I think we need a discussion here on instinctive biological needs as animals versus self mastery

[malaise]

My thesis is that sex is a basic biological necessity for females and males.
Many human beings learn or are taught self mastery - basic disciplines which incorporate self discipline, right from wrong, etc. , but not all human beings learn or practice self-mastery.
Additionally, under different scenarios - drugs (legal and illegal), mental illness, anger, etc. people revert to their instincts as animals.
The issue is not simply feminism versus men's rights or men's rights versus feminism - it is about animal instincts versus self-mastery and there are human beings who have never been exposed to the notion of self-discipline let alone self-mastery. We live what we learn and some are never taught.
Discuss

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

In Haudenosaunee culture, there is a concept that defines "how to become fully human." Much like your OP, it identifies that we are one with all life on earth, and thus have the instincts and passions of "animals." Yet we have the potential to reach a higher moral-ethical-spiritual level, and that it is the mastery of self, that we actually become fully human.

An important part of this can be found in one of the lessons taught to children from an early age: think for yourself, act for others.

[malaise]

3. Thoughtful as usual

Good morning Waterman

[tavalon]

56. We are, or can be, the mind of Gaia

It really is the highest calling one can aspire to. And no matter which way I look, the centerpiece of becoming truly human, is service. The key for recovering codependents like me is learning when service to others is without strings because if it has strings, it's self serving.

After much thought, I just started volunteering at a no kill animal shelter. My first day on the job, I cleaned up pee, poop, walked what seemed like a thousand dogs and every minute I was watching them and interacting with them, knowing that doing what is best for them and what is best to help them get adopted is all that matters in that moment.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Good idea, but why do I suspect it won't go well?

[malaise]

4. Hence the hide smilies

[winter is coming]

5. IMO, empathy is a vital aspect of self-mastery. Without empathy, many people would not even see the

point in striving for self-mastery. Some people never learn empathy, either because no one tries to teach it to them or they're truly incapable of learning it. That's not a touchy-feely puppies-and-rainbows issue, either. A lot of the bad shit in the world happens when people treat other people as if they're scenery instead of fellow human beings.

We can talk about misogyny or entitlement vis a vis Rodger, but IMO those are merely outward expressions of an inward reality: the only person inhabiting Rodger's world was Rodger.

[malaise]

7. Teaching is one thing but often the abused becomes the abuser

Empathy is very important as well but learning to be kind when all you've known is cruelty is not easy.
I agree with you though - and as H2OMan pointed out

think for yourself, act for others.

I still think learning to say no one oneself is the most important element of self-mastery.

[Inkfreak]

71. Empathy. Well said!

[MineralMan]

6. Well, I think that sex is a biological drive but not a necessity, really.

Humans are mammals and primates. Sex for humans is a mammal thing, pretty much. It's most enjoyable when both people involved are able to channel their inner mammal.

Since evolution has given humans a regular periodic fertility period, humans can enjoy sex virtually any time, and that's also an evolutionary thing. Perhaps it's there because humans really needed couples to survive in earlier times, since human infants are helpless for quite a long period. So, a willingness to have sex was a survival skill as a means of keeping couples together.

That's the mammal part. But, we're also thinking mammals and have a pretty complex intellect. Sometimes, our ability to think gets in our own way, sadly. It causes us all sorts of difficulties, especially when it comes to our mammalian nature. As you say, we have developed the ability to defer some mammalian drives for social reasons, since we don't do so well except in groups.

Very complex issues, really. Lots of studying has been done on this complexity. And lots of people fall outside the norms and social structures. Many problems ensue from that.

[malaise]

10. This

And lots of people fall outside the norms and social structures. Many problems ensue from that.

[MineralMan]

15. In many ways, it's amazing that it happens no more often

than it does. Outside of the norms and social structures is where most violence and criminal behavior occurs. Some societies seem to have less of some of it than others. The United States is not one of those, it seems, unfortunately.

[Eleanors38]

64. Humans haven't been at this for a long time, and in urban

settings, only for a few thousand years. Reconciling individual liberties with societal obligations and norms within a nation state, only a few hundred.

Creativity, inventiveness, and instincts are often viewed as synonymous and autonomous. Some wish to leave it there, and have little patience for society. But the acknowledgement of that tension is to legitimize its existence. To ignore, resist or fight it does not deny it. In the name of a plague of technologies which put social order in ones hand, some folks seem bent on reverting back to Alley Oop.

[MineralMan]

83. Very true. Wars, large and small, are other symptoms of our failure

to overcome our genetic heritage through social pressures. We're still a territorial, aggressive sort of mammal. We try, but it's a very difficult heritage to overcome. Frankly, I doubt we will ever completely socialize ourselves.

[Eleanors38]

85. I agree. Curiously, the biggest threat to territorial "instints"

is not the musings of Marx, or the hippy-dippy notions of a property-less future, but the rise of trans-national corporate power, whose adherents seem not to give a fig about sovereignty, that bedrock of security and self-identity. They will face the problem, however, of how to use coercive power once the legitimacy, which sovereignty and nationalism confers, is gone.

[geek tragedy]

8. Sex is a desire, not a need.

Unsatisfied, a word he often uses is need
He is usually really wired on that cheap trucker speed
Last time he was at my house, he tried to walk away with my weed
Jeff plays bass, Mark and I play rhythm
Dan and Gary play lead

[malaise]

12. I think for many human beings

sex reduces the anxiety level. I am no expert but I think it is an instinctive need.
Self mastery may make some folks survive without it.

[geek tragedy]

18. It helps, but you can live without it.

Especially when you get past your 30's.

[fadedrose]

20. Are you past your 30's?

If not, speak for yourself.....

From personal experience, you are 40 years too early. May not have it, but it's a desire that one is born with and takes self-mastery to overcome....

[geek tragedy]

21. Yes, it's a desire, but no it is not a need.

The word 'need' gets used too often.

[fadedrose]

19. When I first read your OP

I thought of sex.

Isn't It the reason most people marry or don't, with or without a higher kind of love?

People who make sex toys, dildos, etc., (stuff I don't own or have unfortunately never seen, are making money I'm sure, even tho I believe their goods are "hidden" from the walk-in public to avoid customer shame.

I think self-mastery includes self-gratification if needed regardless of being warned of blindness, or finding ways other than sex that fill in the blanks that everyone has, like learning and understanding religion, earth origins, nature, or even stuff that other people are doing (like Mylie Cyrus-sp-) with their tongues....

Self-mastery does mean thinking for yourself by overcoming people and surroundings, not the easiest thing, living with or without others' approval or dislike.

It's sort of like kidding one's self until something happens that exposes basic needs, call them desires if you like, like overeating, and luxuries we're told we need. Can real self-mastery even be possible?

Good OP. Makes you think (something DU hardly ever does) .

[dawg]

22. I would never marry someone for sex.

And I *would* marry someone I could never have sex with, although that would be a real bummer.

To me, sex is the dessert. Love and friendship are the meal.

Of course, right now, sex is just the desert.

[MrMickeysMom]

94. So, sex with whatever means reaches orgasm, not necessarily with another sentient being, then...

But, then, after exercising at this level, you just might go away from it for a while, or permanently, yet, this might be okay, too.

You see… it depends upon what we humans feel is sensual or sexual in nature. If I could use a paraplegic and a nymphomaniac as an example, some have sex without orgasm, but they satisfy a similar desire. Some people fuck like crazy and they never feel they can have reached a survival stage.

[el_bryanto]

26. It's not an individual need but it is a species need

Until we perfect cloning at least.

Bryant

[geek tragedy]

38. yes, though I believe this is a discussion about individual behaviors

I do not think anyone is concerned that human procreation will slow down any time soon.

[Silent3]

42. The problem with saying "sex is a desire, not a need" is that homophobes...

...use that reasoning to say that they don't care what gays desire, what would make gays happy, defining the "right thing to do", as they see it, to ignore their nature and live like a hetero anyway, or just don't have sex at all.

Because of that, I think it's a lot more important to have a consistent and compassionate view of what the "right thing" is, and to what degree it's anyone else's business to worry about what you do and what makes you happy, than to talk about self control. Self control is important, of course, but only at the point where you losing self control threatens someone else's equal right to self-determination and safety.

[geek tragedy]

45. You're conflating sex and companionship/relationships

Men do not need someone else to induce their orgasms. Neither do women.

For a variety of reasons, it's greatly preferable for people to seek relationships where such benefits are mutual.

But no one is going to die if they don't ejaculate inside another human being.

[Silent3]

63. There are a lot of things that won't KILL you to miss out on...

...but you still don't want the government limiting your freedom based on that.

If conservatives said that they wanted to bring back anti-sodomy laws, but they wouldn't outlaw men living with each other so long as they didn't have sex with each other, I hardly think you'd accept that as an enlightened legal stance, simply because it wouldn't kill anyone to comply with those laws.

[geek tragedy]

65. Um, wha? What does that have to do with

Rodger?

If something is a need, that implies a duty on the part of others to provide it.

[Silent3]

68. Go back to my first post in this thread...

...I didn't say anything about trying to redefine a "want" as a "need" in order to try to impose some obligation upon anyone to fulfill the wants of another. It's even questionable sometimes how much obligation we have to meet the needs of others, so I'm hardly advocating mandatory fulfillment of desires.

What I'm talking about is not fulfillment, but imposed or implied duties, legally or socially, to forego a desire just because it's a "mere" desire. The phrase you used, ""sex is a desire, not a need" is often used by people who aren't simply trying to free one person from any obligation to fulfill another's desires, but using that very same phrase as an excuse to interfere with consensual fulfillment of desires.

[geek tragedy]

73. Oh, this is about prostitution then? nt

[Silent3]

86. I suppose it could be, even though that's not what I had in mind.

Since at this point I have to wonder if you're being deliberately coy for some reason, I'll either wait for a more sensible question, or leave my intent as clear as my plain words, as there is no secret meaning for you to cleverly expose.

[geek tragedy]

89. I am merely stating that sex is not an individual need such as medical care,

water, food, income, shelter, clothing, etc.

There is no right to sex, only a right to be left alone by the government while seeking a willing, mutual partner.

[Silent3]

91. But the words you used to assert that it isn't a need...

...are also words used by people with a more intrusive agenda. Some will say that because sex isn't a "need" (a more slippery word than many would think), there is an obligation for people to abstain from even consensual behavior, claiming that there's some greater "moral" or societal need for people to "control themselves".

[geek tragedy]

92. well, some will say stupid shit no matter what

reality is that people have to cope with not getting laid, and that's their responsiblity, no one else's, however you and the word police feel is best to describe

[malaise]

107. A duty?

Why? Is it not an individual's own responsibility to find a compatible mate.
I don't see how or why anyone has a duty to provide anyone else with sex?

[geek tragedy]

110. if something is really a fundamental need along the lines of water and clothing,

we don't say "not our problem" if they can't find it.
that's my point

[malaise]

112. Which is why society provides

open spaces, clubs and a gazillion places for folks to meet, interact, find a partner (or however many they want) and have sex.

[geek tragedy]

113. sure, but that's not the same as it being a NEED

progressives in society generally are not willing to see people go without needs without intervening--lack of medical care, homelessness, starvation, etc.

progressives are willing to shrug their shoulders and say "too bad so sad" if young men can't get laid.

[JVS]

9. on the species level its a need

On the individual level it isn't.

[bemildred]

11. Yes. nt

[rrneck]

13. When you get up in the morning and go outside

you have to deal with physics and chemistry in the world around you. Food, shelter, danger and pleasure are part of life. You also have to deal with physics and chemistry inside you. Your heart has to pump blood and you have to metabolize nutrients and wotnot. You also have to deal with the effects of your own DNA which is solely concerned with propagating itself into the next generation.

You might consider your body part of your environment with your consciousness suspended between the chemistry of your brain and the rest of the world. That's the magic of a mind that can reflect on itself and project itself into the reflections of others. Some people are good at it, others are not. And a few simply don't have the ability to do that. A few of those people do truly terrible things. It's a statistical inevitability, like being struck by lightning or contracting a terminal disease.

[malaise]

16. Excellent post

Deep!

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. "Biology" is a get out of jail free card that excuses and rationalizes only some behaviors. n/t

[redqueen]

17. Sex is a want, not a need.

Sexual release can be achieved via masturbation anyway, so that makes sex with a partner even less of a 'necessity'.

[rrneck]

23. We need sex to perpetuate the species.

It's about the most basic need there is.

[redqueen]

24. That is not an individual need that ties into "self mastery". nt

[rrneck]

25. Yes, it's an individual need.

It's coded in our DNA. Each member of a species needs to reproduce. That's how evolution works.

[redqueen]

28. You will not die without it. That's how you differentiate needs from wants. nt

[rrneck]

31. Your DNA will die without it.

The need to reproduce is as old as the species and that need is built into each member of it. Redefining need into "personal need" is a narcissistic reinterpretation designed for consumer consumption. We need to reduce our environmental footprint. We need to live ethically to avoid conflict. We need to exercise empathy to promote civilized behavior. Some live without having to do those things, but that doesn't obviate the need to do so.

[redqueen]

35. Not interested in specious word games. nt

[rrneck]

39. You just started something you couldn't finish.

I guess you didn't want to badly enough.

[Little Star]

49. Sperm Banks.

[rrneck]

52. Collaberative behaivor

that made the civilization and technology which developed sperm banks. There were no upper paleolithic sperm banks.

[boston bean]

58. Couple of things.

You are almost making an argument that women not having sex with men is somehow going against nature.

Second, If every sperm is so sacred to pass along DNA, I wonder why the focus in politics is on restricting womens bodies. Shouldn't they be protecting every sperm as well. Since the species depends on it and all.

[rrneck]

67. Actually, I'm arguing the opposite.

It seems, from what I have read on the subject, that altruistic behavior can be genetically advantageous. So while the particulars of whether or not any given woman has sex may impact her life in any number of ways, the impulse toward altruism benefits the species in any number of ways.

Altruism requires a theory of mind. Without the ability to understand others on their own terms civilization would be impossible. Remember the golden rule? That's an exercise in the theory of mind. Many argue that it's also the foundation of human ethics.

Our DNA has designed our bodies to have sex. But our DNA does not concern itself with the specifics of individual behavior. We have evolved with the ability for self reflection and all the stuff that goes along with it like ethics and imagination. Like I said in the post above, our bodies are part of our environment.

At least that's about as close to an understanding of the issue as I have come so far.

[rrneck]

80. And oh, your reference to sperm reminded me of this...

[MineralMan]

87. So? I have chosen not to reproduce. I made that choice at age 20.

I did not choose not to have sex, though. While sex is a biological drive, and most of us are more or less driven to seek it out, humans are able to choose not to reproduce. That's pretty much unique to us, I believe. Even if we do, though, we are designed to do so, and the desire or drive for sex is strong.

However, we do OK without it. We are able to function in all other areas if we do not have access to sex with other persons. Here's an example of that. I was stationed in Turkey at a remote Air Force base for 15 months. The base was all male. There were legal brothels in the nearby city, but the large majority of men stationed at that base, all for 15 months, did not visit those brothels. Some did, of course, but it was a small minority of those stationed at that base.

Sex was available. It was cheap. It was, however, not voluntary for the women in that brothel. They were there to pay off debts, and the brothel was run by the Turkish government. Mostly, the debts were those of their husbands. We all knew about the brothels and who the women were in those brothels. A majority of the men at that base did not use those brothels.

None of us were in any way harmed by going without sex with another person for 15 months. We worked at our jobs. We read. We watched movies. We played sports. We traveled. Sex was a matter that each person took into his own hands, so to speak. The minority of men who did use the brothels had to ignore the plight of the women in them. The rest of us could not do that, so we skipped it.

I'm now 68 years old. During my life, there have been periods when I did not have a partner. Mostly, though, I have had partners, and long term ones. Each of those relationships was with another person who had decided not to reproduce. My current marriage is 23 years old and counting. Sex? You bet. Sex is good. Kids? Nope.

[Silent3]

70. In what sense do you *need* to live?

People die all the time and the world rolls on.

The distinction between "need" and "want" is complex and contextual, not a bright line delineated purely by fatality.

[valerief]

32. How do we get nuns? nt

[rrneck]

48. Biological Altruism

It won't take long for me to get above my pay grade here, but here's some info on the subject.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/
n evolutionary biology, an organism is said to behave altruistically when its behaviour benefits other organisms, at a cost to itself. The costs and benefits are measured in terms of reproductive fitness, or expected number of offspring. So by behaving altruistically, an organism reduces the number of offspring it is likely to produce itself, but boosts the number that other organisms are likely to produce.

...

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings.

...

The basic idea of kin selection is simple. Imagine a gene which causes its bearer to behave altruistically towards other organisms, e.g. by sharing food with them. Organisms without the gene are selfish—they keep all their food for themselves, and sometimes get handouts from the altruists. Clearly the altruists will be at a fitness disadvantage, so we should expect the altruistic gene to be eliminated from the population. However, suppose that altruists are discriminating in who they share food with. They do not share with just anybody, but only with their relatives. This immediately changes things. For relatives are genetically similar—they share genes with one another. So when an organism carrying the altruistic gene shares his food, there is a certain probability that the recipients of the food will also carry copies of that gene. (How probable depends on how closely related they are.) This means that the altruistic gene can in principle spread by natural selection.

We have the ability to define kinship outside our genetic relationship. People certainly seem willing to sacrifice and even die for a nationality or an idea. I haven't read this book but it is cited frequently in literature on the subject.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9434.html
In his classic study The Expanding Circle, Peter Singer argues that altruism began as a genetically based drive to protect one's kin and community members but has developed into a consciously chosen ethic with an expanding circle of moral concern. Drawing on philosophy and evolutionary psychology, he demonstrates that human ethics cannot be explained by biology alone. Rather, it is our capacity for reasoning that makes moral progress possible. In a new afterword, Singer takes stock of his argument in light of recent research on the evolution of morality.

So while a nun may decide to become a bride of Christ and eliminate her chances of passing on her personal DNA, her decision to aid those who she has chosen to be kin would increase their chances of survival. I think that certainly collaborative behavior has been one of the most important factors in our success as a species.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

43. I'ts not an individual need.

The species doesn't give a tinker's damn about 'individuals'. And we all share something like 99.9% of our DNA. The remaining differences are tied to things like how much melanin we have in our skins, or how we digest lactose, or whether or not our blood cells are malformed in a way that makes us more resistant to certain diseases.

Evolution does not work by every member of a species needing to reproduce. It is not 'planned'. It simply happens because specific changes in DNA that are useful in allowing survival make it more statistically likely that an individual with those changes survives long enough that they might have an opportunity to reproduce. The hunter-gather with more fast-twitch muscle fibers might be better able to catch food in a given environment, and thus not starve. But such a change might not be passed along if he still never does reproduce. And 'evolution' won't care, because it's simply a by-product of existence, not an 'end' or a 'goal'.

[rrneck]

54. Gene-centered view of evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
The gene-centered view of evolution, gene selection theory, or selfish gene theory holds that adaptive evolution occurs through the differential survival of competing genes, increasing the frequency of those alleles whose phenotypic effects successfully promote their own propagation, with gene defined as "not just one single physical bit of DNA [but] all replicas of a particular bit of DNA distributed throughout the world".[1] The proponents of this viewpoint argue that, since heritable information is passed from generation to generation almost exclusively by genetic material, natural selection and evolution are best considered from the perspective of genes.

This is in contrast to the organism-centered viewpoint adopted historically by biologists. Proponents of the gene-centered viewpoint argue that it permits understanding of diverse phenomena such as altruism and intragenomic conflict that are otherwise difficult to explain from an organism-focused perspective.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Explain it to Maslow

[BuelahWitch]

78. Ah, I was going to bring up Maslow.

Glad I looked down the posts first.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Eat, sleep, defecate, procreate; it's what organisms do. n/t

[Eleanors38]

69. I followed that order -- kicked out of bed immediately.

[winter is coming]

114. Yeah, that's a risk, but if you procreate third instead of last, you end up with little shits. n/t

[Eleanors38]

142. HA!

[Laelth]

27. I applaud and encourage this discussion.

My own thoughts on the subject may be found here and here.

I think humans are definitely social and sexual animals. I wouldn't call sex a biological "necessity," but it is a uniquely powerful human drive, and I think we're all happier and healthier when we get it regularly.

-Laelth

[phil89]

29. I don't believe there is evidence that humans have instincts

Our behavior is learned.

[valerief]

33. I doubt I was taught to breathe. nt

[redqueen]

36. The autonomic nervous system is not a collection of instincts. nt

[phil89]

41. Clearly

We need to work on some definitions.

[valerief]

47. Okay, you got me there. :) nt

[Jamaal510]

84. +1

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. Go to any paint store and count the expectant moms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesting_instinct

We're animals, first and foremost.

[valerief]

123. Wow, pregnant women like paint fumes? :) nt

[winter is coming]

143. I guess I flunked nesting, then.

The extent of my "decorating" was buying brightly colored crib sheets... and I chose bright colors to balance out the laundry.

[tavalon]

62. This is not a correct belief

It is known, well known, that humans have instincts, many of which extinguish as being unnecessary and then nurture comes along and encourages desired instincts to take hold.

There is at least one cool Nova show about it and I experience it daily in working with premature infants.

[phil89]

126. There is great debate on this issue.

You're kind of arguing against your premise when you say instinct is nurtured. It is not universally accepted that humans possess instinct. We learn our behavior. Instinct is not nurtured, you are describing learned behaviors. Please get the definitions correct. I get that you work with infants and saw a tv show but that's not convincing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. Sorry. That's just ridiculous.

Guilt, anxiety, greed and fear are undeniably instincts, and we evolved to fear the dark, heights, snakes and spiders as adaptive survival responses.

Those who weren't did not contribute to the gene pool. When faced with potentially dangerous confrontation, the autonomic part of your brain commands your glands to produce adrenaline to help you survive by fighting or fleeing.

https://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Angell/Angell_1906/Angell_1906_p.html

And you don't learn to love your offspring in school.

[phil89]

134. So you cite a psychology book published in 1904?

Not exactly current or relevant. As I said the matter is a source of debate, despite your assertions. I'm not opposed to the idea, I just see no evidence for it and sociologists certainly do not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

139. Who taught you to like fatty foods?

You instinctively like them because they enabled your ancestors to survive drought and harsh winters.

[tavalon]

147. Have you ever seen a baby placed wet and squalling

on its mother's chest immediately following delivery and watched the baby begin to peddle its feet around to get to a good position for breastfeeding and latch, with no help from anyone? I've seen it up close and personal hundreds of times. I've also seen it on a show but it is much cooler when you're one foot away.

Your tone is dismissive. And, as you can see by my less than timely reply, I'm not here all that often, so while a pissing contest after an especially hard night at work would be somewhat satisfying, it would also be aiming at the wrong person.

Babies are able to birth underwater and do not breath until they are raised out of the water. I've seen that one in real life too. Look, I'm a highly trained professional with decades of experience in prenatal, antepartum and all things natal. That you didn't understand what I was saying but instead chose my phrasing to dismiss my input shows that you don't really have much to counter what I said.

Do you?

[malaise]

97. I disagree n/t

[phil89]

127. Based on what?

nt

[closeupready]

119. Actually, social science studies have found universally that cannibalism and incest

are taboo - i.e., every culture, whether having developed in isolation or in connection with other cultures, regard these things as unacceptable. Thus giving credence to the idea that we are born with at least these two instincts.

[phil89]

125. Those are things we learned

not instinctual.

[closeupready]

136. No. That is the very point being studied, and instinct is reinforced.

Anyway, I can see that this type of discussion is destined to become pedantic, and I have no interest in debating and providing peer-reviewed research, etc. So we can simply agree to disagree.

[sufrommich]

34. I got the impression reading Rodger's manifesto

that it had very little to do with sex and everything to do with his perception that the women he fumed over were status symbols he couldn't attain.He's a wealthy kid and I doubt Santa Barbara is bereft of prostitutes,he could have lost his virginity if that was really his desire. He spoke about refusing to find work if it was beneath him and I got the impression that his need to place himself above others clouded his perception of women too. I doubt those beautiful sorority girls were any more human to him that his BMW or his ability to fly first class,he broadcasted his status symbols as an extension of his self worth,he couldn't acquire what he considered their human equivalent and it enraged him.

[redqueen]

37. Thank you. nt

[Little Star]

50. Bingo

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. My impression too. n/t

[Raksha]

81. It sure sounds that way.

I can't bring myself to read his "manifesto," but based on the excerpts others have quoted it sounds like you are spot on: "I doubt those beautiful sorority girls were any more human to him that his BMW or his ability to fly first class,he broadcasted his status symbols as an extension of his self worth,he couldn't acquire what he considered their human equivalent and it enraged him."

[malaise]

102. This thread really isn't about him

It's more about some of the threads I've seen here since his slaughter of innocents.
Rodger had serious mental issues. His biggest problem was how much he hated himself or anyone who didn't fit his imaginary profile of what matters - human or house.

That said, sex is part of the human package and we had a standard joke as young women 'it is better to be a has been than a never was,'
I never thought being buried a virgin was a virtuous act - just mere stupidity and fear of what is perfectly natural and instinctive. That doesn't mean that I'm entitled to my version of the perfect man and the same is true for any man including the clearly deranged young man.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. Discuss? Ok, I think your opening thesis is wrong.

Sex (and thus reproduction) is a necessity for the species, not the individual. Some people end up having sex thousands or even tens of thousands of times during a lifetime, some end up never having sex. As it turns out, sex is not necessary for survival. Basic biological necessities are oxygen, food, water. Not sex, even if people really enjoy it or want it all the time.

Having sex, or more likely not having sex, is also largely a matter of external factors, rather than 'self-mastery' as well. We have various laws that rule out various kinds of sexual interactions, and various societal messages that make various people 'unacceptable' or less attractive as partners. And as Mr Rodgers proved, even having money, good looks, and winning the birth lottery won't get you sexual partners if you're too scared of normal interactions to even try to talk to any of the people you find yourself attracted to, but instead just go through life assuming you'll be rejected and wondering why people of your preferred gender aren't just automatically throwing themselves at you.

Rodgers did not remain a virgin because he had any sort of 'self-mastery'. He did so because he never even tried to get another human in whom he had sexual interest to view him as a potential partner.

[panader0]

44. In Hinduism there are the seven chakras.

These are vertical up the spine. The lowest, associated with the anus, is about food, the necessity of survival. The BM is probably the lowest vibration in our body. The next, moving up, is associated with the genitals, and represents our need to reproduce, a "basic biological necessity."
Next up, the chakra associated with the navel area, representing a desire for power.
Then comes what is called the great leap, up to the heart chakra. It is called the great leap because the three lower chakras are all self-centered, while the heart chakra is about compassion for others.
Then there's one on the throat, one in the third eye, representing enlightenment, and one over the head, like a halo.

I know I have some of that wrong, but it helps me understand myself and others. Everyone can put their energy up or down the chakra line.

[malaise]

103. Nice

[BlancheSplanchnik]

46. yes yes YES!!!

marking for later. This is a big discussion.

Weird how the most important points are not complicated. They're common sense, but willfully overlooked by too many.

[boston bean]

51. Really? I can't wait to see what you have to say,

cause I usually agree, but this OP seems like biology and need for sex made me do it, kind of thinking.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

146. hi bean...

What I was resonating with is the message that, though animalistic urges are a part of all of us simply as part of being human, the whole higher aim of BEING human is to practice purposefully raising ourselves above base instincts. For our individual sake and for the sake of our influence on the people we connect with. The ripple-out effect, you know?

That aim, to polish ourselves, learn the lessons that are our personal" toughies", is necessary. It's the only at to truly change a society.

Movements to shine lite on devolved behaviors or customs are so important. Laws can't change human hearts, but changing the messages that we're exposed to does help turn tides eventually.

I mean, for example, the arc of racism improvement gained widespread traction with Dr MLK and Rosa Parks, Civil Rights activism, Black cultural luminaries....
Eventually, media and entertainment was forced to clean up he they portray blacks. That effort which touched the white masses in their day to day experience as culture consumers, gradually changed deeper acceptable norms.

I'm talking about how the majority of reasonable people have come around to viscerally reacting to slurs like the N word.

This core change in people's hearts, that visceral knowledge in individual minds, that hatred harms, is repulsive, to be shunned, is where the real change in the human condition can finally be seen.

Women have a long way to go to reach that place where slurs against us are clear even to the members of the favored group.



Hrmmmmm, hope that wasn't too rambley! . Ha, let me know if that got muddled.

[malaise]

104. Only because society led by a variety of religions wants

to deny the reality that we are all animals. Truth is we can practice self-mastery without religion

[LanternWaste]

60. Would not 'desire' be more accurate, as 'need' implies that lack of X necessarily results in...

"My thesis is that sex is a basic biological necessity for females and males..."

Would not 'desire' be more accurate, as 'need' implies that lack of X necessarily results in death of the individual? E.g., a need for food and shelter. A need for water and air.

Or is this a rather broadened definition of the word' as one may say "I need a Klondike Bar'?

[dawg]

74. The real question is ....

What would you *do* for one?

[malaise]

106. So why do the vast majority of us want sex

What drives that outside of species' instinct - clearly it was connected to procreation but has evolved way beyond that.

[LanternWaste]

109. Pleasure, I would think.

"So why do the vast majority of us want sex..."

Pleasure, I would hazard; as 'wanting' sex (your qualified query) and 'desiring' sex (my original correction) seem to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. Yet I still see little to no objective evidence validating the premise that sex is an absolute need or requirement, rather than a desire.



"but has evolved way beyond that..."
We often place many imaginary social constructs in our way...

[hue]

61. IMHO sexual objectification of women is taught, learned and justified many times by religion.

Women as sexual objects are also used to sell cars, toothpaste, drugs etc. by profiteers etc. In some cultures and historically livestock was and still is valued over females. As we know female fetuses are identified using ultrasound and aborted. Women are "covered" or veiled not only in Islam but other Christian religions such as the Amish & some Mennonite religions and other far right splinter groups for example.

Animals instinctively do not objectify the other sex. They act appropriately to maintain their species. WE--HUMANS--transfer our own shame and other negative thoughts and feelings onto animals.
Animals treat each other MUCH BETTER than Humans treat and view each other.

A woman is assaulted & raped worldwide around every 20 seconds. Most rapes are hidden & not reported so we really don't know the frequency of rape. Animals do not do that.

I think biology is better than the human brain many times.

[closeupready]

66. Sex is a need. Just like water.

That's not controversial (except on DU, of course).

[LanternWaste]

75. Lack of water necessarily results in the death of the individual.

Lack of water necessarily results in the death of the individual. The same cannot be said of the sexual impulse, hence, 'need' is not an accurate term.

[Little Star]

77. lol! Funniest thing I've read in a long time.

[closeupready]

88. lol - I'm a salty old DU whore - been here 10 years and let me tell you,

after a few years here, you'll eventually stop laughing.

[redqueen]

98. Why would you refer to yourself as a "whore"? nt

[closeupready]

117. In informal conversation, it's a way of saying

I've lived a fairly rich, robust life.

I consider you a friend, so I'll edit it/delete it if you wish. Cheers, redqueen.

[redqueen]

118. Not necessary, I was just curious

[dawg]

79. Then why am I not dead?

And why do I suddenly feel so damn thirsty?

[hue]

82. How do the Catholic Nuns survive? We know how the C priests survive...

[geek tragedy]

90. it's also controversial in medical schools and biology classrooms nt

[malaise]

99. LOL

[LittleBlue]

72. It's a need in the same way that shelter and human interaction

are needs. We can technically continue to live without either, but in a miserable state.

[malaise]

111. Precisely

[Orsino]

76. Sex is one of the many needs of social animals.

Rare individuals seem to be able to live healthy lives without it, though we should never assign too much weight to self-reporting on the subject.

People unable to integrate into society can be profoundly damaged, and enforced abstinence can be terrible on its own.

[geek tragedy]

93. if it is such a real need, then people will modify their behavior

such that it makes them able to attract willing partners.

not getting laid doesn't prevent someone from integrating into society

[Orsino]

95. No one said so.

But since you brought it up, let's look at your assertion that people will modify their behavior for sex. I think that's demonstrably true for healthy people. The unhealthy ones? Less true.

[geek tragedy]

96. Unhealthy people will usually make things worse

for themselves rather than better.

Not anyone else's responsibility.

[malaise]

116. Precisely

That is my point.

[Rex]

100. Murdering random people out of a feeling of 'sexual frustration' is not instinctual but is abnormal

Also, I believe murdering someone (or groups of people) is counter-productive toward eventually having sexual intercourse. The issue is mental illness. Has nothing to do with sex drive imo.

Mental illness, a gun and easy targets.

[malaise]

108. Rex this is about our response to Rodger - not about Rodger

As I pointed out Rodger had mental issues which apparently mashed up his perspective on everything. As another DU wrote elsewhere the family dynamic may have had an influence.

I don't expect self-mastery from all of humanity and certainly not for someone with mental problems.

That said it is my view that the vast majority of human beings need sex.

[Rex]

120. Deciding not to murder someone is not self-mastery. That is basic common sense.

All these posts making excuses for a lack of common sense are a real eye opener.

[malaise]

121. So other than self mastery what explains how rational folks have the self control or discipline to

walk away from situations where others end up maiming or murdering someone or many. What is common sense to us makes no sense to people who lack self control for whatever reason.
Our parents taught us to think about consequences before reacting - isn't that part of self-mastery?

[Rex]

122. For whatever reason? Look, this is three key things. Mental illness, a gun and easy targets.

He lacked self control due to obvious mental illness reasons. Why do you think it involves his parents? This guy was going to therapy since age 8. I think you and many here are trying to overkill the situation with unneeded elaboration. Why do that? The guy was sick in the head.

This is about guns, mental illness and easy to reach targets that were harmless.

[malaise]

124. But I said that in the OP - mental issue factors, drugs, etc. reduce our capacity for self mastery

We agree he was mentally ill. We also agree that his rampage was about guns and mental illness.

But this thread is about self mastery and biological instincts re sex - it is not about Rodger except for responses other DUers posted around his twisted life.
And in response to you I am suggesting that common sense is easy for the rational because we practice elements of self-mastery on a daily basis.

[Rex]

129. So then we both agree that he was irrational and had some kind of deep seated hatred toward

women? To me, the sex drive issue sounds like a poorly thought of excuse. How do we know he simply didn't want to kill some people? Obviously common sense means nothing to someone that crosses the line between sanity and murderous insanity.

I think self control is extremely easy toward many issues, probably just me and those include when I might not be in the right state of mind due to drugs, lack of sleep etc.. his statements don't make rational sense...so there is no reason to believe self control is going to be there either when needed.

IOW, if we are talking about self mastery, I would argue that people that have severe mental issues have a hard time controlling their impulses. Rodgers seems to be one of those individuals. Still, I have a hard time believing the reason for the rampage was lack of sex. Many other problems were there long before he thought that one up imo.

[malaise]

131. I think his deepest hatred was hatred of himself- deep self esteem issues

but he slaughtered men and women, because the 'snotty sorority ladies' liked other men but not him.

He wrote it you know - he said he was jealous and envious of everyone who did things better than him and hated the guys the girls liked - was it misogyny - probably but he also hated men so madness is probably the best description. Remember he called them obnoxious men who the girls liked more than him and laughingly said he was going to punish them all. I don't know who he hated more because he stabbed three men before heading to the sorority house.
Did socialization re views of women's place in society and his 'white' male sense of entitlement play a role in this madness - sure.

[Rex]

132. Yes I totally agree with that, he hated himself the most and projected that upon his victims.

Just imagine the level of hatred you must have to ENJOY stabbing your room mates to death - just so you can be alone when you torture women that you bring home? The complexity of that thought process makes be wonder just when he lost his sanity.

Maybe that is how it works. Maybe a person finally loses their ability to control their impulses, do to ongoing mental problems and they 'snap'.

[malaise]

133. Indeed but imagine just taking a bath after killing them then

dressing and heading out to the sorority house in your pretty car to continue your retribution orgy.
When that didn't work he just opened fire on anyone in his path - that is madness on steroids. The dam broke.

[Rex]

135. He lost his humanity and never got it back.

We are some really strange creatures at times.

[malaise]

137. I had a close cousin who had mental issues

The worst thing is that you never become accustomed to their problems and you wish you could understand what's going on in their heads. It's hard all around so you just support them and love them. At least he was never around guns.
He died nine years ago.

Given that we are some strange creatures at times , we really need to do something about guns.

[Rex]

138. We do, this excuse that we cannot do anything about guns is BS.

Our love for death toys is not healthy as a nation imo.

[TygrBright]

101. But are you master of your own domain? n/t

[malaise]

141. Explain! n/t

[TygrBright]

144. See this:

wickedly,
Bright

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. "... sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth.."

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock

[malaise]

115. ROFL

[brewens]

128. I've had the same ideas rattling around in my head regarding breeding.

We have people deterimine to reproduce regardless of circumstances. Never mind earning a living and reaching a level where you can afford to raise children responsibly. Nope. Just go for it and hope things work out. I mean you HAVE to have babies right?

[Shankapotomus]

140. I have to disagree

Sex is an activity preference. It is not just instincts vs. self mastery. Those who have shown no proclivity toward controlling it can grow tired of sex just like any other activity. The more you are allowed to engage in an activity, the greater will be your interest in different experiences after awhile. That would not happen if sex was instinctual.

If all you experienced when young, for instance, was all the mindless sex you wanted but never any deep understanding from anyone or meaningful closeness, what do you think will be your driving urge to experience? If you were always surrounded with people the first half of your life and never had any privacy, what do you think you will seek out in the second half of your life?


What you desire depends on what levels of Maslow's hierarchy you experienced in the past and what experiences you are suffering a deprivation of. You will value higher that which you lack and feel the need to experience. No single experience/activity reigns supreme in a person's hierarchy of values. It is variable depending on your experiences.

[noiretextatique]

145. sex is not a biological necessity

You will die without food and water. Lack if sex will not kill you.