Hatred Of My Sexuality

[scameter]

I shall begin by confirming a possible curiosity of the reader and a necessary informational fact: I masturbate, and have been for a long time. And, ever since I first ejaculated, I have felt guilty about it. And, not only with the guilt accompanied, but also hatred for my sexuality. This concept may seem extremely foreign to the majority of people, but I have found it, unfortunately. My sexuality takes up my thought space, my time, my endurance/stamina; it is something no one but online people know I do, and thus is a secret. It oftentimes hurts if I do it repeatedly, and has occasionally caused redness of my skin that hurts explicably. I am so tired of it, to be entirely honest. I wish I had no sexuality, no physical sexual desires or faculties, no mental sexuality or desire, and no emotional tie to sexuality. I wish my thoughts and emotions and physical body could be simply as they are purely, without sexuality. We have enough people in the world willing to reproduce without me having to; plus, much of modern sex is purely for pleasure, and I would gladly give that up to relieve myself of my sexuality. I'm sorry for this blunt topic, but I knew that if anyone public wouldn't mind speaking about this with me, it would be this community. It is something very much apart of my daily thoughts, emotions, and physiology, and is something detremental to all three. I think this hatred I feel for my sexuality is part of the cause for my appreciation of things not related to myself or my daily life; things such as philosophy, science, technology, mythology, literature, poetry, and the like. Call it escapism if you wish, in a positive or negative tone, it is irrelevent. I simply despise my daily life, and wish only to escape from it into the world of my mind. This is also why I love studying things supernatural and/or magical, because they are metaphysical, beyond normality, but yet from the mind do they have power. I wish more than almost anything to become into contact with the supernatural, some phenomenon of the mind and of nature unexplainable by science or reason, but simply there, and potent and powerful. But, nonetheless, I hate my sexuality, and am entirely open for comment(s) on the matter. :)

[sonrisa]

oh brother :rolleyes:

thank you for sharing that Scam

a) your a teenager, your hormones are all over the map

b ) it's normal, there's nothing to feel guilty about, so

c) stop listening to all that baptist crap

[locomotive]

so...are you gay?

[locomotive]

I recommend the book "cultivating sexual male energy" by mantak chia. atleast then you are doing something with your sexual drive.

[MidnightSun]

I wish I had no sexuality, no physical sexual desires or faculties

Hmnm..the same..

Weird but a lot of ppl seems feel like guilty coz of that and i have no idea why would they :think:

Scam, maybe ur reason is that the desire over powered u, but u wanted to be the only master of ur body ,to control urself, but ur body defeated u , coz u happened to do it regularly to satisfy urself?

[scameter]

oh brother :rolleyes:

Wow, thanks for the amazing support and attempt to understand. :)

a) your a teenager, your hormones are all over the map
b ) it's normal, there's nothing to feel guilty about, so
c) stop listening to all that baptist crap

a) No other teenager, except possibly some girls sometimes, have felt this way.
B) I shouldn't feel guilty for my sexuality but I do, and honestly, it's not just some cute little thing that I do to have fun, my guilt and hatred for my sexuality. I despise it, and wish it didn't exist. Not for any little teenage hormonal reason, but because I despise it. What other man my age has ever felt this way, ever? Unless he broke up with his girlfriend, which is something I've never had, and then overcomes his "pain" in about 5 minutes.
c) I don't listen to any of it, thankfully.

so...are you gay?

.... Gay? How could I be? Or, even if I am that or bisexual, it wouldn't affect my hatred for my sexuality. Or what, do you mean I'm feminine or girly, is why I have this hate?

maybe you are uncomfortable that it has power over you...

Hmm...indeed, that is somewhat it. I prize my mind, and when it clouds my mind I hate it's power, and simply wish it would go away and stop influencing me so.

you are programmed to be this way...

I have never known any other teenage boy to be as I am towards my sexuality.

atleast then you are doing something with your sexual drive.

I don't want to do anything with it thought, except for it to go away.

Scam, maybe ur reason is that the desire over powered u, but u wanted to be the only master of ur body ,to control urself, but ur body defeated u , coz u happened to do it regularly to satisfy urself?

Perhaps. Particularly, that I desire power over my mind, mental control, yet my physical body, using sexuality, overpowers my mind and I despise that.

desire overcomes you...

Especially bodily sexual desire over mental stability.

but anyway remember it is mostly biological...

But it is not a common occurance.

[Squish]

Wow, Scam... Like seriously, at 15 you should be embracing this rather than shying away from it!! There's absolutley NOTHING wrong with it!! I discovered my sexuality at 12 when other kids were still getting over Santa Clause not being real!! Don't sweat it really!!! It's natural. Why loathe a natural part of humanity? That's like not liking the fact you have skin!! It just doesn't make sense.
I get that when it's "alone" it feels a little off, but that's society's pressure, not reality. Unless you let it become your reality.... You need to consciously choose to know it's OK despite the fact that your high school friends say it's not. Believe me. In a couple of years it'll go from "not being cool" to being totally acceptable to brag about the fact that you masterbate!! NO JOKE!!! It's one of the anomalies of life that I've personally found hilarious!!! I NEVER would've admitted it in high school, and once I got in college it seemed like it was a "competition" amongst guys to who did it the most. Either way, you've gotta go with what works for you.
Don't despise your sexuality, embrace it and accept it as yet another part of who you are that you've recently discovered. Discovering every aspect of yourself (sexual or otherwise) is a life long journey. Sexuality is just one of many aspects that will distract you from your mind. Just as your mind is just a single aspect of who you are. Don't let the fact that sexuality is instinctual and your mind's thoughts aren't necessarily instinctual, distract you from the reality that it's all part of who you/we are and grow to be. Trust me once you accept it and learn to enjoy it, you'll love it!! :-)

[scameter]

Wow, Scam... Like seriously, at 15 you should be embracing this rather than shying away from it!! There's absolutley NOTHING wrong with it!! I discovered my sexuality at 12 when other kids were still getting over Santa Clause not being real!! Don't sweat it really!!! It's natural. Why loathe a natural part of humanity? That's like not liking the fact you have skin!! It just doesn't make sense.

I agree entirely, which is why I reject what others have said about my despisition of my sexuality as being a simple teenage issue, because no other teen has this problem. But, I do loathe it, whether it is pleasurable or not, natural or not, and accepted or not, I hate it; it controls my mind too much. I want my mind to be in my hands, not the hands of my body. The body is too unpredictable, too willing to do what it wants. As the Bible says, any human will give in to the flesh automatically, with no resistence, and this is most manifested in sexuality; and I hate that aspect of humanity, for myself at least. For others who have no problem with it it's perfectly fine, but not for me. Believe me, I hate the fact that I hate it; I wish I could simply be normal. But normality has never been exactly my characteristic trait.

[Smurf]

ok why do you feel guilty?

[scameter]

Mainly because I have allowed my sexual, bodily urges to overpower and cloud my mind.

[Smurf]

yes that is what happens for me, but I do not hate it... it is natural Scam, it is what happens, you need to accept it don't fight it, it will only make it worse... it will slow down as you get older, this happens when you are young

I have heard many people the same as you, feel guilty, and I don't think it has clouded your mind otherwise why would you have written about it, the mastrubation... I would never have that much courage

[locomotive]

the practise gives you control over your body. Though you still will get erections you can just let the desire go away. Like with other emotions when you get aroused you want something. Instead of becoming anxious and thinking ow this is bad you acknowlegde the want and think no now is not the time and it goes away or whatever other thing that is on your mind. Hope does not make it go away. Your arm does not make it go away. You must detach yourself from the desire and feeling and it will go away.
I hope this makes sense and you recognize something in it.


I find it funny. You want to scrach this itch that gets worse just like a rash. you keep on going till your body starts to spasm to relese the nervous tension.

[sonrisa]

Scam, what makes you think no other teen has problems with discovering their sexuality, or that grown-ups didn't have problems with it when we were teens? Rest assured, it's totally normal.

And were you quoting the bible in your last post? Where do you think that masturbation-is-a-sin guilt/shame trip comes from? Maybe you are listening to that baptist crap & don't realize it...
:)

[scameter]

and I don't think it has clouded your mind otherwise why would you have written about it, the mastrubation...

Because it means nothing to me. People who fear saying it fear the exposure of their behavior to other's eyes, or fear their own actions as being perverse, because it means something to them, but it means nothing to me anymore.

Scam, what makes you think no other teen has problems with discovering their sexuality, or that grown-ups didn't have problems with it when we were teens? Rest assured, it's totally normal.

Experience mostly. You know, seeing every other teen I've ever seen, hearing of every other teen I've ever heard of, and not just those near me, and hearing/seeing that none of them have this, *none*, that is mainly it.

And were you quoting the bible in your last post? Where do you think that masturbation-is-a-sin guilt/shame trip comes from? Maybe you are listening to that baptist crap & don't realize it...

The Bible isn't only used by those idiotic, hypocritical babtists. I read the Bible and thoroughly love it as a mythological and philosophical manuscript of wisdom, not as something to use against others or to make myself feel or appear better. And, it's not that I fear it is a sin; I hate it because it clouds my mind and takes up my time. Last night, I used my hate, and didn't masturbate, but instead studied what I enjoy studying and thought about many things, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I actually thought up several new attachments to my laser pistol invention, and learned more about my love of science and technology, instead of wasting my time satisfying bodily desires. I know this is extremely difficult for anyone to grasp, but this isn't simply some common teen hormonal problem or disfunction. Physical solutions are always the easier path to conformity into normality.

[locomotive]

if it's psychological then try to be mindfull; :thumbsup:

[scameter]

It's not only psychological, it's a physiological effect on my mind. And, I am trying; I haven't masturbated for the past two days. I have, of course, thought sexually, and to be entirely honest, bodily I miss it, but I do not want to do it, mentally. Because of it's effect on my mind.

[locomotive]

if you practise the things in the book you will become mindfull about that part of you. I will send it to you. It also has magical stories.

[scameter]

Well, unfortunately I am very mindful of my sexuality, but that is the problem.

[locomotive]

sure you are.

[scameter]

Definitely.

[locomotive]

thats good now for some action.

[Smurf]

Because it means nothing to me. People who fear saying it fear the exposure of their behavior to other's eyes, or fear their own actions as being perverse, because it means something to them, but it means nothing to me anymore.

then why write about it? why hate it if it means little to you? why make such a big deal?

[scameter]

thats good now for some action.

Like what?

then why write about it? why hate it if it means little to you? why make such a big deal?

I meant what you quoted about my masturbating, not my sexuality as a whole. But, I shall confess: I still do occasionally masturbate. Not usually to climax of late, but I still do, and I enjoy it. I simply do not want to allow it to control my mind or to influence or hinder it's proper operation (as if it didn't have enough problems as is).

[Smurf]

no it is good, it is a release from the hormonal cloud that encircles your mind... but you hate being male then?

[scameter]

I never said that at all. I actually enjoy being male. I simply dislike when my body takes control of the efforts of my mind, to satisfy it's self.

[Smurf]

ahh that's normal... ok

you think a lot Scam, your body is only creating the balance that is necessary for you to continue living...?

[scameter]

To live physically.

[Smurf]

A balance must be preserved.

[scameter]

In samurai philosophy, there must exist a balance of activity between the body and mind. If the body is active, the mind should be at rest, and vise versa.

[MidnightSun]

samurais drank their victims blood, how would u explain that? :lol:

[MidnightSun]

I just read it in one newspaper a while time ago...It was a lot of writen and it seemed that the facts were reasonable, although i dont remember a thing from that.

[scameter]

true which is why it was not the samurai way to kill in anger...

Well, at least that was their philosophy. Philosophies tend to break down on the battlefield.

samurais drank their victims blood, how would u explain that?

I've never heard of that either, they weren't barbarians.

I just read it in one newspaper a while time ago...It was a lot of writen and it seemed that the facts were reasonable, although i dont remember a thing from that.

I newspaper that said samurai drank the blood of their enemies? That sounds very far-fetched, and untrustable.

[Squish]

They killed for a living.... They couldn't have been too "balanced"... I wouldn't rule Vampirism totally out...although I've never heard of them doing that either. God only knows what they did from a sexuality standpoint... Tantra maybe??? Abstention? Maybe they got all of their "primal" urges fulfilled by killing others. I can only imagine, but on the intensity scale, I'd have to guess that killing someone is a bit higher that sex... Not necesarrily more gratifying to the soul, but more intense. Then there's the years of therapy.... Bring on the Sake!! :-)

[scameter]

I wouldn't rule Vampirism totally out...

Vampirism?

They couldn't have been too "balanced"...

Their philosophy was.

God only knows what they did from a sexuality standpoint...

Most were heterosexual, but when they would be away from their wives for a long time, they were encouraged to have sex with men, and I believe there was even a specific tradition for older men to have sex with young boys, as a sort of mentor/student relationship.

If you want a true view of brutality, barbarism, vampirism, and horror, look at America. The samurai weren't able to push a button that would launch a missle capable of destroying millions of people at once, and ruining the landscape for many, many years, if not indefinitely.

[MidnightSun]

I've never heard of that either, they weren't barbarians.

Not every is a tiger who eats meat.

[scameter]

Not every is a tiger who eats meat.

:think:

[Smurf]

I agree Midnight :thumbsup:

[CSwriter1]

Interesting, you have gone from sex to killing and drinking blood. And here is where Adam and Eve get thrown out Eden. I have always thought that story was an explanation of going through puberty. Notice it is not just a matter of sex, but also killing and taboos such as drinking blood. What is this new sensation and feeling of power, and what are its limits?

Adam and Eve felt guilty and plenty of humans have struggled with guilt because of their sexual urges and thoughts tied up with them. I have known plenty of young men who agonize over the changes in their body and thinking! If we gain nothing else, I hope you accept this a normal part of growing up, and life will get easier. The sooner you are okay with your sexuality the better.

Personally I like masterbating, and think no more of it than enjoying a good message. It is a physical pleasure I can give myself and enjoy, and I see no harm in that at all. :lol: Sometimes when reading something about science, I get so excited I have to masterbate, and releave the tension. So what? What is there to feel guilty about?

The problem I had was when I thought I had to have a man in my life. That can be so complicated and come out so badly. But masterbating? That is between me, myself and I. Like soaking in a hot tub. Enjoy it.

However, what are those thoughts going with the sexuality? They are common and it is curious our minds work like this. A taboo thought can intensify our sexual excitement. Acting on taboos can intensify our sexual excitement. Here is where we can get into trouble. Especially when we are young, fighting and sexuality go together. But look at nature- fighting and sex go together. So does nesting.

Hating your sexuality is hating nature and you don't want to do that do you? Nothing good will come out of hating, so start loving yourself, okay?

[scameter]

I do not feel guilty about it per se, and I do not see sexuality as taboo or wrong; actually, I hate it when people see it as wrong and try to enforce their wrong views upon others, which simply denies nature to people. Is what I hate is when it disrupts my thoughts, but to be honest, now, I don't really care what it does to my thoughts. I enjoy it, so I'll do it, and I'll feel everything that goes along with it. I'm tired of caring.

[CSwriter1]

Awe, like I hate it when my thoughts are disturbed by hunger and I have to break my concentration to go get something to eat, because the sensation of hunger just won't leave me alone.

Sometimes my room gets too cold and especially when my hands are cold, that interfers with my concentration. Or the room can get too hot.

You have totally reframed your meaning of hating your sexuality. I think maybe some of us are spending too much thinking, and need to get into the physical experience of living more. How about a day of swimming then having a nice lunch, and then a message, and then relaxing around a fire and just sharing each other's company? You know connecting with our bodies and each other.

[scameter]

And why do you want to do that? Your mind. You don't see a lion doing things like working out, swimming or running for fun, playing sports, talking to other people, getting massages....We are human because of our minds; and our bodies are there in such a low, concentrated quantity just enough to sustain our minds and to enact it's will. The examples you gave of your body forcing it's self on your mind is different than sexuality doing the same; those things are necessary for the body to live, and thus necessary for the mind to live. But sexuality isn't necessary; it is something purely for bodily pleasure that clouds the mind. But, as I said, I'm seeing that bodily fun is worth it, and that mental stability can be retained during sexual expression is one truly desires it.

[MidnightSun]

You don't see a lion doing things like working out, swimming or running for fun, playing sports, talking to other people, getting massages....

Yes, ur body dont need it, ur minds/brain do.

[scameter]

Indeed.

[CSwriter1]

Well, this discussion seems pretty negative to me, so maybe it is time for me move on.

Not all human beings around the world and so trapped by the written word, and so disassociated with their bodies. There is a union of mind and body, and yoga is aware of that union. When we take good care of our bodies and enjoy being in them, life is more enjoyable.
Now if you want to deny that and take a negative position in relation to your body, of course you are free to do so, but that seems a sad choice to me.

[scameter]

I agree, it does seem a sad choice; and many things other than yoga realize such a union, such as Taoism, Kung Fu, and even monasticism.

[MidnightSun]

Not all human beings around the world and so trapped by the written word, and so disassociated with their bodies. There is a union of mind and body, and yoga is aware of that union. When we take good care of our bodies and enjoy being in them, life is more enjoyable.

I do like yoga, but i will remain at my point.

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Not all human beings around the world and so trapped by the written word, and so disassociated with their bodies"

So would you call this obsession with our bodies and the way we look, dress, talk, and appear...vanity :think:

[scameter]

Sure.

[______]

Originally posted by @--
I discovered my sexuality at 12 when other kids were still getting over Santa Clause not being real!!
Santa's not real? :o :tremble: :(








J/k! :lol:

[redraven]

Scameter:

Here is my view. You're not a monk. If you were, then masturbation would be forbidden. My view is that masturbation is ok as long as A) you're not hurting yourself and b ) you're not abusing the privelege. If you're doing those two things, then you need to cut down on your use of this privelege. It is a privelege, and there should be guilt if it is being abused.

I would say that you should try to abstain on Christian holy days as good practice, but not self-flagellate if you fall, and to try to keep it to once a day. Don't hate yourself. You should hate the evil of abusing your body, but sexuality is a very good thing and should be used wisely and cultivated properly. If you ever marry, a cultivated sexuality will give you much pleasure, and it will also help you avoid a lot of marital problems.

For example: my wife has a cycle. I have a cycle. Mine is probably once every three days, her's is probably three times a month. (I asked her permission to post this.) So, if I abuse her sexuality by demanding every three days, then I'm not a very good husband.

If she abuses mine by refusing totally (and we've been through this trust me) or by allowing it so infrequently that we have no time to be intimate, then I suffer and so does our marriage. I wonder sometimes if homosexuals don't find it easier because their cycles are so similar.

What I've found really helps with my wife is that she likes to be touched a lot. We may have sex 5 times a month, but we are always touching and cuddling. My wife wants that, and since I have started doing it we have a much better marriage. Even just a hug before work and a pat on her back while we're picking up goes a long way, and now that she knows that I don't just touch her to get sex, we have sex more often!

I know this doesn't seem to relate to masturbation but it does. Respect yourself the way I'm learning to respect my wife, and you will do well. My wife is laughing right now and giving me a kiss on the cheek. She thinks you're a little forward. Anyway, that is the kind of thing you need to think about. When you find someone you love, be good to them, and it will help if you can be good to yourself.

[scameter]

Here is my view. You're not a monk. If you were, then masturbation would be forbidden. My view is that masturbation is ok as long as A) you're not hurting yourself and b ) you're not abusing the privelege. If you're doing those two things, then you need to cut down on your use of this privelege. It is a privelege, and there should be guilt if it is being abused.

I don't think I'm abusing it. I've never hurt anyone with it most definitely; in fact, no one even knows I do it. I do it in total secrecy, by myself. I'll admit, I have looked at porn before, but I see nothing wrong with that. It's there, and it's legal, so why not? I'm not hurting anyone by doing it. I've also never hurt myself. For instance, I have heard of people doing things such as sticking things down their penis hole, but I never do that. I am all about safety and cleanliness with it; I wash thoroughly afterwards, and I wash anything I used as well. To me, this is just something about the body to enjoy that doesn't hurt anyone or myself, and that is only pleasurable.

I would say that you should try to abstain on Christian holy days as good practice, but not self-flagellate if you fall, and to try to keep it to once a day. Don't hate yourself. You should hate the evil of abusing your body, but sexuality is a very good thing and should be used wisely and cultivated properly.

:D If I was Christian, I would agree. How could God not want me to do this? I can make myself feel good with no harm to anyone or anything. How can it be bad? If I was a devout Catholic, sure I'd abstain, but I'm not. I only do it once a day, usually. But, I don't have masturbation; it's not evil, and it's not abusing my body. How could something that feels that good without any harm be evil, much less for my body that is feeling the pleasure? I have only hated myself for doing this before because of how it has affected my mental clarity, but I've gotten alot better at that, mainly be accepting myself and my urges, as well as by retaining a calm, reasonable head, which I think is good all the time.

I wonder sometimes if homosexuals don't find it easier because their cycles are so similar.

Actually, that's not always so, even if they are both male. Especially in homosexual relationships where once is the more feminine and the other is the more masculine. Then it's more like a heterosexual marriage.

I know this doesn't seem to relate to masturbation but it does. Respect yourself the way I'm learning to respect my wife, and you will do well. My wife is laughing right now and giving me a kiss on the cheek. She thinks you're a little forward. Anyway, that is the kind of thing you need to think about. When you find someone you love, be good to them, and it will help if you can be good to yourself.

B) I agree. And, I've been told I'm honesty/forward before, if even sometimes brutally honest, and frankly I like it about myself. I hate that tough and arrogant air that some people who are honest have, but I also dislike those who always avoid the truth, even if for the sake of the feelings of another. I'm kind and considerate, and I don't just run around spewing shit, but I also am not afraid of the truth. I know how I am, and I hate it. I'm honest about it. I also don't hate some things about myself. It doesn't mean I'm arrogant; it just means I admire a few things about myself. I'm humble about them, but I also try to not avoid seeing them (which is often difficult for me). And, I'm sorry if my openness offends anyone here; if it does, don't read it. :)

[MidnightSun]

A) you're not hurting yourself and b ) you're not abusing the privelege

What did u really meant by that?

sexuality is a very good thing

Tell it to asexual people :lol: Perhaps i should put it on other topic ,but seriously, what do u think about asexuality? I find it very intresting, whats ur opinion?

My wife is laughing right now and giving me a kiss on the cheek

:) Thats so cute...

[scameter]

Tell it to asexual people Perhaps i should put it on other topic ,but seriously, what do u think about asexuality? I find it very intresting, whats ur opinion?

It... doesn't exist? :D

[______]

Originally posted by @--
It... doesn't exist?
But it does! Just not among humans (wouldn't that be odd!). Mainly in smaller, microscopic oraganisms.

[MidnightSun]

www.asexual.org (if i put it right, might be asexuals or whatever)

I myself have met a few, two actually, asexual people, who felt absolute no sexual attraction to anything. I wonder what makes people to be that way.

[scameter]

That's not asexuality. That is lack of sexual libido. Asexuality is the ability of a single organism to reproduce entirely alone.

[MidnightSun]

Term of asexual (person) means that this person feels no sexual thrill, or whatever u call it, to anyoone. Scam ur saying that things that exist dont exist :D

[scameter]

Then you're obviously using some modern form of the word asexual. The actual meaning of it is what I said previously. There are some creatures that are asexual. But, your use of the word is inaccurate.

[MidnightSun]

yea perhaps, but the word is not the point, the point was about people who feel no sexual attraction to anything.

[scameter]

And yet we've been discussing the word, which you used incorrectly to it's definition. :P It's cool.

[redraven]

I said the things I said scameter because you said you hate your sexuality. I don't hate mine, I love it. I wish I could tell you some things about me, but I'll give an example. There is this woman that used to hang around forum I went to, that was a real bad woman. However, she was very attractive, and she talked sex, and she knew a lot about it, and we liked the same things.

I have this thing for her, even though she isn't a good woman. My wife and I haven't talked of it, but my wife knows I am thinking about somebody else. A woman knows. This woman is exciting, and my wife can seem very plain, even though she is beautiful and everything I want except for what I could have with this woman. This woman is not religious; my wife and I are religious people; we don't do the things together that this woman likes. Ergo: I'm thinking about her.

I also happen to know through the grapevine that this woman has HIV, and that she is on heroin, and that she has recently attempted suicide. Do you see how those things work out? I have my wife: stable, solid, loving, a life-long partner, and I could never have those things with that woman. But I could have: excess, passion, excitement, an end to responsibility, and heroin, all things that I love.

I also happen to know that my wife is thinking about someone else, because a man knows, and it's probably someone at the meeting. But I feel that we will get through this, and plan on talking to her some later today just to feel things out. Don't get this idea that my wife is the Church Lady, but it's different. She wants me to be more traditional, and I want her to be wild. But I married her because she wasn't wild.

This is sexual politics when you try to undertake the precepts. You confuse me scameter. I never look at porn. Nude art photos sometimes, but never porn. I find it extremely distasteful. Maybe that's why you hate your sexuality?

[MidnightSun]

This is sexual politics when you try to undertake the precepts. You confuse me scameter. I never look at porn. Nude art photos sometimes, but never porn. I find it extremely distasteful. Maybe that's why you hate your sexuality?

Ooo thats intresting..

[scameter]

I said the things I said scameter because you said you hate your sexuality.

Indeed I did say that originally. But over the course of this thread I've rethought my self, and I do love mine. :)

This is sexual politics when you try to undertake the precepts. You confuse me scameter. I never look at porn. Nude art photos sometimes, but never porn. I find it extremely distasteful. Maybe that's why you hate your sexuality?

:D I don't think so. I hated my sexuality because of how it disrupted my clear thought, but now I know that my thought is hardly ever entirely clear anyways, so why not enjoy my emotions while they're there! :P I honestly do love my sexuality, mainly because of how pleasurable and yet unharmful (when done correctly) it is.

[MidnightSun]

Done correctly? :lol:

[scameter]

:P I just mean when it's done without harm.

[namtso]

There is this woman that used to hang around forum I went to, that was a real bad woman. However, she was very attractive, and she talked sex, and she knew a lot about it, and we liked the same things.

I have this thing for her, even though she isn't a good woman. My wife and I haven't talked of it, but my wife knows I am thinking about somebody else. A woman knows. This woman is exciting, and my wife can seem very plain, even though she is beautiful and everything I want except for what I could have with this woman. This woman is not religious; my wife and I are religious people; we don't do the things together that this woman likes. Ergo: I'm thinking about her.

I also happen to know through the grapevine that this woman has HIV, and that she is on heroin, and that she has recently attempted suicide. Do you see how those things work out? I have my wife: stable, solid, loving, a life-long partner, and I could never have those things with that woman. But I could have: excess, passion, excitement, an end to responsibility, and heroin, all things that I love. - redraven
Anything in excess becomes addiction, doesn't it?


This is sexual politics when you try to undertake the precepts. You confuse me scameter. I never look at porn. Nude art photos sometimes, but never porn. I find it extremely distasteful. Maybe that's why you hate your sexuality? - redraven
That could most definitely be one reason. Porn is so extreme that it will give you a completely distorted perception of sexuality. Sure there's folks that are into all sorts of stuff but there's plenty that aren't too. And a lot of that porn is poorly camoflouged abuse, pure and simple. Abuse of the flesh. The internet makes all that stuff way more accessible but it should be understood that it is not the "norm" for the average individual. You should be checking out other stuff that doesn't treat the subject so profanely. Kama Sutra video? Anyone else have suggestions along these lines?

[MidnightSun]

maybes the reason that ur bi xD

[namtso]

maybes the reason that ur bi xD* - midsun
You're addressing scam here, yes? I'm straight. Not making any judgement here, just stating fact.

Midsun, I'm not saying that a person who looks at porn is necessarily evil or should be ashamed or something. It's out there and the people who make it and engage in it accept it for their own reasons, making money and whatever else. But do you feel that it is on the extreme side of the spectrum? So what I'm getting at is that it should be considered that there are many different ways people can be sexual. There's even "how to" videos on the market that are in no way pornographic. They probably demonstrate slightly more average behavior. So what's your view on this idea?

And I want to restate my question to the general Big View membership here because I think it might be helpful, or maybe I'll learn something, who knows -
"You should be checking out other stuff that doesn't treat the subject so profanely. Kama Sutra video? Anyone else have suggestions along these lines?"

[MidnightSun]

So what's your view on this idea?

I have none.

[CSwriter1]

Wow, sorry I have gone for so long. What a meaningful conversation!

Redraven, when you speak with your wife, ask her what turns her on. I was frigid in my marriage, but that is far from my nature. Well, actually it is my nature to be inhibited. A woman must be or she has all the trouble of the women who are not. Yet, there is a magic key that unleashes passion. And considering it is releashed frequently, there will be a lot of it, when find the key.

Watch the movie True Lies. It is a fun movie of a man and wife who love each other, but have on passion in their relationship. This will give you a good opening for speaking with your wife.

Also there are good sex videos for married people. It is well worth your time to look for one that may be right for you. They will help you realize sex as a fullfilling part of love, by reframing how you think of sex and helping you learn about each other in an intimate way.

My heart goes out to you for having the wisdom of knowing why you chose an inhibited woman. My X did not, and that is why he is my X. I have strong regrets about that. I so much wish we had discovered our sexual passions together and remained a family.

Scameter, love your sexuality, as later it can bless a very good relationship. Although, without that special relationship, it can be a real problem. Dang I must run..

[scameter]

Scameter, love your sexuality, as later it can bless a very good relationship. Although, without that special relationship, it can be a real problem. Dang I must run..

:D Unfortunately. But, yes, you're right entirely. Oddly enough (although not very odd, because this is a popular thing for my sign), I tend to enjoy masturbation, which includes watching videos of it, doing it myself, and thinking about others doing it. Many people would see it as selfish or whatever, but to me, it's actually a very personal thing, and without harm; how could you get an STD through masturbation? Plus, who knows you better than you do? I'm just very attracted to the idea; in fact, I did it twice yesterday. I haven't done that in a while. :D

[bito]

Oh scam, bless you for your honesty! :hug:

You are a Scorpio, no? I am a Scorpio as well. Intensity is us! :lol:

There was a time in my spiritual journey when sexuality became an obsession with me. And at the time, I was 50 years old! For me, this physical desire ran neck in neck with my spiritual desire for purity, for innocence, for truth. Maybe you see some connection, maybe you don't.

If you do, I'll be happy to share more.

:)

[bito]

scam, I won’t be near a computer for almost two weeks, so I have decided to go ahead with my additional thoughts to my previous post, rather than waiting for your ok - I hope you don't mind.

During the darkest time of my spiritual questing, I believed I was spiritually here and God was spiritually way, way over there. I was his most imperfect lover, and He was My Most Perfect Beloved. And so the courtship dance began, with me pursuing My Beloved with an intensity of desire that I did not know existed in the human soul. And within this spiritual desire to heal the spiritual chasm between God and me was a plethora of spiritual (and not so spiritual) sexual imagery. It dominated my consciousness for several years. I thought I was going mad. Then, I discovered several spiritual texts and mythologies that resonated deeply with this desire that seemed to have overtaken every corner of my mind. I wrote of one in an earlier post “The Exegesis of the Soul”, a Gnostic text. Another was the Hindu religious archetypes of Shiva and Shatki, Shiva being consciousness, Shatki being the root energy within consciousness.

What I discovered was that my sexual desire for God was my desire to unite formlessness with the energy that is the forms within formlessness. Of course, they had never separated, except within my own mind.

Your body is Shatki, scam, the very root energy that is your passionate quest for metaphysical knowledge. And, perhaps, in your distancing of this quest for knowledge from your body, from your root, you have created a chasm much like the chasm I created between God and myself. Just as I believed God was pure, and I was not, you may be believing that knowledge is pure and your body is not. And with a chasm, comes the desire to close the chasm.

I may be way off base, scam, with my comparison of my spiritual desire with your desire for knowledge, and let me know if I am.

As a postscript, I do believe you stated that you are a fan of William Blake. Have you read “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”? In this poem, he is putting forward his own passionate belief that the separation by moralists of dynamic energy and stable reason is at the very heart of human suffering

OK, I’m done. :)

[scameter]

You are a Scorpio, no? I am a Scorpio as well. Intensity is us!

B)

There was a time in my spiritual journey when sexuality became an obsession with me. And at the time, I was 50 years old! For me, this physical desire ran neck in neck with my spiritual desire for purity, for innocence, for truth. Maybe you see some connection, maybe you don't.

Entirely. Actually, this is something I've found intriguing about the religion of Wicca and of the tantric tradition of Hinduism(?) that are both sexual with their spirituality. I actually invented a religion of my own once, centered around sexuality, with a short mythology and everything... started out as a joke, but grew into something larger. I'm sure you guys wouldn't want to hear about it though. :P

scam, I won’t be near a computer for almost two weeks, so I have decided to go ahead with my additional thoughts to my previous post, rather than waiting for your ok - I hope you don't mind.

:D Of course not.

I may be way off base, scam, with my comparison of my spiritual desire with your desire for knowledge, and let me know if I am.

Actually, I think you're quite on the target. But, what do I do to close the chasm between my mind and body? I mean, I am even beginning to be very much affected by this bodily, even though I have been affected mentally for a long time, most of my life: my mental disorders, namely anxiety, nervousness, depression, severe OCD, paranoia, etc., are beginning to affect things like my stomach, my ability to go to sleep, and my eating. I feel as if my mind is ripping my body apart. But, how do I fix this? I feel the best, and these things are put on hold, when I am not thinking: when I do something like play a video game and just act without thinking or focus on anything else, or when I swordfight and let all my passion fill it, and similar things. When I am empassioned, I feel great. When it goes away, I feel nervous, depressed, and empty. How can I fix this? Join a monastery or something? I know that you don't have all the answers, but because you've had a similar experience, I feel I can ask you. :)

As a postscript, I do believe you stated that you are a fan of William Blake. Have you read “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”? In this poem, he is putting forward his own passionate belief that the separation by moralists of dynamic energy and stable reason is at the very heart of human suffering

I haven't, but I do have an e-book of it, and plan to read it one day, as with the million other books on that same list. :D The next book on my list, however, is The Occult by Colin Wilson, another large favourite of mine, although I'm currently reading The Prestige. Have you ever read any Colin Wilson?

[CSwriter1]

Scameter, you sound just like my second grandson, who dropped out of school. He may be attending an alternative school soon, but it has gotten increasingly difficult for him to leave home. Heaven only knows why we go through these different things, included intense sexual desire or lack of it. Obviously a lot of it is hormal and pills can change our feelings, but there are also our circumstances and thoughts.

Through the training I have been involved with, I am sure we must love ourselves. If our minds are doing something we don't like, we begin by thanking our mind, confident there is a good purpose for what our mind is going. We just haven't discover the good yet. Next, if it doesn't seem to work for us, we can politely ask our mind if there is another way to achieve the same objective.

I remember the first time I masterbated, and I loved it. After years of trying to sexually please a man, and becoming more frigid myself, I finally embarked in a sexual experience that was all about my pleasure. As an older single woman, this is the only sex I have now, and I am fine with that. I am under no obligation to abstain from sexual pleasure unless I am pleasing a man. Besides there are health benefits to pleasing oneself, and I need to do all I can to benefit my health.

I think when we get older, we get much more liberal about sex. When we are young, sex is all tied up with reproduction, and because of the difficulty of caring for children, we need to be careful. A strong sex drive tied to an agressive need to dominate, can be a problem it someone is made a victim, so reducing the sexually tension is a good thing. When we are past the child bearing years, and no longer attractive, what is sex, but a private pleasure? A private pleasure that actually improves our health.

However, here again there can be a danger, as older people may become too liberal and involve vulnerable children in the desire for sexual pleasure. This is so unfortunate for everyone. We are really over reacting to such things, but this is another subject.

[scameter]

Scameter, you sound just like my second grandson, who dropped out of school. He may be attending an alternative school soon, but it has gotten increasingly difficult for him to leave home.

Yes, that is essentially me. I'm probably going to drop out of public school, and my homeschool is so far behind is seems insurmountable. Plus, when I leave home I become nervous, especially when I'm simply sitting somewhere; if my mind is occupied, and I am not thinking about my health, I'm essentially fine. It's quite unfortunate and daunting really.

Heaven only knows why we go through these different things, included intense sexual desire or lack of it. Obviously a lot of it is hormal and pills can change our feelings, but there are also our circumstances and thoughts.

Definitely. I personally think that most of sexual orientation is mental/emotional, for instance.

I remember the first time I masterbated, and I loved it. After years of trying to sexually please a man, and becoming more frigid myself, I finally embarked in a sexual experience that was all about my pleasure.

I see what you mean. Although, it seems you were older when you first began masturbating than I was. I'd say I was about... 12 maybe? And once I began doing it, thinking up ways to hide the fact I did it became something I enjoyed doing, not to mention the actual doing of it. I would have a fluffy doll that I would keep in my closet hidden, and that I would later learn to hide under the sink, and I was rub my penis against it to inspire ejaculation. Of course later I learned more about pornography and other visual stimulation methods alongside my rubbing myself, but that was how it began. I have had ups and down in my doing it, but even when I have doubted the morality of it, I still enjoyed it, and knew that because it only caused me pleasure and hurt no one, it was and is fine.

Besides there are health benefits to pleasing oneself, and I need to do all I can to benefit my health.

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but that is also an objective of mine in doing it, and something that I learned is how sexual feelings produce endorphins (mispell possible there, sorry), which are natural painkillers. Often, when my stomach is upset or I am nervous, I will masturbate, and even if I don't ejaculate, my pain subsides, at least during it, usually.

However, here again there can be a danger, as older people may become too liberal and involve vulnerable children in the desire for sexual pleasure.

You're right. To me, sex, and especially masturbation, are very good things, even healthy, but they should not be done without the intelligent decision of both participants, and should be done safely, i.e. condoms and birth control if intercourse comes into the picture, etc.

[Smurf]

Could I interject in the wonderful intelligent conversation?

I think I'm becoming an asexual....

[MidnightSun]

I thought you were bi, its even more far form asexual than straight or gay.

[bito]

Actually, I think you're quite on the target. But, what do I do to close the chasm between my mind and body? I mean, I am even beginning to be very much affected by this bodily, even though I have been affected mentally for a long time, most of my life: my mental disorders, namely anxiety, nervousness, depression, severe OCD, paranoia, etc., are beginning to affect things like my stomach, my ability to go to sleep, and my eating. I feel as if my mind is ripping my body apart. But, how do I fix this? I feel the best, and these things are put on hold, when I am not thinking: when I do something like play a video game and just act without thinking or focus on anything else, or when I swordfight and let all my passion fill it, and similar things. When I am empassioned, I feel great. When it goes away, I feel nervous, depressed, and empty. How can I fix this? Join a monastery or something? I know that you don't have all the answers, but because you've had a similar experience, I feel I can ask you.


Scam, you are very young to be examining your transpersonal self so intensely. However, this is what seems to be happening, so it cannot be ignored or swept aside as a passing teenage phase. From my point of view, it would seem as if you are experiencing some sort of consciousness ‘breakthrough’, an ‘old’ self that is ‘colliding’ with a burgeoning ‘new’ self, and within this collision, or transformation, or stabilization, are all kinds of thoughts and emotions that are overwhelming your sense of equilibrium.

For most people, this happens around mid-life, and because of this, there is usually a stronger foundation of self-consciousness, or egoic consciousness, that can buffer the change from one level to another. You are barely sixteen – so please, please, go very easy on yourself!

Have you considered talking to your father about contacting a transpersonal therapist or psychologist that might help you understand these changes that I believe you are undergoing?

Online discussions help, yes, but there is so much information and people are on so many different levels of ‘seeing’ that it can be very confusing for a person as young as yourself to sort through what is ‘good’ for one’ spiritual well-being.

Love yourself unconditionally scam. Why can I say this? Because I know that there is only love, only love.

:loveyou:

[scameter]

I think I'm becoming an asexual....

Not really sure how that's possible, that you could reproduce by yourself... unless you've become a bacteria. :D But, from the usual sexological definition of the word, why do you say that?

Scam, you are very young to be examining your transpersonal self so intensely. However, this is what seems to be happening, so it cannot be ignored or swept aside as a passing teenage phase.

I'm glad you view it so truthfully. Many people have simply dismissed it as being a teenage phase, even though my father had it when he was my age and still does today and he's 36.

From my point of view, it would seem as if you are experiencing some sort of consciousness ‘breakthrough’, an ‘old’ self that is ‘colliding’ with a burgeoning ‘new’ self, and within this collision, or transformation, or stabilization, are all kinds of thoughts and emotions that are overwhelming your sense of equilibrium.

Yes... that seems like a pretty accurate view of what I'm experiencing. :)

Have you considered talking to your father about contacting a transpersonal therapist or psychologist that might help you understand these changes that I believe you are undergoing?

Well, not specifically, but I have seen therapists, and most either talk to my father more than me, or don't really attempt to understand what I'm going through. Most of my discovery comes from either talking with people online, talking with my father, or introspection.

Love yourself unconditionally scam. Why can I say this? Because I know that there is only love, only love.

:P I wish that were so. If it were, I wouldn't be capable of not loving myself. :D

[bito]

I wish that were so. If it were, I wouldn't be capable of not loving myself.

Were it that easy! :)

This new self that seems to be bumping into the old self knows that love is all there is (wholeness, totality, The Tao, The Kingdom of Heaven, et al - how can God not love God? Impossible!) but the old self is still translating reality as it is cut in two - on the emotional plane, on the self-conscious plane this plays out as good vs. evil.

Do you see yourself as being two "I"'s - a 'good' I and an evil "I"? If so, then you are caught up in this illusion of duality, no?

[scameter]

(wholeness, totality, The Tao, The Kingdom of Heaven, et al - how can God not love God? Impossible!)

God can definitely not love God; God is like us, the Christian/Jewish God I mean, and so can feel self-loathing as much as we can.

This new self that seems to be bumping into the old self knows that love is all there is but the old self is still translating reality as it is cut in two - on the emotional plane, on the self-conscious plane this plays out as good vs. evil.

Good versus evil is based on belief and perspective I think, although I think one is also capable, with knowledge and with a human and humane spirit, of knowing if something is good (humane) or not (inhumane). But, I don't really necessary think it's that any of my selves know that love is all there is... because I don't think so. I think that love is a large part of life and is very important, but I think there is also alot more to life. As Bertrand Russel said (and as our friend Kether is fond of quoting), the good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.

[Smurf]

Not really sure how that's possible, that you could reproduce by yourself... unless you've become a bacteria. But, from the usual sexological definition of the word, why do you say that?

Yes well I am trying hard to see if I chop off an arm another Simon Lee might spring back up out of the ground :P

but no, I just don't see myself wanting to have sexual intercourse... I dunno I just feel as if there are more important things than having to do this. Such is the mindset of our society?

[scameter]

Except that you never *have* to have sex. Thankfully, because of birth control methods, one can have sex purely for pleasure and out of choice, something no other animal would care about doing. There is even an entire part of the female genital area, the clitoris, specifically meant for pleasure and with no other purpose.

[MidnightSun]

Except that you never *have* to have sex. Thankfully, because of birth control methods, one can have sex purely for pleasure and out of choice, something no other animal would care about doing.

Dolphins also sometimes have sex for pleasure only.

[scameter]

I have never heard of that before.

[Smurf]

yes dolphins have been known for that

oh and forget about the whole asexual thingy was going through a hazy point there :D
least to say I am better now

[MidnightSun]

I have never heard of that before.

Well now you do.

[Kether]

MidnightSun: Dolphins also sometimes have sex for pleasure only.
Scameter: I have never heard of that before.
Scam, I'm pretty sure that all mammals have sex in order to feel pleasure. What other motive would they have? Don't say 'survival', as you have so many times before: do you really think that a bull in a field decides to mate with that cow over there because it will increase the number of his genes out there in the gene pool? Even if we do suppose he is capable of that kind of critical thinking, there is no reason why he should care about his genes being propagated.

[locomotive]

except if it gets him laid :rolleyes: typical.

[Smurf]

Scam, I'm pretty sure that all mammals have sex in order to feel pleasure. What other motive would they have? Don't say 'survival', as you have so many times before: do you really think that a bull in a field decides to mate with that cow over there because it will increase the number of his genes out there in the gene pool? Even if we do suppose he is capable of that kind of critical thinking, there is no reason why he should care about his genes being propagated.

well indeed
but there are two reasons the implicit and explicit
explicit would be to feel pleasure and this would satisfy the implicit reason which would be to ensure the specie's survival

[scameter]

Kether, because the bull does not think. He simply does what he does. Usually, there is one bull per group of cows, and so when the bull is able to mate with the cows, he does. It's not for pleasure, or survival of himself, or for the gene pool; there is no thought there. It's just natural for him to do what he does, and he does it.

And, about the dolphins. When they have sex purely for pleasure, as you say, do they wear condoms or use birth control?

[Smurf]

And, about the dolphins. When they have sex purely for pleasure, as you say, do they wear condoms or use birth control?

Hah yes that's funny Scam but seriously there's been heaps of research into it. The mating for pleasure helps to strengthen the social bonds in the pod of dolphins. Interracial mating done by dolphins would reflect this fact. But really it is more of a surmisal that was based on the degree of promiscuity that dolphins possess.

Also Homosexual Dolphins: Dolphins (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL)

[Kether]

Kether, because the bull does not think. He simply does what he does. Usually, there is one bull per group of cows, and so when the bull is able to mate with the cows, he does. It's not for pleasure, or survival of himself, or for the gene pool; there is no thought there. It's just natural for him to do what he does, and he does it.
I am more than reluctant to believe that a creature that displays so many signs of 'thinking' cannot 'think'. Just look at the bull perambulate around the field: such complex behaviour necessitates a very complex brain and an ability to behave in very flexible ways, which - when we consider that humans, with genotypes so close to those of the bull, are conscious, and do not have qualitatively different brains - probably means that they are sentient.
Of course it's 'natural' for the bull to have sex. It's 'natural' for humans as well. We are hard-wired to derive pleasure from sex, and if you think about the selective advantages of this, it's not surprising. I'm sure there have been neurological studies with non-human mammals that have found the same mechanisms in their brains as are to be found in ours. The bull has sex because he enjoys it. That's his motive.
but there are two reasons the implicit and explicit
explicit would be to feel pleasure and this would satisfy the implicit reason which would be to ensure the specie's survival
Selective advantage is the reason why the bull's brain is wired in such a way as to make him derive pleasure from sex. But the bull's motive is pleasure, and this theory of Scam's about the differences between species is about motives: his big idea is that humans do things 'for' pleasure, and animals do things 'for' survival.
The cause of sex in mammals is the desire for pleasure, and the effect is survival of the genes for deriving pleasure from sex. This is as true for humans as it is for bulls or bonobos.
And, about the dolphins. When they have sex purely for pleasure, as you say, do they wear condoms or use birth control?
That reproduction is the effect of the dolphins mating has no bearing on whether the desire for pleasure is the cause.

[Winfried]

Don't say 'survival', as you have so many times before
But this is the primal instinct of any living creature. Actually, it's two. One is the survival of the self, i.e. staying alive. The other is survival of the species, i.e. making sure that, by sexual intercourse, babies are born and raised. I'm still trying to understand how homosexuality fits in here though. Perhaps it's to make sure not too many babies are born. Perhaps it's like a disease: thinning out the population (sounds pretty cruel, doen't it?). Perhaps it's showing the males of the species where to find the horny females in a "Look at us! We're in the mood for sex! Now come get some." kind of way.

[Kether]

But this is the primal instinct of any living creature. Actually, it's two. One is the survival of the self, i.e. staying alive. The other is survival of the species, i.e. making sure that, by sexual intercourse, babies are born and raised.
It is indeed evident that all living creatures have a strong desire for self-preservation, although this may be a composite of such things as fear, hunger, enjoyment of success, &c. But I don't think that what you call 'survival of the species' can be considered an 'instinct'.
Firstly, if you agree with Richard Dawkins (as I do), the notion of 'survival of the species' should not be at the centre of our conception of evolution; it is better to think of evolution as the survival of genes. Secondly, animals do not actually care whether or not their genes survive: gene survival is really just the product of a mixture of 1) factors in the phenotype's environment and 2) mechanisms within the phenotype itself, such as those that cause the animal to derive pleasure from sex or to care about the welfare of offspring and kin. Thus mammals, and probably quite a few non-mammals, don't have sex 'for survival'. Sex doesn't help them to survive, and there is no reason why they should care about their genes' survival; they do it for pleasure. That was my point to Scam.

[Smurf]

So then what you're saying is that the survival of the genes are just a passive effect of copulation?

[Kether]

Yes, y0u summarised it well. My overall point is that copulation is not 'for' gene survival; such a notion is a product of not treating the anthropomorphism of evolution ('animals adapt to their surroundings in order to survive', &c.) as anything more than a temporarily useful metaphor.

[scameter]

Hah yes that's funny Scam but seriously there's been heaps of research into it. The mating for pleasure helps to strengthen the social bonds in the pod of dolphins. Interracial mating done by dolphins would reflect this fact. But really it is more of a surmisal that was based on the degree of promiscuity that dolphins possess.

I wasn't being funny. Sex is a natural desire of all animals, both because it is a natural function of their body, and because of it's promotion of the survival of the species. Thus, animals attempt to have it regardless, with other species or the same gender or whatever else, when their bodies are ready. It's not for pleasure; it's just something they do. And even if pleasure is involved, as a sort of method of keeping it enticing for the animal, it is not why they do it initially.

Just look at the bull perambulate around the field: such complex behaviour necessitates a very complex brain and an ability to behave in very flexible ways, which - when we consider that humans, with genotypes so close to those of the bull, are conscious, and do not have qualitatively different brains - probably means that they are sentient.

I don't see where that can be gathered. Why does their behavior being complex mean they are sentient? Perhaps their instincts are simply very complex, because of so many years of evolution in the species of that animal. And yes, I'm sure they do have similar genotypes, but that does not mean we are close to being the same; we have similar bodies, made in similar ways. But that doesn't constitute our minds as well, I believe.

Of course it's 'natural' for the bull to have sex. It's 'natural' for humans as well. We are hard-wired to derive pleasure from sex, and if you think about the selective advantages of this, it's not surprising. I'm sure there have been neurological studies with non-human mammals that have found the same mechanisms in their brains as are to be found in ours. The bull has sex because he enjoys it. That's his motive.

The bull has sex because his body compels him too. As I said earlier in this post, pleasure may be involved as a sort of enticement method, but that isn't *why* the bull does it. Humans are capable of doing it entirely for the pleasure and nothing more. Or even an expression of love.

That reproduction is the effect of the dolphins mating has no bearing on whether the desire for pleasure is the cause.

I think that my answer to this is essentially farther up in my post.

But this is the primal instinct of any living creature.

I agree. It seems quite often when animal behavior is discussed, instincts are neglected.

mechanisms within the phenotype itself, such as those that cause the animal to derive pleasure from sex or to care about the welfare of offspring and kin.

And that isn't instinctual for them?

Thus mammals, and probably quite a few non-mammals, don't have sex 'for survival'. Sex doesn't help them to survive, and there is no reason why they should care about their genes' survival; they do it for pleasure. That was my point to Scam.

As I said, pleasure may be utilized to entire the animal. I think that people don't really understand inctincts; they aren't like the human mind, which is capable of seeing a list of choices and deciding one by it's self. Instincts simply act based on what the body it is in requires and feels compelled to do. In the case of the instincts of animals, when the body is ready to be sexually active, the instincts compel the body to perform this action. It's not "for" something; they aren't choosing it. They simply do it.

[Smurf]

I wasn't being funny.

I know, I was laughing at your comment on Dolphins using any sort of birth control much less understand the concept of it. I was commenting on the hilarity that this idea is ludicrous...

[CSwriter1]

Hah yes that's funny Scam but seriously there's been heaps of research into it. The mating for pleasure helps to strengthen the social bonds in the pod of dolphins. Interracial mating done by dolphins would reflect this fact. But really it is more of a surmisal that was based on the degree of promiscuity that dolphins possess.

Also Homosexual Dolphins: Dolphins

I am so glad you brought up this point! Yes, sex is very important for social reasons, and it is unfortunate we have distorted the good of sex with religious ideas of sin. We are doing so many things to ourselves that are not natural. Thinking about it makes me want to join a commune with the idea that focusing on being more natural might mean better lives.

Our problem is the mix of our nature. The buck wants a whole herd of females, and I think this is natural for human males as well. While women are driven to the special one to the buck, because this increases the benefits to her and her offspring. These natural tendency lead to conflicts which humans tried to avoid with social rules. Monogamy is about avoiding the conflicts.

However, successful humans. That is those who find adequate food and shelter and meet their needs well enough to have an abundnace of themselves, become concerned with reducing the number of children born, because once a high degree of success is achieved, survival is enhanced by limiting reproduction.

There are reasons for restricting ourselves, and it would be so helpful to deal with these reasons, instead of hating our sexuality. We were made to be sexual, and this does improve our social bonding. If there are few humans, a strong sex drive increases the survival of the group. If there are too many humans, a strong sex still needs an out let. What are safe ways to achieve this?

[bito]

God can definitely not love God; God is like us, the Christian/Jewish God I mean, and so can feel self-loathing as much as we can,

There is wisdom hidden (to you :) ) in these words. The only thing that God or Spirit or Life desires is to end this self-loathing that lives in the darkness of its own ignorance. And this understanding can only happen within you. There is no other way. God becomes conscious within the mind of man.

Good versus evil is based on belief and perspective I think, although I think one is also capable, with knowledge and with a human and humane spirit, of knowing if something is good (humane) or not (inhumane). But, I don't really necessary think it's that any of my selves know that love is all there is... because I don't think so. I think that love is a large part of life and is very important, but I think there is also alot more to life. As Bertrand Russel said (and as our friend Kether is fond of quoting), the good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.

Good and evil are what we believe we are when we stand apart from ourself, and knowledge is within ourself. One sliver of a shadow, one atom of a gap in our thinking (which is the thinking of - your thinking of your sexuality is a perfect example) and we suffer this sense of self-separation, which is identical in essence to self-loathing.

One cannot stop thinking of; thinking of ends when of is no longer needed/seen.

Until this ending of happens, try paying mindful attention to the energy that arises with the thought of (whatever) and see if this makes a difference to the you that is within you.

[Kether]

I don't see where that can be gathered. Why does their behavior being complex mean they are sentient?
The bull responds in a highly flexible way to new situations and stimuli: it has adaptive powers of reasoning and decision-making similar to those of beings we know to be sentient (humans). The failure of computer programmes in engaging in a sensible dialogue with human beings, for instance, is probably a result of the programmes' unconscious, mechanistic following of a rigid set of laws. Flexibility may go hand-in-hand with consciousness.
The bull has sex because his body compels him too. As I said earlier in this post, pleasure may be involved as a sort of enticement method, but that isn't *why* the bull does it.
Of course the bull has sex because his body compels him to! The pleasure the bull derives from sex is a hormonal (i.e., bodily) thing, and that pleasure is the bull's motive for doing it; what 'entices' the bull to engage in copulation is the same as what motivates him.
BTW, you said 'enticement method ', which suggests to me that you may be anthropomorphising evolution too much. I don't doubt that analogies can be useful, but they can also be dangerous traps; don't start believing that the metaphor of the genes 'trying' to survive with 'methods' is actually what happens.
And that isn't instinctual for them?
Of course it's instinctual. So? It's instinctual for humans as well. It appears that mammals share a certain repertoire of instincts (sex, hunger, thirst, fear, &c.), and humans are no exception; I believe that 'instinctual' aspects of the body that affect Mind, such as the amygdala, hypothalamus, nucleus accumbens, reflex arcs, parts of the endocrine system, and so forth, are shared by many species. And just as birds have instincts to regulate flying, humans seem to have their own unique and fascinating set of instincts on top of the more basic ones - language and musical appreciation, for instance.
We also have highly developed neocortices, and thus human minds are both malleable (by culture), sometimes able to make rational decisions with varying degrees of independence from outside influences, and even, potentially, capable of 'jumping out of the system' and analysing themselves - thinking about what they are, how they are and why they are, as we are doing right now.
It is these flexible, evolutionarily young parts of the brain, and their interactions, that lead to the use of birth control. But that doesn't mean that sex is not an instinctual thing; it is. The rational mind, and culture, can channel sexual drives into a healthy form, but they don't destroy them.

[scameter]

I know, I was laughing at your comment on Dolphins using any sort of birth control much less understand the concept of it. I was commenting on the hilarity that this idea is ludicrous...

Yes, you're right it is. :)

There is wisdom hidden (to you ) in these words. The only thing that God or Spirit or Life desires is to end this self-loathing that lives in the darkness of its own ignorance. And this understanding can only happen within you. There is no other way. God becomes conscious within the mind of man.

Very well put. :)

Good and evil are what we believe we are when we stand apart from ourself, and knowledge is within ourself. One sliver of a shadow, one atom of a gap in our thinking (which is the thinking of - your thinking of your sexuality is a perfect example) and we suffer this sense of self-separation, which is identical in essence to self-loathing.

I think that is partially true, but I don't understand how knowledge is in us; is knowledge not acquired, whether through our own thought and/or experience?

The bull responds in a highly flexible way to new situations and stimuli: it has adaptive powers of reasoning and decision-making similar to those of beings we know to be sentient (humans).

This doesn't mean they're sentient. It simply means their instincts are more intricate and adaptive than that of some other animals. Bulls are not aware; awareness is the true component of consciousness.

The failure of computer programmes in engaging in a sensible dialogue with human beings, for instance, is probably a result of the programmes' unconscious, mechanistic following of a rigid set of laws. Flexibility may go hand-in-hand with consciousness.

I don't think that's why. I think it's because computer programs are limited to the amount of programming they have; specifically robots. Robots only have as much programming as we give them, and the way that robots, like ALICE, can seem so advanced, because they are able to have a discussion with us, is because of the amount of information they contain; and that they are able to logically decipher it in reaction to received information.

The pleasure the bull derives from sex is a hormonal (i.e., bodily) thing, and that pleasure is the bull's motive for doing it; what 'entices' the bull to engage in copulation is the same as what motivates him.

So then the bull knows sex will give him pleasure before he has it? Before a bull has experienced sex, he has no idea what it will bring. But, because his body compels him to, he does it. Pleasure in sex is simply something, once he has done it, to physically hypnotize him, in a sense, into wanting to do it as often as possible, although I am currently only in the mindset of thinking this is mere speculation. It seems more true to me that the bull's body and instincts simply compel him to do it, so he does it.

BTW, you said 'enticement method ', which suggests to me that you may be anthropomorphising evolution too much. I don't doubt that analogies can be useful, but they can also be dangerous traps; don't start believing that the metaphor of the genes 'trying' to survive with 'methods' is actually what happens.

I'm not anthropomorphising at all my friend. I simply meant that the enticement effect of pleasure in sex for animals is a physical way to hypnotize the animal into wanting it continously. But, as I said above, this is really only speculation, and I'm more of a different mindset.

Of course it's instinctual. So? It's instinctual for humans as well.

Except that we're aware of it and can choose to not do it, even going against what we think we should do.

And just as birds have instincts to regulate flying, humans seem to have their own unique and fascinating set of instincts on top of the more basic ones - language and musical appreciation, for instance.

But the difference is, they are only to us, and were created. Thus, they are not simply instinctual; our capability initially at inventing them was perhaps already within our mind, but us creating them was not. And, different people are capable of viewing both of those differently; all birds view flying as they are programmed to view it. One doesn't "enjoy" it more than another, for instance, or fly differently than is best for their body.

It is these flexible, evolutionarily young parts of the brain, and their interactions, that lead to the use of birth control. But that doesn't mean that sex is not an instinctual thing; it is. The rational mind, and culture, can channel sexual drives into a healthy form, but they don't destroy them.

But they are capable of denying them.

[bito]

I think that is partially true, but I don't understand how knowledge is in us; is knowledge not acquired, whether through our own thought and/or experience?

Thoughts arise from the invisible within us as knowledge revealed.

We acquire/possess nothing but our own thirst, and when we are thirsty, wisdom, the fruit of knowledge, eludes us.

[WanderingTaoist]

I think that is partially true, but I don't understand how knowledge is in us; is knowledge not acquired, whether through our own thought and/or experience?


Thoughts arise from the invisible within us as knowledge revealed.

Now that brings to mind Plato's dialogue called The Crito , in which Socrates asserts that all knowledge is in us, and it is simply a matter of recollection. You know all there is to know, and whenever you appear to "learn" anything, you're just remembering.

...Interestingly enough, the Greek word for truth is " alethe " which breaks down to a-lethe : literally, "without forgetfulness". Truth is that which takes away one's forgetfulness.

Unless, of course, you're an Aristotlean. ;) In that case, "Nothing exists in the mind which has not been acquired first through the senses."

Of course, I think you can possibly combine the perspectives----knowledge is in us, "the invisible within" Bito refered to---but we can only recall in this world by experiencing things through our senses.

[bito]

Of course, I think you can possibly combine the perspectives----knowledge is in us, "the invisible within" Bito refered to---but we can only recall in this world by experiencing things through our senses.

It is true WT that revealed knowledge and sensual awareness-recall are different faculties of the bodymind, but we no more acquire experience or recall than we acquire thought/knowledge.

It is this very acquisition mentality that blocks our intuitive/creative/ecstatic 'flow'. This is why it is not so important that one believes in God or a God, but rather, than they realize that we do not live life, there is only life or living. Knowledge lives. Love lives. Ecstasy lives. We are but the temporary form that borrows their eternal flow.

[Kether]

Bulls are not aware...
Scam, thus far only tentative excursions have been made by science into the great ocean of Mind, so there is no way that you or anyone can say with such certainty that bulls are or are not aware. For one, we can never actually know what another being subjectively feels, and awareness is a subjective feeling. Secondly, we don't actually know what consciousness objectively 'looks like', and thus do not, when examining a bull's brain, know what to look for when trying to determine whether they are or aren't sentient.
However, I am still of the (fairly strong) opinion that many non-human animals - including bulls - are sentient. Apart from anything else, I feel we should give them the benefit of the doubt: if we go ahead and slaughter and abuse them ad nauseam, based on our conviction that it causes them no pain, we would be causing atrocious suffering if they do turn out to be conscious.

Rather than provide an exposé of all the reasons behind my supposition, I would rather counter the reasons behind yours. What are they?
So then the bull knows sex will give him pleasure before he has it? Before a bull has experienced sex, he has no idea what it will bring. But, because his body compels him to, he does it. Pleasure in sex is simply something, once he has done it, to physically hypnotize him, in a sense, into wanting to do it as often as possible, although I am currently only in the mindset of thinking this is mere speculation. It seems more true to me that the bull's body and instincts simply compel him to do it, so he does it.
Assuming that that bodily compulsion is the same one we humans experience, we can dissect it based on our own subjective experience. If we do so, I think we will find that pleasure plays a primary role in it.
It seems to me that 'compulsion mechanisms' of this sort take the form of a strong feeling that we want to stop, and an instinctual 'knowledge' that engaging in a certain activity will do so. Pain is one example of such a mechanism: we are compelled to find some way out of a painful situation by virtue of a strong feeling of pain, and instinctively 'know' that we can stop the feeling by trying to climb down off the bonfire or whatever. Doing so causes us pleasure in a certain negative sense – absence of pain. (Small digression, to avoid misconstructions or misconceptions: I am not talking about reflex arcs. I can see no need for us to experience pain when it comes to reflexes: our biological strategies against pain appear to be twofold – there is the feeling of pain, which can prompt us to act to end the experience, and there are reflexes, which involve no feeling – just three neurons.)
Sexual desire seems to take a similar form. For whatever combination of reasons, we feel a strong feeling, and want it to stop – and we instinctively feel that we can stop it through sexual activity. This release is pleasurable, and we have advance ‘knowledge’, in a sense, that it will be.
Except that we're aware of it and can choose to not do it, even going against what we think we should do.
Yes, I dealt with that in my post - "[w]e also have highly developed neocortices [as well as 'instincts'], and thus human minds are both malleable (by culture), sometimes able to make rational decisions with varying degrees of independence from outside influences, and even, potentially, capable of 'jumping out of the system' and analysing themselves - thinking about what they are, how they are and why they are, as we are doing right now."
However, this does not mean that non-humans are not aware and cannot feel pleasure or pain. Awareness does not automatically lead to mindfulness and choice/control; I think it takes other elements of the mind as well. After all, all humans are certainly aware - but are we all mindful? Do we all have perfect control over ourselves and our feelings? I think not.
But the difference is, they are only to us, and were created. Thus, they are not simply instinctual; our capability initially at inventing them was perhaps already within our mind, but us creating them was not.
OK, maybe I shouldn't have used musical appreciation as an example of an 'instinct': while I believe that it is at least partially innate, such a belief is controversial. But I think it is almost universally agreed among psychologists that language is an 'instinct'. Scam, do you seriously think that a handful of people were sitting outside the cave one day, and suddenly decided how cool it would be if they could speak? Well... it might make a good Rudyard Kipling story (How did the Human get his Tongue? or something along those lines :lol:), but in reality I don't think it's too probable. (Stop me if I'm being disproportionately mocking...) :peace:
But they are capable of denying them.
Indeed. A useful analogy here might be that of a river that is prone to flood when the snows melt in the spring; the people who live along the banks cannot stop the waters flowing and swelling, but they can divert their course with a system of dams and channels so that their homes are not destroyed. Alternatively, they can try to remove the threat of the river altogether by building a huge brick wall across it.
Recognising the flaws in the latter strategy (either the wall will be destroyed, or the river will find its way around it and cause even more destruction) the townspeople unanimously decide to go for the former - even, oddly enough, the Catholic priest.
(Another little tangent: nota bene that I consider the above model only relevant where sexual instincts are concerned. I do not doubt that other instincts, such as anger, can be destroyed through the right training and effort.)

[scameter]

Thoughts arise from the invisible within us as knowledge revealed.
We acquire/possess nothing but our own thirst, and when we are thirsty, wisdom, the fruit of knowledge, eludes us.

:think: Care to elaborate?

Of course, I think you can possibly combine the perspectives----knowledge is in us, "the invisible within" Bito refered to---but we can only recall in this world by experiencing things through our senses.

I personally disagree with that viewpoint. I think that knowledge is acquired through experience, or created through personal thought, as well as wisdom. But, I think that insight is something gleened from awareness, which is inherent, and that insight brings truth, however limited our amount of insight is by our inevitable subjectivity as thinking humans. Intuition, I think, is capable of giving us awareness and insight (and truth from these), but without thought.

Scam, thus far only tentative excursions have been made by science into the great ocean of Mind, so there is no way that you or anyone can say with such certainty that bulls are or are not aware.

For one, science is not the only thing to have attempted to explore mind, nor is psychology always considered a science. For two, I am not certain of anything that I conclude philosophically, and certain only a little more with things I conclude psychologically, and almost entirely certain of things I conclude factually/scientifically. I made the conclusion that bulls are not aware psychologically.

For one, we can never actually know what another being subjectively feels, and awareness is a subjective feeling.

Awareness is also expressed in behavior, when it exists.

Secondly, we don't actually know what consciousness objectively 'looks like', and thus do not, when examining a bull's brain, know what to look for when trying to determine whether they are or aren't sentient.

I don't think it has anything to do with their brain, as with all minds, beyond that the brain provides the house for the mind. The best way to examine mind is through the study of behavior, as in psychology, or in more theoretical ways as in philosophy.

Apart from anything else, I feel we should give them the benefit of the doubt: if we go ahead and slaughter and abuse them ad nauseam, based on our conviction that it causes them no pain, we would be causing atrocious suffering if they do turn out to be conscious.

:D Wow, I thought you knew me better than this. But the reason you made this erroneous conclusion based on what I've said is because you don't understand what I mean by sentient. To me, sentient means that one with it is aware that they are alive. This doesn't mean they don't think, don't feel, and don't act. Instincts usually are the source of these things in animals, and thus are not chosen or elaborated upon by the animal, which is why they are not aware. We, however, have more in our mind than instincts.

Assuming that that bodily compulsion is the same one we humans experience, we can dissect it based on our own subjective experience. If we do so, I think we will find that pleasure plays a primary role in it.

It is not exactly the same, as our minds are different.

Pain is one example of such a mechanism: we are compelled to find some way out of a painful situation by virtue of a strong feeling of pain, and instinctively 'know' that we can stop the feeling by trying to climb down off the bonfire or whatever.

And yet we're also capable of panic, unlike animals. Our mental stability is based on our emotional stability, whereas other animals' mental stability exists regardless. Unless their body is deformed in such a way of course, such as a brain tumor.

Doing so causes us pleasure in a certain negative sense – absence of pain.

Us. Because the pain is gone, we welcome physical stability with feelings of emotional gratitude for it being gone, which can then be transfered into physical satisfaction, or pleasure. Animals simply have pain, get rid of it, and then don't have it anymore.

Sexual desire seems to take a similar form. For whatever combination of reasons, we feel a strong feeling, and want it to stop – and we instinctively feel that we can stop it through sexual activity. This release is pleasurable, and we have advance ‘knowledge’, in a sense, that it will be.

What is the feeling we are attempting to stop?

However, this does not mean that non-humans are not aware and cannot feel pleasure or pain. Awareness does not automatically lead to mindfulness and choice/control; I think it takes other elements of the mind as well. After all, all humans are certainly aware - but are we all mindful? Do we all have perfect control over ourselves and our feelings? I think not.

I think not too. But perfect control is not mindfulness. Mindfulness is simply the ability to be aware, which all humans have; we can choose to ignore our awareness, but it is still there. But, I think that my definition of sentiency, as stated earlier in this post, will somewhat clarify my view of awareness, with awareness being a large part of sentiency.

OK, maybe I shouldn't have used musical appreciation as an example of an 'instinct': while I believe that it is at least partially innate, such a belief is controversial.

Well, the reason I disbelieve what you said is because instincts are not partially innate; they are entirely innate. I think that musical appreciation is very common in humans, but because we all have emotion, not because of any instincts we have.

Scam, do you seriously think that a handful of people were sitting outside the cave one day, and suddenly decided how cool it would be if they could speak?

Certainly not. But this doesn't mean language is instinctual; nor do all psychologists think so (not that you think they do). Carl Jung, for instance, who is one of my favourites, said that language derives from the fact that everything we experience our minds interpret, and that language is simply the attempt to convey the meaning gotten from interpretation of experience. From language, I think, we began to be able to add consistency and coherence to our thoughts and the memories of experience and our mental picture of them, as Poe thought.

A useful analogy here might be that of a river that is prone to flood when the snows melt in the spring; the people who live along the banks cannot stop the waters flowing and swelling, but they can divert their course with a system of dams and channels so that their homes are not destroyed.

Yes, that's an excellent analogy. :) Although not all occurances of denial in humans is through the interest of survival; usually it is for more emotional reasons.

I do not doubt that other instincts, such as anger, can be destroyed through the right training and effort.

I do. Emotions do not come by our choice; they simply come. But, our reaction to them in physical actions can be controlled, to a certain extent, usually depending on the potence of the emotion and the context.

[Kether]

Sorry I've taken so long to post this reply; I'm not sure whether you want to continue the debate several months after the last post, but I'd quite like to...
Two things, before I proceed. Firstly, since humans are animals, I don’t think we should be talking about ‘humans’ and ‘animals’ as two separate groups; secondly, would you mind using the ‘quote’ tags, italics, colour, inverted commas or something to distinguish quoted text from the rest of the post? It would make your posts much easier to understand, especially when they are as long as the last one. Thanks. B)

Me: Scam, thus far only tentative excursions have been made by science into the great ocean of Mind, so there is no way that you or anyone can say with such certainty that bulls are or are not aware.
Scameter: For one, science is not the only thing to have attempted to explore mind, nor is psychology always considered a science. For two, I am not certain of anything that I conclude philosophically, and certain only a little more with things I conclude psychologically, and almost entirely certain of things I conclude factually/scientifically. I made the conclusion that bulls are not aware psychologically.
I know that science is not the only thing to have attempted to explore Mind; that’s why I said that its excursions (should really have said incursions, but never mind) have heretofore been tentative. I said 'science', not 'psychology' - and pseudoscientific or completely non-scientific study of the mind is, inherently, not scientific. As for the status of psychology – science or pseudoscience? – different pieces of psychological thought have displayed varying degrees of scientific rigour, so I don't think it possible to say whether or not psychology, as a whole, is a science.

Personally, I feel that the nature of Mind should be approached in a multidisciplinary manner: concepts from traditional psychology, computer science, spiritual practices, cybernetics, linguistics, philosophy, neurobiology, endocrinology, and more should all be pooled together; the new scientists of Mind should consider the diverse contributions of many fields, integrating them into a general understanding - and, naturally, their hypotheses should be falsifiable and subjected to rigorous testing. That is how I envisage the ideal psychology of the future.

I dislike your dichotomy between philosophy and the rest of intellectual life as regards certainty: I feel that if we compartmentalise in this fashion, philosophy loses its relevance. Instead of aiding the expansion of human knowledge, instead of giving us new perspectives on research, instead of serving to clarify and deepen our understanding, it becomes divorced from what I consider its purpose: to give us principles to help us through our perusal of the nature of ourselves and our circumambient universe, to help us in our spiritual lives, to give us moral principles and other elements of progress towards a more rational and satisfying life, mindset and set of beliefs. We find ourselves in a baffling world where terrible suffering is rampant, the mass media spread sensationalism and lies, and our own minds and emotions do crazy things. Philosophy is - for me - a way of making sense of it all and finding a solid, watertight raft on which to navigate life. Namtso said something about Buddhism that was related to this in another thread (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=1071&st=0), and it really struck a chord with me:
For me I think the real trick of it is to reduce, reduce, reduce strong attachment while simultaneously increasing compassion for all and a wise, balanced, clear view of reality. Extremely difficult that last part. So many filters of culture, upbringing, media, advertising and even just plain jumping to wrong conclusions. I'm highly skilled at that last one for adding to my incorrect view.
If you are certain of things you 'conclude factually/scientifically', but uncertain of things you 'conclude philosophically', then philosophy must become a sideline, not a bedrock: it must become good for nothing but light entertainment, for we cannot act on or live by things that we are completely uncertain of. In my humble opinion, philosophy should fulfil the deeply important roles that I detailed above: it should be spiritually important to us, and be something more than a mere academic game.
Awareness is also expressed in behavior, when it exists.
What are the behavioural signs of consciousness, in your opinion?
Me: Secondly, we don't actually know what consciousness objectively 'looks like', and thus do not, when examining a bull's brain, know what to look for when trying to determine whether they are or aren't sentient.
Scameter: I don't think it has anything to do with their brain, as with all minds, beyond that the brain provides the house for the mind. The best way to examine mind is through the study of behavior, as in psychology, or in more theoretical ways as in philosophy.
You're perfectly entitled to subscribe to dualism for the moment, since the cause of consciousness - the core aspect of Mind - has not yet been identified. This intangible sense of awareness, the capacity to feel, is certainly deeply mysterious, but I doubt that it can be explained by dualism. It is true that we don't yet have a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, and that we don't yet have a way of discerning whether we ever will be able to invent such an explanation. But I would like to draw attention to the fact that postulating the existence of an imperceptible, supernatural conscious substance (Cartesian ‘mind-stuff’) does not explain consciousness any better than postulating that a visible, natural organ (the brain) can become conscious via processes within it. If we apply Occam’s razor, I think that dualism is the theory that gets shaved off: saying that awareness is caused by something that we know exists (the brain) is simpler than saying that consciousness is caused by something impalpable and invisible (mind-stuff). Our ignorance regarding the source of consciousness certainly doesn’t mean we should revert to the latter account; not only does it involve hypothesizing something intangible, but it also seems to me to beg the question of how exactly mind-stuff is conscious.
Furthermore, certain processes in the mind - emotional states, perceptions, &c. - have been mapped onto processes in the brain, and we know that hormones and drugs affect how we feel and behave. You must have experienced, for instance, the effects of coffee in staving off great fatigue – in an airport, say. I think that creates quite a challenge for dualism.
All the above considered, I'd say that dualism is a somewhat odd position to take.

Anyway, regardless of whether or not awareness is a product of the bull's brain, my point still stands. It was that, with our knowledge of consciousness in its current state, we can't deduce whether the bull is sentient by looking at its brain. Did we have a solution to the problem of consciousness, naturalistic or otherwise, we could either be able to say whether or not the bull was conscious by examining its brain (if we had a theory of what consciousness looked like neurologically) or - if we had a dualist theory - say that either the problem of the bull's awareness was not a neurological one, or be able to detect the mind-stuff or its effects on the brain.
Me: Apart from anything else, I feel we should give them the benefit of the doubt: if we go ahead and slaughter and abuse them ad nauseam, based on our conviction that it causes them no pain, we would be causing atrocious suffering if they do turn out to be conscious.
Scameter: :D Wow, I thought you knew me better than this. But the reason you made this erroneous conclusion based on what I've said is because you don't understand what I mean by sentient. To me, sentient means that one with it is aware that they are alive. This doesn't mean they don't think, don't feel, and don't act. Instincts usually are the source of these things in animals, and thus are not chosen or elaborated upon by the animal, which is why they are not aware. We, however, have more in our mind than instincts.
I thought I knew you better than that as well, and so far I'm pleased to say that you've offered me plenty of reason to do so. The point of my submission was not to say that you slaughter and abuse non-humans ad nauseam, but to point out the consequence of doubting their awareness.

'To you', 'sentient' may mean awareness of being alive, but 'to me' - and to most people, it would seem (I canvassed some opinion before posting), sentient means conscious means aware means what the physicist and cognitive scientist Douglas R. Hofstadter called, with typical elegance, 'our intangible sense of 'I'-ness'. Awareness/consciousness/sentience is an essential, indispensable foundation of all feeling and experience, whether of pleasure or of suffering or of thought. We cannot feel anything without being aware of it.

Furthermore, based on the behavioural signs you were talking about, the conclusion that all non-humans are unaware of being alive is not a compelling one. I don't know about whether they are aware of life, but elephants are almost certainly aware of death: they visit the bones of their ancestors. Many animals grieve when those close to them die. Moreover, dolphins and elephants, and possibly some other animals, have apparently expressed self-awareness (not necessarily awareness of their being alive, but self-awareness) in the form of recognition of themselves in a mirror - here are two articles:
Evidence of Self-Awareness in the Bottlenose Dolphin (http://www.earthtrust.org/delbook.html), by Kenneth Marten and Suchi Psarakos (1995). Originally posted on TBV by Namtso, in ______'s Why Can't we All Just Get Along? (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1141&hl=dolphin&st=15) thread.
Mirror Test Implies Elephants are Self-Aware (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2616655), from ABC news (2006) - I also read an article about the same experiment in the London Times, and if you Google it (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=elephants+self-aware+mirror+test+&btnG=Search&meta=) you get a slough of news sites reporting it. Originally posted on TBV by Psyche, in the same thread.
Me: Assuming that that bodily compulsion is the same one we humans experience, we can dissect it based on our own subjective experience. If we do so, I think we will find that pleasure plays a primary role in it.
Scameter: It is not exactly the same, as our minds are different.
Well, since whether or not our minds are different is the subject of this debate, you can't really use arguments that involve presuppositions about the nature of our respective minds. However, we still have a way forward, in the form of evidence about the nature of the brains of both human and non-human animals. As I mentioned a few posts ago, what could be called the 'instinctual' regions of the human brain are evolutionarily young, compared to some of the other parts, and hence shared by other species.
Before you give me another dualist rebuttal of my resorting to physiological evidence, I would like to say that 'instinctual' behaviour in the mind, and activity in the brain and endocrine system, have been 'mapped' onto each other to a certain extent. Whether or not you believe that the phenomenon of awareness has a naturalistic cause, you can’t deny that such things as pain and sexual drives seem to have physiological roots.

In light of this, I think we can safely say that some instincts, including sexual instincts, probably have the same causes in different species.
Me: Pain is one example of such a mechanism: we are compelled to find some way out of a painful situation by virtue of a strong feeling of pain, and instinctively 'know' that we can stop the feeling by trying to climb down off the bonfire or whatever.
Scameter: And yet we're also capable of panic, unlike animals. Our mental stability is based on our emotional stability, whereas other animals' mental stability exists regardless. Unless their body is deformed in such a way of course, such as a brain tumor.
Non-humans panic all the time. And, given the fact that it is humans that possess the most highly developed rationalities, it is humans that have the greatest potential control over their states of mind. Most humans are, to a great extent, at the mercy of their emotions; I agree with you there – but we can also train ourselves to exercise greater control over our feelings, so that we feel more compassion and happiness, and less anger, less hatred, and less fear. It is in animals that have less highly developed powers of reasoning and self-control – non-humans - that mental stability depends on emotional stability. (Yes, a great many humans lack rationality and self-control, but it is humans who have the greatest potential for it.)
Me: Doing so causes us pleasure in a certain negative sense – absence of pain.
Scameter: Us. Because the pain is gone, we welcome physical stability with feelings of emotional gratitude for it being gone, which can then be transfered into physical satisfaction, or pleasure. Animals simply have pain, get rid of it, and then don't have it anymore.
I am far from convinced, especially since I can’t tell what you are basing that on. Let me draw your attention again to the physiological evidence: the areas of the brain that deal with pleasure are evolutionarily young, and hence shared by many different species – humanity included. This suggests that mechanisms in the mind involving such basic things as sex and pain are also shared.
Me: Sexual desire seems to take a similar form. For whatever combination of reasons, we feel a strong feeling, and want it to stop – and we instinctively feel that we can stop it through sexual activity. This release is pleasurable, and we have advance ‘knowledge’, in a sense, that it will be.
Scameter: What is the feeling we are attempting to stop?
Sexual desire.
Me: However, this does not mean that non-humans are not aware and cannot feel pleasure or pain. Awareness does not automatically lead to mindfulness and choice/control; I think it takes other elements of the mind as well. After all, all humans are certainly aware - but are we all mindful? Do we all have perfect control over ourselves and our feelings? I think not.
Scameter: I think not too. But perfect control is not mindfulness. Mindfulness is simply the ability to be aware, which all humans have; we can choose to ignore our awareness, but it is still there. But, I think that my definition of sentiency, as stated earlier in this post, will somewhat clarify my view of awareness, with awareness being a large part of sentiency.
:P Now it’s my turn to mess around with semantics. What I mean by mindfulness is something akin to what Psyche said in the
Control (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1153) thread:
"Mindfulness - watching thoughts arise in our mind - dismissing the inferior."
Mindfulness entails being cognisant of what is happening in our own minds; realising that one is angry or afraid and pondering why one is angry or afraid, rather than simply being angry or afraid. It is this that leads to greater sagacity and self-control: if we are aware on a 'higher level' of our own thoughts and emotions, it puts things into perspective and thus leads to less fear, less anger, less obsession over petty things, and greater freedom, happiness and ability to be compassionate towards other sentient beings.
Me: OK, maybe I shouldn't have used musical appreciation as an example of an 'instinct': while I believe that it is at least partially innate, such a belief is controversial.
Scameter: Well, the reason I disbelieve what you said is because instincts are not partially innate; they are entirely innate. I think that musical appreciation is very common in humans, but because we all have emotion, not because of any instincts we have.
You err on a number of points.
Firstly, how can the mere presence of emotion account for the phenomenon of music? Let's remind ourselves of what that phenomenon is. Human beings perceive certain harmonic and temporal patterns of sound as 'musical'. This is what music is on the most basic level. Now, does our having emotions explain how this occurs? Emotions are involved in musical appreciation and thus can't be left out of any explanation of it, I don't doubt that, but they don't explain how they are accessed and stimulated by music. The same is true for social interaction as well: some facial expressions cause thoughts and emotional reactions in us, and our emotions alone don't account for how this happens: there must be mechanisms that make the link between the visual stimulus of, say, seeing a frown and the emotional response of concern, shame, &c. Such a link is also needed between hearing ‘musical’ patterns of sound and feeling an emotional response – a mechanism that recognises which patterns are music and which aren’t.
Whether that link is inborn or culturally conditioned (I don't think there's a huge amount of evidence either way), it must still exist.

Secondly, musical appreciation is not very common in humans - it is universal in humans (except, possibly, in a few pathological cases that I’m not aware of).

Thirdly, I maintain that it is acceptable to call language or music instinctual, even if the actual manifestations of these phenomena involve much cultural interference. The ‘instincts’ to which I am referring are the neural mechanisms governing grammar, manipulation of the tongue, teeth and larynx to make vocal sounds, the perception of harmony, &c. If the existence of language and music depend on these neural structures, if the structures are tailored for the specific phenomena, if the defining traits of the phenomena are caused by the structures, then the phenomena may be said to be instinctual, because the neural structures are the instincts – when we speak of a ‘language instinct’ or a ‘music instinct’, it is the neural structures to which we are referring. ‘Instinctual’ means ‘caused by instincts’, so it is correct to say that music and language are instinctual if language instincts and music instincts exist.
If you still aren’t buying the notion that phenomena that are affected by environment can’t be called instinctual, think of a human trait that I’m sure you would consider innate: the possession of arms. Only in a few pathological cases are humans not predisposed towards having arms, but what our arms look like can be affected by environment: the arms can be damaged in accidents or blighted by disease; the level of nutrition the person gets as a child can determine the arms’ lengths and the strength of the bones; the amount the arms are exercised can determine how strong and heavily-muscled the arms are. But do you dispute that the possession of arms is inborn?
So it is with language if innate language mechanisms exist. Assuming Chomsky, Steven Pinker (psychologist) et al are correct, we are born with ‘Universal Grammar’ &c. already in our minds; such mechanisms give us the broad outlines of language, but it is up to socialisation to fill in the details – and despite this interference by culture, language is still instinctual.
If Chomsky and company are correct. There’s evidence and argument both for and against that, and while many psychologists accept the hypothesis, lots of social scientists still adhere to the 'Standard Social Science Model', which claims that the mind is a blank slate, that everything is learned, &c.
Me: Scam, do you seriously think that a handful of people were sitting outside the cave one day, and suddenly decided how cool it would be if they could speak?
Scameter: Certainly not. But this doesn't mean language is instinctual; nor do all psychologists think so (not that you think they do). Carl Jung, for instance, who is one of my favourites, said that language derives from the fact that everything we experience our minds interpret, and that language is simply the attempt to convey the meaning gotten from interpretation of experience. From language, I think, we began to be able to add consistency and coherence to our thoughts and the memories of experience and our mental picture of them, as Poe thought.
Well, I said that the majority (I don't know how big that majority is) of psychologists accept the hypothesis that language is innate; I used the present tense, and Jung has been dead since 1961. Anyway, to me it sounds as though he is talking more about how language affects thought processes, not why language exists; this particular theory, at least how you have paraphrased it, seems to be compatible with the view that language is innate. I don’t really think many people would disagree with the notion that language is an attempt to ‘convey the meaning gotten from interpretation of experience’. I can see no problems with that at all.
Me: A useful analogy here might be that of a river that is prone to flood when the snows melt in the spring; the people who live along the banks cannot stop the waters flowing and swelling, but they can divert their course with a system of dams and channels so that their homes are not destroyed.
Scameter: Yes, that's an excellent analogy. smile.gif Although not all occurances of denial in humans is through the interest of survival; usually it is for more emotional reasons.
... and/or religious/cultural/cognitive reasons...
The denial for the purposes of survival was part of the metaphor, not of its underlying message. I agree with you on the causes of denial.
Me: I do not doubt that other instincts, such as anger, can be destroyed through the right training and effort.
Scameter: I do. Emotions do not come by our choice; they simply come. But, our reaction to them in physical actions can be controlled, to a certain extent, usually depending on the potence of the emotion and the context.
You are not recognising that humans are not all the same in terms of awareness and control. Some people have more self-control than others, and it is possible - through introspection, meditation, and other forms of spiritual training - to develop a higher degree of self-control, including control over our own em0tions. I don't know whether we can have perfect control of our emotions, but I am sure that we can evolve and spiritually grow. Practices like Metta Bhavana, which I perform, can help us to improve our state of mind - and I suspect that some forms of meditation can effect quite significant physiological changes in us, and while I know of no specific studies suggesting this, the idea certainly makes a lot of sense.

Finally, sorry about the obscene length of this post!

Kether.

[scameter]

Kether: Sorry I've taken so long to post this reply; I'm not sure whether you want to continue the debate several months after the last post, but I'd quite like to...

No problem. :)

Kether: Firstly, since humans are animals, I don’t think we should be talking about ‘humans’ and ‘animals’ as two separate groups

I know that humans are animals. I've never talked as if we're not. But I do talk as if humans are a different species than that of other animals species; for instance, humans aren't dogs or cats.

Kether: secondly, would you mind using the ‘quote’ tags, italics, colour, inverted commas or something to distinguish quoted text from the rest of the post? It would make your posts much easier to understand, especially when they are as long as the last one.

Sure.

Kether: That is how I envisage the ideal psychology of the future.

I honestly don't see how that's possible, however. You're trying to make things scientific that are inherently not; for instance, how do you "test" philosophy? Now, I do think that the science of psychology should look at the views of others, but not try to make others scientific.

Kether: Philosophy is - for me - a way of making sense of it all and finding a solid, watertight raft on which to navigate life.

That is the common view of it true. And probably a pretty good one.

Kether: If you are certain of things you 'conclude factually/scientifically', but uncertain of things you 'conclude philosophically', then philosophy must become a sideline, not a bedrock: it must become good for nothing but light entertainment, for we cannot act on or live by things that we are completely uncertain of.

Why?

Kether: What are the behavioural signs of consciousness, in your opinion?

Emotion, passion, creation, unnecessary behavior that is simply for emotional satisfaction rather than to assure our survival, and other things.

Kether: You're perfectly entitled to subscribe to dualism for the moment, since the cause of consciousness - the core aspect of Mind - has not yet been identified.

That isn't why I think the way I do. I definitely think that the brain causes our physical behavior, and that all of our behavior will probably one day be linked to our brain that is generally linked to mind. But, this doesn't destory my belief in mind; it simply shows me that we have mind, and that the brain is engineered to support it. Nor is this dualism.

Kether: If we apply Occam’s razor, I think that dualism is the theory that gets shaved off: saying that awareness is caused by something that we know exists (the brain) is simpler than saying that consciousness is caused by something impalpable and invisible (mind-stuff). Our ignorance regarding the source of consciousness certainly doesn’t mean we should revert to the latter account; not only does it involve hypothesizing something intangible, but it also seems to me to beg the question of how exactly mind-stuff is conscious.

So, simplicity is the drive for subscribing to the belief that the brain causes behavior, instead of truth? And, is it necessary for ignorance to be the cause in belief in something not physical? I don't think so. And, regarding your question: mind is conscious because it is consciousness. It can be no other way. That would be like asking how water is water. It is water because it is water; yes it's because of the chemicals and atoms, but water is water because it is water, basically. If water wasn't water, it would not be water.

Kether: Furthermore, certain processes in the mind - emotional states, perceptions, &c. - have been mapped onto processes in the brain, and we know that hormones and drugs affect how we feel and behave. You must have experienced, for instance, the effects of coffee in staving off great fatigue – in an airport, say. I think that creates quite a challenge for dualism.

True, saying that the brain and the mind are seperate or somehow not linked is foolish. Our minds are definitely in our physical brains, which are in our physical bodies, and so physical influences affect the physical brains that house our minds, and so of course our physical behavior would change.

Kether: Anyway, regardless of whether or not awareness is a product of the bull's brain, my point still stands. It was that, with our knowledge of consciousness in its current state, we can't deduce whether the bull is sentient by looking at its brain. Did we have a solution to the problem of consciousness, naturalistic or otherwise, we could either be able to say whether or not the bull was conscious by examining its brain (if we had a theory of what consciousness looked like neurologically) or - if we had a dualist theory - say that either the problem of the bull's awareness was not a neurological one, or be able to detect the mind-stuff or its effects on the brain.

True. Certainty regarding things for people generally does require them seeing it. Except in things like meaning, or the neurological existence of pictures in our brains, or imagination.

Kether: We cannot feel anything without being aware of it.

That isn't what I said?

Kether: I don't know about whether they are aware of life

They aren't. I never said other animals aren't aware of death; of course they are, it is a physical thing. Nor that they don't recognize themselves in things such as mirrors. But, they aren't aware they are alive. They're awareness is instinctual and is specifically regarding this physical existence, and to instincts, there is no need for other animals to be aware they are alive. It requires consciousness for that, something only we have.

Kether: As I mentioned a few posts ago, what could be called the 'instinctual' regions of the human brain are evolutionarily young, compared to some of the other parts, and hence shared by other species.

Which makes no sense. So, other animals are driven primarily by instincts, as I think I can remember even you agreeing to, and always have been; and yet, the instinctual area of our minds are young (even though we came from, and to some still are somehow even though we're human, apes), and yet our consciousness is less young.

Kether: Whether or not you believe that the phenomenon of awareness has a naturalistic cause, you can’t deny that such things as pain and sexual drives seem to have physiological roots.

I'm not a dualist. Nor would any rational person be. And, nor do I think that the brain doesn't cause many if not all of our behavior, as I've said earlier in this post. Perhaps I simply had said this at the time of the posts of mine you're quoting.

Kether: It is in animals that have less highly developed powers of reasoning and self-control – non-humans - that mental stability depends on emotional stability. (Yes, a great many humans lack rationality and self-control, but it is humans who have the greatest potential for it.)

I disagree. Animals don't need reason to be stable; reason for stability is only required in those with emotion, in which case total control is never possible; emotions will control us regardless, such as in our desire to change how we are. Instincts act like a computer on a jet: it reacts to destabilization and attempts to act for stability. When another animal apparently, to us, panics, they are simply attempting to stabilize their environment; the animal itself is totally stable.

Kether: This suggests that mechanisms in the mind involving such basic things as sex and pain are also shared.

I don't see how what you said makes you "unconvinced" of what I said. So, our minds being evolutionarily young, except things shared by other animals like sex and pain, proves that what I said is wrong. How?

Kether: Sexual desire.

It is still sexual. Sexual desire and sexual pleasure are both sexual, and linked; I find it amazing things that humans have specifically designed for a sort of "teasing", or a pleasurable extending of sexual desire. Such as foreplay, strip teases (which aren't done with the expectation of sex), and other things. Sexual desire itself gives pleasure, and so is sexual pleasure. For other animals, there is no sexual desire; it is simply that their bodies are ready for sex, their instincts drive them to do it, and so they attempt to do it. If it caused them pleasure, they would want it constantly, instead of, like many animals, doing it only once or twice a year, specifically for impregnation.

Kether: Mindfulness entails being cognisant of what is happening in our own minds; realising that one is angry or afraid and pondering why one is angry or afraid, rather than simply being angry or afraid. It is this that leads to greater sagacity and self-control: if we are aware on a 'higher level' of our own thoughts and emotions, it puts things into perspective and thus leads to less fear, less anger, less obsession over petty things, and greater freedom, happiness and ability to be compassionate towards other sentient beings.

True, that is a quality of awareness/mindfulness. And why only we have it: animals don't have the emotions of fear, anger, pettiness, freedom, happiness or compassion to attempt to control. They simply have the drive to survive.

Kether: Firstly, how can the mere presence of emotion account for the phenomenon of music?

It can't, nor did I say it does. We can't directly utilize emotion to create music; it requires other faculties, such as logic, hand-eye coordination, and other things. But, emotion is *why* (I know that's a term scientists, and many others, dislike in modern times) we do music.

Kether: Secondly, musical appreciation is not very common in humans - it is universal in humans (except, possibly, in a few pathological cases that I’m not aware of).

Indeed. As is the reason for this, emotion.

Kether: Thirdly, I maintain that it is acceptable to call language or music instinctual, even if the actual manifestations of these phenomena involve much cultural interference.

You act as if instincts are that which is innate, and everything learned is not instinctual; there is nothing else to it. I disagree with this. Instincts are a type of *mind*; particularly, a lack of awareness and consciousness. Instincts are the mental drive that exists in all animals to survive; it is simply that most animals have only it, whereas humans have more, such as consciousness and awareness.

Kether: But do you dispute that the possession of arms is inborn?

We are currently speaking of the mind, or if you'd prefer to call it the brain only, not the rest of the body, I thought.

Kether: Well, I said that the majority (I don't know how big that majority is) of psychologists accept the hypothesis that language is innate; I used the present tense, and Jung has been dead since 1961.

That doesn't mean what he said is less relevant than what more modern ones say. Our minds aren't very different now than at the time of ancient Greece, much less during his recent time; it is simply that since ancient Greece, our environment has changed, which isn't really even true in Jung's case besides a few things.

Kether: the view that language is innate.

I definitely think our capability for language is innate.

Kether: You are not recognising that humans are not all the same in terms of awareness and control. Some people have more self-control than others, and it is possible - through introspection, meditation, and other forms of spiritual training - to develop a higher degree of self-control, including control over our own em0tions. I don't know whether we can have perfect control of our emotions, but I am sure that we can evolve and spiritually grow. Practices like Metta Bhavana, which I perform, can help us to improve our state of mind - and I suspect that some forms of meditation can effect quite significant physiological changes in us, and while I know of no specific studies suggesting this, the idea certainly makes a lot of sense.

Definitely I recognize that fact. Nor did what I said that you quoted deny it; I definitely think we can control our reactions to our emotions. But I, and many others including psychologists, believe that emotions simply come without our choice; it is our choice, however, how we react to them, and that is what is important, and indeed what self-control is. For instance, if my house sets on fire, I will be afraid regardless of how much I've meditated or tried to not be afraid. But, I can attempt to put my fear aside, and have courage and somewhat calm, and to think instead of simply feel; then, I can do things such as help my family.

Kether: Finally, sorry about the obscene length of this post!

:lol: Same here with mine! And, I hope my quoting method helped. :)

[Trevor]

I shall begin by confirming a possible curiosity of the reader and a necessary informational fact: I masturbate, and have been for a long time. And, ever since I first ejaculated, I have felt guilty about it. And, not only with the guilt accompanied, but also hatred for my sexuality. This concept may seem extremely foreign to the majority of people, but I have found it, unfortunately. My sexuality takes up my thought space, my time, my endurance/stamina; it is something no one but online people know I do, and thus is a secret. It oftentimes hurts if I do it repeatedly, and has occasionally caused redness of my skin that hurts explicably. I am so tired of it, to be entirely honest. I wish I had no sexuality, no physical sexual desires or faculties, no mental sexuality or desire, and no emotional tie to sexuality. I wish my thoughts and emotions and physical body could be simply as they are purely, without sexuality. We have enough people in the world willing to reproduce without me having to; plus, much of modern sex is purely for pleasure, and I would gladly give that up to relieve myself of my sexuality. I'm sorry for this blunt topic, but I knew that if anyone public wouldn't mind speaking about this with me, it would be this community. It is something very much apart of my daily thoughts, emotions, and physiology, and is something detremental to all three. I think this hatred I feel for my sexuality is part of the cause for my appreciation of things not related to myself or my daily life; things such as philosophy, science, technology, mythology, literature, poetry, and the like. Call it escapism if you wish, in a positive or negative tone, it is irrelevent. I simply despise my daily life, and wish only to escape from it into the world of my mind. This is also why I love studying things supernatural and/or magical, because they are metaphysical, beyond normality, but yet from the mind do they have power. I wish more than almost anything to become into contact with the supernatural, some phenomenon of the mind and of nature unexplainable by science or reason, but simply there, and potent and powerful. But, nonetheless, I hate my sexuality, and am entirely open for comment(s) on the matter. :)

You asked, so get ready!!! All I think you need to ease your troubled mind is at the end of this reply, but the way you TREAT yourself is probably what is causing you all of this unnecessary guilt. So let me give you the common sense solution to the problem of red, rashy skin - water based personal lubricant!!! You'll never know how you lived without it. If you can post such a personal thing on the internet, then you can gain enough courage to go and buy some. Good luck.:thumbsup:

[MidnightSun]

Unfortunately some people are only brave on internet.