Are all human interactions reducible to latent sexual desire?

[Qilin]

The story behind this is really simple:

Spoiler for tl;dr:

I was just spending a nice afternoon in our university club's room struggling to read my new Marimite light novel with a dictionary on hand until a friend of mine spots the cover and reacts to it. Needless to say, the cover shows two high school girls staring into each other's eyes passionately. This started a conversation as to whether the relationships depicted in the story, realistic or otherwise, were truly romantic. Eventually, he expressed the opinion that platonic relationships are a myth, and that all human interactions contain some degree of sexual tension.

Of course, I disagreed with this idea, but since our discussion was cut short, I'd like to know what other people think about this. My stance is, assuming that the pleasure gained from sexual stimulation is the desired end, to question why sex has to be singled out of all means. From a biological perspective, eating can most likely trigger the release of just as much or even more pleasure-inducing dopamine, that could also go for other conditioned stimuli. Or perhaps the argument here is whether sex is a means or an end in itself?

Anyway, I'd like to know views from all sorts of walks of life, especially from the social sciences.

Well, the question is in the title. What do other people think about this?

[Triple_R]

No, not all human interactions are reducible to latent sexual desire.

It's not even a question of whether platonic friendship exists or not. Many human interactions are engaged in for purely intellectual reasons. To increase our knowledge, to understand a different perspective on something, or to simply enjoy an intellectually rewarding conversation.

I also think that platonic friendships exist, as I had a fair number as a teenager and have also had a few as an adult.

[Fireminer]

Nah! Life and Relationshipis is not that simple! For example, a lot of people fall in love through letter, and you could just asked them whether do they think of sex matter in the first place. I am sure that most of the answer would be "No". If human were only affected by our chemical process, then how could you explained tons of self-sacrifice action?

But if it's the first sight, human's sense (especially our noise) could tell us whether the opposite sex would be our our compatiable mate.

[SaintessHeart]

What? You mean that if I interact with a loli I would want to bang the daylights out of her?

Not only is that ridiculous in logic, it singlehandedly is the biggest insult to all the friendly nii/nee-sans out there.

[Akito Kinomoto]

...Oh yes, totally. I'm sure people attend Stephen Hawking's lectures because they're so damn attracted to him.

[Soverence]

Sounds like some Freudian ideology in that title if you ask me which helps me believe that the title statement is false since most of Freud's ideas have been disproved since their introduction.

Don't get me wrong, sexual desires are one of the major motivations for human interaction, but to say it can be attached to all interactions/actions is plain silly. A common rule to follow is that if a opinion uses the word all or everything you can probably surmise that it is either a over exaggeration or just false, in this case it being a over exaggeration.

[C.A.]

If you're arguing from an evolutionary standpoint, everything we do can be related to sex.

Evolution, against popular belief or popular misconception, is not about survival of the fittest, it is all about having sex and passing on genes.

You survive only so that you might have a chance to pass on genes, and every action that contributes to your growth and survival ultimately is driven by your evolutionary purpose of having sex.

Working hard, gaining knowledge, making money, grooming yourself, everything contributes to the chance of you surviving or becoming attractive to potential partners. Even if you are asexual, anything you do will be judged upon and contribute to your latent sexual potential. You may not want to have sex with someone but others will still want to sex you.

So in conclusion everything in life is about sex.

[Jan-Poo]

I once argued against someone who claimed every human behavior or decision is tied to his desire to pass his own genes.

Then I challenged him to explain why would someone made a vow of chastity if that was truly the case.

He answered that people do that because they think they'll have sex with a lot of virgins in the afterlife.

Long story short, when you argue against someone who wants to prove at all costs that sex drives everything they'll always find some kind of rationalization to prove their point in spite of its implausibility.


Personally I think that Freud inverted the relationship between sex and pleasure. He thought that pleasure is a form sexual pleasure, while it's more logical to think that the search for pleasure is a more primitive force and sexual pleasure is just something that spawned from it after billion years of evolution.
Needless to say, if that primordial force exist, then there are pleasures that do not necessarily need to pass through sexual mechanisms. Even if they are evolved forms of pleasure-seeking typical of humans.


PS: Do you know why dates, especially those that are meant to end with sex, often start with a dinner? Because the desire of food always take precedence over the desire of sex. People are more likely to think about sex when they don't have to worry about their empty stomachs.

[LeoXiao]

I think that often its the other way around. Lots of fetishes seem to come from one's impression of non-sexual objects and concepts, which are then connected to sexual urges. The actual urge itself, however, is rather simple.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

PS: Do you know why dates, especially those that are meant to end with sex, often start with a dinner? Because the desire of food always take precedence over the desire of sex. People are more likely to think about sex when they don't have to worry about their empty stomachs.

You need to eat so that you can survive for a chance to pass on your genes. And the very fact that one chooses to break up with another would mean that you choose not to pass on your genes with her and thus he/she would be less important than your personal survival.

Also I am not putting up an argument against Freudian or Jungian ideas because they are mostly outdated and debunked by modern neuropsychology.

[Cosmic Eagle]

I can personally vouch that Platonic relationships are not as alien as one might think

I mean what...so I go all out for someone purely because I need to physically pleasure myself?

[Akito Kinomoto]

Well, there's a difference between would bang and want to bang.

[C.A.]

Platonic relationships are among many other things that humans can experience to preserve and enrich your life and chances of survival, which then again ultimately prepares you for your chance to pass on genes.

In case people start asking me how did I end up having such a perspective of life, for that I point to Charles Darwin's Origin of Species and Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene.

Our purpose in life from an evolutionary standpoint is to pass on genes, and meanwhile we enjoy life in other ways while building up to that purpose.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by C.A.

So in conclusion everything in life is about sex.

No, it's not.

Your argument on this thread is overly broad and simplistic.

What about people who plan to never have children?

Such people do exist, and in significant numbers. Obviously these people are not motivated primarily by a desire to pass on their genes, or they would not be actively planning to not have children.

Life is more complicated than biology alone, and so there are limits to the evolutionary standpoint.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

No, it's not.

Your argument on this thread is overly broad and simplistic.

What about people who plan to never have children?

Such people do exist, and in significant numbers. Obviously these people are not motivated primarily by a desire to pass on their genes, or they would not be actively planning to not have children.

Life is more complicated than biology alone, and so there are limits to the evolutionary standpoint.

Indeed what I'm saying is very broad, its a conclusion of conclusions in the books I've read.

Alot of things that humans do are not directly linked to passing on genes, but they add up to the chances as a species to pass on their genes, be it through altruism or group survival. We are not individually driven by sex, but as an entire species.

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by C.A.

You need to eat so that you can survive for a chance to pass on your genes.

See that's exactly what I was talking about. It can't simply stop at "one eats because he needs to survive" it's "He eats because he needs to survive because he needs to pass his genes".

But you haven't quite proven why "survive" isn't a goal in itself and why it requires a better justification.

With that same logic pattern you could state something nonsensical such as that one eats because he needs to survive in order to eat.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

See that's exactly what I was talking about. It can't simply stop at "one eats because he needs to survive" it's "He eats because he needs to survive because he needs to pass his genes".

But you haven't quite proven why "survive" isn't a goal in itself and why it requires a better justification.

With that same logic pattern you could state something nonsensical such as that one eats because he needs to survive in order to eat.

From nature we can observe that many species, most notably from insects, that adults die as soon as they pass on their genes. This is because it is the most energy efficient way for the species to live as a whole. If those insects continue to grow old and not pass on genes, they are just stealing resources from the young and fertile and handicapping their own species. This tells us that the very act of survival is not the point of evolution, it is the act of passing on genes that is important.

We humans are burdened by morals and thus keep the elderly alive, and the elderly continue to try to contribute to the species by taking care of the young, it is how our species have evolved to be efficient.

We humans are social animals and we benefit from keeping more of us alive and thus we are driven to take care and feed each other so that we can keep more of us alive to pass on genes.

I assure you I am not being nonsensical, I am just regurgitating parts of what I've learnt. If you want, I can also link you to the official Stamford university lectures I've attended on youtube. There are entire year long series of lectures up there on youtube you can learn from.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by C.A.

Indeed what I'm saying is very broad, its a conclusion of conclusions in the books I've read.

Alot of things that humans do are not directly linked to passing on genes, but they add up to the chances as a species to pass on their genes,

Consider an otaku in his 20s or older that doesn't socialize much in real life, or with the opposite sex. He may take in the odd anime convention, and hang out with some fellow otakus from time-to-time, but he lives a largely private/solitary existence. He really does believe that "2D > 3D" and he has no intention of ever trying to mate with a real life woman. He also has no plans to ever have children.

Now, this is probably an extreme example even within the otaku fandom, but this type of person really does exist. How is he contributing to the chances of humanity to pass on its genes? He isn't really. He's just there, living his life as he wants to. His actions neither helps nor hinders humanity when it comes to pro-creating.


Something else that should be considered - Many 1st world nations have falling birth-rates. Many modern 1st world nations are not pro-creating at a replacement level (about 2 children per adult couple, IIRC).

Once people achieve a certain level of affluence, basic biological drives often become secondary to higher-level concerns on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. For many, self-actualization does not necessarily involve pro-creating.

Originally Posted by C.A.

We humans are social animals and we benefit from keeping more of us alive

No matter how sociable people are, you don't need 6 billion people in order to have a healthy social life.

and thus we are driven to take care and feed each other so that we can keep more of us alive to pass on genes.

Once people reach a certain age level, they're no longer able to pass on their genes. So if given a choice between, say, the government giving Old Age Pension to seniors or the government trying to wipe out child poverty, which would more likely contribute to people being able to pass on their genes? And yet the Canadian government gives out OAP while childhood poverty still exists to at least some degree in Canada. Perhaps the US has something similar, I don't know.

I say again - There are limits to the evolutionary standpoint. There are things that run contrary to basic biological drives, let alone things which fail to adhere to them.

And not everything in an University lecture or textbook is beyond question. Biologists, scientists, and professors are fallible human beings just like the rest of us are. They can take their ideas too far sometimes.

[C.A.]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Consider an otaku in his 20s or older that doesn't socialize much in real life, or with the opposite sex. He may take in the odd anime convention, and hang out with some fellow otakus from time-to-time, but he lives a largely private/solitary existence. He really does believe that "2D > 3D" and he has no intention of ever trying to mate with a real life woman. He also has no plans to ever have children.

Now, this is probably an extreme example even within the otaku fandom, but this type of person really does exist. How is he contributing to the chances of humanity to pass on its genes? He isn't really. He's just there, living his life as he wants to. His actions neither helps nor hinders humanity when it comes to pro-creating.


Something else that should be considered - Many 1st world nations have falling birth-rates. Many modern 1st world nations are not pro-creating at a replacement level (about 2 children per adult couple, IIRC).

Once people achieve a certain level of affluence, basic biological drives often become secondary to higher-level concerns on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. For many, self-actualization does not necessarily involve pro-creating.

The effect of media on the evolution of humanity as a species is a very new topic and problem that we are encountering now. The very fact that people are turning to 2D for self satisfaction is because they find it easier to release their sexual desires.

Real world "3D" is too much effort in comparison to the 2D that they can easily love. One thing this may tell us is that humans have evolved sexual pleasure as a way to drive sex to pass on genes, but this desire has become separate and greater than the act of passing on genes itself.

And also many people consider the anti social behaviours of otaku to be negative, in a behavioural evolutionary view this is because these otaku are not contributing to the species survival and gene pool and are seen as undesirable.

The issue of falling birthrates is another really important and complex issue to get across.

It is actually both a good thing and bad thing.

The good thing is that it allows parents to take care of their children more as they need to pay less attention and energy and can focus on a few. The extremely high birth rates of 3rd world countries is also one of the reasons why they have high child mortality and family problems.

In fact we need to keep the birth rate lower for better quality of life, but not too low that it will start to become an aging population. Which is then another sepate argument on its own, that I can argue its because we are so good at taking care of our species that the human life span has increased. And this is what I am talking about that evolution doesn't want you to keep on surviving as it will handicap your own species.

This post is getting too complex and long, I cut here.

[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.