral attachments - insofar as that have not always been - are arbitrary, if not capricious in regards to Homosexuality - insofar as it has always been. Understand?
How does metaphysical naturalism show that ethics are arbitrary in a teleological framework? To the contrary, the very characteristic of telelogical ethics is that they are grounded not in arbitrariness (like foundationalistic ethics), but in nature.

There were what is equivalent to naturalists at Aristotles time and before, who he was certainly aware of, but their position certainly didn't undermine his teleological ethics.

And your argument, besides being wrong on the account of arbitrariness, is ethically selfdefeating. Why I think so? Because I know you will act according to ethics even if you deny them any significance, they will remain significant whether you are conscious of it or not.

And you also put yourself in the awkward position of admitting that there would be nothing wrong with me murdering you right now.


Careful: peccatum contra naturam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peccatum_contra_naturam) was first and foremost a development of Theosophical Christianity - not of Teleology, which, as a tool, would remain morally ambivalent about the nature and purpose of Homosexuality and contraception, even though moral Principia (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principia") can be drawn by the use of Teleology. Understand?
:p
But your objections are irrelevant. Whether you agree that it is from Aristotle or not, it is still, nevertheless, Aristotelian and Aristotle-inspired, and the matter is irrelevant to the validity of it's substance as an ethical system.

And no, peccatum contra naturam is an inherent understanding in Aristotles idea that we should act according to our nature.

[SuuT]

I hope Aristoteles will register and log in here soon, to explain what he really meant.

I'm channelling him as we speak. I'm also wearing a toga.

[Lutiferre]

Erm, no. It's not an ad hominem.
* Main Entry: ad ho·mi·nem
* Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
* Date: 1598

2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

You're young, bright but also very immature. One's perception of things completely changes when you discover things like sex, relationships etc. It's part of growing up - none of us remain the same and it doesn't matter what vocation we choose.
Besides, the whole matter of my person is irrelevant when a) my immaturity more commonly leads to promiscuity and horniness than moralism, and b) there are Aristotelians and Christians at all ages who agree with my viewpoint.

[SuuT]

Lutiferre,

If I may make an observation, and humbly request you to think it over?:)

Is your primary concern to be right; or, to understand...?

[Lutiferre]

Lutiferre,

If I may make an observation, and humbly request you to think it over?:)

Is your primary concern to be right; or, to understand...?
My primary concern is to reach a right understanding, no matter who as a teacher or philosopher is better fit to give me that understanding.

[Treffie]

* Main Entry: ad ho·mi·nem
* Pronunciation: \(ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem, -nəm\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
* Date: 1598

2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

It's not an attack that I made, it was a reflection of how I saw myself when I was your age.


Besides, the whole matter of my person is irrelevant when a) my immaturity more commonly leads to promiscuity and horniness than moralism, and b) there are Aristotelians and Christians at all ages who agree with my viewpoint.

Of course, but remember you're just a sapling - there's no two ways about it, no matter what your philosophical stance may be. This is not a post to belittle you, far from it, but unless you wish to become a priest or a monk, sex, relationships etc will change your outlook on life.

[Poltergeist]

Of course, but remember you're just a sapling - there's no two ways about it, no matter what your philosophical stance may be. This is not a post to belittle you, far from it, but unless you wish to become a priest or a monk, sex, relationships etc will change your outlook on life.

Maybe he is planning on becoming priest in the religion of Catholic Agnosticism (a new religion)?

[Lutiferre]

It's not an attack that I made, it was a reflection of how I saw myself when I was your age.
Sure. But have you considered for a second maybe I am not like you?

Of course, but remember you're just a sapling - there's no two ways about it, no matter what your philosophical stance may be. This is not a post to belittle you, far from it, but unless you wish to become a priest or a monk, sex, relationships etc will change your outlook on life.
With other people who agree with me, I was speaking of Christians who are married, too. In the end, you will find people with all kinds of experience, people in all extremes, people much wiser than both of us, who agree with my stance, because my stance is not unique or just supported by my own petty experiences, but just as much as the experience of others, and of the two billions Christians in existence.

[Amarantine]

Maybe he is planning on becoming priest in the religion of Catholic Agnosticism (a new religion)?


Sure. But have you considered for a second maybe I am not like you?

With other people who agree with me, I was speaking of Christians who are married, too. In the end, you will find people with all kinds of experience, people in all extremes, people much wiser than both of us, who agree with my stance, because my stance is not unique or just supported by my own petty experiences, but just as much as the experience of others, and of the two billions Christians in existence.

@ Vrycolakas, you are not fair, he has right to expressed his opinion and his thinking, which is quite interesting but a little bit more complicated for forum reading, I think in verbal discussion would be very interesting for debating (well certainly for me would be).

@ Lutiferre, Arawn tried to tell you and i fully agreed with him, over your life, life principles and opinions modifying, they became more "politicaly correct", more flexibile, because this is the only way to survive in this world. And yes that is compromis, and during our lives we made a lot of compromises, especially when you interacting (in all sort of ways) with the other people. But your language is a little bit, full of some kind of, well not anger but, let's say, temper and this is something wath could disciver your youth (if don't mind on my remark). Youth and inmaturity are not the same, I think you are perfectly mature.

P.S. Sorry for my mispelling but I am now too much lazy to make corrections:P

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Amarantine
they became more "politicaly correct"

Do they?:eek:

I’ve become less “politically correct” as I’ve got older (thank the Gods)……:D

[Lutiferre]

@ Vrycolakas, you are not fair, he has right to expressed his opinion and his thinking, which is quite interesting but a little bit more complicated for forum reading, I think in verbal discussion would be very interesting for debating (well certainly for me would be).
Maybe so :) I enjoy discussing IRL more than on forums, anyway, and especially considering the kind of responses I get here.


@ Lutiferre, Arawn tried to tell you and i fully agreed with him, over your life, life principles and opinions modifying, they became more "politicaly correct", more flexibile, because this is the only way to survive in this world. And yes that is compromis, and during our lives we made a lot of compromises, especially when you interacting (in all sort of ways) with the other people. But your language is a little bit, full of some kind of, well not anger but, let's say, temper and this is something wath could disciver your youth (if don't mind on my remark). Youth and inmaturity are not the same, I think you are perfectly mature.
I have no problem with that, but if I sound tempered then it is because I am passionate about what I believe, and I am passionate about truth.

I just don't think you should expect that I will ever compromise with my opinions or become politically correct just because that is necessary to survive in this society in your experience. To me, it's not necessary, and I'd sacrifice this society before I'd sacrifice my honest opinions about what is wrong and right or good or evil or beautiful or ugly or false and true.

[Lady L]

I am passionate about what I believe, and I am passionate about truth.


There is no truth.

[Lutiferre]

There is no truth.
Then that obviously isn't true.

[Lady L]

Then that obviously isn't true.

:p Good one. But still, there is no truth.

[Lutiferre]

:p Good one. But still, there is no truth.
Selfdefeating statement. You might as well say "I am not right".

And alright, I agree. Your statement isn't true :D

[Lady L]

Selfdefeating statement. You might as well say "I am not right".

And alright, I agree. Your statement isn't true :D

Wait...I didn't say I wasn't right! :D Everyone has what's wrong and right in their own mind. That's why there is no truth. ;)

[Ulf]

Selfdefeating statement. You might as well say "I am not right".

And alright, I agree. Your statement isn't true :D

Oh come now, you know what she means ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

[Lutiferre]

Wait...I didn't say I wasn't right! :D Everyone has what's wrong and right in their own mind. That's why there is no truth. ;)
That still isn't true :p

[Loddfafner]

Back to Aristotle. If I understand correctly, for an Aristotelian, categories explain their contents and even prescribe what those contents ought to do. The example upthread was that 'snakes ought to slither, as opposed to 'snakes tend to slither.' Such 'essentialism' has it glorious and illustrious list of defenders but I stopped being one of them long ago. It is a shaky ontological foundation for concluding that somebody else should behave differently from what his own judgment and instinct advises.

My alternative is to avoid generalizations and prescriptions and instead look for anomalies and exceptions. Those tell me how flexible the world really is and what room we have to rebuild it.

[Lutiferre]

Back to Aristotle. If I understand correctly, for an Aristotelian, categories explain their contents and even prescribe what those contents ought to do. The example upthread was that 'snakes ought to slither, as opposed to 'snakes tend to slither.'
I have to correct you. It was that because of its form, a snake has the potential to slither. Hence, we can say that the snake ought to slither because potentiality exists for the sake of actuality. It's not simply because it tends to do it. Now of course, you can disagree that it ought to actualize the potential of it's form, but this is where your version of tendency becomes relevant, because nature follows it's own way in that the snakes tendency is to actualise it's potential to slither. We can see that teleological ethics are grounded in the objective behaviour of nature, whereas a denial of it amounts to the denial of how nature behaves whether we like it or not.


Such 'essentialism' has it glorious and illustrious list of defenders but I stopped being one of them long ago. It is a shaky ontological foundation for concluding that somebody else should behave differently from what his own judgment and instinct advises.
I dont think that is what teleologists are claiming. What we are doing is laying a general foundation for ethics which also has specific applications.


My alternative is to avoid generalizations and prescriptions and instead look for anomalies and exceptions. Those tell me how flexible the world really is and what room we have to rebuild it.
Do you have a better or even any ethics which is equally grounded in objectivity as teleological ethics?

[Loddfafner]

Do you have a better or even any ethics which is equally grounded in objectivity as teleological ethics?

I do but that will have to wait. Basically they are pragmatic and oriented towards sustaining the settings that compose everyday life. As for teleological anything, I see teleology itself as a fallacy.

[Lutiferre]

I do but that will have to wait. Basically they are pragmatic and oriented towards sustaining the settings that compose everyday life. As for teleological anything, I see teleology itself as a fallacy.
Well, you haven't shown any fallacies in it.

And I must disagree that you could possibly present an ethics more grounded in nature and objectivity than teleological ethics.

Pragmatic ethics are not grounded in objectivity, at all. You should read After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre, where I believe he demonstrates that the last 400 years of moral philosophy are effectively null and void, and that only Aristotelian ethics retain any objective validity.

[Poltergeist]

Is it true that Spaniards are naturally incestuous? That they fuck their daughters, sisters and mothers? I heard something about that.

[Amarantine]

Is it true that Spaniards are naturally incestuous? That they fuck their daughters, sisters and mothers? I heard something about that.

:eek:Are you insane?:confused:

Incest is not geneticly preposition, it is sociopatological behaving (today), about the past I don't even want to commented.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Loddfafner
I see teleology itself as a fallacy.

Why?

As for truth it’s a three edge sword and, for a human, I suspect it’s always relative.

[SuuT]

Excepting the fact that there are very few places on this island that I can go where I am not reminded of Human exploitation, I feel very priviledged to hold constant witness to the amazingly diverse range of flora and fauna that a tropical/sub-tropical climate offers. On any given day I am privy to the observation of thousands of different species: From fish, to crustaceans, to bugs, to birds, to lizards, to wild boars, to panthers, to aligators, and a glorious assortment of plantlife, etc.

Caspian terns nest here (amongst other birds). They come mid-spring, and a large area at the south end of the island is cordoned-off as a wildlife refuge. They do their thing, and around this time of year, fly-off to wherever it is that they go. There are two tagged males that return here every year - they are fairly well known. The reason being that they exhibit an exclusive preference for one another: They show no interest in any of the females; nor do they actually nest. Rather, they pretty much just hang-out and bugger each other for several months.

Indeed, on this morning's run, I was reminded of this thread when I saw a gaggle of Plovers (birds). Plovers are notoriously bi-sexual (exhibit that behaviour), and the males - who can be differentiated by colouring - will mount anything that moves. And not all of it is a Dominance Display: In fact, much of it is very tender (head rubbing, etc.). After I saw this, I then realised that I couldn't remember a single day in the last year that I had not seen the exhibition of homosexual behaviour in the nature that surrounds me, and it got me thinking.

What - exactly - am I seeing?
How do my observations relate to the nature and purpose of human sexuality?
Is the exhibition of this behaviour un-natural for animals?
If so, how? - given that it is so prevalent within nature, herself.
If it is natural for nature, and humans are a part of nature, then it is natural for Humans...?

[Lutiferre]

If it is natural for nature, and humans are a part of nature, then it is natural for Humans...?
You might as well ask if a human ought to slither because a snake does it. I know this is not what you are saying, but it's what the force of your argument effectively amounts to.

I see murder, theft, rape, assault, cannibalism, and outright deception and lies in the natural interactions between animals. Are you going to act like a lion or a predator? Is this the foundation of human ethics? No. Why not? Because such an approach fails to make the all-determing distinction that Aristotelian teleology makes, namely that of the uniqueness of the individual creature. Because each creature has a differing nature, and more relevantly here, a differing form (in the Aristotelian sense).

What we ought to always depends on our form, which determines not only what we ought to do, but even the limits of what we can possibly do. It sets the boundary (and agenda) in every way, ethically, physically, mentally. Here, it is worth noting the very uniqueness of the human form, which lies in our mental ability to think, which is why we humans can commit ethically wrong actions. A lion cannot act contrary to the good for a lion, because it cannot choose abstractly and freely like a rational human of thought can. So for humanity, ethics are actually important, because they are the result of our form/nature, which enables us to think.

As humans, our form has the very specific potentiality of and toward dimorphic sexual union. What does this mean? It means if we are going by nature, and we realize the absurdity of acting like a lion, then we must go by human nature and human form, not the form of any other creature, and this human nature has the form of sexual dimorphism, which sets the ethical agenda of human nature in all sexual activities to the actualisation of the potential for uniting man and woman.

[lei.talk]

What we ought to always depends on our form, which determines not only what we ought to do, but even the limits of what we can possibly do. It sets the boundary (and agenda) in every way, ethically, physically, mentally...

As humans, our form has the very specific potentiality of and toward dimorphic sexual union. What does this mean? It means if we are going by nature, and we realize the absurdity of acting like a lion, then we must go by human nature and human form, not the form of any other creature, and this human nature has the form of sexual dimorphism, which sets the ethical agenda of human nature in all sexual activities to the actualisation of the potential for uniting man and woman.all of the other animals that display "homosexual" behaviors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)
lack "sexual dimorphism" and its concomitant behaviors?

their behaviors are "hard-wired" by their creator
and they lack the ability to choose deviancy?

[Lutiferre]

all of the other animals that display "homosexual" behaviors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)
lack "sexual dimorphism" and its concomitant behaviors?

their behaviors are "hard-wired" by their creator
and they lack the ability to choose deviancy?
No. There is a level of rationality in all animals.

But the kind of abstract thought in the human form is what enables us to consider different options, and then freely choose. We can generate a random combination and number of ways to act in pure imagination, we can even think of different scenarios; we can imagine a thousand things that are not real in this moment; and consider them all, and then select what to do.

A lion generally speaking doesn't really consider and choose it's way of life. So if a lion commits a homosexual act (I can't say if it happens; I would think it's rare), then that doesn't mean that the lion is morally culpable because it doesn't have the decision making process involved in human ethics, but is rather instinctive and it's part of it's form to be more of a sensitive than a rational animal, and therefore to do whatever it instinctively and immediately is instigated to do with no trace of abstract consideration.

For the same reason, human ethics are built around the human ability of reflection and thinking, which involves moral culpability. Therefore, it is our fault whether or not we choose to follow the human form in our sexual behaviour or not, whose chief end is reproduction (which is itself motivated and brought about by the ends of intimacy and bonding), and whose form in reaching that end is dimorphic.

As a matter of fact, this is where the human form is more perfect than a lions form, because a human can fully realize his own potential and act according to his form, due to the rational potential his form has, that enables him to avoid any meaningless and disordered behaviours like homosexuality.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by SuuT
What - exactly - am I seeing?

It’s an interesting question.

It has been noted that sexually reproducing species tend to be more prelevent that asexual ones, both rely on the same Darwinian framework but the former are generally more successful and liable to produce more mutation (and what is a womb other than a cauldron where natural selection works it's magic?) that increases the chances of adaptability.

Another factor noted is that the male of a species, given a chance, tends to mate with just about any female possible. Guppies are an example, when limited to one female male guppies will quickly lose interest in sex when other females are introduced the libido of the male increases, why is the obvious answer. It is quite simply the competition to ensure that the male’s genes are passed on, it’s also the reason that females are reluctant to mate.

So far, so good.

So where does homosexuality come into it? On the face of it homosexual behaviour would seem to have no reproductive advantage and should, seemingly, by it’s nature lead to it’s own demise.

The later is easy to answer, not all genes are expressive/switched on or dominant, I may well carry, we may all well carry, the gene(s) that cause homosexual behaviour whether it’s “switched on” or not depends on quite a lot.

The former has been looked at from two theories, firstly that homosexuality in male sons has a trend to the homosexual males mother (and her female relations) being more fertile, if we look at nature we find a number of bizarre instances of reproductive behaviour that seem to have no benefit to reproduction. Female birds bringing up the young of others is an example, even mothers who know the eggs of other birds still rear them, why? Because of the advantage, the mother turns the eggs to the outside of the nest, they are more likely to fall prey to attackers, as a result they protect the mother’s young, whilst for the cuckholder the chance of some young being born is better than none. We probably don’t understand the relationship (if there is one) between homosexuality and fertility but that’s been true for a lot of sexual behaviour until recent times.

Another theory is that mothers develop some aversion to Y chromosomes after a number of male babies have been born, which means subsequent male babies are more likely to be homosexual. As a result one theory is that third born sons (like me) are more likely to be homosexual (for the record I’m not I have a healthy red blooded attraction to females, or a dirty perverted psychology as my psychiatrist believes!).

[Lutiferre]

No. There is a level of rationality in all animals.

But the kind of abstract thought in the human form is what enables us to consider different options, and then freely choose. We can generate a random combination and number of ways to act in pure imagination, we can even think of different scenarios; we can imagine a thousand things that are not real in this moment; and consider them all, and then select what to do.

A lion generally speaking doesn't really consider and choose it's way of life. So if a lion commits a homosexual act (I can't say if it happens; I would think it's rare), then that doesn't mean that the lion is morally culpable because it doesn't have the decision making process involved in human ethics, but is rather instinctive and it's part of it's form to be more of a sensitive than a rational animal, and therefore to do whatever it instinctively and immediately is instigated to do with no trace of abstract consideration.

For the same reason, human ethics are built around the human ability of reflection and thinking, which involves moral culpability. Therefore, it is our fault whether or not we choose to follow the human form in our sexual behaviour or not, whose chief end is reproduction (which is itself motivated and brought about by the ends of intimacy and bonding), and whose form in reaching that end is dimorphic.

As a matter of fact, this is where the human form is more perfect than a lions form, because a human can fully realize his own potential and act according to his form, due to the rational potential his form has, that enables him to avoid any meaningless and disordered behaviours like homosexuality.
This, as a matter fact, is just a repetition of the fact that "just because animals do it" doesn't mean it's okay for humans to do it. Animals commit murders, rapes, homosexual acts, and so on, but their actions are peculiar to their natures and forms, and have no direct bearing on the ethics of the human form, but only on their own manner of behaviour and tendency.

If a lion, for instance, murders all its kids and even the mother, this is an example of what might be a disordered action even for a lion, since it jeopardizes the survival of it's genes, but nevertheless, it doesn't mean the lion is evil or morally culpable like a human is - even if it seems that way to us, that is simply projecting our human nature into other creatures, anthropomorphism. On the other hand, if a lion does this consistently, it's genes are less likely to survive and natural selection will select for the lions that have more rationally sensible behaviour.

In the same way, if a lion whose means of reproduction is sexually dimorphic commits a homosexual act or even is consistently homosexual, this is disordered because it discounts the reproductive end of sexuality, but it still doesn't mean that a lion is evil or morally culpable, beause it does not involve the kind of choice it does for a human, for a sensitive-rather-than-rational animal like a lion. But on the other hand, such a consistently homosexual behaviour is also self-destruction, because it's genes would not be passed on, and natural selection would select for a lion with a more rationally consistent (heterosexual) behaviour.

For the (higher) sexually reproducing organisms it's important but varies in success how highly they are able to identify the sex of the animal they are trying to mate, and not at all organisms have a kind of perfect identification ratio or mechanisms, so perhaps they only identify and mate correctly 80% of the time, or even less, and some even if they do identify, do not have a high sexual selection towards the opposite sex, but perhaps to compensate for this, have selected for higher general horniness and hence higher level of mating to all sides which makes it less necessary to mate correctly (a more wasteful strategy which makes the organism more likely to die out since it has to spend more energy and in times of need this might result in speedier mass extinction than other animals that have more efficient reproduction strategies).

Each thing is simply a reproduction and survival strategy, which is the peculiar way the particular animal has been more succesful in reproducing, and the same goes for asexual reproductive strategies. There is not any ethical significance in (most) of such sensitive animal forms, like there is in the human form. Only some mammals come close, perhaps, to a higher rationaliy, but probably a large part of it is still in our imagination.

We can't take their example in sexual matters, anymore than we can in the matters of the murders, rape, thefts, and deceptiosn they commit even as a solid part of their survival strategy.

We must instead turn to the human form, which involves rational thought, ethics and moral culpability, and act rationally sensible in accordance with human form, so we can realize our full potential instead of wasting time with irrational (evil) ways of living and behaving.

[SwordoftheVistula]

If a lion, for instance, murders all its kids and even the mother

That's not what lions do. What lions do, is after winning control of a pride, they kill off the male kids of the lion(s) they have just defeated, so that there is more room for their own kids.




...this is where the human form is more perfect than a lions form, because a human can fully realize his own potential and act according to his form, due to the rational potential his form has, that enables him to avoid any meaningless and disordered behaviours like homosexuality.

Isn't it the opposite-the fault of the human form is that the human brain can override instinct and engage in such things as homosexuality? Such things would never even occur to most animals, yet the human brain is powerful enough to dream up and engage in these acts.

[Lutiferre]

That's not what lions do. What lions do, is after winning control of a pride, they kill off the male kids of the lion(s) they have just defeated, so that there is more room for their own kids.
I didn't say it's what lions do. I said if a lion did it. Given that it is completely opposite, such behaviour would obviously be a disorder, a malfunction, which would lead to selfdestruction, and that behaviour would not be passed on if it was consistent, it would die out because the lion would be killing the very genes that caused it. Just like consistent homosexuality in a sexually dimorphic organism.


Isn't it the opposite-the fault of the human form is that the human brain can override instinct and engage in such things as homosexuality?
The same animals who live strictly by instinct exactly engage in homosexual behaviour, because they are only really following their horniness.

So no, it is that our human form is rationally powerful enough not "just" to follow instinct (horniness) but also realize it's end (reproduction which is motivated by that horniness, and the ends of intimacy and bonding) which an animal cannot (and for which reason an animal might just mate anything that breathes or not).

Dogs humping legs and rabits humping human teddybears is something I've seeen before, and it is 100% serious without the animals realizing anything is wrong.

Such things would never even occur to most animals, yet the human brain is powerful enough to dream up and engage in these acts.
What are you talking about? Such things do occur to most animals as I think the studies about animal homo and bisexuality have already proven.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Dogs humping legs and rabits humping human teddybears is something I've seeen before, and it is 100% serious without the animals realizing anything is wrong.

But if there were actual female dogs or rabbits around, they'd go after those instead. It's because of an artificial lifetime isolation from female members of the species that they do these things.



such behaviour would obviously be a disorder, a malfunction, which would lead to selfdestruction, and that behaviour would not be passed on if it was consistent, it would die out because the lion would be killing the very genes that caused it. Just like consistent homosexuality in a sexually dimorphic organism.

The same animals who live strictly by instinct exactly engage in homosexual behaviour, because they are only really following their horniness.

That's why it is so rare in nature, because they would die out.


So no, it is that our human form is rationally powerful enough not "just" to follow instinct (horniness) but also realize it's end (reproduction which is motivated by that horniness, and the ends of intimacy and bonding) which an animal cannot.

Yes, that's why the human mind can separate out the various aspects of 'horniness' from reproductive purpose, and engage in acts which satisfy the 'horniness' and serve no reproductive purpose, and create justifications like "it doesnt matter what gender the person is as long as you're in love". An animal instinct towards homosexuality could not be carried from generation to generation, but a general human mental capacity to override instinct can be. That's where religion comes in, to re-dumb-down the human brain through indoctrination of platitudes such as "homosexuality is evil" to the point where they become essentially instinctual again.

[Lutiferre]

But if there were actual female dogs or rabbits around, they'd go after those instead. It's because of an artificial lifetime isolation from female members of the species that they do these things.
But yet it is an example which shows that homosexual behaviour in animals easily arises and in any case, that animals are occupied with satisfying horniness rather than with reproducing. I wouldn't hump a dog or a leg of a man if no females were in sight.

And I don't really need to give such examples, because the links posted here already prove that homosexual behaviour in animals is extremely widespread, in fact even more widespread that in humans with many species. Please read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals)link.


That's why it is so rare in nature, because they would die out.Homosexual behaviour is not rare in nature at all. What I was talking about, consistent homosexual behaviour in a sexually dimorphic species, a sexual discriminacy rather than indiscriminacy, which would mean that trait will either be selected away extremely fast or the species will die extremely fast. But such a discriminacy towards the same gender would therefore either never arise (since it would be dysgenic and contrary to the very fact of the sexual dimorphism, or in other words, pointless) or if it did, be selected away; what causes animal homosexuality is rather sexual indiscriminacy, but that's a different thing, which causes the homo and bisexual behaviour in general, which is extremely prevalent.

and engage in acts which satisfy the 'horniness' and serve no reproductive purpose
That is not at all unique to humans from a phenomenological perspective. The thing is that the general principle of sexual psychology in animals is that in the act they do it strictly for satisfying horniness, they have no direct awareness that it leads to reproduction, it's just the psychological motivation for reproduction (basic evolutionary psychology) and the more we as humans do it strictly for horniness, the more we behave like animals.


An animal instinct towards homosexuality could not be carried from generation to generation
You are simply mistaken, and the study of behaviour of animals proves you wrong. Nearly all species have homosexual behaviour.


, but a general human mental capacity to override instinct can be. That's where religion comes in, to re-dumb-down the human brain through indoctrination of platitudes such as "homosexuality is evil" to the point where they become essentially instinctual again.
It doesn't dumb down the human brain, it moves it away from merely instinctual behaviour (satisfying horniness) and elevates it to godly behaviour (an autonomy free from compulsions of instinct).

[Baron Samedi]

Some of that is purely neurological. For example: foot fetishes. The neurological mapping for awareness of and control over one's feet is amazingly close in location to the mapping for sexual arousal. When developmental damages (physical, chemical, et cetera) cause a shifting of neurological networks, the two can easily overap, causing one to be sexually aroused by feet.

Others are much harder to track, as they seem to be purely mental in nature, often being caused by traumatic events in childhood or early adolescence.

Guess this means I'm damaged :thumbs up

[SwordoftheVistula]

I wouldn't hump a dog or a leg of a man if no females were in sight.

Many humans would find some source, if no suitable person of the opposite gender is around. That's why pornography and female sex aids are such a large industry.

[Loddfafner]

One wonders why this species of bird has become endangered:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8281382.stm

[Lutiferre]

Many humans would find some source, if no suitable person of the opposite gender is around. That's why pornography and female sex aids are such a large industry.
Yes, because people succumb to concupiscence.

We still have the free to refrain from doing it on our own initative, unlike an animal which cannot change it's behaviour.

[Bobby Martnen]

It was the only way to reproduce back in the olden days.

Now we have IVF, so no real reason to have sex.

I get that some people enjoy it, but it just seems like a huge waste of time and energy to me.