is there an inconsistency in existence?

[dandelion s]

i think i’m noticing an inconsistency in existence. that is, narrowed down to just humanity, our species and our essence, something is appearing to me to not be sitting right.

if sexual thought is dependent on hormones, would that mean that sexual thought would diminish if hormones diminished? would sexuality diminish? if so, are we only secondarily sexual beings? it seems that sex is what brought us here and perpetuates us yet if that were the case, shouldn’t it/wouldn’t it possibly be that sex should be a fundamental component of existence? and not so easily diminished? what i mean is, would it be an integral part that cannot be diminished and or changed as it appears it can be? we are able to do that. and it does occur naturally too. so is the human first and foremost something else? that reproducing is actually secondary to existence. that reproduction is not the main factor in our existence? are we something other than sexual beings? that perpetuation of the species and perpetuation of life is actually secondary? and if so, to what?

this concept is crossing my mind at the moment and i am not able to latch onto anything that could point out some kind of flaw in my thinking. i am consequently wondering if there is something else that we are, that i am missing. or that i’m just making a mistake and wondering about something that is obviously of no importance. maybe someone knows something more. or am i being wrong about sex being a secondary thing? i do know that people seem to go on about sex as if it is of the utmost importance. is that just for show? it is crossing my mind so i want to ask.

 

[anon87]

Hormone levels depend on many factors. A person who has endocrine issues may not produce enough oxytocin, someone with adrenal insufficiency might become sick at the idea. This is one of the reasons detoxing is so popular. Even in a perfect world where everyone is healthy, there are always those who are more individualistic than tribal.

 

[Human Ex Machinae]

Other animals, like lions and wolves for example, use their 'culture' to regulate and control reproduction. In a wolf pack or a pride of lions a very small number of the group, the 'alphas', will be reproducing at any given time. The majority of the group might never get a chance to reproduce at all. When compared to other mammals, sex is much more important and central to human daily existence.

 

[anon87]

.

I can make recipe cards

 

[Lisa the Goatgirl]

I think this question has a lot of different answers, largely dependent on the philosophy and religious beliefs of the person you asked. A purely evolutionary model tells us that in order for a species to survive, reproduction has to become a biological imperative. It has to become an instinctual driving force which governs all other behaviour. And so as life forms evolved to the level of complexity which is required for sexual reproduction to occur (a process which allows for more dominant and recessive genes to be introduced into the process, increasing the likelihood of favourable traits emerging), their brains adapted in kind to make reproduction, and therefore sex, a life-affirming act. And so it went on until we reached the stage of homo sapiens. We were the first species to ever develop sentience, at least that we know of. And that gave us the ability to ask questions like the one you've asked. Questions that extend beyond our basic biological drives, and into the very nature of life itself. And so coming from that background, of course sex will always still be a fairly important thing to us as a species - it's still a biological imperative, same as eating or sleeping, but we're generally trying to see more to life than just the baser drives.

Meanwhile if you were to ask a religious person, they may well be of the belief that our grand creator put us on this planet and gave us the ability to reproduce, but also made it really pleasant to do, as a test of our character. To see if we could overcome these kinds of drives, and focus more on purity of spirit and mind. The idea being that those who were capable of focusing more on their piety would be worthy of being by the creator's side for the rest of eternity.

So yeah, if sex for the purpose of reproduction was such an unassailably crucial thing, why would we have asexual people at all, or religious figures who can happily take on a vow of chastity, or gay people? Add on to that, that if someone does spend their entire life thinking about sex and seeing it as all-important, most therapists would classify that as an unhealthy fixation. Which is how you get people like incels, pretty universally hated for their obsessive attitude regarding sex and their entitlement to it.

But hell, if you want to take it one step further in the evolutionary direction (and into Malthusianism), you could actually argue that the existence of asexual people or gay people is an evolutionary measure taken to enact population control. This same thing was shown in the Mouse Utopia experiments, where once the mouse colonies reached a certain population density to where it became actively damaging to the colony dynamics, mice began being born which showed zero interest in reproduction at all, known as "the beautiful ones". It's a really interesting subject to read into. This could be said to suggest that even nature itself is capable of recognising when a population no longer needs to treat reproduction or sex as a vital part of an individual's life. And i think we can probably agree that where we're at now is a fairly blatant example of overpopulation. Therefore sex and reproduction are really not that important at this stage in human society, if anything they're a hindrance.

 

[Lisa the Goatgirl]

Other animals, like lions and wolves for example, use their 'culture' to regulate and control reproduction. In a wolf pack or a pride of lions a very small number of the group, the 'alphas', will be reproducing at any given time. The majority of the group might never get a chance to reproduce at all. When compared to other mammals, sex is much more important and central to human daily existence.

Yknow that whole "alpha wolves" thing isn't true? It's a common misconception, but David Mech, the author of the original paper which put forth the concept, actually came out years later and admitted that he was wrong, that this dynamic only emerges in packs of wolves in captivity, never in the wild. Here's an article discussing it:
https://www.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

I'd link to the Dave Mech link they show, but that now leads to a 404 error. Anyway, yeah, the whole "alpha-beta" idea isn't real. I wouldn't even mention things like this here, but this one gets used to justify a lot of very shady, damaging behaviours and mentalities.

 

[Human Ex Machinae]

Yknow that whole "alpha wolves" thing isn't true? It's a common misconception, but David Mech, the author of the original paper which put forth the concept, actually came out years later and admitted that he was wrong, that this dynamic only emerges in packs of wolves in captivity, never in the wild. Here's an article discussing it:
https://www.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10?r=US&IR=T

I'd link to the Dave Mech link they show, but that now leads to a 404 error. Anyway, yeah, the whole "alpha-beta" idea isn't real. I wouldn't even mention things like this here, but this one gets used to justify a lot of very shady, damaging behaviours and mentalities.

There's no 'top dog' in the pack? Hmm...Interesting, I'll look into it.

 

[Human Ex Machinae]

@Optimistic Goatman Haven't had much chance to look further into it because I had to go to work, but I was thinking about it. There may not be 'Alphas' among wild wolves, like there are in captive wolves, but there definitely are Alphas in human social groups. It struck me that maybe that's because they way we live is so unnatural and completely apart from Nature, that we ourselves are in captivity.

 

[dandelion s]

so is the human first and foremost something else?

I'm still thinking but happy to see the replies. But my original thought is presently eluding me. I do however think there is a case for the human first and foremost being something else. and the other day I was struck by the answer being right in front of my nose. I will try to retrace my steps.

 

[Juella]

are we something other than sexual beings? that perpetuation of the species and perpetuation of life is actually secondary? and if so, to what?

Cool question.

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I think we are indeed different from all the other species - we're the only truly intelligent ones. And while for all other living species their instinct to survive individually and as a species and to procreate further comes above all else and governs their lives, for humans it is much more complex than that. You can argue a lot on existence of a soul, but even without opening that can of worms, we have higher cerebral activity, we have intelligence that makes us capable to have a concept of things that are more important than our own survival, procreation and filling basic needs. We're capable of sacrificing all that for what we believe is a higher purpose. So I'd say we're intelligent beings before we're sexual beings, and preservation and perpetuation of life for us is often secondary to more complex concepts (although some people do stay on that basic level for most of their lives).