You said because you had a gf who wanted consistently be in touch with you and being a "punching bag" from this woman in your conclusion that all women are abusive and controlling.
Statistics show that males ranked the highest perpetrators of abuse.
There are women abusers but there is more male abusers vs women.
I experience SA, abuse from men. That doesn't constitute now i should say that all men are bad because I ran into bad men.
Aye Aye Captain, so you've high tailed it over from DebarteArt.
Sex is just for procreation, that is why human anatomy and biology is such.
Though we have learned otherwise, how to utilise said equipment recreationally and variously.
I would suggest the "bonding" is a slightly different issue, though it inevitably incorporates mating behaviour.
Of course, overthink takes all base function and elaborates upon it...Such is the human condition.
Why?...Your guess is as good as mine.
It's not for solely purposes of reproduction.
It's factual untrue.
Sex produces hormones. The "love hormone" called oxytocin is produced from sex and other situations.
"Oxytocin is a hormone that facilitates childbirth, lactation, and social bonding, while also influencing trust, attachment, and emotional well-being."
When you develop a bond with a friend of family member. Your brain produces hormones like dopamine. These hormones ensure you have a bond as humans are social creatures.
Sex between partners is what is known as "love making" because it's about feelings close and intimate.
Our closes animal relatives (share 95% DNA as humans) like chimpanzees and Bonobos also use sex in different forms.
Humans are homo-sapiens in a primate family.
Even non-primate animals use sex for different reasons like dominace, pleasure, creation ect..
Snails, and dolphins 🐬 for example.
The notion "sex only for reproduction" is untrue in nature as it's seen in many species sex used outside the spectrum of reproduction.
The "sex for procreation" is only found in religious beliefs. Not biological or nature.
Well stated.
Hmmm, People who have regular orgasms seem to have less stress and enjoy lower rates of heart disease, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and endometriosis.
You said because you had a gf who wanted consistently be in touch with you and being a "punching bag" from this woman in your conclusion that all women are abusive and controlling
Maybe not all, but many are, and all I saw so far are. And this is irrelevant to abusive men.
You said because you had a gf who wanted consistently be in touch with you and being a "punching bag" from this woman in your conclusion that all women are abusive and controlling
Maybe not all, but many are, and all I saw so far are. And this is irrelevant to abusive men.
How about owning it, maybe it's just that you bring out these reactions in people, I suspect men also find you punchable, maybe this "make believe" GF of yours is kind and loving to everyone else. The subtext of almost all your posts says, "punch me", if she was still alive, I suspect you could get Mother Teresa to want to punch you. If you don't want to be punched, don't always lead with your chin, you make people want to punch you because of who you are, not because of who they are.
"It's not in our stars dear Brutus, that we are underlings, it's in our natures" - Cassius in William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (Act I, Scene 2).
Take responsibility for yourself and stop blaming women for what you are, if you don't want to be punching bag, quit whining all the time and just don't be a punching bag.
"A man can't ride your back unless it's bent" - Martin Luther King
Stand tall, stop being a wimp, and maybe you could get a real-life girlfriend.
Exactly my point.
We observe base biological function and come up with terminology such as "love".
I love ice cream, which is also relative to internal electrochemical systems.
All is relative to brain to body messaging and base function demands very little other than sexual reproduction and survival, or survival and sexual reproduction..."Making love" is simply going through the motions of copulation, but with an acquired sub-text...Such is evolved human overthink.
It's the human mind that demands more and consequently reads more into it.
And of course, the human is a self contained unit so everything is seemingly relative...Which it must be.
It could be argued that we humans, unlike dolphins and snails, have intellectually outgrown our support systems, which is why it is now necessary for technological intelligence to take over the running of the evolutionary show...We still continue to proliferate, produce too many people of little use, who demand more and more of Earth resources that could be put to better evolutionary use....Just a thought.
You misunderstood what I was saying. So far all women in my life were controlling me to point of exhaustion. I mean, I simply can't be emotionally available for anyone.
You're still factual wrong.
Love is a hormone called oxytocin.
Human nature since creation as always used sex for pleasure.
We simply understand the abstract reasons why we do what we do.
Like or not. Humans use sex for many reasons. That's is fact.
We have a thing called a sex drive aka libido.
Humans also have primal instincts but we aren't strictly govern by it .
Everytime you flinch=primal instincts
Sexual attractions=primal instincts
Death or a threat of danger= instincts reaction (look below)
Fight, flight, or freeze=instincts
Your brain produces hormones that influence your emotions output.
Storotin hormone is a mood stabilizer. Low amounts = feelings of depression, irritability ect..
The only construct of "sex for reproduction" only exists in religion culture.
Here is a simple link.
Humans have wide ranges of behaviors switch includes using sex for pleasure.
Humans are animals
humans have libidos
Humans have interest in sex beyond reproduction.
simple logic.
https://www.mediumspot.com/why-sex-is-essential-for-humans-biological-psychological-and-social-reasons/
a) Pleasure, bonding & psychological benefits
Sex triggers release of neurotransmitters (oxytocin, dopamine, endorphins) which contribute to pleasure, bonding, intimacy, stress relief, mood regulation, etc.
For many couples, it strengthens emotional connection and social/relational ties.
Abuse is abuse regardless who the person is.
I'm not questioning you haven't ran into toxic women.
I'm stating when it comes to overall abuse. Men make the majority.
Two questions for you both.
Does the color green exist?
How about mathematics, exist?
Hmmmm.
"Love" is a liberally used word we apply variously...sometimes glibly, sometimes more meaningfully.
And hormones are essentially chemical messengers that control functions and processes of living organic systems.
Love is not a hormone...Love is a thought construct...Just as the more diversely developed aspects of recreational sex are also thought constructs...Some well established systemically, some less so.
Whereas the base necessity of hormone driven sexuality is a signal to procreate...Which is the point I was making....Though the ability to construct relative secondary information and control systems has developed considerably over the past 3 or 4 billion years.
So yes, the human and other more highly developed systems, display more diverse and complex responses to endocrinal signalling.
Here is a question for you:
Do Plants and/or Fungi that also possess hormonal control systems, therefore, fall in love and enjoy recreational sex?
Exist: Have objective reality or being.
Well objectivity/subjectivity are something of a moot point, in so much as both rely upon the internal sensory derived processes and conclusions of internal systems...Hence I always suggest that objectivity is always based upon a subjective assessment of acquired data...Green is just that...So yes in that context Green exists as per definition.
Mathematics also, in so much as mathematics is a well established thought construct derived from sensory input, and therefore also from the thinking organisms point of view, even if we prefer to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity...Abstract or concrete...Bearing in mind that concrete is as far as we are able to know only born in mind, just as abstract is.
In simple terms if I wish to paint my kitchen with green paint, I choose green paint.
And if I want to know the price of 8 bananas I work it out...Even if they are on a 4 for 3 offer.
Of course, internal systems function, analysis and conclusions may beg to differ, relative to a more or less complex appreciation of relevant information.
Go Sidewalker.
So, welcome aboard Captain, are you new or a rehash?
And given my age, Captain Hook and a married woman have an acquired tendency to seem contradictory.
Nonetheless, hopefully you will hang around for a while, as your input is good and thought provoking.
Go look up what "love" is scientific. You're now being dismissive. It's a clear indication you don't know how the human body works. I provided resources and a general definition of "oxytocin". You're literally now just being naive as a refusal to learn or even research. This is my last reply.
Hormones have influence on emoitions as well as rely on hormones to maintain stability aka "Storotin". Humans rely on hormones to function properly.
https://neurolaunch.com/serotonin-vs-dopamine-vs-oxytocin/
Serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin are often referred to as the brain’s happiness trio, playing crucial roles in regulating our mood, emotions, and overall well-being. These three neurotransmitters work in concert to influence various aspects of our mental and physical health, from our sleep patterns to our social interactions.
https://diversedaily.com/oxytocin-and-social-bonding-the-role-of-peptide-modulation-in-trust-and-affiliation/
Oxytocin, often celebrated as the ‘love hormone,’ plays a pivotal role in various aspects of human behavior and social interaction. Discovered in the early 20th century, this neuropeptide is synthesized in the hypothalamus and subsequently transported to the posterior pituitary gland, from where it is released into the bloodstream and the central nervous system. It is primarily known for its role in childbirth and lactation; however, its influence extends far beyond these biological functions.
In humans, oxytocin is implicated in fostering social bonding and enhancing emotional connections. Research indicates that this peptide significantly modulates trust, empathy, and attachment between individuals. For instance, its release during interactions such as hugging or bonding experiences can intensify feelings of closeness and enhance interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, studies have suggested that oxytocin administration may increase pro-social behaviors, making individuals more inclined to form connections with others.
Read here more about sex and how it effects people
https://mindlabneuroscience.com/brain-chemicals-during-sex/
We aren't plants. Plants don't have cognitive functions. Plants are multicelluar photosynthetic organisms
Humans are homo-sapiens who are sentient beings.
https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution
The only social concept of sex for procreation is mainly found in religion and certain cultures.
Biology and nature in the term "sex for procreation" is a nuance. Their is no strict binary code to state sex is solely for reproduction. Many animals including us perform sex acts beyond the reason for babies. Masterbation, oral sex, social bonding ect...
There even animals that don't need males or sex for making babies. Called "parthenogenesis"
Humans literally perform sex acts beyond baby purposes.
Whereas the base necessity of hormone driven sexuality is a signal to procreate...
Just adding this here
Homosexuality, bisexuality and other forms of Sexualities disprove your whole point.
Males can have romantic feelings towards other males as well as females to females.
Humans aren't the only species to even perform same sex relationships.
Perfect example: Albatrosses
https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/politics/posts/ra/women-and-rape?comment_number=47
Biology and nature in the term "sex for procreation" is a nuance
*Only true to a spefic species*. Not "nuance" .got my word mix up.
Actually we sort of agree.
Though typically (but obviously with good reason) your interpretation of biological function is from the point of view of modern human and all the conceptually driven juxtapositions of base function and thought constructs therein.
So I say chemical signalling and you say love.
Perhaps I am too unemotional.
And like I said to you previously on DebateArt, recreational sex and procreational sex are basically one and the same...Though who what or how one achieves satisfaction recreationally these days, is well explored.
Further...Sexual reproduction is not exclusively the remit of the Animal Kingdom and so by implying that sentience is a key factor of sexuality you do somewhat admit that there is a distinction to be made between base function and overthought.
And thanks very much for the biology lesson...Reminded me of my biology teacher when I was 13 or so.
And as I got older, I realised that my body had been stringing me along all my post pubescent life...Still tries to.
See above...I forgot to tag you.
Exist: Have objective reality or being.
Well objectivity/subjectivity are something of a moot point, in so much as both rely upon the internal sensory derived processes and conclusions of internal systems...Hence I always suggest that objectivity is always based upon a subjective assessment of acquired data...Green is just that...So yes in that context Green exists as per definition.
Mathematics also, in so much as mathematics is a well established thought construct derived from sensory input, and therefore also from the thinking organisms point of view, even if we prefer to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity...Abstract or concrete...Bearing in mind that concrete is as far as we are able to know only born in mind, just as abstract is.
In simple terms if I wish to paint my kitchen with green paint, I choose green paint.
And if I want to know the price of 8 bananas I work it out...Even if they are on a 4 for 3 offer.
Of course, internal systems function, analysis and conclusions may beg to differ, relative to a more or less complex appreciation of relevant information.
Go Sidewalker.
I’m just trying to understand the argument between you and CaptainHook, I am very interested in the subject matter of your debate, and it seems to me you are both arguing from the same fundamental position. Just trying to clarify.
You both seem to be reducing “Love” to physical/chemical processes in the brain, and I’m not sure what the point of that is. Are you saying it’s not real, or in some way less real, than the brain processes behind it, or what?
The fact is, everything you experience has neural correlates, your answer here seems to acknowledge that, so pointing out that love is a matter of physical/chemical processes in the brain seems irrelevant to the discussion. So, I guess the question becomes, are you pointing that out to establish that you equate love with its neural correlates, or that love exists on a different level of reality, more real, less real, something like that. I find your debate with Cappy interesting, just trying to understand it.
As far as mind/brain goes, do you think mental states are identical to physical brain states, or that mind is an "emergent" property of brain, or are you a dualist? Do you think mind and brain are ontologically independent entities.
I’m a dualist, I think the mind is fundamentally immaterial and therefore must be treated as a separate philosophical concept.
Well, mind is, in so much as undeniable...Therefore existent in some way.
My question to you would be, what is "immaterial"?
Though for sure, the big question all boils down to the distinction between something and nothing.
And Yes I too came to the conclusion that the Captain and I were essentially coming from the same place in terms of process and function. Though the Captain was keen to embellish base process and function and label the effects with words such as love...Hence "love" is a hormone named oxytocin...Hmmmm, no it isn't, but I understand where they are coming from...Overthink is undeniably the human condition and that which sets us apart from other primates and other species.
So, sex is for procreation, though over the intervening billions of years of species development, only homo-sapiens has come up with the alternative notions and labels that define hormones as love, or love as hormones, and that recreational sex is more than a derivative of procreational sex.
