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.
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 = )
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.
