|Blogs > BJRex2 > My Blog|
We continually encounter people on AdultFriendFinder that are confusing the distinction between lower animal instinctive mating behaviors, with the Homo sapiens’ desire for sex. I felt it might be informative to point out, hopefully, a clearer distinction that is generally agreed upon by both philosophers and the scientific community alike.
It is known by most educated people that even most of the lower animals have some degree of initial aesthetic visual attraction that drives the initial mating rituals (e.g., peacocks and their brightly colored feathers, even these lower animals don't observe their reproductive organs at first flirtation stages).
How much more so do you think it is with rational animals such as the Homo sapiens? Now of course, we can emotively (and/or psychologically) ignore this aesthetic component, and reduce our sexual chemistry to a mere instinctive, chemical, physical-stimulus-response toward body parts, but then we reduce the Homo sapiens to a mere rutting dog with only instinctively chemical, and/or possibly olfactory stimulus-responses. But both of these reductive stimuli are impossible attractive components via the Internet, hence, impossible via AdultFriendFinder. The second step many take seems to reduce sexual attraction then to visual stimulus through body parts only (e.g., penises, vaginas, breasts).
But this latter theory clearly contradicts the majority of scientific studies, and our own common experience (reduction of visual stimulus through body parts alone). Studies have been conducted on both toddlers and adults showing an increased brain activity toward attraction for symmetrical faces over mere body parts. Most rational Homo sapiens recognize sexual attraction as visual attraction initially toward the face then the form, then physically (i.e., chemical), and finally mentally (i.e., psychologically). This tier progression generally happens in most cases (of course we find exceptions, but they do not make the rule). It only becomes more psychological as the relationship grows, but initially it is primarily visual, then physical, and finally psychological. However, lower animals never arrive at the psychological, and in some cases even the visual attraction is absent; for these species engage in reproduction on purely an instinctive level (pleasure is only a by-product of reproduction), while the Homo sapiens are engaging in sexual activity for both reproduction and/or pleasure, hence, the necessity of mental or psychological capacities.
How often do we find a woman walking along the street observing a man's penis alone, then she falls head over heals for him and begs him for sex? How often do men see giant vaginas or breasts with no other body parts and immediately ask for sex without the attached head? Common sense tells us, that most are, initially at least, visually attracted to the face, and then the form; then the personality can play a role in either holding or deterring the attraction (notice I said MOST cases). So, it does not make much sense why some would prefer to attract others with pictures of body parts initially, and then work on face and personality last. Common sense and common experience, along with the scientific and philosophical data, seem to speak otherwise.
As an educated couple, we tend to agree with the abundant scientific and philosophical data that states that the Homo sapiens sexual attraction is more than chemical stimulus-response to body parts (vaginas, penises, etc.); instead it is a rational animal's psychological, mental, physical and aesthetic behavior in certain environmental contexts. Sex is more than a chemical reaction toward body parts for the Homo sapiens (and clearly Homo sapiens do not look at it as mere reproduction); instead, it is, as current scientific theory supports, initially visual, then physical, and finally psychological; hence, the importance of individual preferences both aesthetically and in personality.
Food for thought? Or should I say body parts alone for thought?
12/26/2005 8:05 pm
OK I agree on all your points.|
1/1/2006 5:35 pm
I'd agree completely. If it's just take off all our clothes and jump to the orgasm, why not just masterbate? It's cleaner, quicker, and less risky. It's also not as much fun.|
I think this is more than just the fleeting moment of animal passion. It's anticipation. It's the feeling of doing something risky, or different, or outside of the norm.