5 ms·

> I am convinced the biological need for sex is rooted in a core psychological need for intimacy The biological need for sex is rooted in the necessity for rep

by esarbe 5y ago

> I am convinced the biological need for sex is rooted in a core psychological need for intimacy The biological need for sex is rooted in the necessity for reproduction. > this need is so crucial, the body works to help obtain it similar to food or water. The body serves the need for reproduction.

_8j50 5y ago
There is no need for reproduction biologically. Socially, sure. But if anything, offsprings put the survival of the parent at risk (more bellies to feed, more risks to take, more exposure to disease). However there is a psychological need to reproduce but certainly secondary to intimacy, which makes sense since children require a stable environment which is only helped by parents' intimacy.
- vitno 5y ago
  The process of evolution doesn't care much about survival of the parent if they aren't passing down genes.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  There is a biological need - the only reason that the specimen exists is because their parents had that urge. Evolution will 100% select those who want to breed over those who don't. Those who don't won't pass on their genetics and their evolution will end.
- fleddr 5y ago
  There's no such thing as a psychological need when it comes to reproduction. The very existence of the person having such needs (which you made up) is based on biological reproduction, which trumps any and all needs. You cannot have needs if you don't exist. Likewise, offspring cannot be a risk to you if you don't exist. The point of life is to reproduce. The point of life before the moment you reproduce is to not die.
  - _8j50 5y ago
    What evidence is there to prove the biological trumps psychological? People can literally starve to death because of a psychological disorder. The desire to see more of one's self and a continuation of one's story is what I am talking about. The point of life is not reproduce, reproduction is a means by which lineage is continued. In order for life to have a point you have to talk about intent behind life, if you believe life is unintended then there is no point to it aside from what sentient beings self-assign it.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      > What evidence is there to prove the biological trumps psychological? The psychological is biological. > The point of life is not reproduce, The point of life is the continuation of life - that means reproduction. It might not be your own reproduction, but the reproduction of your genes. That's what the last 3.5billion years of your own cellular existence has been about. > In order for life to have a point you have to talk about intent behind life Life has a point whether you talk about it or not. The point of life is life itself.
    - fleddr 5y ago
      The evidence is that you exist, which is solely the result of biological reproduction. Life indeed has no intent other than to continue. That is the point in itself. Quite a lot of species take this reality to the extreme. They die immediately after reproducing. Or, they generate thousands of offspring of which 99.99% dies within the day. Humans, like all species ever, are hard-wired to reproduce. Whatever bullshit story you tell yourself on top of that (opting out, or optin in for wanting to maintain a legacy) are mere fabrications of a mind, only possible in recent luxury times in very particular parts of the world. Some people call this nihilism but I call it freedom. Not only does life other than reproducing have no point, your life is also completely irrelevant at macro level. When you embrace that, you can finally start living.
      - _8j50 5y ago
        Completely disagree. You are speculating or rather, like many these days jumping to a conclusion because you think it is the best approximation based on data you interpreted to mean something. Plenty of people don't want to have children, most people want sex but even then the goal is primarily pleasure. What I dislike about your reasoning is that it is basically "Sex causes reproduction and people like to have sex, therefore people are hardwired to reproduce" in other words "Action X causes result Y therefore people who have a natural desire to commit action X do it because of result Y" . In reality, the action(sex) has many other effects both beneficial and harmful. Another reasoning I hate: "If you do action X you will die, therefore not doing it is a biological trait" this presumes humans can't transcend instincts. As far as I know, we are the only creatures that regularly commit suicide. Our ability to reason and evaluate ourselves and the world around us and desire to seek meaning and purpose gives us a Psychological component unique to us. People can litetally die by willing themselves to death (really!), ask any medical doctor and they'll tell you the will to fight and live in a person can help them overcome or be overcomed by disease. In the military theh have a saying:"If you get shot, don't die." (Thinking you will die will kill you faster than the actual would by itself). Given all that, why would you presume something much less impactful than survival itself is not significantly if not entirely controlled by the mind? I think perhaps you are not considering that psychology isn't restricted to the conscious mind. As far as the purpose of life, I would hate to start a whole other debate but let me just ask you to empirically prove one thing that exists without prior cause or prove the origin of all things then I can take your opinion seriously, until then I think the best you can do is you think that might be the case but you really have no idea if life has a purpose.

by esarbe 5y ago

_8j50 5y ago

There is no need for reproduction biologically. Socially, sure. But if anything, offsprings put the survival of the parent at risk (more bellies to feed, more risks to take, more exposure to disease). However there is a psychological need to reproduce but certainly secondary to intimacy, which makes sense since children require a stable environment which is only helped by parents' intimacy.

vitno 5y ago
The process of evolution doesn't care much about survival of the parent if they aren't passing down genes.
SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
There is a biological need - the only reason that the specimen exists is because their parents had that urge. Evolution will 100% select those who want to breed over those who don't. Those who don't won't pass on their genetics and their evolution will end.
fleddr 5y ago
There's no such thing as a psychological need when it comes to reproduction. The very existence of the person having such needs (which you made up) is based on biological reproduction, which trumps any and all needs. You cannot have needs if you don't exist. Likewise, offspring cannot be a risk to you if you don't exist. The point of life is to reproduce. The point of life before the moment you reproduce is to not die.
- _8j50 5y ago
  What evidence is there to prove the biological trumps psychological? People can literally starve to death because of a psychological disorder. The desire to see more of one's self and a continuation of one's story is what I am talking about. The point of life is not reproduce, reproduction is a means by which lineage is continued. In order for life to have a point you have to talk about intent behind life, if you believe life is unintended then there is no point to it aside from what sentient beings self-assign it.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    > What evidence is there to prove the biological trumps psychological? The psychological is biological. > The point of life is not reproduce, The point of life is the continuation of life - that means reproduction. It might not be your own reproduction, but the reproduction of your genes. That's what the last 3.5billion years of your own cellular existence has been about. > In order for life to have a point you have to talk about intent behind life Life has a point whether you talk about it or not. The point of life is life itself.
  - fleddr 5y ago
    The evidence is that you exist, which is solely the result of biological reproduction. Life indeed has no intent other than to continue. That is the point in itself. Quite a lot of species take this reality to the extreme. They die immediately after reproducing. Or, they generate thousands of offspring of which 99.99% dies within the day. Humans, like all species ever, are hard-wired to reproduce. Whatever bullshit story you tell yourself on top of that (opting out, or optin in for wanting to maintain a legacy) are mere fabrications of a mind, only possible in recent luxury times in very particular parts of the world. Some people call this nihilism but I call it freedom. Not only does life other than reproducing have no point, your life is also completely irrelevant at macro level. When you embrace that, you can finally start living.
    - _8j50 5y ago
      Completely disagree. You are speculating or rather, like many these days jumping to a conclusion because you think it is the best approximation based on data you interpreted to mean something. Plenty of people don't want to have children, most people want sex but even then the goal is primarily pleasure. What I dislike about your reasoning is that it is basically "Sex causes reproduction and people like to have sex, therefore people are hardwired to reproduce" in other words "Action X causes result Y therefore people who have a natural desire to commit action X do it because of result Y" . In reality, the action(sex) has many other effects both beneficial and harmful. Another reasoning I hate: "If you do action X you will die, therefore not doing it is a biological trait" this presumes humans can't transcend instincts. As far as I know, we are the only creatures that regularly commit suicide. Our ability to reason and evaluate ourselves and the world around us and desire to seek meaning and purpose gives us a Psychological component unique to us. People can litetally die by willing themselves to death (really!), ask any medical doctor and they'll tell you the will to fight and live in a person can help them overcome or be overcomed by disease. In the military theh have a saying:"If you get shot, don't die." (Thinking you will die will kill you faster than the actual would by itself). Given all that, why would you presume something much less impactful than survival itself is not significantly if not entirely controlled by the mind? I think perhaps you are not considering that psychology isn't restricted to the conscious mind. As far as the purpose of life, I would hate to start a whole other debate but let me just ask you to empirically prove one thing that exists without prior cause or prove the origin of all things then I can take your opinion seriously, until then I think the best you can do is you think that might be the case but you really have no idea if life has a purpose.