Sex - Why the control

a reply to: ketsuko
Oh a star for you , that's tickled me

a reply to: ketsuko
Oooo ketsuko, come off the animal angle, you cannot win with that.

IE. ANIMALS.
Have sex when they reach puberty, in human terms that would mean under age sex.
Animals have sex with their brothers, sisters, parents etc. For humans that's incest.
Animals also practice homosexuality.
Animals masturbate.
Animals cheat on their partners.
Need I go on, because they are animals not humans.

a reply to: crayzeed

No they aren't, but we're talking about control. The OP's premise is that sex is completely unfettered in the animal kingdom. It isn't. Even there, there are rules, even rules to prevent as much inbreeding as possible. In most species, either the males or females will often end up leaving their natal groups, for example. Does that always work? Nope, but it works enough.

As far as I am aware, we are not yet arguing morality itself. In that instance, there are lots of things that happen in nature that are immoral, and that's closer to where you are going. Infanticide, cannibalism, rape, etc., are all perfectly natural behaviors, but none of them are moral, nor should anyone argue that they ought to be because animals engage in them.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: ketsuko
Oooo ketsuko, come off the animal angle, you cannot win with that.

IE. ANIMALS.
Have sex when they reach puberty, in human terms that would mean under age sex.
Animals have sex with their brothers, sisters, parents etc. For humans that's incest.
Animals also practice homosexuality.
Animals masturbate.
Animals cheat on their partners.
Need I go on, because they are animals not humans.

ent.

Again, look at the Universe 25 experiment. Look at how things spiraled down.

Really, anybody who needs to have this explained is beyond the pale and it's probably not worth the effort to try to do so.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crayzeed
... As far as I am aware, we are not yet arguing morality itself. In that instance, there are lots of things that happen in nature that are immoral, and that's closer to where you are going. Infanticide, cannibalism, rape, etc., are all perfectly natural behaviors, but none of them are moral, nor should anyone argue that they ought to be because animals engage in them.

This goes bak to my previous point that there are funadamental differenes between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Or, at least there should be.

a reply to: incoserv

There are. However, you can see the patterns. Some things are the way they are for a reason, and sometimes, those reasons are very, very old ... even older than the election of Trump as POTUS /rolleyes ...

As much as I enjoy reading the message and not the words, especially when children and other none humans are involved just projects an image that I am sure was not your objective.



a reply to: marg6043

Because sex is attached to the soul and mind of a person. It can change everything for the good or bad. It has control over our being.
So, having sex with a child changes their soul and how their mind works.
Those who have sex and manage to have zero connection to that person, tend to be sociopaths and/or narcissists.

^^ in short

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crayzeed
... As far as I am aware, we are not yet arguing morality itself. In that instance, there are lots of things that happen in nature that are immoral, and that's closer to where you are going. Infanticide, cannibalism, rape, etc., are all perfectly natural behaviors, but none of them are moral, nor should anyone argue that they ought to be because animals engage in them.

This goes bak to my previous point that there are funadamental differenes between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Or, at least there should be.

I think history will prove that when a man gets hungry enough he will kill and eat his friends, just like any other carnivore.
We are 9 meals away from savagery. So stock up ...

modernsurvivalblog.com...

a reply to: shaemac

This is true.

It is verifiable that it causes hormonal changes in women. Those hormones are attachment hormones. Like it or not, women really can't have no strings attached sex.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

I read a book years ago, so long ago that I cannot recall the title nor the author.
That book suggested that way back, tribes were based on maternal-ism not paternalism. The women were the core of tribes because it was from them that children were born. Way back then, before monogamy the sexual urge led people to have sex with whoever was available. Once the pheromones kicked into play it was basically do it now, so they did. Male with female and the relationship of those two mattered little. Son mother. Father daughter. Brother sister. cousins. Man, woman in the next tent, etc. There was no distinction of familial roles.

Why? Because who knew who was the father of any child. The children were only tied to linage through the mother and who know which of any partners she may have had at any given moment of her cycle was the father.

For whatever reasons as tribal necessities shifted though the centuries, tribes shifted from maternal tribes to paternal tribes. And somehow in this shift, it became more important to know who the father was. I recall reading that this was due to finding that some children were much less capable than other children and this was found to be because men having sex with blood related women produced children of lesser capacity if not down right idiocy.

So the incest rules began to develop. Likewise as things shifted from matriarchal to patriarchal, those men who were becoming the tribal leaders, the Big Man, needed to know which of the children in the tribe were from his loins so that he could give them special treatment and from that group find an heir to follow him as leader.

I don't know how true any of that is but that is what I can remember from that book....read so long ago.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crayzeed
... As far as I am aware, we are not yet arguing morality itself. In that instance, there are lots of things that happen in nature that are immoral, and that's closer to where you are going. Infanticide, cannibalism, rape, etc., are all perfectly natural behaviors, but none of them are moral, nor should anyone argue that they ought to be because animals engage in them.

This goes bak to my previous point that there are funadamental differenes between humanity and the rest of the animal kingdom.

Or, at least there should be.

I think history will prove that when a man gets hungry enough he will kill and eat his friends, just like any other carnivore.
We are 9 meals away from savagery. So stock up ...

modernsurvivalblog.com...

And that justified exactly what?

Greed will make a man kill for lucre.

Undisciplined sexual desires will make a man rape.

None of it - cannibalism included - is justifiable.

I repeat: there are fundamental things that distinguish humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, but some people want to pretend that that is not so.

There is a correlation between sexual education and sexual violence. I'll let you figure out what it implies.

generally speaking one law could solve many issues when it comes to regulate our social interactions, that is consent.

But there is so much non consensual happening it would wreck the whole system.

Instead of making it simple, someone gets to cherry pick which non consensual interactions are legitimate, and which not.

Deduction is one hell of a weapon if you deal with hidden controllers.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: olaru12
I'm always astonished how much interest the Conservative Religious Right wing have with the sexuality of others.

So it's the covservative religious right who are into teaching children all about how to masturbate, choose their own gender, get on puberty blockers, etc. before many of them learn how to tie their own shoes?

People are born with an inate sense of sexuality and gender (the two are separate, and may, or may not correlate to the sex of the body they are born into).

People are not born wearing shoes.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes it makes you wonder why the human race mates out of season and has an inherent high sex drive. It most probably is for survival. In the real world, you have as many kids as possible, simply because most won't make it. They are the parent's social security for old age.Which occured around fourty.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: olaru12
I'm always astonished how much interest the Conservative Religious Right wing have with the sexuality of others.

So it's the covservative religious right who are into teaching children all about how to masturbate, choose their own gender, get on puberty blockers, etc. before many of them learn how to tie their own shoes?

People are born with an inate sense of sexuality and gender (the two are separate, and may, or may not correlate to the sex of the body they are born into).

People are not born wearing shoes.

Well, gosh, if those things are innate, then why are we having to teach them in schools?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

In reading your post, a case could be made for the shift from Matriarchy (in which a child's material lineage is most important) to Patriarchy (in which it is the paternal lineage that dominates) coincides with mankind's shift from a primarily "hunter-gatherer" society to a primarily agrarian society.

Hunter gatherer groups were, by nature, nomadic, with little in the way of possessions or property to protect and pass to offspring; excess "baggage" would only serve to hinder the hunt.

As humans "civilized", and began to cultivate crops in specific locations, some more bountiful than others, the acquisition of artifacts became more common, and even rose as symbols of status/power among one's tribal peers.

Thus, it became more important to be able to establish, with a degree of certainty, the true lineage of a particular child.

Unless, the social structure clung to to its matriarchal roots, as did, for example, the ancient inhabitants of the island of Crete; until they were conquered.

Ever wonder where the slur "Cretan" came from?

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Mantiss2021

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: olaru12
I'm always astonished how much interest the Conservative Religious Right wing have with the sexuality of others.

So it's the covservative religious right who are into teaching children all about how to masturbate, choose their own gender, get on puberty blockers, etc. before many of them learn how to tie their own shoes?

People are born with an inate sense of sexuality and gender (the two are separate, and may, or may not correlate to the sex of the body they are born into).

People are not born wearing shoes.

Well, gosh, if those things are innate, then why are we having to teach them in schools?

Because for too long we've been "teaching" (more like scaring, threatening, mis-informing, and downright shaming) children to resist their innate senses in an effort to force them to conform to the "sensibilities" imposed by society.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Oh, please ...

What's going on today is just conformity in another form.

In today's world, I wouldn't be a girl who likes doing boy things. I'd be a girl who should have been born a boy, or a boy trapped in a girl's body, and some sick individual would start trying to convince me I'd be happier stunting my natural development and mutilating my perfectly healthy female body in order to try to make it look like the boy my activity preferences and personality profile indicate I should be.

It's no different than taking little Johnny who wants to dance and trying to force him to play football.

As example, Aristotle pondered morality as he also owned sex slave boys and had no issues with that. As others have said we put limits in place to protect people.