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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
