Endorphines and politics/morality, Part 1 (Warning NSFW links)

[Exsubmariner]

Good Evening,
The genesis of this post came from a discussion which was started in politics, which resulted in a temporary ban of a poster who stated something to the effect that homosexuality, specifically because of the practice of sodomy was not natural. This got me reflecting on my wide ranging knowledge of many subjects, some of which would be called immoral or deviant by some, and I decided to write about it here. I originally asked Iron to post this in politics, but he said that it had too many crossovers, so here I am in SMP.

For those of you who do not know what endorphines are, here is a wikipedia article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorphines) Basically, endorphines are natural drugs. There are many different kinds and many different effects. Some act to kill pain, others act to heighten sensation such as touch, sight, hearing, etc. Many substances which are ingested into the body act to imitate or stimulate endorphines. For example, I just ate thanksgiving dinner and had a nice nap afterwards because a hormone found in turkey is a natural seditive. Another example would be "runners high" experience by marathon participants.

In future posts, I intend to discuss drugs and other behaviors which I consider to be endorphine driven.

Specifically, this thread is going to concern sodomy. There is an excellent artical on wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_Sex)

[ QUOTE ]
The taboo surrounding anal sex is likely to do with hygiene but also may have its roots in supposed psychoses deemed responsible for such "deviation". Some argue that a male heterosexual attraction to the practice has a basis in patriarchal mythologies surrounding a fear of the vagina and suspicion of women's sexual enjoyment and appetites (see succubus). Additionally, they argue that the appeal of anal sex to many male heterosexuals is a fetish of the taboo, sometimes associated with feces and human waste, as well as of violence and domination, as anal sex practices can result in the bruising and tearing of tissue. Others have argued that the avoidance of the anus is essentially human escapism, a facade whereby man denies his excretory functions, and that, ergo, the practice of the act is merely a form of disillusionment (cf. Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death). Moreover, the social taboo surrounding anal sex could potentially be seen as an example of political and religious dogma affecting modern culture, whereby the taboo itself is materialised through initial observance of religious morals, for example those held by some branches of Christianity or Islam.



[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically, I find the statement about escapism to be fascinating, and that engaging in the practice is a form of disillusionment. I submit that the denial of one's bodily functions is a corner stone of many moral and political philosophies. Many times I have read "man is better than animals because ......" However, as Desmond Morris once wrote in his book The Naked Ape "even a space ape must urinate."

We, as human beings, are trapped in physical bodies. Those bodies are subject to endorphines and there are many ways to experience pleasure. Anal sex is an appealing avenue to some. To seek to deny one's natural urges toward pleasure strikes me as somehow unnatural. In fact, I have noticed that while some pleasures are denied according to certain philosophies, moral systems, others are allowed.

Frequently, societies are derided for their pursuit of pleasure. Rome was said to be in decline because to populous was obsessed with epicurean pursuits.

So I ask, what is wrong with pursuing pleasure through ones senses? Why is one considered to be more moral or pious through the denial of the senses? What makes a society whose culture seeks to limit pleasure better than one whose inhabitants pursue pleasure with abandon? Is the Christian/Islamic adverse to homosexuality because its practicioners experience a form of pleasure which is considered taboo? Is it taboo because those religions/political systems deny the truth of man's physical existance?

P.S. Before any juvenile delinquent out there calls me a [censored], I want to make it clear that I am a fully realized and practicing heterosexual.

[hmkpoker]

Sodomy occurs in nature, and is therefore natural. Otherwise it would be supernatural.

If done right, it feels good for both parties.

That's really all there is to it bro /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[vhawk01]

Plus its great for the egos of those who are less 'well-endowed' and never get to hear "Ow!"

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Sodomy occurs in nature, and is therefore natural. Otherwise it would be supernatural.

If done right, it feels good for both parties.

That's really all there is to it bro /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The real point of the thread is to explore why some people have such a hard time with that....

[vhawk01]

they didnt spend enough time on a submarine? Oh wait I forgot we weren't supposed to take shots at you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi Hmkpoker

[ QUOTE ]
Sodomy occurs in nature, and is therefore natural. Otherwise it would be supernatural.


[/ QUOTE ]

When people say Sodomy is unnatural the definition of the word 'natural' they are using is "to follow the usual and ordinary course of nature". People who say sodomy is natural because it occurs in nature are trying to obfuscate the issue.

Stu

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
they didnt spend enough time on a submarine? Oh wait I forgot we weren't supposed to take shots at you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was pretty juvenile and definately one I've heard before. Kind of weak.

Let's keep it out of the gutter, ok?

[Exsubmariner]

Hi Stu,
Glad you showed up.

I don't have any sources handy, but I read in Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape Linked here. (http://www.amazon.com/Naked-Ape-Zoologists-Study-Animal/dp/0385334303/sr=8-1/qid=1164344263/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6183722-3142565?ie=UTF8&s=books) , I think, that there are studies which indicate animals, when deprived of the company of the opposite sex, do engage in some "homosexual" behaviors, up to an including sex.

I interpret this to mean that the occurance of homosexual behavior in nature is present, and therefore natural , if you will. Whether or not or what bearing this bit of data has on human sexuality is uncertain, from my perspective, but I thought I might throw it out there to get your take.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they didnt spend enough time on a submarine? Oh wait I forgot we weren't supposed to take shots at you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that was pretty juvenile and definately one I've heard before. Kind of weak.

Let's keep it out of the gutter, ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

Loc: Doing it deeper

[John21]

I'd say it falls more into the category of 'social norms' than morality. There was a post a few days back asking if it was immoral to have sex with a consenting chimp. And while I couldn't really come up with a reason for it to be immoral, it would fall so far outside the realm of social norms, I'd imagine it would be treated as such.

I'm not sure if you can limit sex to simply physical pleasure. There's more going on, like attraction. And since most men aren't sexually attracted to other men - it's not a social norm.

But human societies have taken it upon themselves to limit behavior to within the guidlines of what it considers the norm, irregardless of the actions moral connotations. Take public nudity for example - it's probably amoral, but societies still restrict it.

[RED FACE]

"Nature" is all about procreation. Living things would cease to be if there were no procreation. Humans have sex drives and if we want to consider certain behavior as potentially natural or unnatural we have to look at more than endorphine release. If we defined everything as natural that releases endorphines(thrill kill?) or anything that happens to occure in nature as natural, we wouldn't have much of definition because pretty much everything occures.

I think that the sexdrive doesn't necessarily include any desire to procreate. It's the act that we are driven to do and procreation is often an unintended result but it is this unintended result which, in terms of nature/life, causes life to continue and is therefore a "natural, good result". Thus, I'd say that same gender relationships are not natural - there is no unintended good result(procreation).

[MaxWeiss]

I personally feel that homosexuality is unnatural, as the natural tendency for sex is procreation (I will find my source on that, if need be). HOWEVER, homosexuality (in the "I'm born that way" case, not the "I'm just exploring" cultural case) is simply, IMHO an abnormal "trait" similar to bright green eyes or being left handed or something. Something is wired in the brain differently and makes the person attracted to the same sex, which is a natural "mistake" for lack of a better term.

HOWEVER that in no way makes a gay person less of a person or gives us the right to discriminate or choose who they can marry or in some self-righteous way bring our own cultural or religious "morals" into it, especially in an age of contraception when procreation is no longer the primary reason for sex anyways--having fun having sex is.

Being gay is just a trait and should not even go into the realm of morality.

Also, on a side note, I would argue that RED FACE is erroneous in his assertion that sex is not intended for procreation. That's its sole function, naturally. The fact that we can bypass that (and that gays obviously do bypass it) does not mean that it's not the reason for it---but in no way am I implying that bypassing it in any fashion is somehow wrong--I am just arguing that that was its original Darwinian purpose, and why it feels so good.

[RED FACE]

You didn't understand what I was saying, not that procreation is not the main purpose in nature, it is, but rather that it is not the main purpose in the minds of the participants.

[MonayFaucet]

It's simple really. Human feces is considered universally filthy. Anything inserted into the anus comes into contact with feces. Therefore assfking is filthy.

[BPA234]

Most women, whether they admit it or not, love it in the seat. Most men, barring access to any sexual partner, whether they admit it or not, would bang a rotten cantelope.

IMO, it's not much of a reach to get to anal sex. I do think that for many people there are psycho/social implications that drive a more intense reaction to anal sex.

Regarding the various religious and social pressures to restrict pleasure, I believe that is a natural response to, and an attempt to reduce and control, human hedonism. Which, when unchecked, historically (Sodom & Gomorah/Caligula etc.) drove people to extreme excess.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
It's simple really. Human feces is considered universally filthy. Anything inserted into the anus comes into contact with feces. Therefore assfking is filthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, guess what you are breathing in and being bathed in as we speak?

[Skidoo]

The onus is on the anus.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

When people say Sodomy is unnatural the definition of the word 'natural' they are using is "to follow the usual and ordinary course of nature". People who say sodomy is natural because it occurs in nature are trying to obfuscate the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are computers natural? They're just the result of intelligent human innovation from a naturally evolved frontal lobe. How about simple tools?

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
It's simple really. Human feces is considered universally filthy. Anything inserted into the anus comes into contact with feces. Therefore assfking is filthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

An anatomy lesson is in order, here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectum)

Feces is not always present in the rectum.

[vhawk01]

You would almost certainly have to give someone an enema to remove feces from the entire anal canal. Even then I don't know that you would be good that far up, since anal sex requires a relaxation of the sphincters and a change of the normal physiology which maintains continence.

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi Exsubmariner

I accept that:
Pedophilia occurs in nature and is therefore natural.
Homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore natural.

I also accept that:
Pedophilia is not the usual and ordinary course of nature and is therefore unnatural.
Homosexuality is not the usual and ordinary course of nature and is therefore unnatural.

I accept all those statements because I realize the word natural has several definitions.

[ QUOTE ]
I interpret this to mean that the occurance of homosexual behavior in nature is present, and therefore natural

[/ QUOTE ]

Its obvious that you think becuase homosexuality occurs in nature its natural. You are correct given a certain definition of the word natural.

However, do you think homosexuality follows the usual and ordinary course of nature and is therefore natural or do you think homosexuality does not follow the usual and ordinary course of nature and thus unnatural?

Stu

[Mickey Brausch]

I like the part about endorphins being "like natural drugs". It's like saying that human legs are "like natural walking sticks"... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Human sexuality is not an area full of peace and love; it's a wild and violent area. And it's a huge, huge subject. Before anyone begins seriously analyzing human sexuality, one should first study some classics. Saves time, if nothing else. (Why analyze poker without first glancing at the classics.)

I would suggest a bit of De Sade to have the worst over quickly. 120 Days At Sodom will shake your soul to its foundations as to what is "natural" and what is "unnatural" in human sexuality.

Homo Sapiens is an animal -- but, at the same time, Homo Sapiens stands on one side and the rest of Nature, fauna and flora an' all, stand on the other side. Human sexuality is not at all like animal sexuality, for the same reason that Man stands apart from Nature.

Mickey Brausch

[madnak]

Nothing I do follows the usual and ordinary course of nature. Hell, right now I'm sitting at a computer, getting ready to study for finals, and hoping to go to a bar tonight.

But even as "usual," "ordinary," or to put it less euphemistically, "normal" is concerned in our society, I'm anything but. Let's out you here - what you're saying is that you hate people who are different - that's your explicit justification, in fact.

The irony is that it's the abnormalities that are responsible for the dynamism of nature, responsible for life itself, and responsible for social and technological "progress" (however you want to define it). Yet you would discourage action based solely on its abnormality?

[Exsubmariner]

To prevent the discussion from devolving into mechanics, suffice to say that there are measures which can be taken in the name of being sanitary.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Human sexuality is not an area full of peace and love;

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is.

[ QUOTE ]
it's a wild and violent area.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also true.

[ QUOTE ]
And it's a huge, huge subject. Before anyone begins seriously analyzing human sexuality, one should first study some classics. Saves time, if nothing else. (Why analyze poker without first glancing at the classics.)

I would suggest a bit of De Sade to have the worst over quickly. 120 Days At Sodom will shake your soul to its foundations as to what is "natural" and what is "unnatural" in human sexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading de Sade for shock value makes it hard to read de Sade for literary value.

[ QUOTE ]
Homo Sapiens is an animal -- but, at the same time, Homo Sapiens stands on one side and the rest of Nature, fauna and flora an' all, stand on the other side. Human sexuality is not at all like animal sexuality, for the same reason that Man stands apart from Nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Human sexuality is unlike animal sexuality because there's a spiritual dimension to it, and human sexuality can only be understood in that context. There's a reason sexual peculiarities are called "fetishes." Of course, just as most spiritual disciplines focus on relaxation and peace and beauty, most approaches to sexuality focus on peace and love and affection. But for anyone who claims to appreciate reality, or sexuality, as a whole, such approaches are inherently limited.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Exsubmariner

I accept that:
Pedophilia occurs in nature and is therefore natural.
Homosexuality occurs in nature and is therefore natural.

I also accept that:
Pedophilia is not the usual and ordinary course of nature and is therefore unnatural.
Homosexuality is not the usual and ordinary course of nature and is therefore unnatural.

I accept all those statements because I realize the word natural has several definitions.

[ QUOTE ]
I interpret this to mean that the occurance of homosexual behavior in nature is present, and therefore natural

[/ QUOTE ]

Its obvious that you think becuase homosexuality occurs in nature its natural. You are correct given a certain definition of the word natural.

However, do you think homosexuality follows the usual and ordinary course of nature and is therefore natural or do you think homosexuality does not follow the usual and ordinary course of nature and thus unnatural?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah....now we get to the heart of it. Instead of defining something as natural or unnatural, because that exercise is all semantics and I'm not going to let you define those terms to control this coversation, as the term "natural" is inherently loaded with morality, why don't we say that sodomy is but an act.

An act. Neither good or evil, not righteous, or depraved, but just an act. Nothing which necessarily follows in terms of implications or judgment, but just an act.

Those who engage in that act are behaving and this is kind of where I was going.....

Those who would assign implications to a behavior are trying to control a behavior.

As others have pointed out in this thread, people are not driven to engage in any kind of sexual activity necessarily for procreation. They are programed to do so because they are hard wired to feel good doing it. Those who would say that the purpose of sex is only procreation are trying to control behavior, again. What about sex for pleasure, regardless of whether it is between a man and woman and in the missionary position or not? What if people just enjoy it and that is the simple truth?

How would you stop them from enjoying it? Well, for starters you could make them feel guilty by saying God only intended sex for procreation and if you don't get a baby, you aren't doing the right thing.

I think this is the heart of the matter. Simple control. This is the basis for any moral/social norm surrounding sex.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Human sexuality is unlike animal sexuality because there's a spiritual dimension to it, and human sexuality can only be understood in that context. There's a reason sexual peculiarities are called "fetishes." Of course, just as most spiritual disciplines focus on relaxation and peace and beauty, most approaches to sexuality focus on peace and love and affection. But for anyone who claims to appreciate reality, or sexuality, as a whole, such approaches are inherently limited.


[/ QUOTE ]

Quoted for truth.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Human sexuality is not an area full of peace and love;

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is.

[/ QUOTE ] Much as we want it to be, the history of human sexuality shows that it clearly isn't. On the contrary it is a history bathed in superstition, blood and tyranny. (People get confused. They mistake loving and rather equitable --modern or romantic-- relationships as proof that sex can be rid of tension. There's a lot that's wrong, of course, with that kind of "reasoning" and only some of that wrong is statistical.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Before anyone begins seriously analyzing human sexuality, one should first study some classics. Saves time, if nothing else. I would suggest a bit of De Sade to have the worst over quickly. 120 Days At Sodom will shake your soul to its foundations as to what is "natural" and what is "unnatural" in human sexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading de Sade for shock value makes it hard to read de Sade for literary value.

[/ QUOTE ] De Sade is not to be read for shock value, although at first sighting he can be quite shocking. Honesty usually shocks. Brutal honesty always.

[ QUOTE ]
Human sexuality is unlike animal sexuality because there's a spiritual dimension to it, and human sexuality can only be understood in that context.

[/ QUOTE ]Of course. (You say "spiritual"; I say "psychological". No matter. The fact is that human sexuality can only be analysed in those terms.)

[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason sexual peculiarities are called "fetishes." Of course, just as most spiritual disciplines focus on relaxation and peace and beauty, most approaches to sexuality focus on peace and love and affection. But for anyone who claims to appreciate reality, or sexuality, as a whole, such approaches are inherently limited.

[/ QUOTE ]Not all "peculiarities" are called "fetishes". Fetishes are but a small part of sexual "deviancies". Obsessions are what characterizes anything off-colour sexually; the focusing on something, an artifact, an idea, a body part, sometimes an "artificially sexual" thing, i.e. a fetish. Again, on this, one must start with De Sade.

On the rocks.

Mickey Brausch

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Human sexuality is not an area full of peace and love;

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is.

[/ QUOTE ] Much as we want it to be, the history of human sexuality shows that it clearly isn't. On the contrary it is a history bathed in superstition, blood and tyranny. (People get confused. They mistake loving and rather equitable --modern or romantic-- relationships as proof that sex can be rid of tension. There's a lot that's wrong, of course, with that kind of "reasoning" and only some of that wrong is statistical.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying there are elements of both. And even in de Sade there are elements of love and peace.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason sexual peculiarities are called "fetishes." Of course, just as most spiritual disciplines focus on relaxation and peace and beauty, most approaches to sexuality focus on peace and love and affection. But for anyone who claims to appreciate reality, or sexuality, as a whole, such approaches are inherently limited.

[/ QUOTE ]Not all "peculiarities" are called "fetishes". Fetishes are but a small part of sexual "deviancies".

[/ QUOTE ]

But that tip of the iceberg is all most people will ever experience, or at least, all most people will ever admit to experiencing.

[ QUOTE ]
Obsessions are what characterizes anything off-colour sexually; the focusing on something, an artifact, an idea, a body part, sometimes an "artificially sexual" thing, i.e. a fetish. Again, on this, one must start with De Sade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or end with him.

"Obsession" is a tricky term. It's easily applied to others, but poorly understood.

[Exsubmariner]

The whole discussion of societal norms here is interesting. Most people are at a phase of moral development where they look to others around them for ques and how to behave. As a consequence, most people never get to experience an wide range of anything. I know people who have never traveled more than 50 miles from where they were born.

Just because something is not a social norm is not really a basis for associating moral implications with it. I'm sure bathing was not a social norm in the middle ages, but the church didn't outlaw it.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because something is not a social norm is not really a basis for associating moral implications with it.

[/ QUOTE ]Dress codes are very good examples IMO of social meaning changing dramatically in the course of time. The signifiers of virility and masculinity, for example, change almost completely.

Mickey Brausch