slb wrote:Interesting how you've come back to animals regarding the feeding, sure humans are not considering this activity "closely reserved", they actually enjoy this activity in crowded areas like restaurants. But guess what ? They no more consider sleeping "closely reserved", never heard of dormitories ?
Having lived in one for a time, I think I have. I also remember how many people were uncomfortable with dorm living at first - they're not something we're naturally given to. Dormitory living is something we get conditioned to, rather. That, if anything, is the 'cultural influence' you're seeking in sex.
As for restaurants, again, you're looking at something we become acclimated to from a very early age. More of that 'cultural influence'. And yet there are still quite a number of people who don't feel comfortable sitting in a public place with their backs to the door or to a large room.
I know it's difficult to admit a taboo because it is ingrained and considered "normal", Diogenes
was already unsettling the citizens of Athens because he was ridiculing the traditions and taboos 2500 years ago by masturbating in public. But at least he was not thrown in prison for that.
And? Athenians being stuffy isn't even close to the same thing as the intentional violation of another person's most protected personal territory.
Sorry, I was not explicit enough. My point was to explain that your use of animal matting habits was a nonsense because animals themselves do not all show the behavior you're attributing them. If mating is dangerous for a species, evolution will take care of that and matting will be very short (a few seconds for a rabbit) and avoid non-reproductive behavior; conversely predators are not vulnerable during the matting (several minutes for a lion). You could certainly draw a better comparison regarding animal and human sexuality with predators or even better primates like bonobo/chimpanzes who actually are using sex as a social behavior.
Of course predators are vulnerable during mating. The difference is they have far fewer predators to be afraid of (like... none, really). Apes don't have that luxury. Not even bonobo chimpanzee, who use sex as quite a number of social behaviors, from reward to establishing dominance in the troupe to more or less out and out bribery for future considerations, have that luxury. That's one of the reasons for increasingly complex social arrangements - the responsibility for security gets shifted from each individual to the collective alertness of the group, which allows for a greater degree of security. Trying to say that bonobo engage in sexual behaviors while they don't feel secure is just ludicrous, especially when social bonding, one of the main aims of bonobo sexual activity, is (among other benefits) one of the chief means bonobo have to attain
You are twisting Libet's work here. Nowhere Libet says that unconscious processes in the brain are "dominant" for decision-making: They are the initiators, this is extremely different. Libet also explains that after this unconscious initiator, then the consciousness accept or veto. And that's basically where all our education and sophisticated motives are, including our sex taboos.
Libet demonstrated that decisions are made and often carried out before
the conscious mind is even aware of the decision.
Has a transhumanist, I disagree with this statement but it is unrelated to our topic, if you're interested on discussing that we may start a new thread.
Having had the discussion with many, many people in many settings more specifically devoted to such topics, that's ok, it's likely not a conversation either of us needs to have again.
We know that at least a caster unit may not want it, remember Sizemore & Parson dialog about killing.
We do know that - but we don't know that Parson wanted
Sizemore to desire killing - presumably, even in Erfworld, when someone desires intimacy from another person, they generally desire that person's interest
Sure, except that again, intimacy is related to a sex taboo and has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it is a reproductive act
Considering my position that society exists, at its root, for the purpose of enabling reproduction... I'd say that it's likely we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, because we are at an impasse. From my position, it would be categorically impossible for any behavior to have 'nothing to do with' reproduction, however indirectly. From yours, we have almost completely divorced ourselves from our biology.