Quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:
I'd say the most natural act for humans would be breathing. Then eating. Then sleeping. Then shelter. Sex is very distant behind those.

---

Quote:

---

It's not like I'm completely devoid of human instinct myself, either...As I said before, food is a NEED, and any such comparison between a NEED and sex is completely moot.

---

Quote:

---

Conversely, ants are probably the most social creatures on Earth, complex and organized in every way, but are next to autonomous as far as sexuality goes...If humans mated purely out of instinct without any regard for pleasure, I think it would have effected us much less as a people than if we never killed and made tools for killing.

---

Quote:

---

Assuming that humanity as a whole began to stop killing each other and no one decided to capitalize on the situation (Also human nature), there'd still be conceivably great consequences. The animals we stopped killing would over populate, and I don't think (could be wrong) that the Earth's capable of producing enough plant life to feed an entire world of vegetarians, much less the increasing number of herbivorous animals. Starvation, amongst other things, would become widespread.

---

Quote:

---

People need to stop being wusses about the concept of death. One second you have everyone and their mother saying "I'm not afraid of death", and the next they're all talking about how horrible and unfortunate it is when someone dies. It happens, it's part of the cycle, get on with things. I can accept that sex is an integral part of the cycle, but it's been so trivialized that the original purpose of it has been all but bastardized and forgotten. And you know what happens, when you hold the pro-creative part above death? You make more and worse death. Famine, starvation, disease, crime, all of these things happen when the population gets too high. We need people to be killed, they don't die naturally fast enough, so we need war and death in more controlled conflicts waged by willing participants to prevent worse from happening to everyone.

---

Quote:

---

First-Wave Feminism
First-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the United Kingdom and the United States. It primarily focused on gaining the right of women's suffrage. The term, "first-wave," was coined retroactively after the term second-wave feminism began to be used to describe a newer feminist movement. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism )

---

Quote:

---

Second-Wave Feminism
Second Wave Feminism is generally identified with a period beginning in the early nineteen sixties and extending through the late nineteen eighties. Whereas first-wave feminism focused largely on de jure (officially mandated) inequalities, second wave feminism saw de jure and de facto (unofficial) inequalities as inextricably linked issues that had to be addressed in tandem.

The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their own personal lives as deeply politicized, and reflective of a sexist structure of power. If first-wave feminism focused upon absolute rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality ranging from the economic to the reproductive. This latter reproduction issue came probably out with the marketing of the pill since 1960. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism )

---

Quote:

---

Third-Wave Feminism
Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's "essentialist" definitions of femininity, which (according to the third wave) often assumed a universal female identity and over-emphasized the experiences of upper middle class white women. A post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality is also central to much of the third wave and helps to account for its heightened emphasis on the discursive power and fundamental ambiguity inherent in all gender terms and categories. Third wave theory usually encompasses queer theory, women-of-color consciousness, post-colonial theory, critical theory, transnationalism, ecofeminism, and new feminist theory.

Third wave feminists often focus on "micropolitics," writing about forms of gender expression and representation that are less explicitly political than their predecessors. They also challenged the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for females. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism )

---

Quote:

---

Agreed except on 1 1/2 points. (Fractions provided for MsG's benefit...) Breathing, then drinking, then eating. Sleeping and shelter are too close to call for me, so I cede the point; but I want to return to sleep in a bit. My 1/2 point exception is the word "distant".

---

Quote:

---

If the instinct is present, how fine a line is it between the need and the want? As the instinct to eat may be overcome, so can the instinct to copulate. As the one is clearly detrimental to the organism, so is the other. The difference is in how, and the terminal gauge is not always the one that proves a point. Likewise the overindulgence of the eating instinct is bad for an individual and its sexual counterpart is not good either. There are two instincts that drive every single organism: preservation of self and preservation of the specie. The first I believe is pretty clear and straight-forward. Of course, there are those who have a distorted view of self and therefore self preservation. We aren't talking about those right now. The preservation of the specie takes on a bit complexity; it can be carried out in two ways: reproduction and protection. We are more familiar with the pop culture designations of Sex and Violence. Love and Death. Romance and Warfare. Us and Them. Them or Us. The two instincts while seemingly opposite in nature, fulfill the same purpose. And as such are completely analogous. The word hunger applies equally well to both. Both are needs that yearn to be satisfied. Either can be denied, but there are conceivably great consequences in doing so.

---

Quote:

---

As for the "need" for sleep, we sleep to rest our minds. The body gets its rest from inactivity, most conveniently provided during sleep, but fatigue doesn't require sleep per se and as you could probably attest better than I, fatigue actually can hinder sleep. Mental fatigue however is the real cause of sleep. Our mind simply needs a timeout to process all the input. Sleep deprivation causes the mind to bug out which in turn can have adverse affects on the body. Is sleep a need? Mentally yes. Is sex a need? Is deprivation of sex a bad thing? Mentally, it can be. Is indulgence of the sex drive a bad thing? Mentally it can be. STD's of course make the indulgence a physical risk, too, but we're talking philosophically here, right.

---

Quote:

---

You said in another post that you believe evolution was a fact. Instincts develop because they are beneficial to either the organism or the continuance of the specie. While traits sometimes outlive their purpose, they originally had a purpose. The instinct to mate is vital to any species; it is a need. To help ensure the mating instinct is carried out, it was made pleasurable, that is to say, those that found it pleasurable did it more than those that didn't and over time, became the dominant members to the point of almost exclusivity. Ultimately as you say the procreative purpose is lost on the individual but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme; the purpose is carried out not only in spite of the dumb fks, but because of them!

---

Quote:

---

Nature in all her ways tends toward equilibrium. If we extinct ourselves on the way to a higher peace, our various roles will be split up among those that remain. Our history here is short in comparison with the dinosaurs and microscopic compared to the insects. In the end, we all belong to the bacteria. What I mean is yes we might make things bad on Earth for a very long time even after we check out, but Terra is strong and will regroup.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisMoorhead:

Quote:

---

My 1/2 point exception is the word "distant".

---

I wasn't so much trying to give a fully detailed list so much as make a distinction between physical needs and physical desires. Kind of like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If the instinct is present, how fine a line is it between the need and the want? As the instinct to eat may be overcome, so can the instinct to copulate. As the one is clearly detrimental to the organism, so is the other. The difference is in how, and the terminal gauge is not always the one that proves a point. Likewise the overindulgence of the eating instinct is bad for an individual and its sexual counterpart is not good either. There are two instincts that drive every single organism: preservation of self and preservation of the specie...The two instincts while seemingly opposite in nature, fulfill the same purpose. And as such are completely analogous. The word hunger applies equally well to both. Both are needs that yearn to be satisfied. Either can be denied, but there are conceivably great consequences in doing so.

---

You're beginning to make my point for me, although I wouldn't really apply "hunger" to killing. But that's kind of my point. Killing when done out of "hunger" is done by lunatics, but when done out of necessity is done by heroes. However, when people fuck out of "hunger", it's become not only socially acceptable, but many would describe it as "beautiful" and other such flowery words. Where's the balance in that?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As for the "need" for sleep, we sleep to rest our minds. The body gets its rest from inactivity, most conveniently provided during sleep, but fatigue doesn't require sleep per se and as you could probably attest better than I, fatigue actually can hinder sleep. Mental fatigue however is the real cause of sleep. Our mind simply needs a timeout to process all the input. Sleep deprivation causes the mind to bug out which in turn can have adverse affects on the body. Is sleep a need? Mentally yes. Is sex a need? Is deprivation of sex a bad thing? Mentally, it can be. Is indulgence of the sex drive a bad thing? Mentally it can be. STD's of course make the indulgence a physical risk, too, but we're talking philosophically here, right.

---

Actually, sleep deprivation will result in death. The brain performs functions in sleep that it can't do while awake and resting. Reproduction of white blood cells, sustainment of current white blood cells, decreased growth hormones essential to cellular replenishment, etc. In short, no sleep, no immune system. You'd die in about 3 weeks.

Anyone is capable of denying themselves sex without negative consequences. As I said before and will now say again, it is a choice of whether or not to let it effect you. There have been too many people who made a choice not to let it effect them for there to be any other side to the issue.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You said in another post that you believe evolution was a fact. Instincts develop because they are beneficial to either the organism or the continuance of the specie. While traits sometimes outlive their purpose, they originally had a purpose. The instinct to mate is vital to any species; it is a need. To help ensure the mating instinct is carried out, it was made pleasurable, that is to say, those that found it pleasurable did it more than those that didn't and over time, became the dominant members to the point of almost exclusivity. Ultimately as you say the procreative purpose is lost on the individual but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme; the purpose is carried out not only in spite of the dumb fks, but because of them!

---

We have plenty of instincts left over from our former selves that would get us killed and arrested if we followed them. They must all be controlled and disciplined to some degree, the dividing point seems to be where to draw the line. If we went based purely on those instincts, men wouldn't bother asking women if they wanted to have sex. As it is, the law was made so that women have to consent, which is where most males are happy to drop their self control. Just enough to not be arrested. And some aren't even capable of that.

As for continuation of the species, we need to start thinking about that instead of just fucking for it. I already pointed out what overpopulation will lead to, never mind every piece of inbred trailer trash or inner city shitbag that squeezes out a few puppies to fuck up the same way their parents fucked them up. Sex will only make bodies; discipline will make humans.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Nature in all her ways tends toward equilibrium. If we extinct ourselves on the way to a higher peace, our various roles will be split up among those that remain. Our history here is short in comparison with the dinosaurs and microscopic compared to the insects. In the end, we all belong to the bacteria. What I mean is yes we might make things bad on Earth for a very long time even after we check out, but Terra is strong and will regroup.

---

Weren't we just talking about continuation of the species a second ago? Who gives a flying crap about the Earth if we can't live on it? I mean, I'm cool with fatalist philosophy and all, but you can only go so far with it. If weren't not at least trying to survive, why should I even bother getting out of bed in the morning?

I know that I'm never going to have children. I mean, I know that, for a fact. But I'd still like to some day. Hope in the hopeless, that I might achieve the impossible is what drives me. I am a Browncoat, right?

---

Don Quixote?



"Well, here I am...Does that seem right to you?"