Are all human interactions reducible to latent sexual desire?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by C.A.

The effect of media on the evolution of humanity as a species is a very new topic and problem that we are encountering now.

Well, to be fair to you, I think there was a time when your argument would have met with few exceptions. And even those exceptions could perhaps be explained away as people who altruistically contributed to humanity's procreation in general.

But in recent times, this has changed. So, at least as it pertains to recent and current times, I think it's possible to overstate the influence of biology and the desire for humans to pass on our genes.

[Urzu 7]

Well, that is an interesting idea. I wonder if it is just his views or some theory he read somewhere. Anyway, I for one don't think that all human interactions are reducible to lat-

Oh my...OP, you have such big, strong arms...and a cute butt, too!

<3

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Well, to be fair to you, I think there was a time when your argument would have met with few exceptions. And even those exceptions could perhaps be explained away as people who altruistically contributed to humanity's procreation in general.

But in recent times, this has changed. So, at least as it pertains to recent and current times, I think it's possible to overstate the influence of biology and the desire for humans to pass on our genes.

No no, my argument still stands, people are turning to 2D for easier satisfaction of their sexual desire. The media is heavily sexualised in many ways to appeal to the human sexual desire anyways.

The problem here is that we have identified a possible split between desire and the need to pass on genes. Sexual desire was an evolutionary development to encourage reproduction, but now it may be an even strongest force than the need to pass on genes. Which still supports my argument of TC's original question, whether all human interactions reducible to latent sexual desire, which I answer yes.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by C.A.

No no, my argument still stands,

No, it doesn't.

people are turning to 2D for easier satisfaction of their sexual desire.

That explains some of the people who choose not to pass on their genes, but not all.

Not all human interactions are reducible to latent sexual desire, for plenty of perfectly good reasons that have already been given on this thread.

The media is heavily sexualised in many ways to appeal to the human sexual desire anyways.

There are still forms of entertainment and information that have little to nothing to do with sexual appeal or sexual desire.

The problem here is that we have identified a possible split between desire and the need to pass on genes.

That's not the only split. There's also a split between sexual desires and other sorts of desires and goals. Again, I point to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The higher level needs do not necessarily go back to sexual desire. In fact, they often don't.

Which still supports my argument of TC's original question, whether all human interactions reducible to latent sexual desire, which I answer yes.

That's the wrong answer. The correct answer is "no".

[C.A.]

Well Maslow's hierarchy of needs is something that popular science and media likes to bring up every now and then like Freud's Id, Ego and Superego. And these are debunked by modern neuroscience, there simply isn't enough evidence to back up either of these concepts.

Studies of evolution have always showed that the spreading of genes is the most important for a species survival and is the primary drive for any species.

Its the same for humans, just that we have many ways to go around doing it. And because we are complex enough to work around this problem, humans have adopted many more ways to satisfy themselves of either sexual desire and the need to spread genes.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Well Maslow's hierarchy of needs is something that popular science and media likes to bring up every now and then like Freud's Id, Ego and Superego. And these are debunked by modern neuroscience, there simply isn't enough evidence to back up either of these concepts.

Please link to applicable neuroscience papers, reports, and/or studies that supposedly "debunk" Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

It's interesting that this Wiki entry on it speaks of no such "debunking".

"Criticism" is not the same as debunking, it should be noted. And lack of evidence is not the same as debunking. Some ideas can be neither proved or disproved. That doesn't mean they're "debunked".

Studies of evolution have always showed that the spreading of genes is the most important for a species survival and is the primary drive for any species.

Sure, but primary doesn't mean only.

Its the same for humans, just that we have many ways to go around doing it. And because we are complex enough to work around this problem, humans have adopted many more ways to satisfy themselves of either sexual desire and the need to spread genes.

Humans have desires other than sexual desires and/or the desire to spread genes.

Many humans desire to play or hear great music for its own sake.

Many humans enjoy reading a good murder mystery novel for its own sake (even if the novel may have no sexual content whatsoever).

Many humans enjoy playing or watching sports for its own sake.

Many humans enjoy a good conversation for its own sake. If I'm having an intellectually rewarding conversation with my parents or my sisters, then "latent sexual desire" isn't exactly a key part of this human interaction.

A man beams down at his four year old daughter showing him a beautiful picture that she has drawn, and he compliments her on it. You really want to say that this human interaction is reducible to latent sexual desire?


And it's for all of the above reasons and countless others that no, not all human interactions are reducible to latent sexual desire.

[Archon_Wing]

Pro Tip: When people say "fuck you", they actually most likely do not want to copulate with you in this manner. Sadly.

Furthermore, it is possible to oversimplify anything into an asinine conclusion. The idea that we can just simplify human behavior to this is beyond the level of arrogance that an egocentric race that has all but laid claim to a single grain in space.

[Reckoner]

Can't this entire discussion be boiled down to another free will debate?

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Can't this entire discussion be boiled down to another free will debate?

I don't think so.

Just for argument's sake, let's say the determinists are right. Even if so, that doesn't mean that all human interactions are rooted in latent sexual desire. Rather, it would mean that everything we do is rooted in genetics, but those genetics could impact us in ways other than just sexual desire.

Do you feel some sexual frustration in every human interaction you're in? Or is all of your human interactions part of some grand multifaceted scheme to score with someone?

The answers for me are no, and no. So of course my answer to the OP's question is "no".

There are plenty of conversations I engage in where I'm very relaxed and sex doesn't even cross my mind during the conversation.

That doesn't mean I don't frequently think about sex - I'm sure most hot-blooded teenagers and adults do. But at least for most of us, it doesn't consume our every waking thought, or impact all of our interactions with others.

[Reckoner]

Well this is of course a very specific thing, but to say that it isn't possible to have platonic relationships is to say in some sense that we don't have free will.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

I don't think so.

Just for argument's sake, let's say the determinists are right. Even if so, that doesn't mean that all human interactions are rooted in latent sexual desire. Rather, it would mean that everything we do is rooted in genetics, but those genetics could impact us in ways other than just sexual desire.

Do you feel some sexual frustration in every human interaction you're in? Or is all of your human interactions part of some grand multifaceted scheme to score with someone?

The answers for me are no, and no. So of course my answer to the OP's question is "no".

There are plenty of conversations I engage in where I'm very relaxed and sex doesn't even cross my mind during the conversation.

That doesn't mean I don't frequently think about sex - I'm sure most hot-blooded teenagers and adults do. But at least for most of us, it doesn't consume our every waking thought, or impact all of our interactions with others.

To be fair, the keyword here is latent. So no one is actually saying (or at least, they shouldn't) that you're always conscious of your sexual desire in every interaction you make.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by monster

To be fair, the keyword here is latent. So no one is actually saying (or at least, they shouldn't) that you're always conscious of your sexual desire in every interaction you make.

How could a person have sexual desire, latent or otherwise, for an individual they've never seen, never heard the voice of, and don't have any physical description of?

Consider all of us here chatting right now. We are interacting with one another, but we (generally) don't see each other or hear each others voices. For the most part, we have no idea what each other looks like or sounds like.

In any event, do you really think that all conversations between parents and their children are reducible to latent sexual desire?

Also, do you really think that everybody subconsciously wants to have sex with everybody they talk to?

[monster]

Oh, I'm not saying I necessarily agree that it exists for every interaction, just that not being conscious of it doesn't really mean much if it's supposed to be latent.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by monster

Oh, I'm not saying I necessarily agree that it exists for every interaction, just that not being conscious of it doesn't really mean much if it's supposed to be latent.

If something is latent, then it has the capability/potential to emerge or develop. But there are people I've conversed with that I would never express sexual desire for. And that's not just due to some social norms or values, but also due to the simple fact I don't find them sexually attractive.

So there's no capability/potential for emergence or development there. So there's no latency there.

[Archon_Wing]

Btw, Freud was on crack so... Just to let you know where a lot of it comes from.

It's completely possible to simplify a cause to a complex issue. For example, it's very easy to just say that World War II was started due to Hitler, or the American Civil War due to slavery. Simplicity allows human minds to more easily grasp concepts, but honestly it can result in many statements that are true but ultimately meaningless and then people see patterns that seem like they make sense, but don't. This is how casinos exploit people.

And overall, survival seems to be the dominant reaction. There are many cases where people cannot control their fear or take actions they normally wouldn't do to survive. Sure, some organisms have reproduction at the end of their life cycle and die, but they're at the end for a reason. It's now... or never. But really, it's much more easier to explain situations where people cannot control their instinct to not die then to not have sex. You can argue that you're supposed to survive and increase your chances of procreation, but it doesn't change the fact that survival urges are stronger than sexual urges. Ultimately, it's a luxury and a plus to pass your genes on.

Therefore, I argue that all interactions with people are because they don't want to die. Which can be true, but just as meaningless as saying sex is behind all human interaction. Honestly, I find the reasoning to the later conclusion to be a pretty natural one from a viewpoint of a male dominated society. I wonder why though. Consider this though. If we're boiling everything down to procreation, then males are more focused on sex, since one male can impregnate many females, while a female only needs to have sex only once every nine months at most.

I wonder what kind of terrible conclusions we can come through with this. It doesn't take a genius on who benefits more from using sex to justify their behavior. Indeed, a man is doing his species good by tossing his semen around, while a woman that does is a danger to the species because she's wasting perfectly good semen. Clearly the former needs to be kept, and the later does not. Meanwhile, homosexuality is an abomination, since this completely denies this objective paradigm. Especially gay people, since they're wasting twice as much useful semen on things that aren't women. Lesbians aren't as bad because they can at least fuel male fantasies and cause said males to impregnate more women. Gay people could furfill female fantasies, but since they should be pregnant after one man, they shouldn't waste any of men's valuable semen in them. Sound familiar yet?

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I don't have the time nor energy nowadays to go into lengthy discussions on such topics. Life gets in the way.

Anyway, the will to pleasure (sex, love and rock 'n' roll) as popularised by Sigmund Freud is but one of many possible ways to structure human relationships.

There is also the will to power, as expounded by Friedrich Nietzsche; it's the idea that ambition and the desire for status are what drive humanity.

Finally, there is the will to meaning, as explained by Viktor Frankl, who believed that the struggle for meaning in one's life is the primary, most powerful motivating force for humans.

Collectively, these are part of the so-called Viennese schools of psychotherapy. The thinkers I named above are by no means the only ones who contributed to each "school". They are but the foremost figures in their respective fields.

Clearly, then, there are myriad ways in which men and women are driven to do whatever it is they choose to do. The human mind is a complex phenomenon. It's tempting to think that everything we do is triggered by primal evolutionary impulses but, in reality, conscious behaviour is not fully determined by our biology. The ability to act on will is what puts us apart from most animals.

I don't think there is a 'primary' force, but I see all three of these schools as having some degree of truth. The human mind, nay, even other mammalian or avian minds that are less complex than our own, can not be simplified to one purpose or force, in my opinion (possibly even reptilian, too - I recently read research which has shown lizards have unique personalities) .

There is a latent and powerful drive to reproduce that has affected the evolution of every species and has a rather central impact on our behavior. Even so, that doesn't mean all of our behavior has to revolve around the drive to reproduce. I do not believe children are affected at all by the desire to reproduce, for instance, until they reach puberty. A very small percentage of the population is asexual, some have decided against children, etc.

The thing that immediately made me reject this notion when I read the opening post in this thread though, is the strong friendships I've made in my life, and especially the strong bond I have with my two brothers.

Maybe if you wanted to get into a bigger picture modality you could argue that by maintaining friendships and staying close with my brothers, I may somehow increase my chance to reproduce, but that certainly isn't an active goal of mine... So I guess you could still argue that reproduction is tangentially involved in these relationships on some interconnected level, but I don't think things are so black and white as to say all interaction can be reduced to sexual desire, even if it may play some role.

I find that as I'm getting older, I'm really shifting away from hardline philosophies and embracing the rationality behind the nuanced, shades of grey, "no singular definitive answer" nature of many philosophical questions.

[aohige]

Are all human interactions reducible to latent sexual desire?

No idea mister, let me ask my penis.
Surely he can answer in some freudian mumbo-jumbo.

Surely it's about as logical and reasonable as that line of thinking.

[Kimidori]

strage, as much of a raging hormones teenage I was (and somewhat still is), I never thought of "passing on gene" as something important, nor do I think it important now. in fact my fantasy I often have thought of avoiding child birth and in it purely for the pleasure.

[C.A.]

Because I'm not an expert nothing I say will sway anyone anyway, and people aren't going to read Origin of Species or Selfish Gene so I'll just let professor Robert Sapolsky do the talking, which I don't think anyone would listen as well.

Skip to 10:55 if you just want to hear from his mouth that evolution is not about survival but reproduction.

And if you are actually interested in the subject, I suggest you go back to the first lecture, the one I linked is the second, and watch all the 20+ lectures and understand how the evolutionary purpose of spreading genes causes behaviours in species.

This is a huge topic and that's the best way I can answer it is to link it to an expert since no one is going to take me seriously and I don't expect anyone to. This type of topics usually end up in circles and its best not to invest too heavily into.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Because I'm not an expert nothing I say will sway anyone anyway, and people aren't going to read Origin of Species or Selfish Gene so I'll just let professor Robert Sapolsky do the talking, which I don't think anyone would listen as well.

Skip to 10:55 if you just want to hear from his mouth that evolution is not about survival but reproduction.

And if you are actually interested in the subject, I suggest you go back to the first lecture, the one I linked is the second, and watch all the 20+ lectures and understand how the evolutionary purpose of spreading genes causes behaviours in species.

This is a huge topic and that's the best way I can answer it is to link it to an expert since no one is going to take me seriously and I don't expect anyone to. This type of topics usually end up in circles and its best not to invest too heavily into.

I take what you're saying seriously and I've read both the Selfish Gene (as well as several other works from Dawkins, my favorite being The Ancestor's Tale) and pretty much everything Darwin put down on paper that you can find in a bookstore.

The problem with your conclusion is that while you're correct that reproduction (more accurately, the passing of genetic material, more on that in a minute) is of paramount importance from a Darwinian perspective, the question about human interaction crosses into the realm of philosophy and not pure science. Though the OP frames this in a "is sex all that matters in human interaction" kind of way, you inevitably approach the question "what matters in human interaction?" along the way of pondering his query. Personally, I'm of the "nothing really matters" camp and that includes the "goals" of our genetic programming. They exist and are undeniable, but that doesn't mean they "matter" from a purely philosophical perspective.

Now, getting away from that, one can argue that much of human behavior is related to the ability to reproduce and the carrying on of our lineage. One could suggest that any action we undertake, regardless of it seemingly being unrelated to reproduction, is made due to our programming that leads towards passing down our genetic material. Like I alluded to in my earlier post, when I make friends or spend time with my brothers, I may be somehow increasing my odds to reproduce through social mechanisms, etc. There is also evolutionary psychology that argues many of humanity's greatest achievements are mate-finding behavior; the arts, athletics, business/monetary pursuits, etc... The individual making these actions might not be thinking "hey, if I become really accomplished in x field, I will someday have lots of children," but rather our desire to accomplish something is another latent manifestation of our genetic programming to position ourselves in the best way for reproductive success.

I don't really dispute any of that and I find it fascinating and tend to believe it. The problem is, I look at things another way too; that there is our programming, our 'wiring,' etc, and then there is our macro, real life existence. There may be a programmed reason that I make friends for reproductive success, but there's also my own internal human person reason that I enjoy those relationships. There may be programming making the sculptor produce a masterpiece or the athlete break a record for reproductive success, but certainly many of these individuals, on their human-individual scale, aren't considering the reproductive element, but are doing it because they love their activity, or they desire success from these achievements, etc

So I guess I can't really escape philosophy in saying that I don't think you can play this reductionist game with the behavior of complex organisms. I believe there's a co-existing reality of a programmable genetic reason for behaviors and our more familiar human reasons. I take a somewhat similar stance in free will debates. I think life, especially sentient life, is too complex to be understood without considering both elements as valid.

Now another tangential idea (not really related to the above line of thinking) I mean to introduce regarding your point about reproduction, is the existence of eusocial organisms such as ants and bees. I would assume you are aware that very few of the members of any given colony/hive reproduce. Yet they still live and work towards the reproductive success of others. From a Darwinian perspective, this is because they share some genetic material with the queen and the fertile males born in their colony. So even though they do not directly reproduce, some of their genetic material is still passed on. Obviously, humans aren't eusocial, but this same situation could apply with humans and their siblings, or menopausal mothers who are still quite obviously alive, but can no longer reproduce and thus would focus more on the survival of their existing children rather than have their energy put towards reproduction. This is why I think it's more accurate to say evolution is about the passing of "genetic material" than simply about "reproduction." This fact also throws a monkey wrench in "sexual desire" being the focal point of all human interaction - even acknowledging the importance of passing our genetic material, it is most certainly not always manifested through sexual behavior.