blue_cristal

Seems, like once or twice a week I do respond to some question, where a person seems to question his/her activity. The reason, I suppose I do respond is the notion that sex itself is NOT a bad thing. Most all of us have mind driven fetishes which we never practice in real life.

To start with, is there an objective and verifiable causal explanation for fetiche ?

Blue; In short, I don't see the reactions, apparently you have...

May be you never questioned and deeply inquired taboos in first place.

Each taboo proclaims “it is utterly wrong and don’t even question it otherwise you will be punished just for questioning or even thinking about it”.

But should rational people accept dogmatically and blindly that something is “wrong” or “right” without analysing it objectively and logically ?

I put this challenging puzzle in the “Brain Teaser and Puzzles” forum but nobody tried to solve it so far, so I decided to post it in this forum as well. I hope it does not amount to a “spam”.

…….._

….../……………......x

…..|………….......x

…..|…………......

∞ <………........

…..|…...…….x

…..|……....x

…...\_....x

..........x = 2

 

In case it is not clear enough: x is raised to the power x, which is raised to the power x, which is raised to the power x and so on. The number of exponents to the power of x is infinite.

 

Have fun !

…….._

….../……………......x

…..|………….......x

…..|…………......

∞ <………........

…..|…...…….x

…..|……....x

…...\_....x

..........x = 2

In case it is not clear enough: x is raised to the power x, which is raised to the power x, which is raised to the power x and so on. The number of exponents to the power of x is infinite.

Have fun !

I have observed in a lot of different forums that as soon someone starts discussing and questioning sexual taboos, there is always someone else who immediately assumes the worst about this person and start denigrating and stigmatizing him with malevolent insinuations. The usual stereotyped assumption is that if he discusses this or that taboo is because he is a “pervert” and that he actually questions a taboo because “he has an interest” in such sexual practice.

Some individuals even go as far as insinuating that the poster gets aroused just for discussing the matter !!!

But making this inference is as true as saying that a psychologist who studies sexual behaviour "gets aroused” by studying this matter and therefore he is a “pervert”.

Obviously, actually almost nobody accuses or insinuates that a psychologist is a “perverted person”. Strangely enough, people think that someone having a psychologist’s diploma makes him immune of any such accusation. Yet both a psychologist and a non-graduated person can have a genuine interest and curiosity about this matter without necessarily being a sexual deviant or “pervert”.

By the way, the word “pervert” although it is, currently, enormously charged with denigrating meanings, actually is very subjective, vague and arbitrary. For instance, there are some few people that consider an ordinary kiss between lovers as a “perversion”.

So my question is why some people are so keen on planting malicious accusations and, as consequence, try to abort any free debate about sexual matters ?

What are they trying to achieve and why ?

Some of the latest scientific estimates show that on average, humans have approx 175 new mutations per diploid genome per generation.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

That means that although we may be still similar enough to our parents species to be considered as members of their species, we carry new mutations and new recombinations ( reshuffling of genes ) of existing mutations that potentially could start a new species.

Therefore each one of us is potentially a bridge between two different species.

Really? So are they all genetically identical? In effect, clones?

Not necessarily. In average there are some dozens of new mutations added to each individual.

Where?

Sexual taboos which you even gave specific examples.

Regarding to "feminism", facts do not match with your categorical answers.

I will come back to this as soon as I could find time to collect concrete evidence that contradict your answers.

Sorry just looked it up and reminded myself what polyploidy is (I've little formal education is this area; just a deep interest and a lot of reading). Yes, it happens particularly in plants doesn't it; multiplication of sections of the genome.

Not really. It is the multiplication of the entire set of chromosomes.

Here is the wikipedia definition:

"Polyploidy is the condition of some biological cells and organisms manifested by the presence of more than two homologous sets of chromosomes. Polyploid types are termed according to the number of chromosome sets in the nucleus: triploid (three sets; 3x), tetraploid (four sets; 4x), pentaploid (five sets; 5x), hexaploid (six sets; 6x) and so on."

So when that arises in an individual, how does it go about breeding? i.e. finding an appropriate partner? Must it multiply vegetatively to produce other individuals to get a compatible match?

Plants usually can have both sexual and asexual reproduction. Therefore a new Polyploidal mutant plant could reproduce asexually. Additionally some plants have both masculine and feminine sexual organs so they can auto-fertilize themselves.

Polyploidy is less frequent in animals. However a new Polyploidal mutant animal can produce a progeny through parthenogenesis where there is no need for male fertilization.

Yes, it is too easy to take a handy mental toolkit and impose that onto the real world out there.

 

I rather liked the tale of the lawyer who argued that evolution could not be true because it would mean that in the transition from one species to another, it would mean that somewhere along the generations, a mother would give rise to an offspring who was not the same species as herself.....

Yet it can be true in some cases like in the occurrence of polyploidy.

I could argue that modern clothes can be less sexy since they often leave nothing to the imagination, the most powerful aphrodisiac.

Leaving too much things to imagination can be very disappointing. The woman of interest may be less interesting than the product of our imagination when she totally reveals herself.

Furthermore, almost total hiding of the body, like using muslim burkas, is not very enticing. Is it ?

Do all sexual taboos were demolished or there is a lot still remaining ? If so what are they ?

Is feminism really based in the reality of human nature –or- mostly in dogmatic beliefs ? Do they really want equality or dominance ? Was their movement hijacked by men-haters ?

Well, I just gave few examples of dogmas and taboos and some questions about them. You can add whatever else you spotted or identified and discuss.

if you look at animals they will have sex in front of each other, but usually also the alpha male gets all the women and the others get nothing.

First of all, not all animal species have alpha males. Usually only social animals have them and not always or, at least, sometimes they have a “moderate” alpha male.

Bonobos, for instance, have a matriarchal system so probably they do not have an alpha-male.

Secondly, in the cases where they have a strong alpha male, he may get all the females but he cannot avoid some of them cheating with other males.

Unless of course they go into hiding. so this could be a reason why privacy would exist.

Just few dozens of millennia ago, when human lived in small groups, they used to live in a common habitation like a big cave. It is unlikely that they would have any kind of privacy in these circumstances.

But then with humans the alpha male eventually became also the leader the chief eventually the king, the emperor and then elected official. and somewhere along there there would be too many women for just one man and the leader would need to admit that in order to keep having many subjects you need to give them wives and have them bear children and probably even at this point doing it in public might start a fight where some other male would try to take the girl from you so doing it in private became a better choice.

We still fight and compete for females. Monogamy did not eliminate competition.

As for clothes maybe it just became habit from it being too cold, maybe only the chief had clothes and it became then the "in" thing to do, or maybe it was just because wearing clothes would reduce the chances of women being raped so their men made them wear clothes. I know that wasn't very scientific or based on facts but it's some possible answers to your question at least.

A rapist would not have much difficulty with woman using a skirt or a gown. Some people say that cloths make women less tempting. Currently, however, clothes are so sexy that they actually increase sexual desire.

If I remember well, some Indian ancient civilizations actually had an inverse point of view. They saw sex as something “divine” and “sacred”. They even made statues in their temples depicting all sort of sexual positions between lovers.

 

Well that kind of thinking has changed now if you show any sexual behaviour in public you will be taken to the jail and the media will make a huge story out of it. I really can't figure out why humans are so inhibited about sex. I think sperm competition has decreased in humans. Any sexual activity twice in a week is good because it increases your level of immunoglobulins by 31% and you will be more healthier. So in this society if you show any abnormal sexual behavior you will be really in an ugly place. I think we should blame the politcians for implementing such stupid rules.

Hi Immortal

It is good to know someone who coincidently lives in the place.

Have you some information about which period of Indian history such a worship of sex took place and when and why it finished ?

Has it something to do with the muslim or christian ( british ) domination of India and the imposition of their twisted moral systems ?

You might investigate what appears to be a recently publicised british activity called "dogging". This appears to be a particularly exhibitionist swinger activity. Perhaps there is money to be made organising participatory package holidays....

 

In this case though, I think copulating in public merely adds an extra frisson to it, and they know it is not a cultural norm.

 

The problem with such behaviour is that it is not natural either.

 

If you behave sexually in a way that meant to be just a defiance or reaction to oppressive or deviant cultural norms then you probably are mixing your sexual behaviour ( which already might be a deviant one caused by cultural norms and not a natural one ) with negative emotions like anger, resentment or an artificial way to get high sexual excitement.

 

I was generally with you until you wrote that, because that is merely a matter of your own personal opinion.

 

Supposing you had said that about homosexuality for example. You would be jumped on from a great height by the pink brigades. Logically and scientifically probably quite rightly, too.

 

I wonder if you first asked for evidence, then implied that whatever the evidence, you had already reached a conclusion. Pity, that.

I apologise Gcol, I did not phrase well this post, that is why you misinterpreted it.

It was not a categorical statement as you might think, because I used the cautious words “probably” and “might” but I think you skipped them.

So let me rephrase it.

I am not saying that none of these cases of “dogging” were executed by people genuinely and sexually healthy ( natural ) trying to defy the system. It could well be that most cases of “dogging” are performed by healthy people.

What I meant to say is that just because some people challenge the sexual moral system by making public sexual acts does not necessarily mean that every single one is “uncontaminated” by the indoctrination that the system imposed on them very early in their lives.

For instance, it is known that some forms of exhibitionism or sex in public places might be sexual deviations or fetiches( sexual deviations are mostly caused by systematic sexual repression ).

So if they genuinely do “dogging” as way of defying and protesting against a repressive and unnatural moral system then they probably are people with a healthy and natural sexual behaviour.

However if they do it because it is the only way they can satisfy their sexuality than almost certainly is a deviation though probably not a harmful one.

However, whatever the case might be, I am not blaming anybody ( and nor I could ). Because even the deviants are victims themselves either from a oppessive and twisted moral system or unfortunate genetic mutations.

I hope I made myself clear this time.

You might investigate what appears to be a recently publicised british activity called "dogging". This appears to be a particularly exhibitionist swinger activity. Perhaps there is money to be made organising participatory package holidays....

 

In this case though, I think copulating in public merely adds an extra frisson to it, and they know it is not a cultural norm.

The problem with such behaviour is that it is not natural either.

If you behave sexually in a way that meant to be just a defiance or reaction to oppressive or deviant cultural norms then you probably are mixing your sexual behaviour ( which already might be a deviant one caused by cultural norms and not a natural one ) with negative emotions like anger, resentment or an artificial way to get high sexual excitement.

You might investigate what appears to be a recently publicised british activity called "dogging". This appears to be a particularly exhibitionist swinger activity. Perhaps there is money to be made organising participatory package holidays....

 

In this case though, I think copulating in public merely adds an extra frisson to it, and they know it is not a cultural norm.

 

Seriously, I think there is a big difference between exhibitionism, which is a personality trait, and activities that form part of a cultural norm that are labelled exhibitionism only in someone elses judgement.

I think that there are, at least, three different types of human behaviours regarding sex:

1 ) A behaviour that obeys and it is modelled by cultural norms ( like continuous or prolonged sexual repression for instance [ though some countries are more liberal in relation to sex behaviour in nowadays. However "liberal" does not equate necessarily with natural. ] ) which usually is a deviance from natural human sexual behaviour. Since I think that most of the current cultural models which the majority of the world human population obeys are unhealthy deviances from natural human behaviour, then the logic consequence of it is that someone who behaves accordingly with his cultural norms is probably abnormal in terms of his human nature. And we all know that if we are in a state of permanent conflict with our innate nature we end up probably as neurotic individuals and this will reflect on the health of the society we live in.

2) Idiosyncratic personal behaviour – this is an individual behaviour that could be different to, both, cultural norm and natural human behaviour. It could be a quite bizarre one and even a very psychopathologic one.

The origin of such unusual behaviour could be:

A) genetic – the individual was born with a rare mutation that drastically alters his sexual behaviour.

-or-

B) Most probably a reactive psychopathologic wrong development, consequence of human bizarre cultural norms impinged by religious / cultural indoctrination that disturbs dramatically the development of healthy natural human behaviour.

3) A natural human behaviour. It is conceivable that a minority of the population were fortunate enough to escape from cultural indoctrination either by living in remote places were “civilization” has little influence in moulding or influencing their sexual behaviour –or- individuals with such a strong and independent personality that they were mostly shielded against the pernicious cultural influence despite living in big societies. But obviously they have to have strong acting skills ( dissimulation ) as well to cheat the oppressive system and pretend being obedient to its tyrannical rules.

The bizarreness of human condition means that what we call by “normal cultural sexual behaviour” is actually a perversion of natural innate human behaviour. And conversely, people who were moulded by our bizarre cultural norms will misjudge as healthy natural sexual behaviour as a “perverted” one when they accidentally stumble with it.

That is why it is urgent that science finds out what exactly is our healthy and genuine natural sexual behaviour.

By culture obliging humans to behave unnaturally it may turn them into pathologic beings which can reflect in their social relationship and can cause undesirable or even serious conflicts. For instance, it is conceivable that excessive violence might be linked to excessive sexual repression in a significant degree.

I'm not sure, but I think dogs exhibit a "shame" behavior when they do something bad... it may just be fear, though. I wonder if there are any researches out there about that.

I think that shame is a special type of fear. It is a fear that comes from transgression of social rules or disobedience to a dominant individual ( parent, leader, etc ).

Small asside, are humans the only animal capable of the true emotion of being ashamed, and surely to be ashamed you need a community in which to be it in the first place... Has any research been done on great ape emotions including being ashamed?

Probably individuals of other social primates feel ashamed when they cheat or transgress the rules of the group but I need to search for confirmation and more solid evidence in scientific literature.

basically, it is religions that have treated it as a necessary evil. this has sort of been engrained in societal conciousness over the centuries. there is no real reason for sex to be private other than preference.

I agree.

However, it is known that when animals are engaged in sexual courtship and sexual activity they are so concentrated in their action that they become almost oblivious to dangers, usually predators or rival competitors. And humans can be very treacherous and vicious competitors to each other sometimes. So I am not sure if apart from the powerful influence of religious indoctrination, an additional reason why we like private sex is also a protective measure against rivals and disruption.

and to be honest, i like a bit of privacy myself.

Yes, but how do you know that your preference is not conditioned by religious indoctrination ?

Or, alternatively / additionaly, a defence mechanism against potential rival attacks or disruption ?

as for 1/ i honestly don't know. it would seem that nearly universally, sex is a private matter. either in the house/hut/dwelling of other kind. or away from other people. maybe it goes back to how we done it as apes (well besides the ritualistic orgies).

Well, our close evolutionary relatives, bonobos and chimpanzees, have sex in the open and frequently in front of other members of the group (“in public”). Males and females have sex with several partners though there is a degree of sexual selection. Females prefer dominant and strong males.

In bonobos, most sexual activity instead of having a reproductive purpose, it is rather a conflict-resolution mechanism aimed to bring peace between members of the group. So, looking from outside, it looks like a permanent “orgy”. Everybody has sex with everybody, which includes homosexual sex and sex between infants and adults. In this species, females seem to be the dominant gender.

Here is what I found in “http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/primates.html”:

“Context: Bonobos live in groups of 50 to 120 animals. Bonobo society appears to be female-dominated. Male status is linked to that of his mother. Older females occupy the highest rank. The strongest social bonds are between females. Raising offspring is an exclusively female activity.

In Bonobo society sexual excitement and aggression rates are higher at feeding times. Dominant males may delay sharing food with females who are not sexually disposed. Cofeeding takes place between intimates. Among Bonobos, embracing, friendly touching and sexual contact rates jump after an aggressive incident. According to zoologist Frans de Waal, "The majority of mounts and matings occur in tense situations." "©onflict resolution is the more fundamental and pervasive function of Bonobo sex." Sex in Bonobo society is definitively a mechanism for keeping the peace.”

2/ up until very recently, religion has been the dominant rolemodel for society. and in a lot of the world, it still is.its effects are still existing even in people who have broken off from religion for quite a while. it is still a huge influence on many many people and their habits.

Indeed. Even people, who got rid of dogmatic religious beliefs, are still unconsciously conditioned on sexual matters. And worst, most non-religious people are not even aware that they still have hidden dogmas of religious origin ( sexual taboos ) ingrained in their brains and influencing their sexual behaviour.

i have a question about the ritualistic orgies: were they only inclusive of known people(like everyone in a village or a circle of friends) or was it a free for all for anyone to just join in? it has a bearing on a little thought thats going round my mind.

I do not know either.

However, sex in public does not need necessarily to equate with “public orgies” ( our natural sexual behaviour probably is not as promiscuous as bonobos [ though I am not sure ]). It could simply mean that couples would not need to hide or curb their sexual behaviour in public.

not that everyone is ashamed of sex. i'm certainly not. and i would guess(based on who i know) that only maybe 10% of people are actually uncomfortable talking about it.

It depends on which country you are talking about. In theocratic dictatorships or countries where monotheistic religions have dominance probably most people feel uncomfortable talking about.

An opposite situation would be found in highly secularized countries like Sweden, Finland, etc.

However improbable seem to be, never say "it is impossible" to creative people.

If it cannot be done now, it will be done in 100, 1000 or 10000 years in the future.

You can't expert brilliant answers in GD, maybe if you asked a moderator to move this onto one of the science-centred boards then people will notice it quicker.

The reason I added it to the General Discussion is to debate it scientifically and, at the same time, use this discussion to raise awareness about the human unique and bizarre sexual inhibition ( it seems that we are the only species that is ashamed of sex ).

However, it would be interesting to find out if there are exceptions.

If I remember well, some Indian ancient civilizations actually had an inverse point of view. They saw sex as something “divine” and “sacred”. They even made statues in their temples depicting all sort of sexual positions between lovers.

Another fact that I just recalled is that after cleaning up the ruins of the ancient roman city Pompeii, destroyed by a volcanic eruption, they found wall paintings depicting sexual activity in almost all dinner rooms of the rich families !

Gosh ... are people so prudish to discuss this topic ?

Dont confuse species with breeds.

I do not need to confuse. Certainly there must be a line , beyond which, a race become a new species.

Therefore this fuzzy line would be confusing itself ( no need for conceptual confusion ).

All modern dogs of any type are fundamentally interfertile ( and of the same species ) even if size differences preclude "normal " copulation .

Any sexual impossibility, being it mechanical or physiological, can cause species isolation.

One thing is being fertile through artificial insemination and another entirely different is being fertile by natural sexual interaction.

One could say breed differences are the first step in speciation but the same could be said for different human races -- all of whom are also interfertile .

Well, as far I know, human races are not so different that they are prevented to mate between each other and reproduce.

It is very unlikely that a Chihuahua could successfully mate with a Great Dane. And sexual isolation is one of the criteria that separate species.

Are dogs of different breeds so different to each other that they have become different species ?