But who is to say miss diving beetle isn't just being coy, discovering which male is tough and fit enough to overpower her? — apokrisis

This sounds similar to saying, how do we know the girl wasn't just asking to be raped? For all we know, the girl likes to be dominated, overpowered, abused, etc. Rape apology.

And if you find that framing of the situation objectionable, it is only the reverse of claiming instead it is a case of male rape. We shouldn't anthropomorphise in either direction. — apokrisis

I don't see that framing as an issue of male rape. The male diving beetle is the one that forces the female to stay underwater. The male developed suction cups on their "objects of prehension" to keep the female from swimming away. The female developed grooves on her shell to counteract that. The male developed little points on the suction cups at the same distance as the grooves to counteract that. etc.

Female diving beetles have died because the mating ritual went on for days, preventing her from coming up to the surface to get an air bubble. The male beetle apparently gets so sex-frenzied that he forgets about the value of a living mate and aims simply to deposit his seed.

So diving beetles may evolve sucker arms to clasp the females. And the females counter-evolve ridges and pits on their shells to make grasping harder. But where is the intent here? Where is the choice in the biological design? Are you arguing that the lady beetles do give willing consent to some males that take their fancy?l — apokrisis

No, I'm not. I'm saying that female diving beetles, as well as female blue sharks, female black widows, and a whole host of females in other species are put through a violent act to achieve reproduction. It is commonly thought that male black widow spiders sacrifice themselves for the nourishment of the female, but it has been observed that female black widow spiders will eat male black widow spiders, even if they haven't copulated. What seems to be the case, actually, is that many male black widow spiders will die trying to overpower the female, before a male finally succeeds. However after the act of copulation the male is exhausted and the female can eat him as well.

Nature doesn't actually have "species", we put that label on things that are similar enough to each other and have a similar genetic history. Similarly, nature doesn't actually have any concept of "rape" - but we do. How we choose to describe the sexual reproduction of species is a choice we have to make.

In fact a video I watched that was about the reproduction of diving beetles was called "An Unending Mating War". Is it wrong to call it a war?



I'm also reminded of the book A Natural History of Rape that argued that rape was a legitimate adaptation meant to get access to a non-consenting sexual partner.

So there is this pleasure which some get more of and others less. — schopenhauer1

Yeah so what? I don't seem to be troubled by the fact others eat more icecream than I do, why should I be troubled by the fact that others have more sex than me? :s

Assuming (excepting the rare asexual) there are people who like the pleasure of sex equally, it is not as equally distributed. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, I think sex is a very pleasurable activity in the right circumstances, which are quite rare. And no, if you're suggesting I'm asexual, then I'm not.

Ugh, this sounds horribly repressed and self-righteous to boot. — schopenhauer1

So considering sex in most conditions to be a bad thing is repressed. Why? And why is that self-righteous? :s

Some things are more pleasurable and desirable than others. I don't know, but I've heard sex feels really good. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, I also heard doing heroine feels really good too, wanna try? X-) If no, then why not? Just because something feels really good isn't sufficient reason to try it. You seem to have adopted (willingly or unwillingly) the prevailing mentality of our current Western society without questioning it.

If you do not think that sex causes distress or dissatisfaction, then why is it so prominent in most religions? — schopenhauer1

As I said, I think in most circumstances having sex does cause distress and dissatisfaction. That's exactly why abstinence is so prominent in most religions.

Social commentary? Social media? Discussions? Books? Articles? News? Comedy? It's everywhere and desired by many- if not almost everyone. — schopenhauer1

Because we live in a culture that is overly obsessed about sex. Why? Probably because sex can be used as a tool of selling more consumer goods.

Some things are more pleasurable than others. — schopenhauer1

Sure.

I'm not opposed to asceticism- I'm a Schopenhauer fan for Christ's sake. However, I don't see many ascetics in the general population. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, in today's age sure. That's reflective of the general culture though, and it's exactly what we'd expect.

Also, what is the reason why asceticism is a struggle for many? — schopenhauer1

Because controlling desires - any desires, not just sexual - can be difficult.

Oh, right because desires, especially ones like sexual intercourse, seem to be a pretty tough one to overcome for many (except you, because you are an asexual god who puts his energies in all these productive and godly things, unlike that nasty sex stuff that the rabble-bachus-lovers are bitching on about :-} ). — schopenhauer1

I do want sex provided it is in those circumstances that I mentioned (married relationship, with the right person who loves me and I love her). It is a bit frustrating that that's hard to get, but not the end of the world man. Some self esteem is in order. There's also a few other things that I want and that are somewhat painful because I don't have them, but that's life. I don't make a big deal out of it, there's also plenty that I do have that I should be happy about in the meantime.

I don't know if you ever heard people having some good sex before (if they are not faking) but, I hear it can be titillating (for the depraved that is, not the asexual godly-types such as yourself ;)) — schopenhauer1

:s okay so? It's possible to watch even porn which is a lot more vivid than just sounds, and not feel aroused by it.

Anyways, the point was really a metaphor for the fact that THEY are getting some, and the listener is not. — schopenhauer1

So what?! Why does it matter others are getting their preferences met and the listener isn't? Why is it such a big deal? Is the world all about you?! Envy is a poison that just ruins your soul and makes you unable to enjoy what you already have based on your lack of things.

I know that is hard for you to believe, being that you are far superior than the depraved rabble. — schopenhauer1

Well no, I actually kinda know most people live in this way of seeing things, and have a permanently low self esteem. But that's not the only way to live life.

If average throw-away sex is only just so good, the limited amount of good relationship-sex (if your theory is correct) is even that much more limited, as good relationships themselves between two romantic lovers is even harder to find. Thus, it is that much more unequally distributed. — schopenhauer1

Yep. Still not a big deal. I too "suffer" from not having that (at least yet) - but - no big deal.

Yep. — schopenhauer1

:-}

I do want sex provided it is in those circumstances that I mentioned (married relationship, with the right person who loves me and I love her). It is a bit frustrating that that's hard to get, but not the end of the world man. Some self esteem is in order. There's also a few other things that I want and that are somewhat painful because I don't have them, but that's life. I don't make a big deal out of it, there's also plenty that I do have that I should be happy about in the meantime. — Agustino

Good for you man. You realize you are supremely self righteous and arrogant sounding right now. Your point is what? How good Agustino is? The point wasn't about you but about humanity as a whole. And yes, people get lonely, desire things they don't have, and the like. It was not about the superior powers of Agustino. Besides the fact that I don't know (or care to know) more about you than what you write on this forum, we seem to agree that this does seem to be the case for much of humanity. We actually agree that desirez becomes a vicious negative for reasons we both explained. I am not saying it's the end of the world..it is just something limited, causes competion, and frustration. That is really the extent of the argument.

You're making a ton of straw mans and red herrings and distorting what I'm saying to make point about something I wasn't really saying. It is by and large something people desire..and if you look at what I said:

Then there are people who may just settle for very little, slowly purging the sexual impulses with age, accepting that solo life with friends may be acceptable in their golden years without being encumbered. — schopenhauer1

I am not saying it's so bad to be debilitating simply that it is one of the most aggressively negative desires due to the dissatisfaction it may cause. You mix the (at least online version of) anecdotes of yourself with a broader point about something that plays a part in human desires in general. Remember, Schopenhauers system is based on never ending goals that are often frustrated. I'm not saying this can't be overcome or simply ignored but it plays a large role in people's lives. And though I agree it plays an overblown role in the culture..it is a pervasive consumer product for a reason. The pursuit, sustaining, the drama is a large part of humanity and shows up in almost all literature starting with the earliest tales, epics, and poems.

The male beetle apparently gets so sex-frenzied that he forgets about the value of a living mate and aims simply to deposit his seed. — darthbarracuda

And on other occasions he suddenly comes to and remembers the value of a living mate, feels ashamed and remorseful over how he is behaving?

Come on. You completely bypassed the moral agent issue point I made. Rape is about choice and consent within human sociocultural frameworks. It is anthropomorphic nonsense to talk about rape in diving beetles unless you believe that they think about their actions as moral agents.

Nature doesn't actually have "species", we put that label on things that are similar enough to each other and have a similar genetic history. — darthbarracuda

Nothing in nature has a hard line around it. So words do that to anything.

On the other hand, species do exist as they are defined by populations of individuals that can mate and produce offspring with normal fertility.

It is nonsense to say that biology defines species by a similarity of look, or even a similarity of genetics. It is phenotype behaviour that counts. A species is an evolutionary unit because it is a level at which selection acts on a connected whole.

The semen males produce in sexual climax includes chemicals that keep sperm alive, not only in the vaginal environment of the female but in the overall "bonding" of females to males (despite the fact that the cause of death for women is disproportionately men), as well as inclusion of "sub-lethal" pathogens that keep a female alive but in a non-reproductive state. We can call this a neutral adaptation, a positive reproductive reinforcement, or we can call this brainwashing, mind-control. Once again it's not wrong to call it mind-control, but it goes against the desire for a neutral description of phenomena. — darthbarracuda

DB, are you talking about humans or fruit flies here? What you say seems to be true for fruit flies. Some experiments have been done to test the theory that human semen does the same for women that fruit fly semen does for female fruit flies. The results were not what I would call overwhelming.

It's possible, but... https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730313-500-semen-has-controlling-power-over-female-genes-and-behaviour/

Yeah so what? I don't seem to be troubled by the fact others eat more icecream than I do, why should I be troubled by the fact that others have more sex than me? — Agustino

Because, Agustino, it's your Christian duty to contribute to the supply of happiness, and every man has to do his share. The truth is, you are contributing less sex to the common good than most men. We want you to gird up your loins, get out there, and fuck your brains out like everybody else. It is simply unacceptable that some people should die in want of satisfactory orgasms while others are sitting on the sidelines nattering on about Epicureans.

Given your self-acknowledged physical fitness and business acumen, you are assigned a donated orgasm quota of 10 orgasms per week. Please, no complains. Men your age should be able to produce 14 to 21 orgasms a week in their partners. If you need more incentive, one of our agents can visit you and provide all the incentives you could possibly desire. You should not be with the same partner all the time. Spread the wealth, don't pile it up in one place. (Do we need to say your orgasms do not count against your quota?)

Back in the late 70s, a gay Harvard guy (Charles Shively) proposed that promiscuous sex should be obligatory. If everyone engaged in promiscuous sex, no one would have to do without good sex. Actually, gay men were doing their best already to fulfill the theory of revolutionary promiscuous sex; I don't know what more could be expected of us.

I always wondered what tribal societies had to say on the matter. There are never good interviews with tribesman about the interesting human stuff- these documentaries and monographs are always trying to make them the third person and never get their true feelings on their wife, the neighbors wife, or what they feel about the world in general. It's kind of sad- they are used as props for ecological sustainability, or simply observatory notes on tribal rituals, but less personal dialogue. I want to know what a pygmy or bushman thinks is funny, what he think of his home life, what frustrates him the most, what gives him angst.

Good for you man. You realize you are supremely self righteous and arrogant sounding right now. Your point is what? — schopenhauer1

My point is correcting the false things you've been saying about me for no reason:

(except you, because you are an asexual god who puts his energies in all these productive and godly things, unlike that nasty sex stuff that the rabble-bachus-lovers are bitching on about :-} ). — schopenhauer1

(for the depraved that is, not the asexual godly-types such as yourself ;)) — schopenhauer1

I never started talking about myself until that point.

It was not about the superior powers of Agustino. — schopenhauer1

I don't think I have superior powers.

I am not saying it's so bad to be debilitating simply that it is one of the most aggressively negative desires due to the dissatisfaction it may cause. — schopenhauer1

If you limited yourself to our culture, probably. But that's because we're (as a culture) obsessed with sex to begin with, and have an abnormally inflated desire for it.

The pursuit, sustaining, the drama is a large part of humanity and shows up in almost all literature starting with the earliest tales, epics, and poems. — schopenhauer1

Not really - marriage has been a much more important "drama" in the story of humanity than sex. Don't forget that in the past many of the marriages were also arranged by the family, so many people simply had to marry whoever they were told to marry, and had little choice in it. Furthermore, amongst the ruling class, marriage was always problematic, because rulers were often not able to marry who they wanted, but had to marry who it was strategic for them to marry - effectively their birth didn't allow them to experience and share true love.

What you don't realise is that significantly more fundamental than the desire for sex has been the desire for one's other half - for lack of better words. That desire, whether consciously or unconsciously, has played a much more fundamental role in people's lives than the desire for just sex. Indeed, the desire for just sex is quite possibly that which comes on the scene only when that first desire is frustrated by whatever occurrences and repressed. Indeed, the desire for just sex is the desire for union with the beloved repressed. That's why the most promiscuous people tend to be those who have been most disappointed in love.

Because, Agustino, it's your Christian duty to contribute to the supply of happiness, and every man has to do his share. The truth is, you are contributing less sex to the common good than most men. We want you to gird up your loins, get out there, and fuck your brains out like everybody else. It is simply unacceptable that some people should die in want of satisfactory orgasms while others are sitting on the sidelines nattering on about Epicureans.

Given your self-acknowledged physical fitness and business acumen, you are assigned a donated orgasm quota of 10 orgasms per week. Please, no complains. Men your age should be able to produce 14 to 21 orgasms a week in their partners. If you need more incentive, one of our agents can visit you and provide all the incentives you could possibly desire. You should not be with the same partner all the time. Spread the wealth, don't pile it up in one place. (Do we need to say your orgasms do not count against your quota?) — Bitter Crank

:-! >:O

My Christian duty is to my wife, not to other women. And I do want to pile up my wealth in one place for that is what love does - gives everything to the beloved - and I certainly want to be a great lover :D But first it must have what to give, thus it must not squander it.

Also, I don't think sex is a common good. It is (one of the) means of achieving union with the beloved. Sex cannot be divorced from its unitive function, that's why its rightful place is only in marriage. To have sex out of marriage is to deprive both yourself and whoever you marry out of (depending on how much sex you have) a certain degree of intimacy and specialness.

sexual reproduction and sex happened way before human species happened. And I don't know, but imagine that there is much less separation of personality, vulnerability and aggression between males and females of other species than between males and females of humans.

Take crocodiles, frogs, black widow spiders (!) and fish, for instance. Fish don't rape. Or octopussies. They don't rape. Nothing rapes in earlier stages of evolutionary development in humans but rats, raccoons, chimps and transistor radios.

I reject the notion that sexuality developed as or from a parasitic form of life. The essay propagating this idea was written by an anthropomorophizing dilettante who could not see beyond her own nose (or his own nose).

Not really - marriage has been a much more important "drama" in the story of humanity than sex. — Agustino

Yep because sex and marriage are never tied together. This topic was about sex, not relationships, although I agree that they really shouldn't be divorced (no pun intended). Romantic relationships and sex go hand-in-hand so really you can replace "sex" with "relationships" and the aggressive negative argument still stands. But guess what the topic of this particular thread happened to be (hence the emphasis on the one more than the other)? Sexual reproduction, which is wrapped up in RELATIONSHIPS, is what this thread was about.

I don't think I have superior powers. — Agustino

No, you see, what I was doing was sarcasm, to point something out.. about your self-righteousness. Whether you see it in yourself or not, does not matter. Most people don't see the blind spot.

What you don't realise is that significantly more fundamental than the desire for sex has been the desire for one's other half - for lack of better words. That desire, whether consciously or unconsciously, has played a much more fundamental role in people's lives than the desire for just sex. Indeed, the desire for just sex is quite possibly that which comes on the scene only when that first desire is frustrated by whatever occurrences and repressed. Indeed, the desire for just sex is the desire for union with the beloved repressed. That's why the most promiscuous people tend to be those who have been most disappointed in love. — Agustino

Hey, I kind of agree with you, but AGAIN, the thread was about sex, and thus more emphasis was put on this. If you tried to be a bit less Pyrrhic and more charitable in your responses, you can see we are pretty much saying the same thing. But instead, you are hung up on the distinction sex vs. relationship so that you can make your points.

Not sure how this went under the radar, but I'll leave this here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_coercion

Basically for many species, there has been and continues to be an evolutionary arms race between the male and female sexes due to conflicting strategies of reproduction.