Philosophy Now Forum

It is the duty of philosophers to first of all, acknowledge the true nature of men's sexual biochemistry; and secondarily to compare and contrast the biology with various romantic ideals from the 19th century; and finally, to do so in an honest, objective manner.

We can imagine a world, a world different from ours, in which human males evolved in such a way as to require a set of abstract romantic stimuli in order to become sexually aroused and then to have their bodies complete a sex act. In this alternative world, men cannot become aroused unless their partner is mutually aroused, unless their partner is a friend whom they trust; and unless they feel safe around her and know she feels safe around him. In the best scenario, men's biochemical pathways would not become stimulated unless their partner is fully awake, laughing, and having a good time. For extra measure, we could add monogamy, although it would be difficult to see how biochemistry could affirm your partner is truly monogamous.

The above alternative world is a completely plausible scenario. There is nothing in it that is in violation of physics, chemistry, or even the theories of evolutionary biology.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, men's sexual circuitry is far different. Like a check list, we can cross out all the stimuli that are not required for a man to become aroused and complete a sex act.

• Trust
• Mutuality
• Friendship
• A feeling of safety
• Monogamy
• A partner who is even conscious at the time

Nothing from the above list is a requirement for the male body to become aroused and complete a sex act. The biochemical circuitry of men does not require trust, mutuality, safety, friendship, nor does it even require the woman to be conscious in order for him to use her body to complete a sex act. This is a fact of the human condition. We can try to deny it publicly. We can change the subject, avoid the subject, or otherwise try to pretend it is false in an attempt to be politically correct. None of those various skeptical tactics can erase the fact, however.

For the skeptics who would continue to deny these facts, I submit the following articles as evidence:

http://www.economist.com/node/17900482? ... d=17900482

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... 7S20130107

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/de ... error-mali

The skeptic would be pressed to explain how the men in the above articles were able to complete their rapes. It is the duty of philosophers to first of all, acknowledge the true nature of men's sexual biochemistry; and secondarily to compare and contrast the biology with various romantic ideals from the 19th century; and finally, to do so in an honest, objective manner.

Nothing from the above list is a requirement for the male body to become aroused and complete a sex act. The biochemical circuitry of men does not require trust, mutuality, safety, friendship, nor does it even require the woman to be conscious in order for him to use her body to complete a sex act. This is a fact of the human condition.

As I've been ranting ad naseum in another thread, I agree with your approach and conclusion.

As I understand it, men's sexuality as you describe it above can be explained by the biological mission given to us by our mammal heritage, impregnate as many females as possible.

Women's interest in trust, emotional bonding etc might be explained by the fact that females have long been the physically weaker partner, thus engaging the wrong male could be dangerous.

Kuznetzova wrote: It is the duty of philosophers to first of all, acknowledge the true nature of men's sexual biochemistry; and secondarily to compare and contrast the biology with various romantic ideals from the 19th century; and finally, to do so in an honest, objective manner.

Okay okay, I acknowledge it. Now let me ask you something, what's so bad about it? Rape is only a side effect, most men can control their emotions.

Most men will find your list of "higher" emotions and romantic ideals more important than purely sexual pleasure. And while these aren't required, it will make sex better.

I have to add that your list may be slightly different to men, but it's certainly there. For example, while women may become sexually aroused when they feel safe around someone, men become aroused when they feel they make a woman feel safe.

You can't base on entire theory of human behaviour on three examples and ignore the world of counter examples.

Like some (a minority) of evolutionists you base your view (and is is base) on looking for similarities between humans and animals.
Hey presto! You make men look like animals and chastise them for behaving against normal human moral action - but you ignore the source of that morality.
You ignore the fact that humans have developed learned responses based on feelings of co-operation which make this animal behaviour unacceptable, and outside the norm.

Humans do indeed leave the path of their moral teaching.





But in focusing on this you simply ignore what is different and unique about humans, that sets them aside from the animals.

Kuznetzova wrote:The skeptic would be pressed to explain how the men in the above articles were able to complete their rapes. It is the duty of philosophers to first of all, acknowledge the true nature of men's sexual biochemistry; and secondarily to compare and contrast the biology with various romantic ideals from the 19th century; and finally, to do so in an honest, objective manner.

I don't think anyone is denying "the true nature of men's sexual biochemistry", but that in itself is not the problem. When I see a doughnut, I sometimes get hungry, that's biochemistry, but I can exercise restraint; it is much easier to do so when satisfying my hunger would involve violence against another person. The real problem is with people who are so mental they are unable to empathize or even respect other people's well being. As important as it is, I don't think it is the duty of philosophers to account for the actions of nutters.

The philosophical topic, which everyone is avoiding here is this (and this is as clear as I can make it):

list of romantic stimuli = {Trust Mutuality Friendship A feeling of safety Monogamy}

We may very well be living in a world in which that list of romantic stimuli is required for male sexual arousal. We absolutely could have evolved that way as a species. There is nothing in biology, chemistry, physics, and the like which absolutely rules out the possibility.

The philosophical problem then is, we did not evolve that way ; we are not build like that.

If we have evolved in such a way that is congruent with nature, then nature apparently condones, (nay, it promotes) rape.

You guys are going to beat around the core of this issue and not face it. But let us face it objectively, as philosophers. It appears that natural selection first and foremost made us rapists, biologically, and then later on it evolved these "higher emotions" to correct it. Are you guys sure this is what happened? Perchance it is only some deep desire on the part of modern man to think these "higher emotions" were evolved at all. Perhaps the punishments and rewards of modern society/culture alone are the source of this? Several people have described how they can "overcome" their base emotions to eat a donut for instance. What needs to be emphasized and pointed out -- the natural world (the source of our evolution) does not care for these "overcomings" of base desire. It appears only the social peacefulness and law-abiding rules of society/culture take heed of them.

And let us not ignore this dimension too: Society's norms are concerned with the reduction of suffering. (what one poster called "respect other people's wellbeing") However, there may not be a way to go about pair-bonding, having sex, pregnancy, giving birth, and raising children without suffering and agony. The universe, in no way, gaurantees that a person can go about bonding with the opposite sex and going through "the process" (lets call it) and not feel some suffering and anguish. So what society/culture is concerned with is having these processes go about and not have any one partner genuinely suffer from it.

The philosophical problem should be clear now. You and I on this modern forum in a modern society have in our minds these "higher ideals of respecting the well-being of others" but nature, natural selection, and biology do not MIRROR THESE SENTIMENTS.

Is that clear enough?

Kuznetzova wrote:The philosophical problem should be clear now. You and I on this modern forum in a modern society have in our minds these "higher ideals of respecting the well-being of others" but nature, natural selection, and biology do not MIRROR THESE SENTIMENTS.

Is that clear enough?

What do you recommend we do about it?

tillingborn wrote:What do you recommend we do about it?

We must be vigilant when searching for justifications of our actions towards each other.

Blaming our actions on nature or biology provides no justification (that I can see), since nature itself appears to be indifferent to suffering and violence. Nature does not care an iota if someone is raped. As long as the genetic material is in the right place, it is good-for-go.

As philosophers we can ask, from where do our justifications arise?
What is the origin of our justifications for behaviors and action?

.













.........................................................................................................The Male Brain




...............................................................................











.

Kuznetzova wrote:We must be vigilant when searching for justifications of our actions towards each other.

Or we can behave towards others in ways that don't require justification.

Kuznetzova wrote:Blaming our actions on nature or biology provides no justification (that I can see), since nature itself appears to be indifferent to suffering and violence. Nature does not care an iota if someone is raped. As long as the genetic material is in the right place, it is good-for-go.

I am sure you are right about nature's indifference, I would be very surprised to discover that it is the sort of thing that has emotions. For which reason I'm equally certain that it doesn't care where genetic material is deposited. That we have evolved and flourished suggests that there is enough in our genes to encourage some cooperation, since the size and helplessness of infants make the task of safely raising one single-handedly herculean. I suspect you would argue that this doesn't necessarily demand any commitment from men, and I would agree, but it is hard to imagine that we would be so successful without males having some genetic dispositions other than rape and murder. It may be, for instance, that despite the figures being hopelessly skewed by male imposed cultural restrictions on women being creative, there is some drive in men to demonstrate artistic or intellectual prowess in an effort to encourage others to engage them in sex willingly, some instances of which will deposit genetic material just where and when it needs to be in order to reproduce.

Kuznetzova wrote:As philosophers we can ask, from where do our justifications arise?
What is the origin of our justifications for behaviors and action?

Again,we only have to justify things we would otherwise not do.

This thread is missing one important factor in it's reasoning...not one person has mention the female as an individual...instead it groups all women into the same category....a herd of sexual conquests. And this is where so men's reasoning goes askew imo. Not all women are created equal. Some women are more desirable and some less.

If we are really honest the nature of a man's sexuality arises with his desire. Men are competitive. More men want to "conquer", if you will, the woman who is in high demand among other men ...NOT the woman who is in less demand. It is in this respect women are not equal as this thread tends to imply.

He wants what he wants and he will do anything to get it....even if it means forgoing sex with multiple partners to please the object of his desire.

Men may have the desire to bed any woman...but by doing so may lose their chance at bedding "the best" woman...and thus losing the ability to "win" so to speak. This is how men have become more civilized....because women demanded it.

Lose the manners, lose the woman. Because women use more discretion when choosing a mate (even though we have as strong of a sex drive) we are able to tame men to such a degree we have been a driving force in creating a civilized society. We know that too much surplus lessens demand. Being choosey when choosing a male is not because of a woman's lessened sex drive. It is more like driving up the value of her "merchandise" in order to be in high demand.

P.S. Why hasn't this thread been moved to the gender section of the forum Amod?

artisticsolution wrote: Lose the manners, lose the woman. Because women use more discretion when choosing a mate (even though we have as strong of a sex drive) we are able to tame men to such a degree we have been a driving force in creating a civilized society. We know that too much surplus lessens demand. Being choosey when choosing a male is not because of a woman's lessened sex drive. It is more like driving up the value of her "merchandise" in order to be in high demand.

P.S. Why hasn't this thread been moved to the gender section of the forum Amod?

Okay, artisticsolution, let's review some of the basic facts first. A group of Viking raiders crosses the cold waters of the isle in their longboat and goes and sacks a village in britannia. Then they murder a bunch of people and rape very many women. Some of the rape victims may survive the attack with a pregnancy. The child resulting from this viking rape-and-pillage session will be healthy in all due respects. Nature says this is A-O-Kay.

But if one of the viking raiders goes near his sister or mother (niece or cousin) then nature says "heck no". Provided there is not a miscarriage, the children born from these incestual pairings will suffer from a host of birth defects. So nature says it is okay to go rape a village in Britain during a raid, just stay the hell away from your mother and sisters.

Now let's back up and ask why this is the case. Nature is not concerned with suffering. It is not concerned with fairness. Nature could give a flying-rats-ass about your gender politics. Nature and biology are far more concerned with the replication of little sub-sequences of DNA called genes. You can do and say whatever you want, live your lesbian gender politics all you want. But whatever you do, don't try to game the genetic system of biology, because then nature will stop you. Your children, provided they survive infancy, will be inflicted with a host of recessive traits and other heinous genetic diseases.

Kuznetzova wrote:

artisticsolution wrote: Lose the manners, lose the woman. Because women use more discretion when choosing a mate (even though we have as strong of a sex drive) we are able to tame men to such a degree we have been a driving force in creating a civilized society. We know that too much surplus lessens demand. Being choosey when choosing a male is not because of a woman's lessened sex drive. It is more like driving up the value of her "merchandise" in order to be in high demand.

P.S. Why hasn't this thread been moved to the gender section of the forum Amod?

Okay, artisticsolution, let's review some of the basic facts first. A group of Viking raiders crosses the cold waters of the isle in their longboat and goes and sacks a village in britannia. Then they murder a bunch of people and rape very many women. Some of the rape victims may survive the attack with a pregnancy. The child resulting from this viking rape-and-pillage session will be healthy in all due respects. Nature says this is A-O-Kay.

But if one of the viking raiders goes near his sister or mother (niece or cousin) then nature says "heck no". Provided there is not a miscarriage, the children born from these incestual pairings will suffer from a host of birth defects. So nature says it is okay to go rape a village in Britain during a raid, just stay the hell away from your mother and sisters.

Now let's back up and ask why this is the case. Nature is not concerned with suffering. It is not concerned with fairness. Nature could give a flying-rats-ass about your gender politics. Nature and biology are far more concerned with the replication of little sub-sequences of DNA called genes. You can do and say whatever you want, live your lesbian gender politics all you want. But whatever you do, don't try to game the genetic system of biology, because then nature will stop you. Your children, provided they survive infancy, will be inflicted with a host of recessive traits and other heinous genetic diseases.

Yeah...just as I figured....you have an agenda which does NOT include honesty. Struck a nerve did I? I won't do you any good becoming emotional with me...I've raised my kids...I am impervious to childish outbursts and temper tantrums. Let's see if you can be honest.

Getting back to the point Now ...tell me...

IF THIS...

Kuz: "The child resulting from this viking rape-and-pillage session will be healthy in all due respects. Nature says this is A-O-Kay."

THEN.....

AS: Why are their no more Vikings? If nature says that is A-O-Kay...then where the fuck are these viking bastards? They don't exist anymore because nature says it is not OKAY.

Nature does not just promote men...nature is also about women. If you want to be honest then you have to include that in your equation of how mankind was able to survive.

Let me ask you this...in the brutality world wide...what are the chances rape and pillage sessions will replace civilization? Zero...because all the dumb fucks that leave the women to raise their children are also leaving the women in charge of shaping the next generation. Get it?

You are just trying to glorify a bunch of idiots....the vikings were too stupid to survive...and so are modern day barbarians. Stupidity is it's own worst enemy.

P.S. Amod...why isn't this thread in the gender section...or do you only move women issues to that respectful place? Sexism anyone?

Kuznetzova wrote: Nature is not concerned with suffering. It is not concerned with fairness. Nature could give a flying-rats-ass about your gender politics. Nature and biology are far more concerned with the replication of little sub-sequences of DNA called genes.

It's unlikely that nature and biology are concerned with anything.

Kuznetzova wrote: You can do and say whatever you want, live your lesbian gender politics all you want.

Gender politics is not an exclusively lesbian interest. Personally, I think my wife, daughters, mother, sisters and nieces should be allowed to have an equal say in the democratic process, and that they should be paid the same wage as a man for any given job.

Kuznetzova wrote:But whatever you do, don't try to game the genetic system of biology, because then nature will stop you. Your children, provided they survive infancy, will be inflicted with a host of recessive traits and other heinous genetic diseases.

Nature is not some biological police force in charge of upholding biological law, it's just us and the stuff around us; it is silly to attribute human qualities to it.

artisticsolution wrote:Getting back to the point Now ...tell me...

IF THIS...

Kuz: "The child resulting from this viking rape-and-pillage session will be healthy in all due respects. Nature says this is A-O-Kay."

THEN.....

AS: Why are their no more Vikings? If nature says that is A-O-Kay...then where the fuck are these viking bastards?

Scandinavia if you mean bastards in the pejorative sense, all over Europe if you mean it literally, particularly the western coastal fringes. Normandy in France for instance is named after the Normans, the northern men, that colonised it.
Because the main purpose of the raids was financial gain, the first place the Vikings would raid were the Churches and monasteries. Since it was unusual for anyone but monks to be literate, the Viking raids are a rare case of history being written by the losers. The stories are possibly exaggerated and there is no reason to think that the techniques were worse than any other invading force past or present.

artisticsolution wrote:You are just trying to glorify a bunch of idiots.

As far as I can work out Kuznetzova is attempting to justify rape on the grounds that nature doesn't mind. The idea that we can explain all of human behaviour in terms of genetics is absurd. When doing so allows disturbing people to reach such conclusions, it is dangerous.