5 ms·

> I find the idea of sex being the major factor, influencer, and driver behind global trends and economics a lot more plausible (I'm a Freud's fan) Sex and dea

by v64 7y ago

> I find the idea of sex being the major factor, influencer, and driver behind global trends and economics a lot more plausible (I'm a Freud's fan) Sex and death are often viewed in opposition. Psychotherapist Esther Perel has described eroticism as "an antidote to death" and the essay "Why Men Love War" [1] describes the use of sex by soldiers to forget about the death and destruction around them. TMT would argue that the influence of sex in society is precisely due to its effectiveness at distracting us from death. [1] https://public.wsu.edu/~hughesc/why_men_love_war.htm https://public.wsu.edu/~hughesc/why_men_love_war.htm

rinchik 7y ago
Oh nice! Great argument! But correlation does not imply causation. When you are talking about feared solders, you are most definitely talking about a war. Wars are about the assertion, or defense of the right to power (mostly done/triggered by political elites), and there can not be more sexual thing other than power, even pre-historically, we can agree that power gives you freedom, freedom of choosing your mate. It gives you options. Gyms, healthy diets, financial success, fashion, entertainment, all these are driven by sex, by desire, desire to mate. Sex is not about distraction, sex is about power. when we are talking about politics or macro-economics, fear of death is not relevant or even considered at all. Your argument actually confirms how powerful sex is. A lot more powerful than what we give it credit for.
- solidsnack9000 7y ago
  Association does not imply causation either. Your entire argument is simply association. You say soldiers and then you associate war; you say war and then you associate power; you say power and then you associate sex. What you are not being plain about is that you choose each association. You could have chosen another; there is no reason offered for why we have to consider this particular chain of associations. This is how so much psychoanalysis worked, by the way, and is part of why that school lost credibility. Your final point, turning the commenters argument around on itself, is a masterful example of rhetoric but not of argument or explanation. Of course, you leave open the question of why sex is important to us; of what it draws its importance from.
  - rinchik 7y ago
    That is a great dissection of my comment but it does not provide any reason to doubt my arguments other than a falsy appeal to an authority (psychoanalysis.. right, the thing that "failed"). I have made some argumentative choices strictly because I find those visual and colorful within the scope and the nature of the discussions on the "interents". Sex is the major driver behind evolutionary dynamics in nation states, and macro-economics, and I have yet to see any evidence suggesting otherwise. And hereby I "masterfully" shift the burden of proof onto yourself, SolidSnack9000. Unless you have a solid argument, we can dismiss your comment as a "dissection of banality", an argument for the sake of the said argument.

by v64 7y ago

rinchik 7y ago

Oh nice! Great argument! But correlation does not imply causation. When you are talking about feared solders, you are most definitely talking about a war. Wars are about the assertion, or defense of the right to power (mostly done/triggered by political elites), and there can not be more sexual thing other than power, even pre-historically, we can agree that power gives you freedom, freedom of choosing your mate. It gives you options. Gyms, healthy diets, financial success, fashion, entertainment, all these are driven by sex, by desire, desire to mate. Sex is not about distraction, sex is about power. when we are talking about politics or macro-economics, fear of death is not relevant or even considered at all. Your argument actually confirms how powerful sex is. A lot more powerful than what we give it credit for.

solidsnack9000 7y ago
Association does not imply causation either. Your entire argument is simply association. You say soldiers and then you associate war; you say war and then you associate power; you say power and then you associate sex. What you are not being plain about is that you choose each association. You could have chosen another; there is no reason offered for why we have to consider this particular chain of associations. This is how so much psychoanalysis worked, by the way, and is part of why that school lost credibility. Your final point, turning the commenters argument around on itself, is a masterful example of rhetoric but not of argument or explanation. Of course, you leave open the question of why sex is important to us; of what it draws its importance from.
- rinchik 7y ago
  That is a great dissection of my comment but it does not provide any reason to doubt my arguments other than a falsy appeal to an authority (psychoanalysis.. right, the thing that "failed"). I have made some argumentative choices strictly because I find those visual and colorful within the scope and the nature of the discussions on the "interents". Sex is the major driver behind evolutionary dynamics in nation states, and macro-economics, and I have yet to see any evidence suggesting otherwise. And hereby I "masterfully" shift the burden of proof onto yourself, SolidSnack9000. Unless you have a solid argument, we can dismiss your comment as a "dissection of banality", an argument for the sake of the said argument.