RE: BDSM in nature (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


LaTigresse -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 1:40:08 PM)

We are neglecting one possible fact.

Maybe the OP and his sidekick are not quite as evolved as the rest of us...




LadyPact -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 1:44:37 PM)

Been on the site for eight years and *that* is the best you can come up with?

Shit. I did better than that in the last eight hours. [:-]




CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 2:35:04 PM)

quote:

I don't know where you get this conclusion but humans and dogs do NOT see sexual congress in the same light.
They sure do.

quote:

A human can reason, postulate, hell even birth control. The moment a dog walks into CVS and buys a condom, you'd win this one.
That's just sophistication. It's still the same drive, same feelings, same chemistry.

quote:

Fact is, procreation is an instinct, it furthers a species.
The fact is, female dogs don't have sex to "further the species" at all, at least not from their perspective. They have sex because they are horny, and their cunts ache for attention.

quote:

That is why females go into heat, to force males into seeking them out. We as humans have evolved past this, we can have sex for non-procreation reasons, even opt to not have sex at all.
There are actually biological barriers to female dogs receiving a male when they are not in heat. The fact of the matter is that, when they are not in heat, it is difficult and probably painful for the male dog to try to get his penis into her, most likely for both parties. Some female dogs are built differently, but this is unusual.

However, dogs are a highly social animal, and they do engage in courtship behavior whether there is a heat in effect or not.

quote:

And also humans tend to not mark their territory by musking, another side effect of sexual instinct
You haven't met my redneck father, then.

quote:

Dogs, cats, most animals simply make the connection from an action to an emotion. If you ever try to train animals, you know this quite easily. You want the dog to do something, you associate it with either positive or negative feedback. Eventually the dog will come to understand the link.
And humans work in exactly the same way. There is really very little difference between the species in how we go about learning.

The difference, in the case of humans, is that we can take it to a more abstract level. Although there is a little bit of such activity in most placental mammals, humans have a special adaptation that enables us to engage in a more sophisticated level of abstract reasoning. It is a remarkable adaptation, and some of us seem to take it to incredible levels of sophistication.

The primal drives in our behavior, though, are identical to those of your pet dog. Your reasons for having sex are identical. It tickles your nucleus accumbens, and this makes you want to do it over and over and over again.

quote:

Now does the dog "enjoy" getting swatted with a rolled up newspaper every time he poops on the rug? Not very likely, he was just trained not to.
If you have to swat your dog with a rolled-up newspaper, you are failing your dog. Your animal is sufficiently capable of abstract moral reasoning that he ought to feel ashamed just because he knows you are not happy with him. If this is not developing, you are not giving the animal sufficient mental stimulation or emotional interaction.

quote:

We also possesses a pineal gland and a coccyx bone, but these along with the hypothalamus evolved in humans to do more.
You are confusing changes in the inputs with changes in what the glands do with those inputs. The glands don't really require any genetic adaptation. You can go on believing it to be otherwise, but that belief would be baseless.

quote:

Sure, when we were primitive humans, sex was necessary to increase the species, as it is in all animals. But as the millenia passes, we no longer needed to. We no longer needed a tail or webbed feet, and we had to stop having so many children. So yes, the ability to NOT have sex is quite a major leap on the evolutionary scale, because it is hard-wired into every species. To not do it, to choose not to do it, shows some pretty sophisticated brain chemistry, not just bling
We are still beholden to our drives, no matter what kind of spin you try to put on it.

The experience of living in poverty and lacking the means of self-sufficiency puts a woman in a position of feeling powerless. She acts out these feelings by seeking out the company of a strong-looking male, which provides her with a sense of security. This initiates sexual chemistry, which leads to more reproductive opportunities, ergo higher birth rates in poverty-stricken countries.

Ultimately, we are not all that far removed from our ancestors. In fact, we are not all that different from wolves. To pretend otherwise is to forget how much our superiority depends on what we learn during our lifetimes and the environment that we have created to enable us to have such advanced ways of thinking.

Those things are what set us apart from the illiterate savages who make war in Southern Uganda. Our education system, our infrastructure, the philosophy that we grow up on, and all of the other inputs that make our lives different are the real difference.




littlewonder -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 2:38:31 PM)

[8|]




doctorgrey -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 2:53:00 PM)

just let this one die eh?

DrG




mnottertail -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 2:53:47 PM)

Thats the animalistic necro in ya.  lying with dead dogs and whatnot.




doctorgrey -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 2:57:11 PM)

I always tell the truth to my dead dogs, it's the best policy.
They love a bit of it!

DrG




CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 2:59:32 PM)

Hush. I'm proving that BDSM is essential to the survival of human civilization.




Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 3:02:27 PM)

Yeah, I am going to let this discussion die. It would be waaay to hard to describe how evolution actually works, as opposed to instinct. Because clearly I am coming at this from a completely different direction




mnottertail -> RE: BDSM in nature (10/18/2012 3:02:33 PM)

Which is all well and fine, but you could have put that on the back of a matchbook and we would have had a better life for tht effort.   It don't need all this yellow matted custard, dripping from a dead dogs eye shit-o-ree.

Simolena Pilchers.




marsman -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 5:33:30 PM)

I will leave you with two more websites about "Penis Spikes" which all cats appear to have:

Beetle spikes:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/03/01/horrific-beetle-sex-why-the-most-successful-males-have-the/

Human spikes:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-the-penis-lost-its-spikes






NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 5:40:44 PM)

I fail to see how spikey penises make animals BDSMers. The spiked penises are naturally "built right in" and there's no choice involved. It doesn't make them anything except animals with spikey penises.

NBMG




CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 5:58:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NiceButMeanGirl

I fail to see how spikey penises make animals BDSMers. The spiked penises are naturally "built right in" and there's no choice involved. It doesn't make them anything except animals with spikey penises.

NBMG

Of course, and that's the null hypothesis. It's a perfectly valid point-of-view.

Now, some of us find it interesting to speculate on the hypothesis that BDSM is just a sophisticated human expression of a "natural" animal behavior, avoiding the "naturalistic fallacy."

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

Whether or not the hypothesis is actually true is actually of slightly less concern than exploring the limits of it. Our friend here is farming for possible inferential material.

Mind you, it's really very much up-in-the-air whether said inferential material is conclusive. It does, of course, make for interesting and enlightening reading material, though, so it contributes nicely to the flow of conversation.

Whether or not it's actually a fact that BDSM is an extension of instinct-driven behavior is actually so inconclusive that it would actually be foolish to have any "debate" over it. There is such a paucity of information on it that one would think that any reasonable person would avoid making a positive (or "positively negative") claim on it.

Speculating at length about abstract ideas, without any intention of forming solid conclusions about them, is one of those things that us nerds do that other people seem to find utterly incomprehensible. My advice, if you don't like it, is to let the chess club nerds have their fun, and leave them the bloody hell alone. This is their idea of mutual intellectual masturbation, and you are intruding.

Of course, some people are every bit as convinced that the "patriarchy" is hiding behind every tree and under every rock as Republicans in the 1950s were that a "communist" was lurking around every corner and every unopened doorway. This greatly hinders discussion for those of us who really just get a jolly off of talking about geeky shit, and that's part of why these threads never seem to accomplish anything beneficial.

You understand?




JanahX -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 6:01:59 PM)

How lovely of you to have this so accurately analized. Tell me do you have a team of College Professors that sit in with you when you write papers about this subject? NERD.




CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 6:13:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JanahX

How lovely of you to have this so accurately analized. Tell me do you have a team of College Professors that sit in with you when you write papers about this subject? NERD.
I'm married to one, and this kind of shit is pillow talk for us.




JanahX -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 6:38:23 PM)

Im sure.




Darkfeather -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 6:57:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousFerret

quote:

ORIGINAL: NiceButMeanGirl

I fail to see how spikey penises make animals BDSMers. The spiked penises are naturally "built right in" and there's no choice involved. It doesn't make them anything except animals with spikey penises.

NBMG

Of course, and that's the null hypothesis. It's a perfectly valid point-of-view.

Now, some of us find it interesting to speculate on the hypothesis that BDSM is just a sophisticated human expression of a "natural" animal behavior, avoiding the "naturalistic fallacy."

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

Whether or not the hypothesis is actually true is actually of slightly less concern than exploring the limits of it. Our friend here is farming for possible inferential material.

Mind you, it's really very much up-in-the-air whether said inferential material is conclusive. It does, of course, make for interesting and enlightening reading material, though, so it contributes nicely to the flow of conversation.

Whether or not it's actually a fact that BDSM is an extension of instinct-driven behavior is actually so inconclusive that it would actually be foolish to have any "debate" over it. There is such a paucity of information on it that one would think that any reasonable person would avoid making a positive (or "positively negative") claim on it.

Speculating at length about abstract ideas, without any intention of forming solid conclusions about them, is one of those things that us nerds do that other people seem to find utterly incomprehensible. My advice, if you don't like it, is to let the chess club nerds have their fun, and leave them the bloody hell alone. This is their idea of mutual intellectual masturbation, and you are intruding.

Of course, some people are every bit as convinced that the "patriarchy" is hiding behind every tree and under every rock as Republicans in the 1950s were that a "communist" was lurking around every corner and every unopened doorway. This greatly hinders discussion for those of us who really just get a jolly off of talking about geeky shit, and that's part of why these threads never seem to accomplish anything beneficial.

You understand?



Again, you seem to be coming at this from a different perspective. The conclusions OP has been making, and those that you are trying to elaborate on, simply do not rationalize in the natural world. BDSM is not an aspect of natural animal behavior. It has been said before in this thread that species do exhibit dominant and submissive qualities, but these are FAR from any definition of BDSM. If that were true, any employee who has to cow to their boss' whims would also be in a BDSM relationship. The difference is, we as kinksters choose to participate in these activities. We weigh the mental and physical risks, search out compatible partners, and try our best to fulfill that desire. Animal behavior is nowhere near like this. This is where evolution comes in, as it separates us. These things are not abstract concepts, they are factual inferences.




BurntKitty -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 7:19:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marsman

I will leave you with two more websites about "Penis Spikes" which all cats appear to have:



I see your penis spikes & raise you ~drum roll~ the banana slug. ~cue the harp music.~

All other men may wish to skip this part. I'm sweet & kind like that, yanno.

quote:

But the most bizarre fact concerns their strange mating habit, where one slug chews the penis off its partner after finishing sex. Chomp... Chomp!




CuriousFerret -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 7:33:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Darkfeather

Again, you seem to be coming at this from a different perspective.
Not only that, but I am coming from a very different set of assumptions about human nature. I tend to assume that human thought processes are more like those of animals than not.

quote:

It has been said before in this thread that species do exhibit dominant and submissive qualities, but these are FAR from any definition of BDSM.
I am not sure what the OP was postulating, but my position is that BDSM is just a human sophistication of innately instinct-driven behavior.

quote:

The difference is, we as kinksters choose to participate in these activities. We weigh the mental and physical risks, search out compatible partners, and try our best to fulfill that desire.
Okay, so you are saying that you make choices about your personal relationships in kind of the way an accountant fills out and balances a general ledger.

The way that we act on romantic feelings and other passions is irrational by nature. It is antithetical to reason. It just happens to be a fact that, when your brain is completely doped-up on oxytocin and vasopressin, you have about the level of sentience that your dog has on a good day. When you have the feeling of being in love, you are momentarily an inferior animal.

quote:

Animal behavior is nowhere near like this.
If you have a pet dog, you can watch him making a rational decision, first-hand, just by running this simple informal experiment, just for the sake of demonstration.

Put a steak on the counter with him in the room, and sit or stand where you can watch him but are not immediately threatening. My hypothesis is that the dog would look up at the steak repeatedly and present symptoms of agitation, but he would not immediately go for the steak.

When you put the steak on the counter-top, you created an approach-avoidance conflict for the dog. This conflict creates a heightened level of activity throughout his brain as it attempts to reconcile the conflict. Evidence of this presents itself as a heightened level of anxiety in the subject as he is torn between the prospective reward stimulus of getting the steak and the instilled guilt reaction related to trespassing on his master's boundaries.

Humans can do this, too, but we actually have the ability to do it with a much higher level of sophistication. For example, rather than just a vague, bestial sensation of guilt, we can think of things in terms of sophisticated moral principles. We have much higher quantities of pyramidal cells in our cortices, and this makes a huge difference in the level of complexity with which we are able to think.

It still works in the same way, though.




JanahX -> RE: BDSM in nature - Penis Spikes (10/18/2012 8:00:29 PM)

quote:

I tend to assume that human thought processes are more like those of animals than not.


How the hell would you know what animal thought processes are? Do they sit and talk to you about them?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875