From: passaret@copernicus.crd.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Summary: we're animals, whether we like it or not.
Keywords: Darwin loves a winner
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:29:29 GMT
	<1992Oct5.023340.5327@netcom.com> <1992Oct6.022727.26928@panix.com>
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati OH

# In message <1992Oct6.022727.26928@panix.com>, 
# gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

gcf> This is pure speculation, but my theory is that the
gcf> reason human beings have very large sexual organs with
gcf> respect to body size compared to most mammals, are in
gcf> heat most of the time, and have a sex drive far beyond
gcf> the need to reproduce in spite of the most dire
gcf> environmental conditions, is that the emotional result of
gcf> sex is important in keeping humans from killing one
gcf> another.

1) Human beings are not "in heat" most of the time.  Estrus
   does not occur in human females at all, and ovulation
   occurs, as you should be aware, every 4 weeks or so.  You
   are confusing the manifestation of libido with the well
   defined biological phenomenon of estrus.  Sloppy thinking.

2) "Sex drive", by which I assume you mean libido or the
   manifestation thereof, has largely been societal and
   environmental in man since he first began forming cohesive
   societies.  The instinct itself is, therefore, very
   difficult to quantify.  I would welcome any references 
   you have on the subject, as I have been unable to find any
   modern ones which compare the human version to any other.

3) Pack and tribal behavior is not limited to groups linked by
   sexual contact, nor is killing strictly confined to those
   outside that group, especially in humans.  If it was, we
   would not have all these "discussions" about spousal abuse
   and notification causing murder, would we?  It sounds good,
   but it's pseudo-science at best.  Fighting over sexual 
   "seniority" is common in primates, and humans are no
   better.  Tribe/pack "wars" occur in nature when population
   pressure drives expansion into adjacent territories or when
   strong groups attempt to subjugate weak ones to expand
   their foraging range or obtain access to better sources of
   food or water.  Humans have more "stuff", but the drive is
   not much different.  If anything we have invented more
   reasons to fight (ideology and religion for instance) while
   keeping the old ones around.  Humans have the _capacity_ to
   elevate "reason" over "instinct", but to say that we do is
   another thing altogether.  More often we rationalize a 
   reason to act in the fashion instinct would dictate.

gcf> If you've ever dealt with animals much, including wild ones, 
gcf> you'll probably agree with me that there is no fiercer, 
gcf> more aggressive, or more dangerous animal than a human 
gcf> being.  Sex could be the counterbalance to that aggression.

I've dealt with a lot of animals, wild and otherwise.  There
are animals more fierce than man, more aggressive, and more
dangerous.  Man has the distinction of being the only animal I
have ever had contact with who can display all these
characteristics at the same time, and apply them with an
intellect which makes them all the more hazardous to combat.
I'd still rather wrestle a human than a rhesus, but that's
because the rheseus has an enormous leverage and weaponry
advantage.  The successful human killer would probably never
get close enough for me to grapple anyway.  

gcf> If my theory is accurate, then diverting the sex drive into 
gcf> violence or commerce could have very bad results.  As I say, 
gcf> it's speculative.  But there are plenty of bad results 
gcf> around to support the theory.

Mankind has sublimated sexual desire into its work for
centuries.  Whether this has been good or bad for us is far
too subjective and complex an issue to take up in this forum.
(It will probably end up here anyway.)  My "take" on it is
that it [the sublimation] has been beneficial in terms of
advancing the culture and science of mankind, but that this in
itself may not have been the best route for us to take.
Slower and more gently might have gotten us where we want to
be a lot less painfully, but only time (and a lot more of it
than you or I will ever see) will tell.

                                                        - MM
-- 
passaretti@crd.ge.com           {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret
mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com     {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike
Newsgroups: alt.feminism