Kayjones.....Oh, no. Don't shut up. I enjoy you as much as anyone. And you didn't "cop out" at all -- you came right back with your explanation. OK!

Busy now. Will read your links and come back. I'm thinking I may have missed your point. Sometimes my attempts at levity fall short, too.

No problem. I will be quiet on this topic when someone proves me wrong. If I am proven wrong, I will be the FIRST to back off and say 'I'm sorry', but - if I believe I am right, and no one can prove I am wrong, I will defend my position to the end. I hope YOU feel the same about your beliefs and convictions!

Hey guys - it must be FRIDAY NIGHT!! Haven't had a rant in a loooong time. This is a good one. Hope no one is offended as, like I mentioned before, we are a warm hearted group here. However, the warmth is showing a little more in this thread. Keep up the good work!

Jonesy - see what your friend started - LOL!!

Sex is a basic instinct, and even thought Maslow put it in plain truth, I wonder if he wrote that hierarchy based on discussions like this. Why on earth would one want to study something like basic needs other than as a result of a debate - hmmmm...

There are lots of web sites that one can do research with regard to this topic. This afternoon, while on my way to Lowes, I heard a radio program, where this Priest was debating this very topic with callers. Even though he was of the eccumenical sector, he had to agree that sex IS a basic instinct. That's what pisses people off - they think it's something unique - it's not - even the lowest form of life HAS SEX! You don't have to possess a brain to have-need-want sex - it's a BASIC INSTINCT, just as are food, fear, . The point that some seem to be missing in these debates is:

When one is hungry enough, he/she will eat ANYTHING. When one's basic instincts kick in, they will do whatever they have to do to satisfy that need. Masturbation is a form of sex - used by many people who wouldn't impose their need on others, for whatever reason.

There are those who are so mentally undiciplined that they DON'T care HOW they get their needs met - ie take a look at robbers who kill for money - they don't stop to think about WHO they kill - they just take a chance that the person in their path, at the time the need hits, HAS SOME MONEY. That person can be a man or a woman, and the one they choose to attack may be the little old lady down the block - no one in particular.

Yes, when religion came into being, ideas changed, man has been made to feel 'guilt' by his actions, but the basic instincts we ALL possess HAS NOT (nor can it be)CHANGED!

Our basic instincts include:

Physical nutrition - The constant need to obtain nutrition to satisfy our hunger. Where is our next meal or water source?

Domination - to be dominant over our territory - they (animals such as dogs, wolves, etc.) mark off the boundaries with urine.

Procreation - The need to reproduce. Males must always defend their dominant position in their group or get up the courage to fight the dominant male so that they will be in a position to mate with the females.

Survival - The need to defend ourselves and surive in our environment. Animals must always be on the alert for danger.

You go Jo!! Lotta good research too.

Yes, men have Basic Instincts just like animals do, but they also have one thing animals don't have and that is "Free Will". I believe that's what separates the boys from the beasts.

You can also look at it in terms of Id, Ego and Superego. The Id is man's basic instincts... The ego, man's conscious or reasoning and, the superego, man's unconscious. There is more to man (at least we hope) than just an ID!

You said that well Carla.

Quote: any man would rape (have sex with) women, molest (have sex with) children and have sex with animals....IF they thought they could get away with it".
This is a plausable debate/discussion/arguement for me, because I did a college paper on this topic, and have done hours of research to produce the paper (and get an 'A' on it!).

We are talking about nature vs nurture here ie a person's natural instincts vs personal nurturing/education. Animals/humans acquire almost allof their behavioral traits from nature. Then we have to add developmental influences into the saga.

Social consciousness has raised MOST of MANKIND'S actions, at least in the 'modern' world, above basic instinctual behavior. All humans/higher-functioning animals/men/women have the capacity for feeling guilt, but environmental variables determine when that guilt manifests itself and how strong the feeling is.

OK, back.

Do recall a Lenny Bruce bit where he described males as organisms that, in a pinch, were perfectly willing to do it to mud.

All I can say is that, apparently, my own inhibitions and inculturations (if that's a word) must be working OK.

On the other hand, it is clearly apparent from the daily news that those of many others aren't. In that sense, it surely is a jungle out there. Perhaps I must yield to kayjones' point.

Still, there surely are a lot of fine folks -- women as well as men -- in my neighborhood. I am attracted to some, but don't feel any particular compulsion to copulate with any of them on-the-spot -- much less animals or children or my sister. Whether that's me or my upbringing, I can't speak to. However, respect for and trust in others seems to be a keystone. Some say that's a result of religion. I just think it makes more sense than uninhibited conquest and mayhem. Orgasms are wonderful, but they aren't all.

aslo, I believe you don't do those things because you are who you are, you were born that way. I think most violent criminals are born that way also. Something is missing in their make up, maybe just a conscience.

BJ, I respectfully disagree with your statement that criminals are born that way - that's not true.

Criminals are NOT born 'that way' - there are many circumstances that cause children to BECOME criminals. Criminals are the product of the impact of their environment and upbringing. The child starts out like every other child, then becomes the victim of child abuse in some form, and a criminal is the result of abuse over time.

The reason for a criminal mind has been proven: that abused children grow up with a large amount of hate that they do not know how to deal with. Their hate is usually focused on the abuser, but, they are not able to retaliate. One way to cope with the way they feel is to be violent towards everybody else.

Young children need the teaching and guidance of both the mother and the father, and in most cases, the mother has the responsibility of raising the children on her own.

By nature, many of the conditioning factors can only be taught by the male figure in the family, and when the father is absent from the home, the child has a diluted concept of right and wrong. I don't mean to imply that ALL kids, without a father in the home, turn into criminals - I'm merely explaining why those people WHO DO turn into criminals, do so.

That abused child, who has not absorbed the rules of acceptable social behavior, for whatever reason, then becomes an adult who has no conscience.

Conscience is the product of conditioning, and persons deficient in conscience may turn out to be persons who, for various reasons, resist classic conditioning--they do not internalize rules as easily as do others.

When children have not been socialized/conditioned, they have a strong propensity to get what the want, WHEN they want it, by criminal actions.

Yo, Jonesy...

Must disagree with your "born that way" opinion of violent criminals.

To begin with "criminal" is a man-made definition. Following, compliance with societal norms -- ie non-criminal, acceptable behavior -- is clearly learned. Actually, must be taught/learned. Ease or difficulty of avoiding sanctions is, likewise, learned.

I think, perhaps, you may be referring to an inability or rejection of learning. A honed contrariness, self-interest, and disregard for others, if you will, that has not or cannot be socialized out of some individuals.

I will agree with you if you mean some people cannot be acceptably socialized -- ie "born that way". That is clearly true.

I knew better than to post again, won't make that mistake again. I am not mad, I just can't debate this because I am having trouble getting across what I mean, I don't use the right teminology. I will only say I still don't believe "ALL" men would rape, molest and have sex with dogs if they thought they could get away with it.

Post away, Jonesy....say what you think the best you can...which is all any of us do. I'm almost certain kayjones would agree with that encouragement.

I too, obviously, share your problem. (If I get reincarnated, maybe I'll get better abilities at it! Ha!) I've had a hard time acknowledging what I consider to be the base nature kayjones describes. However, I'm not academic enough to refute her. I've fallen back on my view of my world as I know it, and myself as I know myself -- which, unfortunately, doesn't particularly advance the discourse.

BJ, don't you DARE stop posting! You are a dear and sweet lady, whom I enjoy conversing with.

Asolo is correct - everyone has their base of understanding and belief - I would not ask ANYONE to go along with what I say, just for the sake of not arguing - you have an opinion, and it is valuable, so POST AWAY - we will read and we will comment.

BJ, if you will go back through the posts on this forum, you will see that Asolo and I have been agreeing to disagree since we met the FIRST TIME - I still love reading what he/she says.

If you decide not to post again, that's your right, but I hope you will continue to post - especially on this thread - it is an INTERESTING thread!!!

I think there should be a distinction made here between animals and humans. Animals do not have a brain, a mind, or a conscience. Humans do.

I just broke off a relationship because my man put all women into the same category which says, "You are not trustworthy." Ultimately then, he holds women in such contempt that he cannot have the loving relationship he so much desires.

I think the person who puts all men into the same category as animals has a similar problem.

Sayhello, WHERE in heaven's name did you get the idea that animals don't have a brain?! Please do some research before making such uninformed/ignorant statements!!

Sorry Key. While I don't think anyone who knows me would call me ignorant (masters degree in English), I do apologize for my mistake in writing. Of course animals have brains. What I meant to say is that they don't use them with the same capacity for reasoning the same way that humans do.

Sayhello, a degree doesn't make a person 'smart' - my ex has a PhD, and is not 'smart'.

I was using the literal meaning for 'ignorant' ((a.) Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened), not the slang meaning.

Your statement that animals don't 'reason', as animals in our order do, I don't agree. Lower animals do 'think', have 'moods', respond to stimuli (Pavlov's Law), and feel pain, joy, sadness and many of the same 'emotions' that higher animals do.

Humans are animals/mammals!

All animals with backbones, including humans, are chordates. That is, in the language of taxonomy, they belong to the phylum Chordata. Their subphylum is Vertebrata, meaning that their backbones are segmented.

Mammals, members of the class Mammalia of vertebrate animals that includes humans, are the most highly advanced organisms on Earth. They are warm-blooded, hairy, have four-chambered hearts, relatively large brains, and they suckle their young.

There are 19 orders of mammals in the world - ten of these live in North America. Some orders include a wide range of animals: for example, shrews, lemurs, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans are all primates, one order of the class of mammals.

OK, I acquiesce. Go ahead and call me "ignorant" if you like. But I think you know what I meant.

I'm wondering if this is really the friendly group I had thought originally.

Sayhello, it sounds as if you are pouting - you made the following statement, and I quote:

"Animals do not have a brain, a mind, or a conscience. Humans do."

You have a master's degree in English - you should have known SOMEONE would jump on such an errant statement. I'm sorry that you can't take criticism - I was hoping to have some input from you, but it's your decision.

The word 'ignorant' simply means uninformed, which is what your statement tells me - you are uninformed or perhaps you just can't put your thoughts into words - a master's degree in English should help one with thought processes, how to deliver thoughts to others, ie how to write a correct set of thoughts down, so others can decipher what you mean - you must not be able to do that.

I've been to college, too - they wouldn't have let me out of the class if I couldn't write a concise paper, which could be understood by the professor! I made several mistakes in my two college English classes, and was criticized for those errors, but I didn't stomp my foot and refuse to continue the class! I studied, learned and changed my errors. I got "A's" in both classes, by the way.

How was I to know what you 'meant'? I can only form my concept of your statement based on what YOU WROTE - don't be mad at me!

"hello",

We really are a cool bunch - sometimes a little old and crotchety, but don't let us scare you. Some of us get a little louder than others. It has actually been suuuuuper quiet lately so I think everyone is flexing. This is a sensitive topic but I'm actually a little surprised that it has taken this direction. I seriously thought it would have turned more into a gender "battle". But oh well..., it is what it is.

Anyway, glad you are here. I've seen you over on a few other forums. Stick around here for a bit too. Let us know how things are going with your coming out party!!

gng

Gnee, my dear friend - you are such a diplomat, and I love you for all your efforts to keep peace among the natives! LOL

This topic shouldn't be a sore subject - the facts are cut and dried - not a lot of different directions this discussion can take.

Unless there is further debate from someone, I guess we can assume this case is closed!

There is more to life than "facts". There is more to living than "facts". I don't believe for a second that it's a fact that all men would rape women, molest children and have sex with animals if they could get away with it.
I think MOST men have the self will to NOT do what they believe is morally wrong even if they would not be punished for it, because that's how I define getting away with it, being punished.
It's wrong to rape, molest and have sex with animals. Most people will not do what they know is wrong.
I don't have a degree in anything but life lessons, but even I know that.
Let's not debate the fine points, and stick to the subject.

Jean, feel free to live in your 'factless' world - no one will try to change your opinion.

why are you trying to pick a fight? I never said nor implied that I live in a "factless" world. I said there is MORE to life than just facts. Plllllleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaasssssssssseeeeeeeee.

And, as someone else has already said, rape and incest are NOT sexual urges. They are about power and humiliation.

Let's not compare apples and oranges

Jean, I am a realist - you appear to be one who lives in a fantasy land - that's ok by me. I am sure you believe there is a little man in the sky who will thump you on the head if you don't 'live right', too - that's also ok by me - believe whatever gets you through life.

I can't see rape as sex. As for children there is a "natural" reason for changes at puberty. Animals is getting really far fetched. While these things happen to class them as a capability or desire of all men is not credible.

Many men are pigs because many women reward them for being so. I first came accross that notion in an Early Western Civ class taught by a 70 year old self described "battle ax" of a woman. I struck me as strange and I thought about it from time to time for twenty some years now. I must agree that males will do what it takes to attract the female. Human or otherwise that seems to be the natural law.

Please note my use of qualifiers. As many of you know I'm a transvestite so I won't pretend to be a "normal" man.

: )
lyra

Lyra, being a transvestite doesn't make you any less 'male' - I am happy for you that you have the guts to do what makes your boat float!

I second that, Lyra. I've yet to hear a description of what it means to be "normal."

I also agree with Jean in that, if it is a proven fact, I would have to see the documentation on the studies before I could believe that all men are animals and do not have the capacity for discernment or control where sex is concerned.

Kay, have you been published? Please point to that publication, and any other there might be.

Are you scared to live with your stepson? From what has been said by you, these men will.... Do you find the need to guard your dog from attack?

OMG...you are so full of yourself. Grow up and how about YOU start living in the real world, instead of in a book.

I believe you are talking about the most base of men's physical urges. Most men are much much more socially developed than that. Perhaps on paper, or in history men have been capable of such things, but to plaster all men with the ability to rape if they don't get caught is absurd.
Absolutely absurd.

All I can say is it's been more than a month now since I was first identified and in all that time I haven't raped anyone, diddled any children, or molested one single animal. Haven't felt a single "urge". Not even a little tiny one. Is there help for me?

Live on, Jean - with my blessing.

LOL, Asolo!

To the rest of you - again, I say: LIVE ON!

Kay, could it be that what you meant was that it's your *opinion* and not a *fact* (as in a published fact)?

What is even more scarey, if this is just her "opinion", she has grandsons... with her now.

How do you deal with at any moment the "base" urges take over?

Besides, a defintion from the dictionary, I would like to really see what was used as support for the paper. I too have been to college, and can get "A"'s, but it doesn't mean it was scientifically proven. Is there any tests to prove this? Name the author, publication, date.

I will let you do your own research, just as I have done. Some people just handle facts better than others - I'm not mad at you - draw your own conclusions on every level - it's fine by me.

Kay, I don't think it's that we can HANDLE facts -- we just want to know that it IS factual and not opinion or, as you mentioned, someone's "own conclusions." If you have done the research, why not share it with us? I'm not mad either.

Sayhello, I will offer just one site for you to look at and draw any conclusion you choose. I will not debate this issue with this forum any further - it is what it is, like it or not.

If you choose to do research, and still draw the same conclusion about the issue, so be it - I have researched human sexuality (from the beginning to today) and the effects of society on sexuality, on a lot of levels, and my conclusions are based on that research - now, you may do the same.

Here is a link that might be useful: Sexuality and Morality

OK, certainly no one is required to debate here. But I do think it's a bit unfair to label someone as "factless" and "living in a fantasy land" without backing that up.

Without asking for debate, I would be interested in knowing your academic background. Is it in psychology?

I think it worth mentioning that the author of the text you mentioned is an engineer in electronics, and even that credential seems a bit outdated (Pascal, Perl, Basic are from the dinosaur age). He also says, "I, like any thinking creature, have my prejudices, bigotries, and baseless beliefs. I already understand many of these and defend them no longer." I would certainly agree with him.

Yes, my 'academic background' is in Psychology and Sociology, and I worked in this dicipline for 35 years - now retired.

Good enough. I'm still surprised you would use an electronics engineer's text as a basis for factual psychological or sociological information, but to each his own, as the saying goes...

Man is not brainless. Yes, sex is the most basic of natural instincts, but we aren't talking about men in a vacuum here. We're talking about men in real life. Men we know, pass on the street, ride in elevators with, sit next to on a bus. Strip a man of all his social training, his own morality and debase him as just a non thinking animal, and yes, I will agree, men will have sex with anything female. But, that's certainly NOT the world I live in, and I don't consider the world around me to be a fantasy. I feel sorry for anyone who feels that way about the men in the world. How scary for them!

The sexuality of the human race is innate, and exists in both the male and the female genders. Humans are also given the power of discernment -- the acuteness of judgment and understanding; therefore, we are different from animals.

Finally, two people who did not drink the koolaid!

Ir would be such misinformation that this is out there with unproven, unscientific, and unverifiable data, evidence, or documentation.

(smile) I think it's interesting to examine perspectives, though, as well as documentation, because it is one more way in which we learn about ourselves as humans and how we are not only different from animals, but different from each other in how we think and communicate.

Sorry to get on the soapbox here, but I can't let some of this stand as "fact." A lot is being left out of this debate. I do not think either sociology or biology has solved the "nature/nurture" debate. Not all animals rape to get sex. Many animals have complex mating rituals. There are many successful mating strategies, rape is only one. Nature is full of biological diversity, it's not one thing or the other. And I don't know where the child molesting, old woman raping and bestiality comes in, since that isn't procreation based. It is violence based and power based, which is related to procreation/survival. But violence and power is only ONE procreation strategy. There's seduction, sneakiness, hormonal cues, and some animals just have sex all the time. Others aren't in the mood at all for most of their lives. And as far as bestiality, I dunno. Dogs sometimes try to hump cats, but sometimes, even when the opportunity is there, they just don't. Not in the mood I guess. And men aren't the only beasts. As for the hard wired nurturing mommies, if she doesn't want the baby, a woman can kill it very easily, and some do. Even primate societies couldn't survive with the level of violence your estimation of "natural" behavior would engender. The brakes aren't just goody goody, they ensure survival of the species. How can a human population survive without consequences, consequences come from your fellow humans whom you need to survive. Higher primates have many types of social rituals, not all of them violent. It's a balancing act. Primate observers have observed the most horrific violence in those societies, and yet it does not happen all the time, why? Because in a species that needs to live together as a group to survive, there are ALWAYS consequences of some sort. Even primates do not do violent things to their friends, because they do not want to get away with it, the relationship meets other needs they have besides their sexual urges. Yes sex is a powerful urge, but it is not the only urge. Survival doesn't just depend on sex--you have to survive and your offspring have to survive for your species genepool to continue.

How could we survive if every person was trying to rape and pillage every other person? That's illogical. Human life without consequences is an oxymoron. Imagining a "natural" life for humans where there are no consequences has never existed and never will. It is actually unnatural. Human existence is social, and social behaior is built on consequnces. What those consequences are is a varied as the human genepool. Violence can be counter productive to survival in the long run, which is why violent events in nature are only part of the picture. Animals are violent, but not all the time. You can rape and pillage some people some of the time, but you can't rape and pillage all the people all the time indefinately.

And I know enough decent men and women to know that some are just decent to the core, hardwired that way. Whether it is in their genes or what is still somewhat of a mystery and will keep the biologist and psychologists up to their ears in grant money for many years to come.

Sorry, but there is just as much evidence to suggest that our hardwiring also includes compassion, a very valuable survival mechanism, in addition to violence. Humans are social animals. As long as we have societies, there will be a need for compassion. It exists in primates right along with the violence. They have the whole spectrum available to them, and so do we. Luckily our brains give us lots of survival tactics, thousands more than even the smartest primate. The biggest problem with violence is if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, while the sweet quiet guy lurking in the corner canoodles your conquest and passes on his genes to the future. Consequnces or not, he doesn't rape because he doesn't have to.

"Sorry, but there is just as much evidence to suggest that our hardwiring also includes compassion"

Amen!