The nature of human attraction
The following is a revised argument for Debate Guide. I would appreciate feedback on how it compares to the previous version (sexual character of humanity), and any possible improvements to be made.
We, as humans are highly capable of separating the act of mating from sexuality itself. With our long life cycles and complex relationships, we have often used sexual behaviour (sometimes via innuendo and suggestion) to achieve our goals, or to extract pleasure from time freed up by our productive pursuits elsewhere. Far from being reflexive and automatically driven, concerning relationships, we rely on biologically and socially appropriate variations of the same theme (love / philia) to fulfil a vast array of culturally variant human relationships, meaning that there is no innate psychological line between, for example, the love that a young couple show for each other and the love that a parent feels for their child, but rather a large, often unseen continuum of possibilities. This is an adaptive trait because over history, our relationships have always been diverse, fulfilling the diverse needs of different individuals. As a highly intelligent species, humans are capable of catering for this diversity with extreme precision and sensitivity.
However, we are totally capable of blinkering ourselves into classifying our attractions as 100% “asexual” or “erotic”, and similarly of making the fulfilment and expression of certain kinds of attraction virtually impossible, thus reinforcing the fallacy of categorisation. But in reality, a philia or attraction could only be “sexual” or “parental” because of a socially determined label that has been ascribed to it, due to its perceived purpose. Nevertheless, even in our current alternate “reality”, we can feel a large range of attractions, yet none of them fall perfectly into predetermined categories. Societal simplification has not yet found a way of totally defeating the complexity and anarchic uncertainty of sexual diversity and the threat it poses to regimentation and order in general.
So by imposing social rules for what one form of love is ‘supposed to be like’, we effectively admit our innate perversity and adaptability, exposing this fundamental human nature for all of those perceptive enough to see.
Previous Post
Debate Guide Update4 comments on "The nature of human attraction"
Comments are closed.
It is a clear, concise summary, in my opinion.
I wonder whether it would be worth linking at this stage to the historically and culturally variable conceptions of physical intimacy, to highlight that it is primarily the judeo-christian legacy that has so corrupted contemporary thought on ‘sexuality’ as being so narrowly-focused (procreation/eroticism), whereas in many other cultures the ‘sexual act’ had a far more diverse role, e.g. the Phallus as a symbol of human wisdom and mental/physical prowess – and the concomitant belief in the need to transfer such accumulated power through the Phallus (in the form of semen) from men to boys. Such an act clearly falls into none of the narrowly-defined classifications of ‘sex’ that our culture permits – it was neither for procreation nor was it a sensual/erotic act.
Yes, that would be good for presenting real life evidence of the theory. If you can draft anything, I feel that it would probably be best in the form of a second paragraph.
I will add the following two paragraphs of yours to Debate Guide:
This imposition of social rules has become particularly
intransigent only in the last couple of centuries in Western
culture. In other cultures – so-called ‘primitive societies’ (e.g.
the tribes of Papa New Guinea, Melanesia, and Aboriginal
Australia), and also in ‘advanced’ societies (e.g. Ancient Greece
and feudal Japan) – and even in the West up until the 17th century –
physically intimate behavior was never so rigidly labeled. What
today would be termed ‘sexual activity’ frequently fulfilled other
purposes and functions. Phallic worship existed in almost every pre-
Christian society, and served as a symbolic ritual of the vitality,
strength, and essence of humankind. This frequently translated into
initiation rites, whereby boys were ‘inseminated’ – in some cases
from the age of 8, either anally or orally, with the sperm of older
boys and men.
Such acts were not regarded as ‘sexual’ as contemporary society
would deem it – and were not regarded as primarily erotic or
sensual acts – but were an essential aspect of transferring wisdom
and honor to the young boys. To such an extent ‘sex’ was an
important aspect of socialization; a way of linking one generation
to the next – a linkage that present day society sorely lacks. Such
socialization was not merely confined to the human species, but
also is widespread throughout our relatives in the animal kingdom,
whereby pseudo-mating acts between older males and younger males
serve as a crucial aspect in promoting cohesion amongst the group.
Thanks.
I am reminded of an early portion of Edward Brongersma’s Loving Boys, where in he elaborates about the various purposes for which we have sex, most of them falling outside of reproduction.
He even made a point of going into how many times a couple averages (220 or so), when they are trying to have a baby, in order to underscore how much sex occurs outside of procreation…and dispelling the myth that “sex is for procreation”…
…Honestly, most of it is just sex, to fulfill our biological, personal growth and emotional needs…perhaps social purposes, as well.
I don’t know that I have anything to add to your entry…It just sort of reminded me of a few things…and a theme I am going to be touching on in the future…that being, how cultures tend to cage the idea of “what sex is”…and the things this shortsightedness fails to understand about real sexuality, in the real world.