Aa
Is there a sexual urge, and thus are we treating anything at all?
Perhaps the first thought to come to your mind is an easy yes, but that assumes you understand what I mean by the term "sexual urge."
My term for sexual urge is a building conscious perception for a desire to mate that only grows, and never is consistant, or never ceases.
If you agree with only with the "conscious perception for the desire to mate," then the question still applies, especially if a person believes the desire to mate is something that requires "resistence."
My problems are vast with these concepts, and my philosophical writings are often encouraged by my psychiatrist when pertaining to any future writing I do in one of my novels. Included is the attack upon the concept of a sexual urge and conscious impulses forcing our actions. Aside from the deductive logic and personal inductive experimentation on myself for my findings, I also have experienced a world without a sexual, and unlike many people, am quite happy to be relieved of the burden.
Well... I wish I could say the last part... In all honesty I am quite OCD about it. It isn't inevitable, and I hardly think about sex at all. The only damn thing about it is that my computer finally gets charged, and I force myself to immediately watch porno and jerk off, mainly because of the concept of inevitability... despite it not being inevitable. . In fact, I control all the sensations I previously believed were caused by a sexual urge, save for the strange "glowing" effect that appears around women if I don't jerk off for a long time. And unlike many males, I actually hate myself because I know that the only reason I do it is out of compulsion which I recently learned is completely caused by myself (and no this is nothing new... it actually was caused by old faulty reasoning.). Yes... I hated having to force myself to jerk off these last few years because I grew up in a "contemporary city" that believed the urge was natural and inevitable. I intepreted this mean that if I didn't do something about it, I would start doing very bad things to people who were my friends (again... the hint of inevitability).
Now a skeptic would say that I am a person who just is ignoring the obvious, but the problem is I cannot say that, since in previous situations were I easilly caused all these sensatiions I deemed to be caused by a sexual urge, I simply just shruged (like while I was in front of the computer) and simply walked away. I have done this more then once, so say that it isn't easy for me to not do it is overtly proposterious. Frequency has little to do with the situation since techincally every act is a new act, and the similarity is technically only mentally based.
So I want to propose a question which is simple: What is the definition of sexual urge if there is an accepted understanding of it? Be advised that I may continue to possibly ask questions about the issue over a set amount of time... I am a philosopher (sorry), but my pursuit of truth is something that includes possibly criticing certain assumptions pertaining to a person's own perceptions of what a sexual urge is (not to make them feel bad, but to find out if the definition is a definition that works at least with my perspective... and hopefully with my reasoning, theirs as well.). And if where lucky, maybe you can help me as I discuss this with others. Perhaps we'll learn soomething. Who the hell knows?! Frankly I have six months before grad school, and I am trying to find something to do.
Anyway, peace.
This discussion is related to no sexual urge.
My term for sexual urge is a building conscious perception for a desire to mate that only grows, and never is consistant, or never ceases.
If you agree with only with the "conscious perception for the desire to mate," then the question still applies, especially if a person believes the desire to mate is something that requires "resistence."
My problems are vast with these concepts, and my philosophical writings are often encouraged by my psychiatrist when pertaining to any future writing I do in one of my novels. Included is the attack upon the concept of a sexual urge and conscious impulses forcing our actions. Aside from the deductive logic and personal inductive experimentation on myself for my findings, I also have experienced a world without a sexual, and unlike many people, am quite happy to be relieved of the burden.
Well... I wish I could say the last part... In all honesty I am quite OCD about it. It isn't inevitable, and I hardly think about sex at all. The only damn thing about it is that my computer finally gets charged, and I force myself to immediately watch porno and jerk off, mainly because of the concept of inevitability... despite it not being inevitable. . In fact, I control all the sensations I previously believed were caused by a sexual urge, save for the strange "glowing" effect that appears around women if I don't jerk off for a long time. And unlike many males, I actually hate myself because I know that the only reason I do it is out of compulsion which I recently learned is completely caused by myself (and no this is nothing new... it actually was caused by old faulty reasoning.). Yes... I hated having to force myself to jerk off these last few years because I grew up in a "contemporary city" that believed the urge was natural and inevitable. I intepreted this mean that if I didn't do something about it, I would start doing very bad things to people who were my friends (again... the hint of inevitability).
Now a skeptic would say that I am a person who just is ignoring the obvious, but the problem is I cannot say that, since in previous situations were I easilly caused all these sensatiions I deemed to be caused by a sexual urge, I simply just shruged (like while I was in front of the computer) and simply walked away. I have done this more then once, so say that it isn't easy for me to not do it is overtly proposterious. Frequency has little to do with the situation since techincally every act is a new act, and the similarity is technically only mentally based.
So I want to propose a question which is simple: What is the definition of sexual urge if there is an accepted understanding of it? Be advised that I may continue to possibly ask questions about the issue over a set amount of time... I am a philosopher (sorry), but my pursuit of truth is something that includes possibly criticing certain assumptions pertaining to a person's own perceptions of what a sexual urge is (not to make them feel bad, but to find out if the definition is a definition that works at least with my perspective... and hopefully with my reasoning, theirs as well.). And if where lucky, maybe you can help me as I discuss this with others. Perhaps we'll learn soomething. Who the hell knows?! Frankly I have six months before grad school, and I am trying to find something to do.
Anyway, peace.
This discussion is related to no sexual urge.
Alas, an expected response I believe I already have addressed in previous responces, and in many ways forms the basis of the concept of a chaotic mind.
Luckilly, the creation of symbolic logic has allowed the ability to finally destroy this belief at its very subjective core by adding in the concept of "you're basing it on something that is not percieved by the person to be the reasons why they don't" well... as you put it "mate with whatever comes your way."
But first, lets take care of that concept pertaining to your "if I don't do another action, then this other action will happen because of it." Now try to look at a dirty picture, and then try to move your hand to turn the page without you having to will the movement of your hand. Now, deny that you also could just possibly not do that action, or even think about the thoughts often pe3rtaining to sexual desire (assuming of course that it exists). If you're like myself, I could never do that, and all actioins often pertaining to "resistance" appeared to always be inexistent. Indeed, whatever action I deemed to be a resisting action was nothing more then just a certain sensation that frankly I subjectively created.
Hilarious but my subjective conclusions arrived at something different then what is often accepted in the west as a natural psychological state. Instead of a naturally chaotic mind requiring our free will to resist whatever the hell it creates, I assert that our minds are naturally silent, and that culturally we have created a different mindset based upon the old psychological ideals that logically do not pertain to a person's psyche.
Now pertaining to the whole concept of whatever society lets you get away with. **** answer, because the question of whether you yourself let you get away with it is called into question. I mean if you don't like it, and you do nothing, then my question for you is do you let you get away with it? Why do you sir have to be the one that resists? I mean if you don't let yourself get away with it, then even if you "don't resist," then you yourself shouldn't do anything right? Or at least according to that theory which as I just probably pointed out, has a fatal flaw (as all psychological theories do, but existentialists always have fun with pointing out.) of never taking into consideration the subjective point of view entirely, and often their conclusions are based on subjectively inexistent evidence to assert the final conclusions. Without that, the entire argument fails, because its based on no evidence.
However, your conclusion is well met: regardless of if there was one, it is evident that some final choice in the end is up to us. I am just trying to say that subjectively (and I hope to write it and publish it, because as far as I can tell, I'm the first to come to these conclusions, and the same can be said pertaining to my former advisor) thed urge doesn't apply to our psyche, and its possible we are misinterpreting it on a subjective level, leading to needless turmoil trying to control ourselves over absolutely nothing.
That's about all from the peanut gallery. Cheerio!
-CCDP
Luckilly, the creation of symbolic logic has allowed the ability to finally destroy this belief at its very subjective core by adding in the concept of "you're basing it on something that is not percieved by the person to be the reasons why they don't" well... as you put it "mate with whatever comes your way."
But first, lets take care of that concept pertaining to your "if I don't do another action, then this other action will happen because of it." Now try to look at a dirty picture, and then try to move your hand to turn the page without you having to will the movement of your hand. Now, deny that you also could just possibly not do that action, or even think about the thoughts often pe3rtaining to sexual desire (assuming of course that it exists). If you're like myself, I could never do that, and all actioins often pertaining to "resistance" appeared to always be inexistent. Indeed, whatever action I deemed to be a resisting action was nothing more then just a certain sensation that frankly I subjectively created.
Hilarious but my subjective conclusions arrived at something different then what is often accepted in the west as a natural psychological state. Instead of a naturally chaotic mind requiring our free will to resist whatever the hell it creates, I assert that our minds are naturally silent, and that culturally we have created a different mindset based upon the old psychological ideals that logically do not pertain to a person's psyche.
Now pertaining to the whole concept of whatever society lets you get away with. **** answer, because the question of whether you yourself let you get away with it is called into question. I mean if you don't like it, and you do nothing, then my question for you is do you let you get away with it? Why do you sir have to be the one that resists? I mean if you don't let yourself get away with it, then even if you "don't resist," then you yourself shouldn't do anything right? Or at least according to that theory which as I just probably pointed out, has a fatal flaw (as all psychological theories do, but existentialists always have fun with pointing out.) of never taking into consideration the subjective point of view entirely, and often their conclusions are based on subjectively inexistent evidence to assert the final conclusions. Without that, the entire argument fails, because its based on no evidence.
However, your conclusion is well met: regardless of if there was one, it is evident that some final choice in the end is up to us. I am just trying to say that subjectively (and I hope to write it and publish it, because as far as I can tell, I'm the first to come to these conclusions, and the same can be said pertaining to my former advisor) thed urge doesn't apply to our psyche, and its possible we are misinterpreting it on a subjective level, leading to needless turmoil trying to control ourselves over absolutely nothing.
That's about all from the peanut gallery. Cheerio!
-CCDP
Good question. Yes, you would, but limited to what society lets you get away with. And if there were no rules around you, you would probably mate with whatever comes your way. In times of utter chaos, like war for instance, mating and killing can spin out of control. It seems to take social rules to keep this in check.
Not that this was part of your question but - since we do have a brain though, it truly irritates me if someone who is doing harm to others or themselves following that sexual urge excuses this by not being able to make smart choices due to intoxication, out-of-control situations, peer pressure or carelessness. Thus it would not matter to me if there is a sexual urge to begin with or not, what matters is how we use it. Negative impact on others needs to be avoided.
Not that this was part of your question but - since we do have a brain though, it truly irritates me if someone who is doing harm to others or themselves following that sexual urge excuses this by not being able to make smart choices due to intoxication, out-of-control situations, peer pressure or carelessness. Thus it would not matter to me if there is a sexual urge to begin with or not, what matters is how we use it. Negative impact on others needs to be avoided.
No you understood my question, but I ask for clarification. When you say choice, do you imply choice as in if you don't make a choice, will you still do any actions because of that urge anyway?
Oooh, this is almost like philosophical masturbation.
Your question is whether it is assumed that inborn sexual urge justifies anything? Wasn`t the distinction between animals and humans exactly that thanks to our brains we have the choice to act upon sexual urges or not? Which is probably the reason the birth rates in some countries have dropped tremendously. Is there a sexual urge to begin with? Yes, it is inborn unless your hormones have messed you up. Are we able to suppress it? Absolutely. We can 1. not act upon it and 2. not let the urge occur to begin with. It just takes some practice. Our brain can steer anything if we want.
If I misunderstood your question, never mind. Too tired to indulge in philosophy these days... :)
Your question is whether it is assumed that inborn sexual urge justifies anything? Wasn`t the distinction between animals and humans exactly that thanks to our brains we have the choice to act upon sexual urges or not? Which is probably the reason the birth rates in some countries have dropped tremendously. Is there a sexual urge to begin with? Yes, it is inborn unless your hormones have messed you up. Are we able to suppress it? Absolutely. We can 1. not act upon it and 2. not let the urge occur to begin with. It just takes some practice. Our brain can steer anything if we want.
If I misunderstood your question, never mind. Too tired to indulge in philosophy these days... :)
Ahh yes.... his 19th century ideals of "sex is everywhere," and talking about it somehow makes it better, or worse. Well... one of the few things I agree with, but not just about sex. About everything, since mentally it really is ourselves who tend to have issues with expressing any embarrasing comments.
^_^
-CCDP
^_^
-CCDP
lol, lol... "IronButterfly".... one of my all-time favorite 60s acid rock groups. No offense taken by the misreading of my name... "iam1butterfly" (53 year old female flower child).
Oh, I think that wherever Freud's pshyco-analytical spirit resides, it's enjoying this "sexual urge" chat/ exchange.
Oh, I think that wherever Freud's pshyco-analytical spirit resides, it's enjoying this "sexual urge" chat/ exchange.
You know steve... I actually am interested in the ethics of sensation pertaining not only to christian faith, but just in terms of general ethics. I mean everybody often goes crazy about sexual intercourse in Christian ethics, but often focus on how it more or less is using other people for your own pleasures, etc.
However, the pleasure itself, even if achieving it without any extra "images" to support itself could still offend the lord, so long as it comes between you and your relationship with god. At least, according to what I know pertaining to Christian ethics. I mean one argument is "if it only effects yourself, and everyone else, including god, lacks your presense because of that sensation" then in essense it is somewhat of an idolization of something else. The pursuit is not for the person... just erotic hyposis, or shooting things, playing videogames.... or even just doing it by yourself. That or it could be like a drug; you desire it more then the person, more then god, and you are not enjoying the percieved sensation as much as feeding off of percieved, wanting only the percieved sensation, and any human who can give this.
Its funny because guys looking for women solely for this reason is still objectifying women when I think about it, because it is not them they want, but something they can give that they want. Strange that it sounds, this can even be applied to marrying a woman for her intelligence instead of who she is / what she does with the intelligence that she possesses. Easy example: Guy marries women because she is an intelligent doctor, and knows a lot, but drinks constantly, abuses him terribly, despite knowing better (the same more commonly found when women marry smart guys who do what the previous intelligent women describes), in the end, it is not for who they are, but what what they possess. Nothing more.
But yes I do also loved this topic, and I think its good to talk about anyway since my life kind of went a little south these last few months pertaining to all of this stuffy I am surrounded with. Luckilly this writing doesn't seem to hide that I am still who I am. DAMN IT ALL TO HELL! Heh... just kidding. Its inspiring.
I hope you respond to this steve. I would be interested in your comments.
-CCDP
However, the pleasure itself, even if achieving it without any extra "images" to support itself could still offend the lord, so long as it comes between you and your relationship with god. At least, according to what I know pertaining to Christian ethics. I mean one argument is "if it only effects yourself, and everyone else, including god, lacks your presense because of that sensation" then in essense it is somewhat of an idolization of something else. The pursuit is not for the person... just erotic hyposis, or shooting things, playing videogames.... or even just doing it by yourself. That or it could be like a drug; you desire it more then the person, more then god, and you are not enjoying the percieved sensation as much as feeding off of percieved, wanting only the percieved sensation, and any human who can give this.
Its funny because guys looking for women solely for this reason is still objectifying women when I think about it, because it is not them they want, but something they can give that they want. Strange that it sounds, this can even be applied to marrying a woman for her intelligence instead of who she is / what she does with the intelligence that she possesses. Easy example: Guy marries women because she is an intelligent doctor, and knows a lot, but drinks constantly, abuses him terribly, despite knowing better (the same more commonly found when women marry smart guys who do what the previous intelligent women describes), in the end, it is not for who they are, but what what they possess. Nothing more.
But yes I do also loved this topic, and I think its good to talk about anyway since my life kind of went a little south these last few months pertaining to all of this stuffy I am surrounded with. Luckilly this writing doesn't seem to hide that I am still who I am. DAMN IT ALL TO HELL! Heh... just kidding. Its inspiring.
I hope you respond to this steve. I would be interested in your comments.
-CCDP
Pertaining to humans, I somewhat agree with the second definition... namely because the produced sensation... is pretty undeniable (so long as the desire is completely due to a person, without any from the person being responsible for this desire.) The first, as stated in my responses, subjectively doesn't apply to me, and possibly to other human beings.
-CCDP
-CCDP
Sorry... accidently sent the letter prematurely:
...Starting right where I left off... now: were asserted true 100 years ago as the cornerstones of the human psyche, and the world paid for it. He still is not taken seriously by the majority of psychologists, and few consider him a person that actually has few correct ideas (if any to begin with). That is why I brought him up, because the urge itself... although possibly believed to exist by people preceeding him... really was turned into what it is today into something comepletely surrounding the idea of sex, and only sex, being the reason for procreation. Nietzsche percieved the urge to be more of an urge to create, and it is known that Freud read and admired Nietzsche, so the adaptation of Nietzsche's creation urge to sexual urge is um... well... his doing. That is of course if he is the one who took the idea from Nietzsche, and it is a safe bet that he did. And perversed it *shakes his hand in utter defiance* immensely!
I liked her comments as well... but at the same time for my own reasons question them virently. It's what a do, unless people don't want me to do so.
^_^
-CCDP
...Starting right where I left off... now: were asserted true 100 years ago as the cornerstones of the human psyche, and the world paid for it. He still is not taken seriously by the majority of psychologists, and few consider him a person that actually has few correct ideas (if any to begin with). That is why I brought him up, because the urge itself... although possibly believed to exist by people preceeding him... really was turned into what it is today into something comepletely surrounding the idea of sex, and only sex, being the reason for procreation. Nietzsche percieved the urge to be more of an urge to create, and it is known that Freud read and admired Nietzsche, so the adaptation of Nietzsche's creation urge to sexual urge is um... well... his doing. That is of course if he is the one who took the idea from Nietzsche, and it is a safe bet that he did. And perversed it *shakes his hand in utter defiance* immensely!
I liked her comments as well... but at the same time for my own reasons question them virently. It's what a do, unless people don't want me to do so.
^_^
-CCDP
Whoops... um... change the end starting after desire to mate to equal this:
"that consistantly grows without ever ceasing so long as intercourse is postponed." You know... the urge definition that I don't believe is true, but comes with the understanding of a defintion for urge.
I honestly believe that this defintion doesn't really apply to anyone. That its just been culurally accepted since founding psychologists this to be what a sexual urge is. Often its used to explain that it 'clearly' is what animals causes animals to mate, which is a lot to say since no human absolutely knows the subjective perspective of an animal. *sighs, shakes his head.* All the psychologists works with are similar brain activity changes in a creature's brain, and then relates it to humans, without ever questioning if this relation is entirely understood to be how humans really act. I mean it still is entirely possible that animals have wills of their own, but also have other sensations that cause their perspective to be pained if they are not fulfilled, or just cause the animal to die or some similar situation. Any urges or resistance to these urges would not be needed to explain the actions of a human, chimpanzee, or even rat. All that would be needed would be reasoning from certain conscious perspectives. This slight difference I think has many bonus, including the idea of being lazy to conquer ones own problems at times. No matter how painful it can get, it still doesn't force your will, and hence you can just sit there, and not do anything wrong. It also allows for the inexistence of habits, so doing new or correct actions is much easier then previously anticipated.
Back to your point... that definition doesn't work for me. My definition is that there is no "urge" behind the sexual urge. For humans (at least) around our teenage years, we may suddenly may suddenly find certain people to have a certain ... well... for lack of a better word... 'glow' about them, or inspire certain feelings within ourselves that we may have not felt previously. It effects our perceptions, but not our will (hence, no "urge."). The later... reasons... for procreation for humans is more related to sensual feeling. To quote a humerous made up dialogue I said to a buddy to explain what could really have enticed ancient humans to be interested in the practice of sexual intercourse: "This area of the body feels good when I touch it, AND it just so happens that it feels REALLY good when I put it in the body of this other 'glowing' person, and he/she seems to happilly feel this same sensation! Everything seems to be great right now! Maybe I'll stay around this person for awhile!" Then 3 months later, " Hey um.... your stomach looks like a gourd. What's up with that?" That is at least what I believe is how it pertains to humans, and it turns out other fairly intelligent creatures also appear to take pleasure from it as well (who knows... perhaps at a certain point intelligence wins over a will doing actions because it is told to do so, and hense only the animals that take pleasure from intercourse began to survive.). Who knows, but that is how it makes more sense at least in what I believe is the human psychology, or at least my own. ^_^
Hope that clarifies what I believe are the humans reasons for sex, and also who the changes in perceptions apply to (i.e.: adolesents percieving a "glow" in a person of the opposite - or in rare circumstances - same / both / and really rare, neither gender.).
As to the mention of Freud, I meant to say that he is greatly discredited most often, and some people commonly hold on to his belief - perhaps far too much when they use it to justify a culture focused way to much on sex. Regardless, my point is that his ideas pertaining to freudian slips, freudian subconscious surfacing thought / ego, etc. were asserted true 100 years ago
"that consistantly grows without ever ceasing so long as intercourse is postponed." You know... the urge definition that I don't believe is true, but comes with the understanding of a defintion for urge.
I honestly believe that this defintion doesn't really apply to anyone. That its just been culurally accepted since founding psychologists this to be what a sexual urge is. Often its used to explain that it 'clearly' is what animals causes animals to mate, which is a lot to say since no human absolutely knows the subjective perspective of an animal. *sighs, shakes his head.* All the psychologists works with are similar brain activity changes in a creature's brain, and then relates it to humans, without ever questioning if this relation is entirely understood to be how humans really act. I mean it still is entirely possible that animals have wills of their own, but also have other sensations that cause their perspective to be pained if they are not fulfilled, or just cause the animal to die or some similar situation. Any urges or resistance to these urges would not be needed to explain the actions of a human, chimpanzee, or even rat. All that would be needed would be reasoning from certain conscious perspectives. This slight difference I think has many bonus, including the idea of being lazy to conquer ones own problems at times. No matter how painful it can get, it still doesn't force your will, and hence you can just sit there, and not do anything wrong. It also allows for the inexistence of habits, so doing new or correct actions is much easier then previously anticipated.
Back to your point... that definition doesn't work for me. My definition is that there is no "urge" behind the sexual urge. For humans (at least) around our teenage years, we may suddenly may suddenly find certain people to have a certain ... well... for lack of a better word... 'glow' about them, or inspire certain feelings within ourselves that we may have not felt previously. It effects our perceptions, but not our will (hence, no "urge."). The later... reasons... for procreation for humans is more related to sensual feeling. To quote a humerous made up dialogue I said to a buddy to explain what could really have enticed ancient humans to be interested in the practice of sexual intercourse: "This area of the body feels good when I touch it, AND it just so happens that it feels REALLY good when I put it in the body of this other 'glowing' person, and he/she seems to happilly feel this same sensation! Everything seems to be great right now! Maybe I'll stay around this person for awhile!" Then 3 months later, " Hey um.... your stomach looks like a gourd. What's up with that?" That is at least what I believe is how it pertains to humans, and it turns out other fairly intelligent creatures also appear to take pleasure from it as well (who knows... perhaps at a certain point intelligence wins over a will doing actions because it is told to do so, and hense only the animals that take pleasure from intercourse began to survive.). Who knows, but that is how it makes more sense at least in what I believe is the human psychology, or at least my own. ^_^
Hope that clarifies what I believe are the humans reasons for sex, and also who the changes in perceptions apply to (i.e.: adolesents percieving a "glow" in a person of the opposite - or in rare circumstances - same / both / and really rare, neither gender.).
As to the mention of Freud, I meant to say that he is greatly discredited most often, and some people commonly hold on to his belief - perhaps far too much when they use it to justify a culture focused way to much on sex. Regardless, my point is that his ideas pertaining to freudian slips, freudian subconscious surfacing thought / ego, etc. were asserted true 100 years ago
Good day to you all... I find all of your comments interesting on the subject of sexuality... I would like to add to this discussion on stating that there are methods of incredable stimunation that can take place without any physical contact beign applied. Through hypnosis suggestions given to subjects can bring about more even greater pleasure and longer lasting sensations then physical stimulation. I will share that there are young women who have gotten hooked up with men in Yahoo who seek to find women to find women for this reason. I work with hypnosis to assist others in several areas of self improvement, pain management, quitting smoking... ect. but I tend to believe that Erotic Hypnosis steps beyond my Christian ethics. I am interested to here anyone's comments, thoughts and opinions on this subject. :) Steve
I'll send you a PM asap.
Just one question for clarification. You said, "My term for sexual urge is a building conscious perception for a desire to mate that only grows, and never is consistant, or never ceases."
Does that apply to males and females; old and young, etc.?
Who mentioned Freud. I thought he had been discredited although the academics seem to have "found" him again = (
I like Iambutterfly's comments. At first I thought his/her name was IronButterfly (no offence). Freud would have a good time with that = )
Just one question for clarification. You said, "My term for sexual urge is a building conscious perception for a desire to mate that only grows, and never is consistant, or never ceases."
Does that apply to males and females; old and young, etc.?
Who mentioned Freud. I thought he had been discredited although the academics seem to have "found" him again = (
I like Iambutterfly's comments. At first I thought his/her name was IronButterfly (no offence). Freud would have a good time with that = )
sexual urge = natural instinct god created in order for the world to go 'round (procreation)
sexual urge = one simply desiring that wonderful massage we call sexual intercourse
both of these
sexual urge = one simply desiring that wonderful massage we call sexual intercourse
both of these
I never percieved it as your definition. I am interested in what your defintion of it is, and I look forward to your response.
^_^
-CCDP
^_^
-CCDP
Oh and um... the same can be said for the subconscious belief about that slip. I mean the most obvious one could be that you made a mistake, but thanks to Freud *sighs... shakes his head... sighs again* people question even those possible problems. The problem with freudian slips and his other ideals about the subconscious resurfacing orf whatever he believes in is that he logically bases it on the inexistent premise that this is the real reason why the person makes that mistake, and even he said it wasn't a universal. The only subjective evidence suppording the claim that such a slip was a mistake is the conscious error that the person admits to it being a mistake, while the conscept that it has to do with some sort of subconscious thought "surfacing" based on nothing percieved by the person. This issue is constant in many of his theories, but because he is percieved as some psychological demigogue, for some reason still gives him credit to his thoughts.
But what do I really think? :^P
Anyway... so don't worry about the slips, because to you, they don't appear to be slips, and I guess that really is the end of it.
-CCDP
But what do I really think? :^P
Anyway... so don't worry about the slips, because to you, they don't appear to be slips, and I guess that really is the end of it.
-CCDP
whoops... forgot to finish the letter. So I understand and somewhat agree with you...eventually with what you're saying, but I still think our current concept of the sexual urge doesn't fully take into its actual base experience for every individual, and as a result, may be causing people to do things they may not wish to do because of beliefs they learned from this interpretation of the term "sexual urge."
-CCDP
-CCDP
Well its easier to discuss this sexual intercourse so easily because of how I think. Parts are parts people, and an intellectual discussion pertaining to our perceptions includes our personal experiences pertaining to them. Where some may be morbidly offended or possibly embarrased by these statements, personal philosophical thoughts lead me to a conclusions that I really didn't see a point to being embarrased about it, or even be effected by it. And yes, I at least was able to "turn off emotional responses" to any topic that easilly - mainly because logically, it appeared that these responses were no different then me doing a deliberate (and thus superficial) action. So I apologize if I caught you off guard. Offense and embarrassment are things I don't mean to create... but I understand that I often cause this since I am uneffected by these embarrasing thoughts.
Pertaining your other point regarding sensation: While I understand your point, I still turn to the "turn on" being something that we percieve, and that we undeniably have to consciously percieve it before we can say that we are "aroused" or "turned on." And logically there is no percieved separation between our psychology (or our subjective point of view... oh I might need to define subjective and objective... its different for some philosophers then for the rest of the population. Subjective for me is defined as what a person percieves in their own perspective, and objective is what more then two people cannot deny percieving in their shared perceptions.), and our physiology - which often is a basis for a lot of my papers and conclusions regarding psychological issues that really don't appear to exist, and we just believe exist.
However it happens, it still has to be percieved or sensed by ourselves, or we don't percieve its existence. Whether we are programmed to do certain actions under certain pretenses, but then we learn we can do other actions, and thus are not forced to do those action from that point thereafter, because someone told us that this sensation is arousel, or it is actual arousal that is hypothetically uncontrollabe doesn't take away the neccesity that we have choice in the matter, and thus the urge contemplation of resistence requires far more actions on our part then perhaps we culturally believe. And if our "neccesity of resistence" is logically inexistent (and for myself, I believed to have deduced its inexistence within myself), then I'm proposing that the definition of us doing actions to counter certain actions programmed within us is unneccesary. And I'll probably be writing papers about this in various papers in my graduate and hopefully professorship job.
Yeah.... hope that makes sense.
Pertaining your other point regarding sensation: While I understand your point, I still turn to the "turn on" being something that we percieve, and that we undeniably have to consciously percieve it before we can say that we are "aroused" or "turned on." And logically there is no percieved separation between our psychology (or our subjective point of view... oh I might need to define subjective and objective... its different for some philosophers then for the rest of the population. Subjective for me is defined as what a person percieves in their own perspective, and objective is what more then two people cannot deny percieving in their shared perceptions.), and our physiology - which often is a basis for a lot of my papers and conclusions regarding psychological issues that really don't appear to exist, and we just believe exist.
However it happens, it still has to be percieved or sensed by ourselves, or we don't percieve its existence. Whether we are programmed to do certain actions under certain pretenses, but then we learn we can do other actions, and thus are not forced to do those action from that point thereafter, because someone told us that this sensation is arousel, or it is actual arousal that is hypothetically uncontrollabe doesn't take away the neccesity that we have choice in the matter, and thus the urge contemplation of resistence requires far more actions on our part then perhaps we culturally believe. And if our "neccesity of resistence" is logically inexistent (and for myself, I believed to have deduced its inexistence within myself), then I'm proposing that the definition of us doing actions to counter certain actions programmed within us is unneccesary. And I'll probably be writing papers about this in various papers in my graduate and hopefully professorship job.
Yeah.... hope that makes sense.
I'll send you a PM later in the week. I'd like to hear more about your theories. The theory I mentioned is not something I believe in.
correction: I should have said "expected a response" not "unexpected a response." I wonder if there's any subconscious significance to my misuse of words.
The topic of sexual intercourse comingled with intellectual discourse isn't what one would have expected to see on a forum like this. So, yeah... I guess that you wouldn't have necessarily unexpected a response. But, I read your initial posting and I felt... well, dare I say it, an "impulse" to respond. Now, to address your parting thought in your response to me, "... does sensations pertaining to our perceptions imply arousal or need/ resistance of need?" Well, we no doubt have sensations; but, I don't believe that they are entirely linked with our perceptions. With sexuality, I still think that our sensations, inclinations, impulses, urges are as physiological as they are psychological. Yes, we have our hearts, minds, souls, spirits, freewill and choice as influences and guiding forces in all of this... to a degree. But, then there's that arousal; that trigger; that "heat" that "turn on"... where does that come from? ... Our minds? ... Our bodies? ... I believe that we are defined as much as what we are... male or female and whatever sexual identifiers that are attached to our genders as what or how we think... sexual, asexual, etc.
I don't know if the sexual urge is there merely for procreation, although I must admit that its presence causes a sensation which makes whatever you are attracted to be appealing. But my definiton of the sexual urge is simply a change in a creature's perception which makes other creatures of the same species more appealing. Now there are some kinks in that definition (I.E., beastiality, the technicality that we're also separate speciies that have enough genetic similarity to actually create other creatures... etc.), but the ideal pertains only to the change in the perception. There is nothing necessarilly forcing a person's actions, or the persuit of that person. Nor is there a imposition or inclination to do anything towards the person they are attracted to that must be resisted. This is significant in one way, which is that a person's interest expand more then just physical attraction. For example, a woman can look physically beautiful, but opening her mouth does she reveal a sense of narcisism and general disdain towards everything, which is my que to "politely leave." The contrast can be said for a woman who doesn't look psychically beautiful, but in orderwise is a wise, intelligent, and sarcastic woman that is generally crazy, all of which are things that I am very interested in. Both situations are based around choice, and only deal with what is actually percieved to be a change within out brain chemistry / our perceptions.
Subjectively this defintion was reached by eliminating the beliefs pertaining to what I subjectively believed were the truths about my sexual urge, leaving only the percieved changes in my perception. Since the chemical change in our brain is the only information that can be percieved in CAT scans whenever a person is attracted to something, my defintion of the the urge still works. The psychologists assumes that most people feel a pull or resistence, and thus state a correlation between the change in brain activity with these people's ,subjective descriptions. To summarize, because people say they feel a pull whenever this activity happens in the brain, and most people claim to have this experience, they universally assert this to be what all people experience. The problem is if most of the population bases it off what they have been taught to be a sexual urge (i.e.: "I feel this sensation, and billy told me this sensation is a sexual urge that must be resisted, thus for the rest of my life when I feel this sesnation, it means that I must resist it in order to not have it take over my perceptions.), then the entire data pool could be basing their data on a false belief. Regardless, the psychologists still relies on my subjective experience in order to corralate the brain activity with a change in my subjective experience, and if all I feel is a sensation change whenever I look at certain women, then my perspective is just as valid as a person who claims to have an urge that has to be resisted. It probably is more accurate because of my logical deductive experiement regarding my human psyche, where I "got rid" of beliefs that were logically supported by inexistent premises (one of them being the forced sexual urge.).
Again... its important to know because where one implys action to resist the inevitable stupidity that often is attributed to our sexual urge, my definition implies no need or want of satisfaction that comes with the urge. I.E.: the logical neccesity for our choice in the entire matter.
But that is just my theory, and I assert it is the only one that is logical, and if you're interested, I might explain that. Unfortunately, I am kind of tired right now. Cannot explain why, save for that I have been writing for quite some time now. ^_^ If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. After all, we are persuing truth, and questions must be asked in order for truth to be ascertained... whatever it may be!
For now... I am signing off. Good luck with life, and mind the big rocks named steve. They apparantly know too much.
:^P
-Philosophizichs
Subjectively this defintion was reached by eliminating the beliefs pertaining to what I subjectively believed were the truths about my sexual urge, leaving only the percieved changes in my perception. Since the chemical change in our brain is the only information that can be percieved in CAT scans whenever a person is attracted to something, my defintion of the the urge still works. The psychologists assumes that most people feel a pull or resistence, and thus state a correlation between the change in brain activity with these people's ,subjective descriptions. To summarize, because people say they feel a pull whenever this activity happens in the brain, and most people claim to have this experience, they universally assert this to be what all people experience. The problem is if most of the population bases it off what they have been taught to be a sexual urge (i.e.: "I feel this sensation, and billy told me this sensation is a sexual urge that must be resisted, thus for the rest of my life when I feel this sesnation, it means that I must resist it in order to not have it take over my perceptions.), then the entire data pool could be basing their data on a false belief. Regardless, the psychologists still relies on my subjective experience in order to corralate the brain activity with a change in my subjective experience, and if all I feel is a sensation change whenever I look at certain women, then my perspective is just as valid as a person who claims to have an urge that has to be resisted. It probably is more accurate because of my logical deductive experiement regarding my human psyche, where I "got rid" of beliefs that were logically supported by inexistent premises (one of them being the forced sexual urge.).
Again... its important to know because where one implys action to resist the inevitable stupidity that often is attributed to our sexual urge, my definition implies no need or want of satisfaction that comes with the urge. I.E.: the logical neccesity for our choice in the entire matter.
But that is just my theory, and I assert it is the only one that is logical, and if you're interested, I might explain that. Unfortunately, I am kind of tired right now. Cannot explain why, save for that I have been writing for quite some time now. ^_^ If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. After all, we are persuing truth, and questions must be asked in order for truth to be ascertained... whatever it may be!
For now... I am signing off. Good luck with life, and mind the big rocks named steve. They apparantly know too much.
:^P
-Philosophizichs
Never thought I would hear a responce, what with the terrible grammer and lack of editing. However, the unexpected has decided to rear its head towards my doorstep in my direction, and thus I must answer the doorbell.
Right. To "Iam1butterfly," your definition is the one that I constantly am addressing. There are many points that I want to address, including the ideal of a "sub conscious" level of thought. A lot of my points are tied to a logical understanding that is humerously contradicted often with the ideal of our psychology, and that is the fact that if a human is unaware of these percieved 'wants or needs' within their psyche, then how can one neccesarilly assert their existence? I mean asserting the existence of an impulse's suppression when a person doesn't percieve its existence dismisses the possibility that perhaps we are believing that the impulse is neccesarilly there. Its funny because if a psychiatrist gives a person medicine to change their perceptions ,and no change is ever detected, then its dismissed as a placebo, but if a person doesn't feel an expected urge or impulse within their perceptions, then some psychologists might deem that the person has supressed it. Quid Pro Quo: What the frack?! ^_^ (thought I should cheer up the conversation). Why the double standard between the two conclusions, especially since logically they are subjectively and objectively equal in terms of their percieved existence in a person's perceptions?
This is when the problems really begin to unfold with the believed definition you have given that often I think is traced back to Freud. His original beliefs may have been to help many people, but his conclusions didn't make sense sometimes, and may have resulted in more damage then originally believed. For example, logically not all people have a felt need for acceptance or validation. I don't feel anything when a person compliments me or says my work is worthless. It just doesn't effect me, and that is because of what I know about myself (I created sensations that I was told were feelings... but then I started creating them my simple will alone, meaning the sensations were merely actions. But that is pertaining to an unrelated subject.). If anything, I feel a type of resignation, because the more they want me to write, the more I understand that people I have good points, and they need to know this so that their lives are possibly easier.
I mean even the concept of need almost takes away from the concept of "want." It seems to objectify our partners or "imagined partners," turning them into "things needed in order for me to be sane," instead of "I love you, and I want to be with you forever," etc., etc., and other such "coody" talk that often happens when we are in relatioonships involving that perticdular said actions (hehe... forgive my humor, or don't if you like it. Doesn't matter to me.).
But again back to the main point, which is that the sexual urge or impulse that needs to be resisted I completely agree with you.... in that there is nothing to be resisted, namely because there really is nothing there for myself. As odd as it sounds, I do have complete control over my previously believed compulsive actions, to the point where the only consistency regarding my personal recent masterbations have always been by choice, with no psychological consistency save for the concept of inevitability. I've never liked doing it, but it was either succuming to this now inexistent urge or have it build up until I became a monster. Inevitability left a mark on me that I now am quite happy to be rid of. Now its all about choice, and I choose not to do it, that is until I compulsively force myself to do it, just as I compulsively force myself to do things I don't want to do constantly, like not work on my book, or not do my exercises. Its origin was to prove my conclusions wrong, despite the fact that by choosing to do these actions do i prove that free will is still the guiding aspect behind them; hence I prove nothing. A nice little logical box for me and everyone else that questions it... even I can't question it.
The point is that I was raised to believe in the definition you described, and for myself I have concluded that this definition was the problem to begin with. We think its so modern to state that "the sexual urge just is, and we should except all types of sexuality," but my personal discoveries have even noticed that I can produce the same sensations of arousal toward males as I can towards females, and give myself an erections by just flexing that muscle! The crazy thing is, other guys claim to have the same ability! Almost as if it were not "just is the way you were born," but rather "you have more choice over it then previously imangined!" I just doesn't work! We are telling be that they cannot help who they are, and now it appears as if they have choice in their sexuality?! Choice implies the ability to be ethical... and.... 'moral' about it, because I can choose when and where and how I am going to have sex, and with who I am going to have sex! This is a major problem with the idea of the urge being inborn and something that we cannot percieve, namely because we never asked if our culture just accepts these ideals of our sexuality without wondering if they are simply beliefs. Were so enthralled with the acceptance factor that we never take the next step and ask ourselves if our beliefs are really correct!
I keep rambling way to much. Um... what was my point? Oh... right. The definition you're using I don't think works because there are logical contradictions from my point of view that simply don't work with my psyche. That, and, I have encountered a person who trained his entire life to know everything about the human body tell me that there is no sexual urge. This man is one of the greatest martial artists in the world, knows how to punch with 500 ibs of pressure (twice as much then the commonly known amount for most blackbelts), toured china learning from the old masters (and then beat them), and could put you to sleep my touching a certain area behind your head. He knew what it was like to not prepare a person for a neccesary part of the human psyche, and he still had the confident odasity to assert this urge's inexistence. So if you ask me if I believe him or a man who looked for penises in everything to support his claims (Freud... who is the probable founder of many of these thoughts) - which of course is logically false because it is "what could be" but never subjectively has concrete evidence to support his theories - who do you think I am going to give more credit to?
Not to sound imposing, but I just don't think that concept of sexuality works anymore, and that we just believe that there is less choice in the matter then we like to believe ( I mean giving in to our passions takes a lot of work in order to finally complete this giving in. Quite a bit of movement that makes me wonder what would happen if I didn't choose to do those movements?... Hmm.). And with that comes the point that perhaps there are moral ways to conducting our sexuality. That there are wrong types of sex, and people can help it... but they believe they cannot. And with the possibility that the impulse defintion doesn't work at all leads to the next point which is that "does sensations pertaining to our perceptions imply arousal or need / resistence of need?"
I hope I have made some sense here, but I look forward to your responce. It was nice to... uh... type. Haven't done it in a long time. Good to know I still gots it, somewhat.
Best wishes,
Philosophizermizerkaiser? Sour bratin. mmmmmmm
Right. To "Iam1butterfly," your definition is the one that I constantly am addressing. There are many points that I want to address, including the ideal of a "sub conscious" level of thought. A lot of my points are tied to a logical understanding that is humerously contradicted often with the ideal of our psychology, and that is the fact that if a human is unaware of these percieved 'wants or needs' within their psyche, then how can one neccesarilly assert their existence? I mean asserting the existence of an impulse's suppression when a person doesn't percieve its existence dismisses the possibility that perhaps we are believing that the impulse is neccesarilly there. Its funny because if a psychiatrist gives a person medicine to change their perceptions ,and no change is ever detected, then its dismissed as a placebo, but if a person doesn't feel an expected urge or impulse within their perceptions, then some psychologists might deem that the person has supressed it. Quid Pro Quo: What the frack?! ^_^ (thought I should cheer up the conversation). Why the double standard between the two conclusions, especially since logically they are subjectively and objectively equal in terms of their percieved existence in a person's perceptions?
This is when the problems really begin to unfold with the believed definition you have given that often I think is traced back to Freud. His original beliefs may have been to help many people, but his conclusions didn't make sense sometimes, and may have resulted in more damage then originally believed. For example, logically not all people have a felt need for acceptance or validation. I don't feel anything when a person compliments me or says my work is worthless. It just doesn't effect me, and that is because of what I know about myself (I created sensations that I was told were feelings... but then I started creating them my simple will alone, meaning the sensations were merely actions. But that is pertaining to an unrelated subject.). If anything, I feel a type of resignation, because the more they want me to write, the more I understand that people I have good points, and they need to know this so that their lives are possibly easier.
I mean even the concept of need almost takes away from the concept of "want." It seems to objectify our partners or "imagined partners," turning them into "things needed in order for me to be sane," instead of "I love you, and I want to be with you forever," etc., etc., and other such "coody" talk that often happens when we are in relatioonships involving that perticdular said actions (hehe... forgive my humor, or don't if you like it. Doesn't matter to me.).
But again back to the main point, which is that the sexual urge or impulse that needs to be resisted I completely agree with you.... in that there is nothing to be resisted, namely because there really is nothing there for myself. As odd as it sounds, I do have complete control over my previously believed compulsive actions, to the point where the only consistency regarding my personal recent masterbations have always been by choice, with no psychological consistency save for the concept of inevitability. I've never liked doing it, but it was either succuming to this now inexistent urge or have it build up until I became a monster. Inevitability left a mark on me that I now am quite happy to be rid of. Now its all about choice, and I choose not to do it, that is until I compulsively force myself to do it, just as I compulsively force myself to do things I don't want to do constantly, like not work on my book, or not do my exercises. Its origin was to prove my conclusions wrong, despite the fact that by choosing to do these actions do i prove that free will is still the guiding aspect behind them; hence I prove nothing. A nice little logical box for me and everyone else that questions it... even I can't question it.
The point is that I was raised to believe in the definition you described, and for myself I have concluded that this definition was the problem to begin with. We think its so modern to state that "the sexual urge just is, and we should except all types of sexuality," but my personal discoveries have even noticed that I can produce the same sensations of arousal toward males as I can towards females, and give myself an erections by just flexing that muscle! The crazy thing is, other guys claim to have the same ability! Almost as if it were not "just is the way you were born," but rather "you have more choice over it then previously imangined!" I just doesn't work! We are telling be that they cannot help who they are, and now it appears as if they have choice in their sexuality?! Choice implies the ability to be ethical... and.... 'moral' about it, because I can choose when and where and how I am going to have sex, and with who I am going to have sex! This is a major problem with the idea of the urge being inborn and something that we cannot percieve, namely because we never asked if our culture just accepts these ideals of our sexuality without wondering if they are simply beliefs. Were so enthralled with the acceptance factor that we never take the next step and ask ourselves if our beliefs are really correct!
I keep rambling way to much. Um... what was my point? Oh... right. The definition you're using I don't think works because there are logical contradictions from my point of view that simply don't work with my psyche. That, and, I have encountered a person who trained his entire life to know everything about the human body tell me that there is no sexual urge. This man is one of the greatest martial artists in the world, knows how to punch with 500 ibs of pressure (twice as much then the commonly known amount for most blackbelts), toured china learning from the old masters (and then beat them), and could put you to sleep my touching a certain area behind your head. He knew what it was like to not prepare a person for a neccesary part of the human psyche, and he still had the confident odasity to assert this urge's inexistence. So if you ask me if I believe him or a man who looked for penises in everything to support his claims (Freud... who is the probable founder of many of these thoughts) - which of course is logically false because it is "what could be" but never subjectively has concrete evidence to support his theories - who do you think I am going to give more credit to?
Not to sound imposing, but I just don't think that concept of sexuality works anymore, and that we just believe that there is less choice in the matter then we like to believe ( I mean giving in to our passions takes a lot of work in order to finally complete this giving in. Quite a bit of movement that makes me wonder what would happen if I didn't choose to do those movements?... Hmm.). And with that comes the point that perhaps there are moral ways to conducting our sexuality. That there are wrong types of sex, and people can help it... but they believe they cannot. And with the possibility that the impulse defintion doesn't work at all leads to the next point which is that "does sensations pertaining to our perceptions imply arousal or need / resistence of need?"
I hope I have made some sense here, but I look forward to your responce. It was nice to... uh... type. Haven't done it in a long time. Good to know I still gots it, somewhat.
Best wishes,
Philosophizermizerkaiser? Sour bratin. mmmmmmm
There are some people - like sociobiologists - who believe that sexual urges are ONLY present for reproductive reasons - to ensure the survival of human beings. I don't believe it but I know it exists; I've even written a paper about it. From this belief also comes the belief that women are inferior because they can usually carry only one child at a time and have a finite supply of eggs whereas males have an infinite supply of sperm. I don't particularly like that "economic" theory either.
Maybe sexual urges just "are". If you have any interesting theories, I'd sure like to hear them.
Maybe sexual urges just "are". If you have any interesting theories, I'd sure like to hear them.
I applaud your pursuit of "truth" what ever that may be. And, you pose a rather profound question... "the definition of sexual urge." I think that the "urge" is both a physiological and a psychological impluse. The impluse, be it conscious or sub-conscious, is merely the "need" to satisfy or fulfill a void (emptiness) that lies deep within us all. On the physiological level, maybe, the impulse comes as a need to procreate and "repeat" ourselves. On the psychological level, perhaps, the impulse is really the need for acceptance, validation or approval. I guess it all depends on one's perspective. Anyway, whether through religious, sociological, cultural or philosophical reasons, we've bought into the notion that we must suppress, control or, to the extreme... negate this innate "impulse" or need. Problems or "hang ups" can occur when we indulge these urges/ impluses way too openly and freely; we succumb to them, a bit too cautiously; or, we deny ourselves completly. The "truth" is that the impulse/ urge is neither good nor bad; it simply is! We are, afterall, sexual beings. There's no one "right way" to approach sexuality. Eventually, each of us figures out what we like, want or need. As we explore our sexuality, we hopefully discover what works best for us while at the same time, we learn who we are!
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Relationships Community
How do you keep things safer between the sheets? We explore your options.
Can HIV be transmitted through this sexual activity? Dr. Jose Gonzalez-Garcia answers this commonly-asked question.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
