Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Basic Instinct : Hunger Vs Sex?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 280 posts

Posted 02 December 2016 - 05:00 AM

Hunger and Sex are two of the most basic human desires. 

The former is involuntary (obesity, for instance, is hereditary and involves pigging on carbs, which happens spontaneously), and the latter voluntary, (there have been many famous bachelors / spinsters in history). 

If a poll were taken as to whether Food / Cooking websites and Sex sites were most sought for, which would dominate ? 

What does this indicate ?

 

The average sex act lasts 3-7 minutes from start to climax. 

The average lunch lasts several times that. 

In the former case, auto-eroticism gives reasonable satisfaction. (by proxy). 

I don't see how a chicken burger on a cookery website can satisfy hunger pangs. 

The first seems to be VR, the latter augmented reality. :-)  :beer-fresh: 



#2 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 154 posts

Posted 02 December 2016 - 06:13 AM

Hunger and Sex are two of the most basic human desires. 

The former is involuntary ... and the latter voluntary, (there have been many famous bachelors / spinsters in history). 

 

That is nonsense. For those individuals who experience sexual desire, it is hardly voluntary.



#3 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 280 posts

Posted 02 December 2016 - 06:41 AM

That is nonsense. For those individuals who experience sexual desire, it is hardly voluntary.

 

That said and done, abstinence from sex does not mean you cease to exist.

Starvation means you ultimately meet an inevitable end, 

Priorities are definitely different in-spite of both of these being basic necessities.



#4 HydrogenBond

HydrogenBond

    Creating

  • Banned
  • 3058 posts

Posted 02 December 2016 - 07:08 AM

Through most of history, most people were poor and did not have a lot of food to eat. There were some taboos in terms what foods you could and could not eat, but one was allowed to eat something each day. There were certain times where fasting was required. But to balance this off, there were festivals, harvest and holidays where feasting was allowed. The result was eating, over time, remained more natural in terms of instinct. 

 

Sex was different. Even if you were poor, and hungry, the opportunity to have sex was there. Sex is pleasurable and could make the hard life more worth while. The problem was, sex could create a wider range of social problems, such as diseases, inner breeding, and lots of children nobody could afford to care for, leading to suffering of children.

 

If we took away modern birth control, abortion, medicines for STD's, and social welfare for illegitimate children, and funding for related and inherited heath problems, one would see the wide range of problems the past would face, if sex had the same freedom as eating. If AIDS had formed 1000 years ago, it would have been a plague. 

 

The result was rules for behavior were created to regulate sex to minimize all the social problems. No culture could evolve under so much social costs and would be vulnerable to conquest and extinction. The result was repression of the sexual instinct due to law.  Repression leads to higher brain potential and more compulsive behavior. This is the nature of prohibition and temptation. The result was more  bizarre and unnatural sexual behavior. 

 

For example, although male dogs will hump each other, this is a form of aggression and not about sex. It is a way to define pack order in a way that is not as lethal as fighting and biting. For humans to extrapolate this symbolic aggression into sex, is not natural. Dogs  don't take all the way to having sex, but stop at pack order dynamics. 

 

Natural instinct is different from natural plus repression instinct. Modern sex is more of the latter, due to centuries of repression that seems to linger in the brain's firmware. 

 

 



#5 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8023 posts

Posted 02 December 2016 - 03:08 PM

Hunger and Sex are two of the most basic human desires.

The former is involuntary (obesity, for instance, is hereditary and involves pigging on carbs, which happens spontaneously), and the latter voluntary,

I think you’ve made a category error here. Hunger is a state, Sex in this context an act. The correct pars would be hunger vs. sexual desire or eating vs. sex.

Once you correct the category error, you’ll find that hunger and sexual desire are both usually involuntary, eating and sex voluntary.
 

(there have been many famous bachelors / spinsters in history).

There have been many people who famously “abstained” from eating, though fewer than people who abstain from sex. Of course, people who completely abstain from eating, except in cases where they’re kept alive with IV nutrition, die within 75 days or so of their last meal, while one can abstain from sex for an entire lifetime.
 

If a poll were taken as to whether Food / Cooking websites and Sex sites were most sought for, which would dominate ?

WIth websites, you don’t have to rely on polls, but can use traffic data (Such as from Alexa). So rather than speculate, why not research?

Since hypography is a science forum, not a post-whatever-comes-to-mind-that-your-think-belongs-on-the-internet forum, let’s try to science up this basic needs question a bit. Consider the following questions:
  • According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, a psychological theory, which would a person be driven to satisfy first, hunger or sexual desire?
  • According to empirical zoological observations, which would a kangaroo satisfy first?

Edited by CraigD, 11 February 2017 - 12:19 PM.
Fixed broken link


#6 DianeG

DianeG

    Curious

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 11 February 2017 - 11:28 AM

There would be both strong evolutionary pressures re-enforced for both. But I'd say hunger trumps sex for several reasons, even though sex is more directly related to  offspring. The key factor is time. You can postpone sex and reproduction a month or even a year or two  if for some reason you have to, with out a great impact on the total  number of progeny you might give birth to. You cannot postpone eating and drinking water without immediate impacts on survival - and consequently the ability to reproduce. So food and water will always come first up to some basic sustaining limit, after which sex might tend to  dominate.  So it's not really "either/or" - it really depends on which part of the spectrum of deprivation or abundance you are looking at. 



#7 Zina

Zina

    Curious

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 23 February 2017 - 09:18 PM

3-7 minutes? Thats sorta sadly short, me and my boyfriend take about 15-20 minutes per act, just enjoying eachother and cuddles in between each.

 

But I would say food on that question, simply cause if you don't eat, you will starve to death and then you can't reproduce, so food first so you can have sex  :alien_dance:



#8 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 154 posts

Posted 24 February 2017 - 05:28 AM

 

 

But I would say food on that question, simply cause if you don't eat, you will starve to death and then you can't reproduce, so food first so you can have sex  :alien_dance:

 

That's not necessarily true in an environment where there is stiff competition (pun intended) between males to mate as often as they can. I assume you do not find yourself in that environment. But I have seen cases in flocks of sheep where the rams drop dead of exhaustion/starvation during the mating season because their reproductive and competitive urge is too great for them to have time to eat. But what a way to go.