View Single Post
Old 08-13-2015, 08:48 AM   #6
Amaranthine
Adamant Anti-Nihilist
 
Amaranthine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 1,438
Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!Amaranthine keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by loopytheone View Post
Actually, my original point was from a purely evolutionary point of view (I'm a biologist, after all, and pretty much all of that subject is based on evolution). Also, there are plenty of species that have members who don't biologically reproduce because helping your parent's produce more children is actually as genetically important as reproducing yourself. Your siblings = 50% DNA shared, your children = 50% DNA shared. I just really don't agree that sexual desires are a need for anybody. Nobody will die without it. Everybody will die without oxygen/water/food. Not saying that sexual desires can't be hugely strong or even as strong as hunger etc for some people. Just that they aren't NEEDS and because of that, they are different and not comparable. *shrugs*
I would say my view was more from evolutionary psychology, than purely evolutionary. There I completely agree with you; it's not in any way an individual need. I was just saying that our programming could make some people confuse it with basic needs. I feel like psychologically speaking, it can be a little harder to pin down human needs. I've read studies that associated heart problems/health issues with loneliness. Does that, to some extent, mean social interaction is a need, even though it's not as direct as food or water?

But it's actually super interesting that some species mostly help their parents produce more children. I'm glad humans aren't like that; it would be uncomfortable. I should stop derailing the thread now

I have issues with labeling too. I agree with what balletguy said, but also think that labeling is becoming way too prevalent/superfluous. I blame Tumblr. I just recall seeing people declaring themselves part animal or part of a different race/ethnicity. I'm sure, for decades, some people have found cultures they appreciate more than the one they were born into. And people have used animals as symbols of their personality for a long time as well. I feel like these extra labels take credibility away from those that are related to sexuality/gender...but I can't tell if I'm being closed-minded about it.

It would be nice if people could just be who they are, without tacking on a thousand descriptors to explain or find others to relate with.
__________________
"A purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved."
Amaranthine is offline   Reply With Quote