Is there a sexual urge, and thus are we treating anything at all?

[ThePhilosophizer]

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.

[iam1butterfly]

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.

[iam1butterfly]

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.

[ThePhilosophizer]

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

[ThePhilosophizer]

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

[lonewolf07]

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.

[iam1butterfly]

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!