On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, David Lubkin wrote:
> It is reasonable to expect that since standards of beauty change from place
> to place, and from era to era (except for genetically programmed
> preferences, like facial symmetry), tastes in pornography would also
> differ between cultures.
Whoa, how did we get from pornography to beauty?
Now, someone correct me if I'm off the wall, but IMO, the purpose of the literature/pictures/movies/etc. (ranging from erotica to pornography) is to stimulate you to the point where you have an orgasm. Now the purpose of the big O is to satisfy those biological "urges" that you have done your duty to your "gene copying" drive. While the social/cultural/intellectual part of your mind may be making value judgements (re: beauty) [you mean to say you [are attraceted to|slept with] him/her?!? (how gross...)] and there probably is an undercurrent of attraction/repulsing driven by pheromones, the bottom line are the drives to impregnate or be impregnated.
Now the whole thread about "removing the sex drive" is in my mind about removing the "satisfaction" associated with orgasms. It has to be operating at the lowest level of your genetic drives. Presumably if this is done correctly, then you would no longer be stimulated by the aforementioned material or odors, etc.
> But I was intrigued to read that (some? many? all?) Native American men are
> disinterested in nude photographs, and don't understand the interest other
> men have in them. They describe looking at pictures of women as being as
> pointless as looking at pictures of food when you are hungry.
Interesting, that could imply that their culture or genetic heritage has "reality gravity". I could imagine a situation (say where there is more pheromone sensitivity) where the orgasm is simply not as satisfying unless it is the "real" thing.
As I believe I've mentioned before, since the economic investments in procreation are different for males and females it makes sense on the genetic programming side that males are more highly stimulated by such things (even to the point of raping females, esp. those of "other" tribes). Females on the other hand have to be more level headed about the whole process due to the greater investment. Bottom line: sperm are cheap.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not suggesting in any way that this is the way it "should" be, I'm simply suggesting that this is the way nature has designed it.
Now, since I'm probably already waist deep in the mud with some people, I might as well see if I can drown myself.
I'm reading an interesting piece of Victorian erotica now and it discusses the excitement that some men and women derive from "spankings". It is also true that spankings potentially bring more blood into the sex organs possibly making the nerves more sensitive.
The question is -- does it simply stop there (at physiology) or is this something deeper, i.e. the tip of the iceberg where violence is required to fullfill sexual desires? I believe that the anthropologists say the only two "natural" situations in which primitive people resort to violence are a lack of food and a lack of mates.
I guess that explains prime time TV... Sex and violence interlaced with munchie commercials.