8/21/2003: Huge pig sacrificed

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by juju
And also, could you elaborate on how the world would be a better place if some human males were neutered?

I got one for ya...YOU wouldn't be able to populate the earth anymore, which would be a good thing...one baby juju is going to be more than enough.

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by juju
I think what you mean by "hard wired" is that when animals have intercourse, it gives them intense pleasure. Don't you think that this reward mechanism is a pretty strong incentive for doing it? If not, why has the pleasure reward even evolved? Surely a species that is hard wired to have sex for the purposes of propogating its DNA would need no pleasure incentive at all. They'd do it just for the reason you say they do it. <i>[edit: and of course, if what you say is true, then they wouldn't hump our legs.]</i>

Juju, I'm going to have to revert to my Dave philosophy on this. Don't "think what [ I ] mean", I meant what I said. The term "hard-wired" is refering to "innate behavior", ie. "inborn" behavior, meaning animals don't think about it, they just do it because that's what their brains tell them to do. And, their brains aren't telling them to do it for pleasure, but do it to reproduce and pass on their genes in order to insure the survival of their species. Other than humans, animals don't know why they need to have sex, only that they must do it.

Disregard humans for a moment. I don't believe that sex provides "intense pleasure" for animals and therefore your pleasure reward theory is irrelevant. I agree with your statement, "Surely a species that is hard wired to have sex for the purposes of propogating its DNA would need no pleasure incentive at all. They'd do it just for the reason you say they do it." This is exactly my point. Now as far as humans go, I don't know how sex has gone from being an act of procreation to being an act of self-gratification. This is one for a human behaviorist, which I am not.

Originally posted by juju
Also, although I know exactly what you mean, I don't think that species or Nature have a "purpose". I realize it's just a poorly chosen word, though.

Revert to Dave theory. I meant what I said. Nature certainly does have a "purpose", but not a "goal" as you stated in a previous post when once again you were trying to interpret the meaning of my commentary. [Juju said..."That makes no sense. What does it mean for it to be "hard wired" into their brain, if not that they ponder the concept? Unless you are saying that nature or evolution has a goal, which it most definitely does not.] I am agreeing with you right now, Nature has no "goal" in that there is an ultimate ending point for Nature to reach, but its purpose is "survival of species". Survival of species is hinged on them reproducing.

[Undertoad]

In fact I believe intercourse is downright painful for female cats. Although I couldn't find the Straight Dope column where I read that.

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by Undertoad
In fact I believe intercourse is downright painful for female cats. Although I couldn't find the Straight Dope column where I read that.

You're right UT. For many species sex is painful. Many females get injured quite badly during the sex act. The males often bite and scratch them resulting in painful wounds which in the wild also can result in death for the females. I can't think of any examples right off the top of my head, but I do know this is true. And for the male perspective, take a look at Black Widows. In this case, the male gets the raw end of the stick. He becomes the females after sex hors d'oeurve. This actually reminds me of salmon too. Juju's "pleasure reward" theory, although I know it is invalid, doesn't explain why many species die after producing off-spring. If in fact they "thought" sex was an intensely pleasurable act, they couldn't pass this info. onto their offspring because they are dead. Therefore, the need to reproduce is once again solely based on instinct and not on pleasure which is a "learned" emotional response to sex based on what humans "think" is pleasurable.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Most everything in nature has a symbiotic relationship, with at least one and usually more, other things. to fullfil that role becomes it's "goal"
Male animals have two modes;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ I'm glad I did it and I want to do it again.
Female animals have two modes, also;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ Get away from me.
I don't think either understand why, but they know what & when.
If "Survival of species" is the be-all/ end-all of nature, how do you explain evolution, that eliminates so many species?

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Most everything in nature has a symbiotic relationship, with at least one and usually more, other things. to fullfil that role becomes it's "goal"
Male animals have two modes;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ I'm glad I did it and I want to do it again.
Female animals have two modes, also;
1~ I want to do it.
2~ Get away from me.
I don't think either understand why, but they know what & when.
If "Survival of species" is the be-all/ end-all of nature, how do you explain evolution, that eliminates so many species?

I'm not sure I follow you here Bruce, but to answer your question...I have posted the definitions of Natural Selection and Evolution from the Harper Collins Biology Dictionary. I think that these terms are being misunderstood and use incorrectly by some in this discussion. I hope this helps

Evolution = an explanation of the way in which present-day organisms have been produced, involving changes taking place in the genetic makeup of populations, which have been passed on to successive generations. According to Darwinism, evolutionary mutations have given rise to changes that, through natural selection, either have survived in better adapted organisms or died out.

Natural Selection = the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin by which gradual evolutionary changes take place. Organisms that are better adapted to the environment in which they live produce more viable young, increasing their proportion in the population and, therefore, being selected. Such a mechanism depends on the variability of individuals within the population. The variability arises through mutation, the beneficial mutants being preserved by natural selection.

So, basically, if a species is unable to adapt to its everchanging environment it will not produce enough viable offspring and will eventually die off. On the other hand, species who are able to adapt produce more viable offspring thus passing on the vary genes that allowed it to adapt, therefore, ensuring the survival of that "better adapted" species.

[juju]

Juju's "pleasure reward" theory, although I know it is invalid, doesn't explain why many species die after producing off-spring. If in fact they "thought" sex was an intensely pleasurable act, they couldn't pass this info. onto their offspring because they are dead. Therefore, the need to reproduce is once again solely based on instinct and not on pleasure which is a "learned" emotional response to sex based on what humans "think" is pleasurable.

You're free to disagree, but you seem to have a misunderstanding of what I really meant.

I don't agree that pleasure is a learned response. You don't have to be taught that sex feels good, for the same reason you don't have to be taught that ice cream or chocolate tastes good.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Pleasure is a personal thing. Some take great pleasure in green veggies and many of us don't. I've met people who hate chocolate (sick bastards) and sweet things.
Because of physical problems and/or head trips, some don't like sex either.
Eating is driven by hunger pangs as sex is driven by the "fire down below". Nature has provided motivation for the things we need to survive as individuals and a species.

[juju]

Right, but that doesn't mean that pleasure is learned. Except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The only thing that's learned is that it feels good. That's just a result of doing it, not the other way around.
I knew you were more than just another pretty face, Juju.

[LUVBUGZ]

Originally posted by juju
Right, but that doesn't mean that pleasure is learned. Except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good.

Juju....are you on crack? You just totally contradicted yourself with these two sentences. First you say that pleasure isn't learned, then you follow with "except that the creatures learn that doing a certain thing makes them feel good." What the fuck do you think learning is? You just described how animals "learn" pleasure it in your second sentence.

[quzah]

Pleasure isn't learned. It simply is. Pain isn't learned. It simply is. Learning is simply the fact that you encounter it for the first time and are now aware of what is. If you remember that fact, then you have learned what is. If not, you'll encounter it again and realize again that it is.

Oh, here's where I act like I'm holier-than-thou and bitch you out for your potty mouth. Like I said, hypocrite. Have a nice day.

Quzah.

[juju]

Originally posted by LUVBUGZ
Juju, I'm going to have to revert to my Dave philosophy on this. Don't "think what [ I ] mean", I meant what I said. The term "hard-wired" is refering to "innate behavior", ie. "inborn" behavior, meaning animals don't think about it, they just do it because that's what their brains tell them to do. And, their brains aren't telling them to do it for pleasure, but do it to reproduce and pass on their genes in order to insure the survival of their species. Other than humans, animals don't know why they need to have sex, only that they must do it.

Dave is a jerk. I really wouldn't recommend taking on his philosophies. But that's your call, of course.

In any case, I wasn't trying to deviously alter what you said in an attempt to undermine you. I just thought that's what you meant by the word. In truth, I don't think either of us can prove what goes on in an animals' mind. So it's all pretty much speculation.

Disregard humans for a moment. I don't believe that sex provides "intense pleasure" for animals and therefore your pleasure reward theory is irrelevant.

Because you don't agree with me, my hypothesis is irrelevant? Can't I have more credit than that?

Nature certainly does have a "purpose", but not a "goal" as you stated in a previous post when once again you were trying to interpret the meaning of my commentary. I am agreeing with you right now, Nature has no "goal" in that there is an ultimate ending point for Nature to reach, but its purpose is "survival of species". Survival of species is hinged on them reproducing.

So, okay, first of all, what is the difference between a goal and a purpose?

Er.. secondly.. of course I'm trying to interpret what you said. I'm trying to understand you. That's communication.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In truth, I don't think either of us can prove what goes on in an animals' mind. So it's all pretty much speculation.

Good point Juju, we really don't know that the other critters feel good having sex. There apparently are some cases, as UT pointed out, where someone figured out that some don't.
This reinforces that it is the hormones that make them scratch the itch and not pleasure because even the ones we are pretty sure don't like it, do it anyway.

aside~ BUGZ, calm the fuck down. It's not a contest, we's jus talkin.

[juju]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Good point Juju, we really don't know that the other critters feel good having sex. There apparently are some cases, as UT pointed out, where someone figured out that some don't.
This reinforces that it is the hormones that make them scratch the itch and not pleasure because even the ones we are pretty sure don't like it, do it anyway.

Perhaps the female cat situation could be analagous to the human practice of rape?

I don't think lack of knowledge really reinforces a hypothesis. But perhaps I misunderstand you. In any case I have to attend to Kathy. I'll be back later.