Men and their.. insatiable lust

simu

Vangelis wrote:

No we don't. My heart belongs to someone else. I wouldn't be interested in hooking up with an evolution proponent. (At least not if he called me primitive for believing in God.)

Oh, tell more. Your love life must be so fascinating. Enrich us with your gossip.

Vangelis

simu wrote:

Oh, tell more. Your love life must be so fascinating. Enrich us with your gossip.

Why are you pecking on me like that? I was only responding to what they're saying here, in my own way.

simu

Because it's tiresome to have to read such inane chatter in what is supposed to be a relatively serious forum.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

My heart belongs to someone else.

Can you please stop mentioning your by letter correspondance relationship in every second post? It's weird.

Vangelis

simu wrote:

Because it's tiresome to have to read such inane chatter in what is supposed to be a relatively serious forum.

I'm not the only one.

dublindude, whatever you wrote there I suppose it was hostile, but I can't read it because you're on my Ignore List. You are welcome to put me on your Ignore List as well.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

I'm not the only one.

dublindude, whatever you wrote there I suppose it was hostile, but I can't read it because you're on my Ignore List. You are welcome to put me on your Ignore List as well.

Ignoring people who don't believe your religious, sex is sacred bull**** is highly mature :rolleyes:

Anyway...

When men are drunk they really want to have sex. Is this the alcohol or is this their inhibitions removed?

Vangelis

dublindude wrote:

Ignoring people who don't believe your religious, sex is sacred bull**** is highly mature :rolleyes:

Anyway...

When men are drunk they really want to have sex. Is this the alcohol or is this their inhibitions removed?

Put you off for a moment to tell you that I ignore you because you made offensive comments about my "letter correspondence" boyfriend. And I see now that you keep bringing the subject up. It's offensive because you clearly use it to ridicule me and make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm insecure in my relationship, with my sexuality. As if that is so much more mature! I'm not having that anymore. That's why I ignore you. And that has actually made my stay here at boards.ie more pleasant.

From my experience, not all soak drunk men want to have sex. But of course, I forgot. Your experience is superb and dominates over everyone else's.

Ciao

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

No we don't. My heart belongs to someone else. I wouldn't be interested in hooking up with an evolution proponent. (At least not if he called me primitive for believing in God.)

First some advice, if you claim you're using the ignore function, then use the ignore function. Replying to users you claim to have on ignore makes you look silly.

Secondly (and stay with me here, as I do have a point), you indicate you don't believe in evolution, which is fair enough. You point towards religious beliefs, so I therefore assume that your alternative belief is in creationism ala genesis. If this is the case, do you also adhere to biblical teachings that sexual intercourse if for the sole purposes of reproduction?

(now for the on-topic bit).

IF you do believe this to be the case, then this whole thread could be viewed as hypocritical, seeing as you posted in anger at the work of two scientists who put their beliefs (originating for their research or whatever) into publication.

In response, you start a thread condemning their beliefs, influenced, in part at least, by your own beliefs. Do you see the paradox here?

If you do not believe that intercourse is soley for the purpose of reproduction, may I ask why you selectively adhere to some teachings and not to others (as this is off topic, PM or another thread would be ok).

Beruthiel

psi wrote:

so I therefore assume that your alternative belief is in creationism ala genesis.

dinosaurs!!

sorry
couldn't resist

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

Put you off for a moment to tell you that I ignore you because you made offensive comments about my "letter correspondence" boyfriend. And I see now that you keep bringing the subject up. It's offensive because you clearly use it to ridicule me and make me sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, that I'm insecure in my relationship, with my sexuality. As if that is so much more mature! I'm not having that anymore. That's why I ignore you. And that has actually made my stay here at boards.ie more pleasant.

From my experience, not all soak drunk men want to have sex. But of course, I forgot. Your experience is superb and dominates over everyone else's.

Ciao

Well, your opinions on sex are certainly naive. Are you from the US? Seriously. You really remind me of a few girls I know from the US. The most naive people I've ever met!

Regarding your other point, you can believe whatever you want about men, but you would have a hard time trying to find a drunk man who doesn't want sex. So my original question again, is this his true self coming out, or just the alcohol?

Zombrex

simu wrote:

Because it's tiresome to have to read such inane chatter in what is supposed to be a relatively serious forum.

Yeah but it isn't tiresome to post complains about threads that no one is forcing you to reply to or even read :rolleyes:

Don't mind them Vangelis

dublindude wrote:

When men are drunk they really want to have sex. Is this the alcohol or is this their inhibitions removed?

Its the alcohol. It basically, slowly, shuts down the higher developed parts of the human brain, so the lower level, older (from an evolutionary point of view) parts of the brain start to come to the front. Animal properties such as aggression and sexual drive increase, while logic, reasoning and other "human" traits are suppressed.

The Corinthian

dublindude wrote:

When men are drunk they really want to have sex.

Or a kebab.

GuanYin

Beruthiel wrote:

dinosaurs!!

sorry
couldn't resist

No, men aren't lustful for dinosaurs. I did fancy a cartoon mermaid once tho.

[offtopic]
Dinosaurs can be explained away with genesis, so can the whole 7 day thing (apparently its possible that a solar day during the earths formation, maybe have been longer than a solar day now). This was legally accepted (put forward by evolutionists no less, in a defence trial in the bad old days when evolution was banned in some US schools) and dropped like a hot cake as soon as evolution became legal again.

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Its the alcohol. It basically, slowly, shuts down the higher developed parts of the human brain, so the lower level, older (from an evolutionary point of view) parts of the brain start to come to the front. Animal properties such as aggression and sexual drive increase, while logic, reasoning and other "human" traits are suppressed.

GRrrrrrrrrr!

*smak* *Wibble*

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

Its the alcohol. It basically, slowly, shuts down the higher developed parts of the human brain, so the lower level, older (from an evolutionary point of view) parts of the brain start to come to the front. Animal properties such as aggression and sexual drive increase, while logic, reasoning and other "human" traits are suppressed.

OK. This has always been my point. Why have you been arguing against me up until now?

Our natural, animal instincts want us to have sex a lot. Our upbringing/etc forces us to make decisions which go against our animal instincts.

My argument has always been that our animal instincts, not our intelligence, are what really drive us (i.e. wanting power, passing on our genes, survival, etc.)

GuanYin

dublindude wrote:

OK. This has always been my point. Why have you been arguing against me up until now?

Because its most likely nonsense.

Our natural, animal instincts want us to have sex a lot. Our upbringing/etc forces us to make decisions which go against our animal instincts.

Can you back this up as anything but amixture of Old Wives Tales/Pub Talk/Wild Speculation on your part?

Most recent reseatch suggests its about 3.2 million years or more since our ancestors chased things on phallic urges.

My argument has always been that our animal instincts, not our intelligence, are what really drive us (i.e. wanting power, passing on our genes, survival, etc.)

Animal instinct is a poor excuse, monogamy is an evolutionary driven survival tactic, not a sociologically driven ideal (well its both, but the social ideal came second).

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

Our natural, animal instincts want us to have sex a lot. Our upbringing/etc forces us to make decisions which go against our animal instincts.

Its not our upbringing, it is the higher evolved parts of the human brain, the bits that seperate us from other mammals, precisely the bits the alcohol suppress. And these bits contain instincts as well.

dublindude wrote:

My argument has always been that our animal instincts, not our intelligence, are what really drive us (i.e. wanting power, passing on our genes, survival, etc.)

And my argument is that that, in humans at least, is only a part of the picture, due to the other instincts and evolutinary processes that have developed over the last million years or so in humans.

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

Its not our upbringing, it is the higher evolved parts of the human brain, the bits that seperate us from other mammals, precisely the bits the alcohol suppress. And these bits contain instincts as well.

The just doesn't make sense though.

As I've said, and this is true, go to parts of the world where they do not have proper education (and are generally poor.)

They do not seem to have particularily evolved "higher evolved parts". They're violent. They do a lot of ****ing. Etc.

Did evolution really miss them, or is it simply down to what we're thought growing up?

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

The just doesn't make sense though.

It makes perfect sense

dublindude wrote:

As I've said, and this is true, go to parts of the world where they do not have proper education (and are generally poor.)

And what? They all go around like they are drunk? Are you actually being serious?

dublindude wrote:

They do not seem to have particularily evolved "higher evolved parts". They're violent. They do a lot of ****ing. Etc.

They (who ever they are) have pretty much the exact same evolved parts of the brain as you do.

dublindude wrote:

Did evolution really miss them, or is it simply down to what we're thought growing up?

Your parents taught you, specifically, not to have sex with girls at parties? Really?

AARRRGH

Why can't you accept the obvious facts?

Have you ever been to a poor country? I have. My female friends were continuously being harrased for sex by the men. Everywhere. All day.

Are they not as evolved as us?

wicknight wrote:

Your parents taught you, specifically, not to have sex with girls at parties? Really?

What are you talking about? I have sex with girls at parties. I'm a normal bloke. Why would I not want to have sex with girls at parties? What is your logic here?

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

Why can't you accept the obvious facts?

The "facts" dublindude are quite simple, and have been explained in psi post quite well ... you just aren't listening.

dublindude wrote:

Have you ever been to a poor country? I have. My female friends were continuously being harrased for sex by the men. Everywhere. All day.

And...

dublindude wrote:

Are they not as evolved as us?

They are exactly as evolved as us, and alochol has exact same effect on them. No idea where you are going with this or what point you think you are proving ..

dublindude wrote:

What are you talking about? I have sex with girls at parties. I'm a normal bloke. Why would I not want to have sex with girls at parties? What is your logic here?

So how are you any different than "poor" people you claim to be less educated than us?

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

The "facts" dublindude are quite simple, and have been explained in psi post quite well ... you just aren't listening.


And...


They are exactly as evolved as us, and alochol has exact same effect on them. No idea where you are going with this or what point you think you are proving ..



So how are you any different than "poor" people you claim to be less educated than us?

But they're not drunk. They're sober. They're much more violent and want to have sex a lot, with lots of different people.

It's a lack of education. Not a lack of evolution.

You say I'm not listening? You're not listening. What's the difference between you and me except our opinions? Nada.

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

But they're not drunk. They're sober. They're much more violent and want to have sex a lot, with lots of different people.

Er ... what?

Poor, uneducated, people are very violent and want a lot of sex ... er .. ok, what exactly are you basing that rather bizare statement on?

Are you honestly saying that when well-off, well educated, people drink it removes their "education" and they act like normal poor uneducated people.

No idea where to start with the problems with that idea ...

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

Er ... what?

Poor, uneducated, people are very violent and want a lot of sex ... er .. ok, what exactly are you basing that rather bizare statement on?
...

It's not a bizarre statement. Anyone who knows anything about the world knows the poor countries are violent and have a HIV problem.

simu

They probably act differently with local women. From TV etc, they get an image of Western women as being extremely promiscuous and they possibly figure the women might be up for a bit of fun on their vacation!

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

It's not a bizarre statement. Anyone who knows anything about the world knows the poor countries are violent and have a HIV problem.

So many things wrong with the grossly simplified view of world cultures I would need a couple of other threads just to address the first part. The main thing I would point out would be that Africans don't have a HIV problem cause they have more sex than us, they have one cause they are less likely to use condoms, or be identified as having HIV before they can spread the virus.

Still have no idea what this has to do with the instincts in men to cheat? Or monogamy? Or a man drunk at a party? .. or what a man drunk at a party with a boner has to do with men cheating on their long term partners?

This tread is getting very muddled, back to the issues ...

As psi explained, there is an instinct in all mammals (all animals) to have sex, but there is also an instinct in humans to form monogamis family units based around the idea of raising children. Do you disagree with either of these points?

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

As psi explained, there is an instinct in all mammals (all animals) to have sex, but there is also an instinct in humans to form monogamis family units based around the idea of raising children. Do you disagree with either of these points?

Yes, let's try to stay on topic. We can do the AIDS one another day (my speciality!!)

Instinct in all animals to have sex. Yes.
Instinct in humans to form monogamis family units? I agree that humans do want to form family units (for the first few years of the childs lives at least) but I disagree with the monogamis (is that how it's spelt??) bit. I really believe that's something society has given us. And people like to say they've never cheated (don't want to be considered a slut or wanker). And people would like to cheat the odd time.

I think this is pretty much the way humans are (in general, getting worse as the population gets less educated.)

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

Instinct in all animals to have sex. Yes.

Agreed

dublindude wrote:

Instinct in humans to form monogamis family units? I agree that humans do want to form family units (for the first few years of the childs lives at least) but I disagree with the monogamis (is that how it's spelt??) bit.

But as psi pointed out, it does a dis-service to the saftey and development of the family unit for a male human (or female) to have a large number of children from different women (ie a large number of family units). He then has to look after all these different children, spreading himself very thin.

It works fine in other mammals because the male does not take a direct role in raising the children. But he does in the human species (along with certain birds amoung other species)

dublindude wrote:

I really believe that's something society has given us. And people like to say they've never cheated (don't want to be considered a slut or wanker). And people would like to cheat the odd time.

Isn't that more a reflection of (again as psi said) boredom, lack of emotional connection with partner etc than a primal instinct. Most people I know who have cheated on their partners have done it because they were not happy in the relationship, not because they were perfectly happy but driven to have random sex to spread their genes. And how many people who do do this do not feel any guilt afterwards? Guilt is evolutions way of structuring human behaviour.

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

Guilt is evolutions way of structuring human behaviour.

Oh boy I believe guilt is beaten into us as a child. Some people feel guilty about some things, others about other things... (again, we'll leave this one for another day.)

Your argument that people may cheat because they are unhappy etc. Yes, I totally agree with this. They may also cheat because they are unstable, insecure, etc etc. (I'm sure you agree with this too.)

My argument has mostly been based around the above: that everyone has issues and that everyone gets unhappy in relationships (generally) at some stage. And that cheating happens. Much much much more than we'd like to believe.

I've never meant to imply that we're all walking sex machines. But I do believe if we didn't have the society around us which stops us cheating, we'd be doing a hell of a lot more ****ing/cheating/etc.

Zombrex

dublindude wrote:

Oh boy I believe guilt is beaten into us as a child. Some people feel guilty about some things, others about other things... (again, we'll leave this one for another day.)

"Guilt" is a very real biological process, that serves a very important evolutionary purpose. Exactly why we feel guilty over different things and not others is defined by both biology and up bringing. But as you said, another day...

dublindude wrote:

My argument has mostly been based around the above: that everyone has issues and that everyone gets unhappy in relationships (generally) at some stage. And that cheating happens. Much much much more than we'd like to believe.

That is true, but I don't think it has very much to do with instinct or sexual drive. The reasons people get unhappy in relationships are long and complex, and the reasons someone who is unhappy then decides to cheat rather than ending the relationship are also long and complex. To claim that men cheat because they are controlled by, or cannot fight, a biological instinct to shag everything with a pulse is simplistic.

It would be interesting to see how many men who cheat actually cheat by having random sexual encounters with a large number of women. I would imagine the number is small. Most times I have heard of someone cheating the person is essentally carrying on two full blown relationships, and the reason they do this is emotional rather than physical sexual drive

dublindude wrote:

I've never meant to imply that we're all walking sex machines. But I do believe if we didn't have the society around us which stops us cheating, we'd be doing a hell of a lot more ****ing/cheating/etc.

Whould we? Or would we simply be having a lot more, shorter, monogamous relationships?

You also seem to be talking about relationships with no reference to children, which is after all the biological reason we have sex. As I asked before, do you believe that a married man would cheat on his wife with many women if each infidelity resulted in a child?

lazydaisy

I agree withh Dublin dude about guilt. I dont think it is instinctive but something which has been invented and exploited by institutions to control individuals. People cheat not only because they are unhappy but sometimes just because they can. Or they are bored. Or just simply horny. Or they want attention. Or who knows. There's a gazillion reasons. Given the opportunity I think a lot more people would have sex outside their principal relationship. People don't because we know we can't handle jealousy, so there is a sense of the principals of ownership in monogamy, marriage being the prime institution which gives one person LEGAL rights over another person's body.

Guilt has nothing to do with evolution. It is a moral biproduct, and morality is cultural, invented by man for man.

We all know how horny men are. Thats no big news. But the question is, what will happen to women once they start achieveing real equality. There is a totally different moral/cultural framework placed around women which may or may not have more to do with them playing the field less than guys do. As women gain economic equality and spend less time in the home, their opportunities for multiple sex partners will increase and perhaps their libidos will too.

If you notice, we kind of are going back to something more primal, where women have several kids from different men. That has coincided with the evolution of womens freedom in society and mens release from the obligation to marry.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

I agree withh Dublin dude about guilt. I dont think it is instinctive but something which has been invented and exploited by institutions to control individuals.

How do institutions invent a biological response in a human being such as guilt and regret?

Why we feel guilt and regret is certainly effected and in some cases defined by culture, but the actual feelings themselves I would imagine are biological (certainly the feeling of being sick to your stomach with guilt is)

Could be wrong, don't know a whole lot about it except this wikipedia article

Evolutionary psychologists tend to think that guilt is a rational human emotion selected by evolution. If a person feels guilty when he harms another or even fails to reciprocate kindness, he is more likely not to harm others or become too selfish; in this way, he reduces the chances of retaliation by members of his tribe and thereby increases his survival prospects, and those of the tribe. As with any other emotion, guilt can be manipulated to control or influence others, yet it is likely more advantageous than not.

lazydaisy wrote:

marriage being the prime institution which gives one person LEGAL rights over another person's body.

Legal rights over their body? In what way?

lazydaisy wrote:

It is a moral biproduct, and morality is cultural, invented by man for man.

Some of it is, some of it isn't. Instinct plays a part of moral judgements. For example, the instinct not to sleep with your mother, or to have sex with, or harm a child. Most of morality is based around culture, and most of the exact reasons why we feel guilt is based around culture, but the processes themselves are biological.

As I said in a previous post, things like society and culture grow up around our more basic instintive habits. It would be unusual to find a cultural pheomonon (sp?) that has no link to more basic instincts of human behaviour.

lazydaisy wrote:

If you notice, we kind of are going back to something more primal, where women have several kids from different men. That has coincided with the evolution of womens freedom in society and mens release from the obligation to marry.

Well that isn't going back to more primal time, that is a result of a more forward, sophisticated society than we have had before. Through social welfare, society has taken on some of the responsibility for raising the children of that society.

I am all for it, but to say it is a reflection of a more simplier time in human biological and cultural evolution is incorrect in my opinion.

In the "wild", a single human mother with multiple children from different fathers would not last long without help from others.

Vangelis

Hello psi,

I assume that you do not mean to be offensive even if this post seems a bit... personal, can I say that? I've never been fond of sarcasm so I'm relieved that you're not attacking me.

I'll explain in brief.

psi wrote:

First some advice, if you claim you're using the ignore function, then use the ignore function. Replying to users you claim to have on ignore makes you look silly.

I put him off the list once to read that one post that I replied to. I placed him on my IL instantaneously after I had posted.

Secondly (and stay with me here, as I do have a point), you indicate you don't believe in evolution, which is fair enough. You point towards religious beliefs, so I therefore assume that your alternative belief is in creationism ala genesis. If this is the case, do you also adhere to biblical teachings that sexual intercourse if for the sole purposes of reproduction?[/quote}

I do NOT believe that sexual intercourse is for the sole purpose of reproduction. And from what God tells me through the Bible, that is not so either. Sexuality is a gift. If you look at some of the songs and Solomo's writings, you'll find very romantic/erotic descriptions of the meeting between husband and wife on the wedding night etc. The Bible does not condemn the relishment of sexual activity, as long as it happens within the marriage.

Creationism does not impress me much, but I've heard many a good point made by creationists. Allthough, I respect that many scientists criticise the creationists' lack of observational proof for their theories and lack of scientific methods in trying to explain the creation.

In response, you start a thread condemning their beliefs, influenced, in part at least, by your own beliefs. Do you see the paradox here?

I think I've made a proper answer for this above.

If you do not believe that intercourse is solely for the purpose of reproduction, may I ask why you selectively adhere to some teachings and not to others (as this is off topic, PM or another thread would be ok).

The Bible does not teach us that sexual intercourse is only for reproduction.
Like I've said earlier. So I do not selectively adhere to any teaching about it being only for reproduction.

Hope that gave you enough answers.

AARRRGH

Vangelis wrote:

I do NOT believe that sexual intercourse is for the sole purpose of reproduction. And from what God tells me through the Bible, that is not so either. Sexuality is a gift... The Bible does not condemn the relishment of sexual activity, as long as it happens within the marriage.

You do know the bible isn't supposed to be taken literally?

Don't believe me? Ask a priest.

I don't think using religion is a good form of argument. Especially the dreadfully messed up about sex religion that is Catholicism.

Why do so many priests molest kids Vangelis? They do seem to get their sex guidance from the bible...

Vangelis

Wicknight, you know I don't find the statement that evolution is responsible for the family unit and guilt. But I give you credits you for your clear-mindedness.

Regarding the family unit I'd like to point out an earlier statement which we seemed to agree upon. That our biology is reflected in society. I think this becomes a bit too simple in connection with the a biologically evolved want for a family unit. Some people choose not to have a family, some establish a monogamic relationship without wanting children, some cannot have children but live together in a monogamic relationship(they love eachother?), some men leave their girlfriends after having impregnated them. Some take abortion because they don't want a child(could be relevant in some cases?).

So my conclusion is that the different choices we make do not reflect our biology. At least not in all cases, if indeed the want for a family unit is in our genes. Then these people who act differently must have a different biology! But that doesn't sound too sane either.

Vangelis

lazydaisy

There is nothing in that article to suggest that guilt is biological. You think its programmed into our neurological systems? Oh come on. What that article suggests is that it is a product of risking rejection from your social group. So really what your talking about is fear. That to me seems far more a practical response than a biological one. There is nothing in there to substantiate that guilt is from biological response. Stop applying Judeo/Catholic control tactics to a universal human nature. What rubbish. Institutions invent it by saying "Do this, think this, feel this, say this or you will be punished, by hurting you or telling you you are a very very bad person, but you cant help yourself because of original sin, its human nature to be bad, but you still must be punished." That's how.

Marriage is a legal institution which holds intact laws around the rights and responsibilities people have around each others bodies. It is a way to police the human body without actually having to have a policing agent present. That is why adultery is grounds for divorce in most countries. Sometimes its even grounds for stoning a woman to death. That is why a child born within marriage is the legal son of the husband whether or not he is the biological one. That is why spouses are given automatic rights to make decisions about each other in the case of hospitalisations. Marriage has traditionally been about property and inheritance. It is only the late 19th century to now that people marry for love. How is that working out I ask? Not too well from what I can see.

The incest prohibition is perhaps the one universal taboo the whole world shares. The not wanting to sleep with your mother/father/brother/sister however is also cultural, set up and enforced by a complex set of rules. I dont agree that it is instinctive or biological. Meaning if you met a hot woman, and didnt know it was your mother, chances are you'd want to bed her, and chances are you would bed her if she let you.

The kids from different partners is going back to a more primal time. Definitely. I would guess a time that was pre-farming and matriarchal. Just look at Africa or the Maoris. We can still see it today. Romanian women share the breastfeeding with each other and Irish nurses flip out and tell them to stop. Why? Because the Romanian women are used to a culture which shares the raising of kids and Irish women are used to the catholic family model. Instinct has nothing to do with it.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

There is nothing in that article to suggest that guilt is biological. You think its programmed into our neurological systems?

Just to add. I've heard that there is disagreement between psychologist whether guilt or rather (bad) conscience is biological or taught by society.

It would seem though that it is biological because we have the ability to empathise. Empathy is something that separates us humans from animals. I'll try to find an article on this. This is very interesting!! *eager*

It is only the late 19th century to now that people marry for love. How is that working out I ask? Not too well from what I can see.

You can dig deep for possible reasons for the "failure" of marriage in our times. It wasn't so bad in 50 years ago.

The incest prohibition is perhaps the one universal taboo the whole world shares. The not wanting to sleep with your mother/father/brother/sister however is also cultural, set up and enforced by a complex set of rules. I dont agree that it is instinctive or biological. Meaning if you met a hot woman, and didnt know it was your mother, chances are you'd want to bed her, and chances are you would bed her if she let you.

From my knowledge, those who fall in love with their sisters/brothers/parents have some kind of mental illness(psychopathy, psychosis). That's all that I can say.

Vangelis

Good information on empathy:

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

Obs! The article states that empathy can be found in animals too, but there is some disagreement on this. I'll find something on this. There is research that suggests otherwise.

I'm back with an article that I think is relevant to whether empathy(of which guilt is a result) is natural(biological) or societal(taught).

http://www.empathogens.com/empathy

Exracts:

"The research is part of a larger effort to find the neurological basis of social interaction, particularly empathy, a basic part of human nature that allows most, but not all, people to care about others."

" "By imitation we may feel what another person felt, which is the very definition of human empathy," said Decety."

It seems that empathy is a natural, ergo guilt is natural. Innate as they put it in the Wikipedia-article.

This is really fascinating.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

There is nothing in that article to suggest that guilt is biological. You think its programmed into our neurological systems? Oh come on. What that article suggests is that it is a product of risking rejection from your social group. So really what your talking about is fear.

What do you think fear is? Fear is a biological response too.

I am talking about changes in brain chemistry that physically alter mood and perception.

Have you never felt physically bad when feeling guilty? The sick feeling in your stomach, that lack of concentration, you can get upset to the point of crying, depression, lack of sleep. These are all physical mainifistations of the emotion. Stong feelings of guilt can raise blood pressure, cause vomitting and lack of appatite.

Are all these physical effects invented by society? How exactly?

lazydaisy wrote:

There is nothing in there to substantiate that guilt is from biological response. Stop applying Judeo/Catholic control tactics to a universal human nature.

You think Judaism invented the emotion of guilt .. give me a break ...

The concept of guilt is in every culture around the world and has been recongised since written history. It is major factor in everything from Greek plays to the Asian social systems of shame/honour.

lazydaisy wrote:

What rubbish. Institutions invent it by saying "Do this, think this, feel this, say this or you will be punished, by hurting you or telling you you are a very very bad person, but you cant help yourself because of original sin, its human nature to be bad, but you still must be punished." That's how.

Ok, so when I'm 9 and I'm messing around and I smash my brothers Gameboy into the ground and he runs off crying, the reason I feel guilty about this is because the Judeo/Catholic institutions have controlled me (through violence seemingly) and manipulated me by telling me I'm a bad person, to the point where I feel bad about this, and that is why I feel guilty that I broke his toy and upset him. Because guilt isn't instinctive, it is taught to us. Ok then, I'm convinced, its the church that made me feel bad ...

(btw my family are not religious, I've been to mass like 5 times in my life)

lazydaisy wrote:

It is a way to police the human body without actually having to have a policing agent present. That is why adultery is grounds for divorce in most countries.

Adultery is grounds for divorce cause if you are screwing around with someone your husband/wife isn't expected to put up with you. What that has to do with policing our bodies I have no idea.

lazydaisy wrote:

Sometimes its even grounds for stoning a woman to death.

Not in Ireland

lazydaisy wrote:

That is why a child born within marriage is the legal son of the husband whether or not he is the biological one.

Only by default.

If the father is present for the birth cert then they are put down as the father. The rule you mention avoids the need to ask every time a married woman has a child "Is your husband the father" ..

I certainly agree the system isn't perfect, and any single man having a child needs to be aware they don't can't be automatically assumed to be the father without coming forward. I have friends who work in social worker and this has cause a few heart breaks when a single man assumes he is next of kin his child when in fact, legally it is the mothers parents cause he never presented on the birth certificate. But then again if he doesn't present on the birth cert how does anyone know he actually is the father ..

lazydaisy wrote:

That is why spouses are given automatic rights to make decisions about each other in the case of hospitalisations.

Again, only in default. If you don't want your husband/wife to have next of kin responsability you state that. Most people wouldn't object.

lazydaisy wrote:

Marriage has traditionally been about property and inheritance.

That is certainly true.

lazydaisy wrote:

How is that working out I ask? Not too well from what I can see.

Maybe people shouldn't get married ...I'm certainly not a big fan and don't plan too be doing it any time soon.

lazydaisy wrote:

The incest prohibition is perhaps the one universal taboo the whole world shares. The not wanting to sleep with your mother/father/brother/sister however is also cultural, set up and enforced by a complex set of rules.

In which cultures do men sleep with their mothers? (seriously, not saying you are wrong, I don't know)

lazydaisy wrote:

Meaning if you met a hot woman, and didnt know it was your mother, chances are you'd want to bed her, and chances are you would bed her if she let you.[/quote
Well obviously it only works if you know its your mother ... humans have an instinct to run away from fire, doesn't mean that they won't go into a building if they don't know there is a fire in there ...

lazydaisy wrote:

Romanian women share the breastfeeding with each other and Irish nurses flip out and tell them to stop. Why? Because the Romanian women are used to a culture which shares the raising of kids and Irish women are used to the catholic family model. Instinct has nothing to do with it.

Instinct to do what exactly? I am not following your point. Where did I say it was or was not instinctive to have close friends and family help raise a child?

Do these romanian's have kids from multiple fathers?

And by the way, the vast majority of Romanians are Christians and not really "primative"

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

You can dig deep for possible reasons for the "failure" of marriage in our times. It wasn't so bad in 50 years ago.

Was it not so bad, or did we just not know cause people couldn't seperate?

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

Was it not so bad, or did we just not know cause people couldn't seperate?

People could separate 50 years ago. Maybe not in Ireland, but in my country. In my country it's been acceptable since the early 1900's.

But that is all I can say.

AARRRGH

Wicknight wrote:

In which cultures do men sleep with their mothers? (seriously, not saying you are wrong, I don't know)

In Japan. The mother sleep with their sons so they will stay home and study. It's a big problem.

Incest - slightly OT but interesting -

The reason the vast majority of teenagers think their parents are sad/gross/etc once they hit puberty is to protect them from incest. It means they won't flirt with their parents and have sex with them. This is not cultural.

Wicknight: although I do believe Vangelis is reading my posts, could you please ask her if she's from the US? I'd bet serious money she is. Thanks.

Anto and Moe

Sex you say? Men don't think about sex all the time... sex... It just sorta slides of the toung really... it's the 's' and the 'x'... sex, sex, sex... sex, sex, sex, sex, sex... What was I saying...?

lazydaisy

Wicknight - argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im getting so frustrated! I feel like we're talking in circles. I said the incest maybe the one taboo which is universal- I dont think there are many if any cultures which approve of incest. When I say cultural - I mean that its part of a matrix of values that people agree upon collectively and not out of biology in the way that food, f****** and flight, and fight are.

DublinDude I can tell you I am from the US but I dont think Vangelis is. And the biblebelters in the US are still very horny people who are into way more than letter writing. The marry 14 year olds for god's sake. What has where she comes from got to do with anything anyway?

Actually until 1995 nothing was grounds for divorce in Ireland, so we should leave this theocracy out of it. No maybe women didnt get stoned to death for adultery, but they were certainly incarcerated and tortured [magdalene laundries] for getting pregnant out of wedlock, gratis the Irish Taliban. And please tell me we are not using Ireland as a basis for assessing what is instinct and what isnt. At this point, guilt has probably been inscribed into the Irish DNA.

WIckinight maybe you have a physioligcal response to feeling guilty but that doesnt mean everyone does. The example about stealing someones toy- the only reason you felt guilty was because you knew it was wrong, and the only reason you knew it was wrong was because some had taught you that it was. .Yes, the reason you feel bad about smashing your brothers gameboy is perhaps because of empathy? that you know what it feels like to lose something? But maybe your selfish enough to focus on your own feelings of being a bad person than on the sufferring your brother has endured at the hands of your sibling rivalry for your mother's love, also an instinct to survive as she is the food source.

Shame/honour/ are not the same as guilt. Nor do they necessarily have physiological responses. Fear of course has biological responses, but that atavistic and there to ensure our survival. Guilt is totally about control. Just ask anyone with an Irish mother.

I never said Romanians were primitive. I have no idea about the paternity in Romanian families. I was pointing out that there are already different models to raising families. We all have different values but when you start placing morality on a biological framework you are pointing to moral absolutes which is dangerous.

The name on the birth cert is the name the mother names. The name on the birth cert has nothing to do with guardianship rights. The father only has that if he is married to the mother, at least in Ireland and the UK, unless you can get the mother to sign special guardianship papers.

Why should your spouse get mad at you for sleeping with someone else? What right have they to tell you what you can do with your body? Oh yes, that's right the right marriage gave you to tell someone else what they can do with their body for the rest of your life! Meaning you can only f*** the person you registered with the state to f*** for the rest of your life.

For you Vangelis, [Dublin dude- I have to fight fire with fire sometimes around here]

Just one more illustration of guilt and shame? Isnt it taught? Doesnt the Bible tell us that innocence is a state of guiltlessness and that we lose it not because we are bad but because we are ashamed? I dont think Adam and Eve felt guilty until someone told them they should. This to me tells us it's a learned response and not an instinctive one.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

For you Vangelis, [Dublin dude- I have to fight fire with fire sometimes around here]

Just one more illustration of guilt and shame? Isnt it taught? Doesnt the Bible tell us that innocence is a state of guiltlessness and that we lose it not because we are bad but because we are ashamed? I dont think Adam and Eve felt guilty until someone told them they should. This to me tells us it's a learned response and not an instinctive one.

Why do you bring up Adam and Eve when you don't believe in the Bible?
Is that an attempt to appeal to me? If so, it doesn't work.

Otherwise, the things I'd like to say are allready in the articles I have posted.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

Im getting so frustrated! I feel like we're talking in circles.

We are so I will keep my response brief (lest Vangelis give out to me again )

lazydaisy wrote:

WIckinight maybe you have a physioligcal response to feeling guilty but that doesnt mean everyone does.

True, people who feel not guilt or empathy are generally considered psychopaths

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

lazydaisy wrote:

The example about stealing someones toy- the only reason you felt guilty was because you knew it was wrong,

The reason I felt guilty was because my brother is very upset, and I have an emotional response to that. This response is not taught, it wasn't a rational decision, I didn't go "Umm.. my brother is crying, I must have done something wrong, I have been taught that doing something wrong is bad, so I must now feel bad"

A 9 year old child is not making rational decissions about why he should feel bad ... he just feels bad, he doesn't understand exactly why.

lazydaisy wrote:

Shame/honour/ are not the same as guilt. Nor do they necessarily have physiological responses. Fear of course has biological responses, but that atavistic and there to ensure our survival. Guilt is totally about control. Just ask anyone with an Irish mother.

No offense lazydaisy but you seem to have a deep resentment to someone or something that in the past has made you or people around you feel guilty. And because of this you seem to want to blame all these emotions on that entity (which seems to be the Catholic church if I am following correctly) Sorry about that and all, but dismissing the entire discussion because of this is rather frustrating.

I am not saying institutions like the Catholic church cannot make someone (unfairly) feel guilty about something. But it is ridiculous to suggest they invented the emotion, that before the church no one ever felt guilty.

Relgious institutions (and other institutions) can manipulate the general population through a set of emotions, mostly fear and guilt. But they didn't event these emotions and implant them in our minds. That isn't even biologically possible now, let alone 2000 years ago. You can't invent new emotions.

lazydaisy wrote:

I was pointing out that there are already different models to raising families.

I never said there wasn't

lazydaisy wrote:

We all have different values but when you start placing morality on a biological framework you are pointing to moral absolutes which is dangerous.

No I am not ...

Really I wish you would get this idea that I am trying justify someone oppressing you

Firstly, seemingly, I was saying marriage is a biological law that you must followed, next I was saying feeling guilty is good for you, now I am saying morality is written in stone ..

In fact I am not saying any of these things, but I think you have already pigion holed me into what ever stereotype you have of me in your head.

Please try and actually read what I am saying before you jump to conclusions about what you think I am saying. Its very annoying

lazydaisy wrote:

The name on the birth cert is the name the mother names. The name on the birth cert has nothing to do with guardianship rights. The father only has that if he is married to the mother, at least in Ireland and the UK, unless you can get the mother to sign special guardianship papers.

That is sort of correct ... every child in Ireland must be registered with in 3 months of the birth. This information at this registry is recorded on the child's birth certificate.

If the parents are not married then the both sign a declaration naming the father as the father. If the mother is married by the husband is not the father again they do this.

There is no other way around this, otherwise you could have anyone just walking off the street and being awards parentship of a child. If the mother refuses to sign the declaration the father has to take legal steps to prove to the state he is actually the father. This is normally, afaik, a simple blood test.

http://oasis.gov.ie/birth/after_your_baby_is_born/registering_birth_your_baby.html

lazydaisy wrote:

Why should your spouse get mad at you for sleeping with someone else?

Its called jealousy ... or was that invented by the Catholic church as well?

lazydaisy wrote:

What right have they to tell you what you can do with your body?

They don't have any rights .. it doesn't stop them from getting piss off though. If my girlfriend was sleeping around behind my back, telling me I have no right to get mad wouldn't calm me down much.

lazydaisy wrote:

Oh yes, that's right the right marriage gave you to tell someone else what they can do with their body for the rest of your life!

Lazydaisy did someone make you get married??

Are you really arguing that if someone gets married their partner has no right to get pissed off if they cheat on them? They should just turn the other cheek cause they have no right to expect anything from them? You are kinda missing the point of marriage here ...

lazydaisy wrote:

Meaning you can only f*** the person you registered with the state to f*** for the rest of your life.

I certainly ain't liking the idea of one person for the rest of my life at the moment with all my relationships lasting less than a year, so I won't be saying "I do" anytime soon.

But Jesus you really seem to have issues with the idea of marriage and settling down with someone. If you don't want to do it, don't do it.

lazydaisy

The culture and the law gives spouses the right to be pissed off about a partner bedding someone else. Im going to stop using the word cheating, because that implies sneaking around a lying, which is not always the case when people have mulitple sex partners, and no one likes being lied to so it's a different and a distracting argument.

If your girlfriend lent her car out to someone would you get pissed off? What if she was dancing with someone else? And even if you would get pissed off, would you feel like you could say something without looking like an obnoxious controlling git? The thing is no one would think you were out of line for getting mad at your girlfriend for sleeping with someone else because the culture backs you up and supports you in these feelings of how dare you share your body with someone other than me. If the culture didnt back you up, you would be much less hesitant to express or possible even have those feelings.

I have a deep resentment of the clergy which uses guilt as a way to control peoples lives in and out of the bedroom. And for the emotional abuse they have inflicted in people. I dont take offence of you noticing this resentment.

As for jealousy, yes I am as prone to the green eyed monster as anyone, but it is an ugly malevolent and dangerous feeling. It also seems to only be produced where feelings of ownership are present. So what I'm saying is- if you're feeling jealous it's a sign that you feel like you have entitlements over something/someone. If you didnt feel like you owned something in the first place you wouldnt be feeling jealous. And its not a universal feeling. There are plenty of people who dont feel jealousy.

I do think it is our instinct NOT to be monogamous but we have agreed culturallly that it is for the best, so we have designed our lives around this model. Now that lifespans are increasing, economies are shifting it seems that we are rethinking this model.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

The culture and the law gives spouses the right to be pissed off about a partner bedding someone else.

So no one would be pissed if there was no law against "bedding someone else"?

In Europe and the US there is no law against unfaithfulness, so law is excluded.

lazydaisy

Vangelis,

Adultury is grounds for divorce in many states in the US and probably in Europe too.

You do realise when you divorce you have to submit legal documents to a judge and put down reasons why you want to dissolve the marriage and then the judge decides whether or not to grant the petition. Adultery is considered breaking the marital contract. So there are laws around it. You wont go to prison for it, but there are definitely legalities around adultery because there are legalities around marriage.

Zombrex

lazydaisy wrote:

The culture and the law gives spouses the right to be pissed off about a partner bedding someone else.

Are you saying that wrong, or some form of oppression? Anyone has the right to be pissed off about anything. It is a basic piller of freedom to be allowed to be pissed off.

lazydaisy wrote:

Im going to stop using the word cheating, because that implies sneaking around a lying, which is not always the case when people have mulitple sex partners, and no one likes being lied to so it's a different and a distracting argument.

If a partner agrees to his/her spouce having sex with other people then why would they be pissed off. The pissed of and angry aspect only comes into it when someone is cheating.

lazydaisy wrote:

If your girlfriend lent her car out to someone would you get pissed off?

Lent her car? No I wouldn't, unless she had previously told me I could use it and then gave it to someone else when I needed it.

lazydaisy wrote:

What if she was dancing with someone else? And even if you would get pissed off, would you feel like you could say something without looking like an obnoxious controlling git?

If I trusted my girlfriend I would have no problem with her dancing with another guy. If I didn't trust my girlfriend she probably wouldn't be my girlfirend.

lazydaisy wrote:

The thing is no one would think you were out of line for getting mad at your girlfriend for sleeping with someone else because the culture backs you up and supports you in these feelings of how dare you share your body with someone other than me.

My relationship backs me up. If you are in a relationship with someone it is normal that you clarify at different times what stage you are at. If you both agree that you are only seeing each other and then one person sleeps with someone else, they have broken that trust in the inital agreement, and I fully understand the partner being hurt and pissed off by that.

lazydaisy wrote:

If the culture didnt back you up, you would be much less hesitant to express or possible even have those feelings.

Possibly, but if the culture didn't "back you up" you probably wouldn't be in the situation anyway because the inital agreement (we are only seeing each other) wouldn't be there in the first place if it wasn't the "done thing" to do culturally.

lazydaisy wrote:

I have a deep resentment of the clergy which uses guilt as a way to control peoples lives in and out of the bedroom. And for the emotional abuse they have inflicted in people. I dont take offence of you noticing this resentment.

Good, just try not to let if cloud your perceptions of what I am saying

lazydaisy wrote:

So what I'm saying is- if you're feeling jealous it's a sign that you feel like you have entitlements over something/someone.

Well there is a difference between someone like a stalker who feels they have rights to expect certain behaviour from someone they barely know, and a husband who has entered into a serious relationship with another person. Just because you feel jealous over someone doesn't mean you have a right to expect some level of behaviour over them (the stalker situation).

But at the same time just cause there exists people who get very unhealthly attached to someone (like a stalker) doesn't mean that a person like a husband has no right to be angry if their wife is breaking a level of trust (like kissing/sleeping with someone else)

You seem to be over simplifying the situtations a bit.

lazydaisy wrote:

If you didnt feel like you owned something in the first place you wouldnt be feeling jealous. And its not a universal feeling. There are plenty of people who dont feel jealousy.

True, but I think it would be hard to form serious emotional bonds with a person ("love," I suppose) if you had no issue with them "speading the love" so to speak. Might be wrong, thats just the way I feel about it.

I am not saying people don't get jealous for stupid reasons. I have seen a hundred times a guy in a put flip out and get aggressive cause his girlfriend is chatting to a bloke. That isn't health, or good for the realtionship, and is a reflection more of his insecurities than anything the girl is doing.

I think the answer to a health realtionship lies somewhere in the middle. Trust based on communication and mutual understand of where your partner is in the relationship is the way to go. If someone wants a more open relationship and you don't, the answer is not to go along with it and get more and more upset, the answer is to break up and find someone looking for what you want.

I agree with you that it is wrong to assume someone must conform to the standards you set for them.

lazydaisy wrote:

I do think it is our instinct NOT to be monogamous but we have agreed culturallly that it is for the best, so we have designed our lives around this model. Now that lifespans are increasing, economies are shifting it seems that we are rethinking this model.

Well as you know I don't agree that it is against instinct to form monogamous relationships around family units (as explained very well by psi)

To be honest I think it is more that we have mastered the issue of reproduction we are rethinking the traditional models

The majority of sex in the western world never results in a child, so we are intelliectually overcoming the instinct to form families based around children.

No children no instinct to form a family unit.

With the children removed from the picture we no long form the same relationships with each other, and the attactments are not a strong. So we become bored quicker in relationships, and move on quicker now there are no children getting in the way.

If this is a good thing or a bad thing I don't know. I think it is good that young people are not rushing into marriage as fast as they were because it is not as expected of them as much.