In fact, the instinct for procreation is divided into several instincts - each of them has its own trigger mechanism and, in general, the logic of work.
The first instinct that enters here is called sexual. Its purpose is to ensure the copulation of two individuals with the subsequent transfer from the male individual of genetic material (semen), which is then used to “program” the embryo. The biological meaning of the sexual instinct is due to the fact that in order to procreate, animals and humans require two individuals, male and female, in order to use more diverse genes. This exchange of genes allows animals to evolve much faster - successful new genes spread throughout the population much faster.
The trigger of the sexual instinct consists of physiological readiness for mating and the availability of an individual of the opposite sex. Subjectively, experiences associated with sexual instinct are perceived as various kinds of romantic emotions.
The second independent component of the procreation instinct is the instinct of caring for offspring. The biological meaning of this instinct is that a born child (or a baby animal) does not yet have sufficient ability to survive independently. It may take years for him to get back on his feet. And who, if not their own parents, should take care of their offspring? This is the meaning of the instinct to care for offspring - to feed and protect their weak offspring. This instinct, like all others, does not operate all the time. To activate it, you need your own trigger mechanism. In animals, these are mainly complaints from the baby (squeaking, crying) and the presence of an alarming situation (for example, a predator). In people, the instinct to care for their offspring has developed significantly - parents are concerned not only with threats from the environment, but also that their child is healthy, intellectually developed, becomes a full member of society, etc. Significant emotions for this instinct are tenderness, as well as various mobilizing emotions, such as aggression, anxiety, and fear. This instinct is much more developed in women (females in animals).
The third instinct is called differently: the instinct of caring for one's neighbor, simply the instinct of caring, the family instinct. Its biological meaning is that for the survival of individuals, it is “strategically important” not only to reproduce and care for offspring, but also to care for each other among adults. It may seem like a figure of speech, but the fact is that two united individuals over a long period of speech become three (four, five...) times stronger. This is also due to the fact that together it is easier to repel the enemy. And with the fact that a wounded or sick individual can die without the help of a neighbor. As a result, it turns out that those individuals who have learned to be friends with each other receive an evolutionary advantage - because they live longer and can produce correspondingly more offspring. That is why the instinct of caring for one's neighbor is considered as an integral element of the instinct of procreation. The trigger mechanism for this instinct is approximately the same as the previous one - complaints from a neighbor.
However, how this other individual “suddenly” becomes a friend (ally) is not yet very clear to science. Several factors seem to come together here: the presence of a vacant friend position (an individual cannot have too many friends), the friendly behavior of another individual, its physical health (there is little biological sense in being friends with a weak individual), and social status. A person, due to his intelligence and education, may have other requirements for a potential friend: intelligence, wealth. Intelligence is perhaps a mutation of the image of a strong person, and wealth is a mutation of social status.
The entire instinct for procreation is characterized by “its own” emotion, which can be designated as love. Love is thus a two-factor emotion, including sexual motives and caring motives.
(I recommend starting with it)
Let's move on to sexual instinct. Its effect on behavior differs greatly between men and women. To better understand the implementation of the sexual instinct, let us turn to the primitive human herd, where there were practically no restrictions on instinctive behavior. Moreover, it was during this period of time that our instincts were formed. They have practically not changed in the historical moment that has passed from the Stone Age to our time. In order not to confuse primitive man and woman with modern ones, we will call the former a male and a female.
The male in the primitive herd serves as the inseminator. His task in terms of reproduction is to leave his genes as widely as possible in the offspring. Sexual instinct forces him to seek mating with as many females of his species as possible. Since his role in the appearance of offspring is most often limited only to fertilization, he can afford it. Of course, he has preferences: the best partner is young, fertile, physically healthy, which is determined by external data. Any signs of old age, illness, or defects reduce the value of the female for mating. Although, with a lack of healthy and young females, the male can copulate with older and sick ones. Rank greatly influences the number of females available to a male. The higher the rank, the more females there are - firstly, they themselves want a VR partner (we’ll find out why a little lower), and secondly, VR males drive NR away from their females.
The sexual instinct of females works completely differently. After mating, she will have to bear the child for nine months, and then care for him for at least several more years. This forces the female to select her partner more carefully. This is what her sexual instinct is “sharpened” on. Firstly, the best partner for her is the most important male, whom the female can “reach”. The most important dominant in some team. The best thing is the most important male of the herd. In a primitive herd, where social norms are in the most primitive state and instincts are not limited by anything, the leader is always a male. Strong, violent, conflicting, aggressive, feared by all other members of the herd. He is the most adapted person for life. Therefore, the sexual instinct of females is primarily tuned to search for the male’s GRVP and conceive from him. The level below the VRNP is males - although they are prey and have signs of VR, they are not as adapted to the aggressive struggle for survival in the wild as the VRVP. An even lower level for searching for a biological father are SRs who receive matings in exchange for food (we’ll talk about why a little lower). HPs that are generally deprived of sex are not at all attractive for mating, since they do not have a hereditary predisposition for aggressive survival in the wild.
There was an interesting study that illustrates this. Eighteen thousand women were shown two male types: macho and intellectual, that is, a VRVP man and an NP (SR). Two-thirds of women would prefer to have an intellectual spouse, explaining that macho men are not suitable for family life.
The experiment involving these two male types was repeated, but under different conditions. It turned out that women's preferences change depending on the phase of the cycle. During the period favorable for conception, most women believe that the “macho” type is more attractive than the “intellectual” type. It turns out that women want to give birth to a macho VRVP, and to have submissive, intelligent men with reduced rank and primacy as husbands.
NR males were determined by females to be unsuitable as biological fathers of offspring, and therefore were not allowed to mate. In addition, they were driven away from the females by other, stronger males. In addition, HP production was meager, so they could not get sex for food. As a result, the HP males were deprived of sex, but really wanted it. Females, knowing about this desire, used the males' HP, receiving their services in exchange not even for sex, but for the vague prospect of mating. NR males are easily manipulated and perceive any flirting as a prospect for sex. The female knows that there will be no mating, but, of course, she does not tell the male this. On the contrary, she pretends that the male is about to get her. You just need to invest a lot of labor or other resources. In the modern world, this has transformed into the friend zone. The relationship between the female and the male's HP is reminiscent of the situation with a donkey, in front of which there is a carrot hanging on a stick (tied to its back). No matter how fast the donkey (NR male) runs, he will not see the carrots. Other HP males, unable to obtain sex “legally,” took it “illegally,” lying in wait and raping females far from the protective males.
There is one more important nuance. The female is physically weaker than the male and can neither force him to himself nor force him to give up resources. Instead of strong muscles, nature gave her one important instinctive mechanism - a rich range of manipulations with the help of which she, who is much weaker, is able to control the stronger one. Strictly speaking, the female sex is not weak, since the weak in nature are eliminated and die. If the actions of males (men) are direct, obvious and therefore can be easily countered, then the actions of females are hidden, deceptive, and only either another female or a male who knows well the female instincts (including manipulation) can resist them. Therefore, every male is absolutely predictable to every average female, while every average female is an incomprehensible mystery to the male. Simply because his brain is “sharpened” for something completely different - not for interpersonal relationships, but for studying and transforming the outside world. We will look at this in more detail in the chapter “How is a man different from a woman?” . For now, we need to remember that for the average man, who has no knowledge of the essence of female behavior, female manipulations and “female logic” (instinctive behavior) are absolutely incomprehensible. He can laugh at the “stupid woman”, he can flex his muscles, but the fact remains: she has him in the palm of her hand, for him she is a mystery, shrouded in darkness.
Of course, not everyone can be manipulated. VR males (men), who themselves have the skills to manipulate people, and also have independent thinking, quickly “cut through” the male (female) manipulations. The criterion is simple: any manipulation is aimed at making you behave in a way that is beneficial to the manipulator and disadvantageous to you. The leader, with the help of independent thinking, very quickly determines the direction of benefit and understands that he is being manipulated. For experienced VR men, this happens on autopilot, subconsciously. The woman speaks, and he already sensed that they wanted to deceive him. And it reacts properly. Therefore, a VR man has natural defense mechanisms against female manipulation, and he may not even realize it. By the way, this is how women often define leaders: if they don’t fall for manipulations and fend them off, that means they are a leader, a desirable man.
SR males are the main object of female manipulation. As a matter of fact, it is for them that manipulatives are intended by nature. The CP has resources that can be obtained, but no natural defense mechanism. His independence of thinking is much less developed than that of the VR male. In most cases, he cannot calculate the direction of the benefit, and therefore acts as the female needs. That is, she loses her resources (strength, time, prey), and the female gains.
The HP male has practically no resources (except for his own strength and time). However, he is very easily led to even the most inexperienced, crude manipulations. The HP male absolutely does not know how to defend himself from them.
Females keep their manipulative secrets very strictly from males. Generally speaking, women call a goat someone who has failed to become a ram. That is, someone who calculated the manipulations and did not fall for them. However, much more dangerous for females are those males who not only themselves have understood the mechanisms of instinctive behavior of females, but also teach other males to identify manipulations. In this case, the females gather in a group and begin to bait the discerning male. It’s very simple to check: post the transcript of any female manipulation on any website you visit. Especially if this transcript is written simply and with irony. Instantly a crowd of dissatisfied ladies will gather, who, spitting and shaking in hysterics, will explain to you how stupid and worthless you are. And not a man at all. By the way, they most often manipulate on “autopilot”, unconsciously, instinctively, so it is useless to explain or prove anything to a woman about manipulation. There is no point in “bringing it to clean water.” She simply won’t understand this, and will call you a bore.
There are a lot of female manipulations. A couple hundred, no less. I described some of them in the book “Anatomy of Love and Fakes,” and here I wanted to bring more, but I realized that if I did this, there would be no room left for “male” information. Therefore, I decided not to be content with fragments, but to summarize all female manipulative behavior in one book. It's much more convenient. The book will be called “Female Manipulations” - simple and clear.
Let's return to instinctive behavior. When people realized the need to limit instincts, they introduced regulators, which we will talk about in the chapter “Religion, Law, Morality.” In short, these regulators corrected people's instinctive behavior in the following way. Men were made the head of the family and the possibility of promiscuity was strictly limited. In addition, he was required not only to inseminate a woman, but also to support her and the common offspring. A woman was also limited in her ability to “fly” other than her husband, and each husband—the head of the family—became the leader of his small tribe, as a result of which the female sexual instinct was satisfied by sex with the leader. Another very important point is the selection of people in society according to the criterion of low primacy, which we will talk about in the following chapters. With the complication of social relations, the violent savage - the GRVP male - already represented a danger to society, and such people were disposed of or their social status was suppressed in every possible way. A VRNP man who knew how to control himself and suppress selfish instincts was already becoming a real leader in society. It was the VRNP man who enjoyed the greatest success among women in a balanced society. At the same time, religion and morality forbade a woman to use manipulation. This was considered sinful, indecent, vicious, a sign of bad taste. All these mechanisms are aimed at eliminating any selfish behavior of family members, so that this does not lead to intra-family and even external conflicts. Factors that block instincts act to strengthen the family and protect the resources invested in it.
When the influence of education on behavior decreases, the latter becomes the same as it was for males and females in the primitive herd. This happens during a hormonal explosion (puberty, love). A woman falls in love with a bully. He is clueless, aggressive, with poor social prospects, but a woman melts when she sees him. Instinct, with the help of a hormonal explosion, has escaped the control of common sense and controls behavior. Love is evil - you will love the VP of a goat. The second reason for the disinhibition of instincts (already within the entire society) is when regulators and limiters of behavior (religion, morality, law, morality) cease to operate. Men begin to seek promiscuity, women begin to prostitute themselves (openly or hidden, the so-called “domestic prostitution”, mating for gifts and blackmail with sex). Men conceive and abandon children, women manipulate men, receive material benefits for sex and give birth to VP males (who are most often either criminals, drunkards, or aggressive hooligans who do not work anywhere). We'll talk about what this leads to in the following chapters.
BackOnce, passing by a flock of animatedly jostling pigeons, my gaze fell on a pigeon, which solemnly puffed out its cheeks, and stuck out its chest with all its might, dancing in front of a thoughtful dove, who indifferently looked in the other direction, trying to capture her imagination..
Perhaps - seemingly indifferent... In fact, most likely, she was very interested in the handsome man, healthy and vigorous, who proudly puffed up his feathers in front of her beak... Quite a suitable option for making a nest together, laying eggs, and together raise offspring.
It’s simple - every living creature has an instinct for reproduction, which is “decorated” with sexual desire for living creatures of different sexes (with amoebas everything is generally much simpler, you don’t have to prostrate yourself in front of anyone, you yourself wanted to, and you multiplied yourself. Lafa!!!)
But for more highly developed organisms this process is more complicated. There are periods of estrus when the female is ready for mating, and then the males come out of their skin so that the female will allow them to the body, and in order to satisfy their attraction - not for mating, but for reproduction. Nature is not a fool - who would voluntarily want to shoulder the burden the hardships of giving birth and raising offspring? So sexual craving was invented...
But even among animals, it sometimes happens that a female will not allow every male to approach her, and occasionally pairs of animals are created for many years, which is rare (like wolves, or swans..)
What is the desire to reproduce? When a representative of the opposite sex seems attractive for various reasons: external, of course, because it is appearance that speaks of health, and the offspring should be healthy, no one wants to waste their energy on bearing and giving birth to non-viable babies...
Girls wear clothes that most favorably demonstrate their physical capabilities, men also try to look like cool machos...
For people, everything is more complicated6, due to the greater diversity of human types. For some, thin people seem ideal, for others - plump, for others, glimpses of intelligence are still desirable... But in any case, everyone wants to be close to the person he has fallen in love with , or, as often happens with girls, who was accepted as a suitable option. (No matter how you turn it, the guys still choose, and the girls can only push them with hints or a smile... Still, in the standard case, the girl cannot be the first to approach and meet the guy, this option will look unambiguous).
The fact that for men, sex is fundamental in a relationship is not denied by either side or the other..
In principle, girls also need sex, they are just cautious in the subcortex, because the process of reproduction itself falls entirely on their shoulders... And not only their shoulders, but in general the whole body and the rest of their lives. Therefore, they are more picky when choosing a breeding partner, and try to weigh it a hundred times before starting the process itself....
Unlike animals, where males automatically take care of their offspring, man has degraded significantly, and now especially... I mentioned once in one of the previous posts, in which I told how one representative of the opposite sex (it’s absolutely not right to call such a man a man) I want) said that a woman’s desire to have a child from a man is disgusting and this desire should be condemned by men in every possible way...
And this opinion is all too common. I once read comments on a LJ post about rubber women, and a depressing number of male comments were that “women were scared that rubber women represented such strong competition!!!” And A few men disgustedly noted that rubber as a sexual partner is disgusting...
So the pichalka - modern human males transform the instinct of reproduction, which is expressed in sexual desire, into a safe way of physiological entertainment for them... These same human males are worse than amoebas...
But in the normal case, it’s good when two people mutually like each other, that they want to be together, feel the intercourse of both soul and body, raise children together that are similar to their parents, because that’s why we choose this particular person, man or woman. so that the descendants are like the one whom we imagined as the most favorable option for the subconscious satisfaction of the most important instinct - reproduction...
Of course, it is very rare that the spiritual maturity of a person (and especially men) reaches such a level when throughout his life he lives, like swans, the confidence that your soul mate is the most suitable for you, that you found her correctly, that you were not mistaken.. And there is no desire, stupid and vulgar, to look for someone else.
I can confidently say now that there are only a few men who do not cheat on their wives, at least in thoughts. And I don’t know such men. Young people sometimes still fall under this definition of “swan fidelity,” but after 30 the number of such men sharply decreases.. .
It is difficult to say for sure what exactly pushes married men to look for new women. Moreover, sometimes this happens involuntarily, when a man can unexpectedly become interested in another woman... Males like to explain themselves as polygamous... But everything is simpler - it’s just spiritual immaturity.
Once, when I was still a student, I got into a conversation with a guy I knew who crawled into our room on a Sunday morning, rumpled and chewed, to drink some tea.
He had a bright, delicious scratch on his face. I sarcastically asked: “Woman?”
The guy sighed depressingly: “Oh, if only..”
I didn’t fail to reproach him that you guys are all out and about, you’re such womanizers...
And he unexpectedly retorted to me: “It’s your own fault!”
I choked in surprise: “We?????????? Ourselves??????”
He nodded his head affirmatively: “Well, yes. Why are you all so beautiful? And I want to walk with that one, and with this one, and with the third one...” Of course, in order to find the one and only one, you need to have not only instinct of reproduction, but also...to be a person.
Women are initially focused on maintaining a couple with the father of their children, and they go out much less often. I once condemned such people, but now I cannot condemn unconditionally, because I have often encountered the fact that a woman was pushed into cheating by her husband, by his own dogs antics... Although it also happens that a woman stupidly looks for a more successful male who will bring her a larger piece of the mammoth that she has from her current partner... But, in the end, this is also due to the instinct of reproduction - for her cub and for herself need a good power source...
Is it boring that our feelings and emotions are controlled by mundane and primitive physiology? Yes boring...
But who will object to me?
Jealousy is a feeling of possessiveness when the one you chose to satisfy your reproductive instinct suddenly finds another? It's a mess...You can find someone else, but he doesn't meet your subconscious requirement for the most suitable partner? Your instinct cannot be satisfied in the best possible way...
And you try to bring this person back to yourself, or you suffer that he left...
What if he, the one you chose for yourself, is better off with someone else? he (or she) does not need you, but another, you will not be able to fulfill your purpose on this earth - to produce offspring - with the one you need. But he can do it...
With another?
Yes, with someone else...
And he (or she) will feel good about it...
And rejoice for the one who is dear to you. You can’t be next to him, you can’t feel his warm and elastic lips on your lips, you won’t dissolve in his arms, you won’t be able to simultaneously bend over your sleeping child and rock him together so that the baby, your baby, fell asleep. You will not see in the features of your child the eyes of the one you needed so much, because the child will look at you through the eyes of another, whom you took for yourself out of despair, or after time, having come to terms with your failure...
But if you think about someone who didn’t get to you, and you feel warm from this thought, if at the news that everything is fine with that person, he is happy (or happy) with someone else, your soul warms, although bitterness makes you shrink heart means you love.
You are lucky - you have known LOVE. Your feelings have outgrown the primitive instinct of reproduction, and you are capable of truly loving. That's great rarity...
If you can let go of the person you so need in this life, and sincerely be happy for him, if everything is fine with him, be happy for yourself too...
Even if you painfully remember your loss in the arms of someone else who is tolerable to you, but not so desirable, still be happy for yourself. The person or person you love feels good - and that means you feel good too...
You have reached a high level of spiritual maturity...
Level... of a swan... Or - level of wolves... Strange and ridiculous as it sounds...
But no. Of course not. Birds and animals still feel primitively, and if they do not want to start a family with another partner, this only means that in their minds there is no longer a partner suitable for their requirements. And they are not worth looking for. And they remain lonely... It is unlikely that a bird, even the most beautiful one, will rejoice if its companion begins to create a family with another. Of course, the one left behind will fight for his...
And man...If you love, know how to let go of your beloved. And may you be comforted by the thought that you have learned something that rarely anyone in our hectic life succeeds in - Real Love.
Date of creation: 03/31/2008
Update date: 02/27/2019
As practice shows, the sexual sphere of “homo sapiens” is complex and diverse, and also quite confusing: there are a lot of misconceptions, false beliefs, internal resistances and other things. But on the other hand, with all the ambiguity of human sexuality, this topic creates a lot of psychological and socio-psychological problems for many people (not to mention problems of an intimate nature).
“All progressive people said as one: “Why this hypocrisy? We must look at sexual need like all our other needs.” In my simplicity, I believed them, but then I realized that they mean something completely different. They mean We mean that the above-mentioned need must be treated as we do not treat any need. […] Any cruelty and any betrayal are justified if we are talking about love and passion. All this is similar to a moral system according to which it is impossible to steal, but. You can steal apricots. If you start to object, they will answer you with arguments or exclamations about the truth, beauty and even holiness of passion and accuse you of puritanical disdain for the joys of love. If I think that boys should not steal apricots, that means. Is it that I’m generally against apricots or against boys? Perhaps I’m against theft?”
Clive Lewis, "The Right to Happiness"
As practice shows, the sexual sphere of “homo sapiens” is complex and diverse, and also quite confusing. Classical Freudians try to explain many things, including the problems of the unconscious, from the standpoint of human sexuality - and get even more confused. Some consultants generally avoid working with this area, since there are a lot of misconceptions, false beliefs, internal resistances and other things in it.
But on the other hand, with all the ambiguity of human sexuality, this topic creates a lot of psychological and socio-psychological problems for many people (not to mention problems of an intimate nature). And quite often the topic of human sexuality (and others like it) comes up during a psychotherapeutic consultation in the office.
I have already written about this “in general,” but now let’s try to figure it out in more detail – and maybe a little from afar: starting with “our little brothers.”
The sexual instinct and the reproductive instinct in humans are far from the same thing. These are two different phenomena (albeit sometimes connected indirectly through a single center of pleasure).
On the one hand, if the sexual instinct and the reproductive instinct in humans were one and the same, then you would have approximately as many children as you have had sexual intercourse to date. Or vice versa: you would have sex approximately as many times in your life as you have children.
And on the other hand, if we again remember about our familiar amoeba, it divides in a nutrient medium without any sexual instinct at all.
So the sexual behavior of Homo sapiens was formed separately at a later stage.
It is almost always useful to remember that sexual behavior and the reproductive instinct are not the same thing. In particular, when you hear passages that are amazing in their naivety like “A man is polygamous by nature, because as a male he needs to distribute his sperm to as many females as possible to preserve the species.” And this, they say, justifies such behavior. But most likely, some men are simply embarrassed to say that with their promiscuous behavior they are solving some other issues, most often of a completely non-sexual nature - the same problems of self-affirmation, for example. And such behavior is even more far from issues of reproduction.
From the point of view of modern paleontology, life on Earth originated approximately three to three and a half billion years ago. But this was life in elementary protein forms. Only prokaryotes existed on earth: nuclear-free protozoa (although some of them - the same bacteria - still surround us).
Prokaryotes do not have a sexual reproduction system and reproduce very efficiently by simple division. But under such conditions, hereditary information is fixed and transmitted very unreliably. As a result, nature at this stage developed according to the principle of “one step forward, two steps back”: positive evolutionary changes were practically not preserved in subsequent generations, being lost in random mutations.
But over time (after about two to three billion years), a certain revolution occurred during evolution: hereditary information began to be collected in concentrated form - in the cell nucleus. Accordingly, eukaryotes arose - nuclear (nucleus-containing) organisms. And in addition to the fact that DNA, as a carrier of genetic information, began to be stored inside the cell nucleus, more protected from random external influences than the entire cytoplasm of the cell actively interacting with the environment, and in mirror double quantity, another, new possibility of preserving this information and transmitting it to descendants in the most unaltered form. This opportunity marked the beginning of future sexual reproduction.
Let us again remember the amoeba: it, as is known, “splits in half” - and two new individuals are obtained, “inheriting” the full chromosome set of the “parent”. But sometimes two different amoebas merge and only then divide - forming more than two separate individuals, each of which already has its own new set of chromosomes, consisting of intact genes from both “parents”.
To give an example-analogy, imagine that two people were given exactly the same copy of a fairly important and carefully edited text written on wax tablets. And these people carried these tablets with them, living in different conditions: one, say, in a warmer climate, and the other in a colder climate. Or the living conditions (and storage of the signs) differed in some other way. When these two people met, it turned out that on one copy the text was damaged in some places, and on the second - in completely different places. But as a result, when “comparing” two copies, you can easily accurately restore the entire original text.
In much the same way, the principle of sexual reproduction, which involves the genetic information of not one, but two individuals of the same species, makes it possible to preserve hereditary information that becomes increasingly complex in the process of evolution and reliably transmit it to offspring. In fact, this method of increasing reliability in cybernetics is called a “first-level RAID array.”
Moreover, nature did not initially include in this system that the sex of two individuals should be different. As shocking as this may sound. The problem with the “gender difference” arises when multicellularity appears, and it becomes necessary to have special organs for transmitting and receiving genetic information from another individual, which is also quite complex. But it is difficult for the body to ensure the full development of such organs for both reception and transmission. The functions of these organs are not simple, but they are still needed relatively rarely. Therefore, it is simply unprofitable to maintain two sets of very complexly functioning organs at once.
Of course, among the more primitive multicellular organisms (up to and including annelids) there are species whose representatives are hermaphrodites. The mechanism of reproduction of such species is quite complex and is essentially the same as sexual reproduction: one individual fertilizes another. But at the same time, among hermaphrodites, the risk of “self-fertilization” also remains, in which the meaning of “comparing two genetic copies” is lost. It is also for this reason that the “sexual specialization” of organisms is steadily developing.
However, the emerging sex difference did not only have a positive effect on reproduction. For now the individuals have another task: the problem of finding the “carrier of the second copy of the genetic code,” that is, a partner for reproduction. Such a partner, considering that we are still talking exclusively about reproduction, was also not needed very often (at least not every day: and some animals generally reproduce once in their lives!) and, as a result, was not always present in achievable proximity . Thus, those species that survived first of all were those that cared quite seriously about reproduction, and in particular about such a search for a “second participant.” Naturally, the same pleasure center was involved to implement this behavior.
But again, since this participant is not in demand every day, the instinct to find a partner - as part of the reproductive instinct - has acquired a certain kind of episodic character: during certain periods it is muted, not yet in demand, but when it is expressed, it happens quite powerfully and actively . And its implementation was cemented with intense pleasure.
The instinct of reproduction is so powerful precisely for the purpose of survival of the species. In any case, the hyper-significance and hyper-expressiveness of the sexual instinct has been established evolutionarily, including among “homo sapiens”.
But more about the man a little later. Let's continue about the little brothers for now.
Even in animals, the exploitation of the excessive expression of the sexual instinct began, and the reproductive instinct itself gradually began to break away from the sexual instinct as such. Sex as an “influence on the pleasure center” began to be used not only to acquire offspring, but for other purposes. One example is the removal of excessive aggressiveness.
The aggressiveness that accompanies reproduction is another side factor in the division into two sexes. Because finding a partner for reproduction is fraught with various obstacles, including the elimination of possible rivals. Thus, in animals, the sexual instinct is often associated with pronounced aggressiveness, and sexual release helps to reduce this aggressiveness. For example, if a lion, carried away by the new need for reproduction (and therefore quite aggressive), approaches the place where the lioness with cubs is located, then the lioness often leaves the den to meet the male and takes a stand position. Despite the fact that she herself is currently not fertile and conception is impossible for her.
Here are a few more examples of “the exploitation of the sexual instinct - or rather, its influence not as a center of pleasure - for non-sexual purposes.”
Sometimes a young male monkey will anger the leader with something, and the leader will chase him, intending to give him a good beating. And it happens that it is difficult to escape: then the young one also takes a stand position, imitating a female ready for mating. The leader sees this and, as a rule, cools down. But the young male did not call the leader for a homosexual act at all, but only “asked for forgiveness” for his actions! For the stand pose among primates is at the same time a “submission pose”: that is, in fact, a way of communicating “I recognize that you are stronger and more important than me.”
Of course, for a “reasonable person,” in theory, everything should not be so primitive: especially if the person is truly intelligent and does not gravitate toward the way of thinking of “lesser brothers.” But this will be discussed separately below.
In general, the “high sexuality of monkeys” in fact often turns out to be simply an expression of a clear need for communication. For example, a way to show a fellow tribesman that “I enjoy communicating with you, I get pleasure from your communication.” And how can we say this other than to influence the pleasure center of another individual through sexually charged behavior - especially given the extreme poverty of verbal communication capabilities?
Another example of such “exploitation of the sexual instinct” is the so-called incentive mating. When a non-fertile female (if, for example, she has offspring) needs additional food that she cannot obtain herself, she often offers mating to the male for food.
That is, gradually everything went to the point that sex as an impact on the center of pleasure and reproduction as procreation became two different, separate instincts¸ often quite far apart from each other. And the “use of sex not for the purpose of reproduction” is especially pronounced in humans. The impact on the pleasure center through sex in “Homo sapiens” significantly separated intimate contacts and reproduction. And with the exploitation of sexually determined behavior, people’s reproductive tasks have moved not even to second place, but to an even more distant place.
For people with sex in general, everything is much more complicated. As we had to mention in the article “On Human Sexuality”, the intimate intimacy of people always carries an additional “social load”; it is always, so to speak, burdened with some additional meaning and significance - by the way, mostly unconscious.
Almost all human feelings and sensations are included in the sexual function of people. In general, more than once in my work I had to recall the statement of the famous sexologist G.V. Vasilchenko: “When, excuse me, a male donkey sees a female donkey in a state of estrus (or, in the usual words - in heat), everything will go according to plan and everything It will work out great. That is, in other words, everything that creates anxiety, nervous tension and other problems in a person’s sex arises only from the fact that we are people, not donkeys.”
And, returning to the original topic of our conversation - the hiddenness of ovulation in female representatives has finally separated sexuality and reproduction in “Homo sapiens”. As is known, in animals the female is fertile only during estrus: and as already mentioned, finding a male and having sex with him is almost equivalent to fertilization. And for a “human female,” so to speak, not only are ovulation and menstruation separated by time, but there are also no obvious, external signs of the most favorable days for fertilization! Even the woman herself is not able to determine the days of her ovulation without additional measures. Not to mention the fact that sexual desire does not always arise during this period.
Thus, at the biological level, the actual process of sexual intercourse and all sexuality in humans have seriously diverged from reproductive function.
In this regard, the common phrase with negative connotations that someone “fucks like brutes” (sorry for the quote) seems especially ridiculous. This means that people accused of this type lead a frequent and promiscuous sex life. However, how valid is such a parallel? As is known, animals “fuck” (that is, perform sexual intercourse) almost always for the sake of conceiving offspring (with perhaps some exceptions, and only in higher animals). Thus, if people, I quote again, “fucked like cattle,” then they would have performed exactly as many sexual acts in their lives as they planned to give birth.
So such an accusation in this particular form is somewhat unfounded, to put it mildly.
It is man who is the “sexiest animal”, since he can have sex almost at any time, regardless of his fertility (in particular, many women lead an intense intimate life even after menopause, and in general, for representatives of both sexes, the ability to conceive does not affect intensity of sexual desire). Moreover, many sexologists have repeatedly mentioned that there is no upper age limit for a person’s intimate life. And even impotence (age-related) was regarded not as the norm, but as a disorder of sexuality.
True, in this case it should be mentioned that a person’s ability to perform sexual intercourse is a complex function, and with more or less constant “use” it remains until very old age, and with equally constant non-use it gradually fades away, and quite early. Interestingly, this applies not only to men, but also to women. In other words, to prolong this period, it is advisable to maintain sexual function and perform it certainly not two or three times in your entire life. And at the same time, taking into account modern realities, do not forget about the required level of contraception.
But then for what – such a rhetorical question! – does “homo sapiens” have sex, if not just for reproduction?
Already at the level of primitive people, perhaps the leading function of human sexuality came to the fore: hedonistic. That is, aimed at obtaining pleasure, and even more precisely, at preserving and maintaining “emotional homeostasis.”
For example, if we take the same amoeba, then with this homeostasis everything is simpler for it: moving towards food - pleasure, approaching danger - displeasure, moving away from danger - pleasure again.
If we consider more complex organisms (the same animals), then for them, on an instinctive level, avoiding danger is also a pleasure. Relatively speaking, if a cat is chasing a mouse, the mouse is scared; if the mouse runs away from the cat into a hole, the mouse feels good.
With man everything is more complicated, even with primitive people. He managed to escape from the saber-toothed tiger into a cave - good. But the man, unlike the mouse, knows that perhaps this giant cat is still wandering around the cave?
In contrast to animals, humans gradually developed the function of “looking ahead,” forecasting, and strategy. At the same time, many dangers began to be seen more clearly, sharply and, as they say, in full (and apparently, this is where the phenomenon of “woe from the mind” and the attitude “it’s easier for fools to live” originates - at least until the moment when the carefree mouse crawled out of the hole without first looking around). Moreover, the more intelligence a person has, the desire to foresee events and see the troubles that threaten him in full, the more “hedonic impressions” he needs to maintain emotional homeostasis. And he began to look for various mechanisms of pleasure for himself.
If there is a preponderance of negative factors, there are roughly two ways to maintain emotional homeostasis in a still rather aggressive external environment.
The first is getting rid of the notorious “grief from the mind,” or rather, from this very mind. In modern terms, these are psychotropic drugs, narcotic drugs and alcohol. That is, everything that destroys the corresponding activity of the brain, causing immunity and ultimately complete insensitivity to negative, potentially dangerous environmental factors. As a result, a person stops feeling that he is approaching this or that danger, and he will almost always feel good. Until negative factors have their impact.
The second way is to find something creative and positive in life that, as opposed to negative factors, would fall on the second side of the scale and return the person to a state of emotional homeostasis. But this is much more difficult: not everyone can determine where and what exactly to find for themselves in this regard. And sex, by its original nature, exploits (and quite powerfully) primarily the center of human pleasure. Therefore, many use it as a “counterbalance to negative environmental factors.” And this can work perfectly under one condition - if everything in the sexual life of a particular person goes more or less smoothly. Alas, now this does not happen as often as we would like - precisely taking into account the fact that “we are people, not donkeys.” Although at first some people, blinded by the power of the sexual instinct, may not notice other rough edges.
So, sex in humans itself turns out to be gradually further and further away from the specific function of reproduction. Now even many experts call the hedonic function of a person’s intimate activity the main one.
With the course of evolution, sexual pleasure, especially with the development of intelligence, moved further and further away from the “rude pressing of a button” and became on a par with those pleasures that are now commonly called intellectual. Moreover, the exploitation of the pleasure center gradually began to be separated from the sexual act itself. If we assume that any component of “reproductive activity” should bring pleasure on an instinctive level, then in humans, part of such activity is intimacy, communication, flirting, and many other “near-sexual things,” and not just coitus itself.
In general, tracking the evolution of man and his cultural and historical development, it is easy to see how art, developing on the basis of sexuality and eroticism, moves further and further away from sex itself. And perhaps we can say that eroticism and sexuality can be called the foundation of all art. But the erotic culture of an individual, or even an entire society, is largely based on the ability not to highlight this very foundation, not to present only this, excuse the involuntary pun, bare foundation in the form of art. However, at the same time, this foundation must be present one way or another so that art, like love, does not turn into “castles in the air.”
But on the other hand, sex gradually turned into something sacred for people, sometimes endowed with some supernatural properties. And it is not surprising that with the help of sex a person began to solve non-sexual problems. With the help of sex, people sometimes not only reproduce or get pleasure, but also resolve issues of power, self-esteem, and other emotional and censorship needs. And we must not forget that this can also work to achieve “emotional homeostasis” (taking into account the fact that the very concept of this homeostasis in humans is very ambiguous). The feeling of one’s own “interim role” in society can be compensated for in one person or another by various behavioral markers that are uniquely perceived in a particular society.
For example, he behaves like a Casanova, primarily in quantitative terms” – in fact, with the goal of feeling “as if he is the leader of the pack and has a harem.” It’s not that he wanted all these women as partners for the sake of obtaining direct sexual pleasure: he wants to establish himself precisely in quantity, while he can personally regard each specific sex with each specific partner as a difficult task. And what do you think, will he tell someone the real reason for such behavior? And will he be able to do it himself at the level of consciousness? understand this? That all his exploits on the intimate front are only so that he himself does not feel like an omega in society (It’s another matter that in such cases a person is banging on the wrong door, and that this problem can be solved in other ways). a person will in every possible way support the postulate that “men are polygamous by nature, they strive to sleep with as many women as possible in order to leave their sperm everywhere and give birth to offspring.” But in fact, the reason is not at all in the sperm and not in the offspring - but under such cover, especially considering that ethology has now become fashionable to some extent, he will even more so feel not like an omega, but a “dominant male” at least - he hopes - in the eyes of society. It’s just that behavior that solves completely different problems of the individual, and tasks that are carefully hidden, is given a socially acceptable and even very “rank” basis.
This is true not only for men: some women can also assert themselves in this way (it’s not for nothing that books from the “How to Become a Bitch” series and the like have become so popular in recent years). Moreover, what is often important here is not the sex itself (in the sense of sexual intercourse), but the process of seduction itself, often in the form of the famous game “dynamo”.
Many more examples can be given here, but in the end we come to the conclusion that a person’s sexuality and his social role (or roles in different societies) become entangled in a rather tight ball, and when this or that person, or even society (sometimes quite large) !) becomes completely entangled in it - the problem is often solved according to the principle of the Gordian knot: by cutting. That is, sexuality is clearly divorced from a person: as a result, we have either specific individuals - “convinced asexuals and antisexuals”, or entire communities in which attitudes like “surrender yourself not for pleasure, but for posterity” reign, up to a complete ban on sex and any mention of him. Simply because it is difficult to give sexuality its proper place in order to use it for the harmonious development of the individual or society. It’s easier to definitely ban it, alas.
Here, as the analysis progresses, an additional question arises: can asexuals be “convinced”? After all, as you know, asexuality is either a complete absence of desire for sex, or such a rare desire that it can actually be considered absent. But if a person doesn’t want something, does he just not want it? For example, someone doesn’t eat honey, someone doesn’t like it, but it can hardly be said that the person is a “convinced anti-honey person”? It seems that he does not solve his problems with honey, he simply does not eat it, and there are no problems. However, the situation changes if the majority of people around, the media and other sources of information, especially among current society, begin to convince a person in every possible way that “everyone should definitely eat honey, and in large quantities, because honey is a terribly healthy product, and whoever doesn’t eat it - everyone faces serious problems." Then a person can, with sufficient tension, begin to defend his right not to eat honey, as well as the fact that he does not have any serious problems in connection with this.
Roughly the same thing happens to an ordinary asexual, if external, “public” censorship puts pressure in the direction of “everyone should have sex a lot and often, and all the problems come from the lack of it.” Then the person, especially when they start asking him (!) when he last had sex, proudly answers: “I am asexual!” Because this will at least temporarily give him some kind of right “not to have sex” so that he is not pressured with this question.
And sometimes asexuality, on the contrary, becomes a consequence of the fact that censorship from childhood gradually convinces the opposite: that “sex is dirt, it’s bad,” and all this penetrates into the unconscious. If, for example, you were told from childhood that honey is not healthy, it’s dirt, it’s bad? One of my clients couldn’t even stand the smell of honey after her grandmother told her as a child that “honey is bee poop” (!). Thus, “convinced anti-copperness” is not always formed, but internal denial is formed at the level of the unconscious. As a result of censorship.
And often the professional task of a psychotherapist is precisely to assist a specific individual in “determining the adequate place of his (her) sexuality.” In this process, the role of sexual-erotic culture and sexual literacy of a particular person is already very large.
...So, sex in a person performs quite a variety of functions: it can also be an expression of emotional intimacy, a sense of ownership, and many other indirect sexual sensations. So it is hardly reasonable, due to one’s own sexual illiteracy, to primitivize a person’s sexual function in general, and thereby first of all cause all sorts of problems for oneself.
And if a person’s sexuality is used by him not only for reproductive purposes, it becomes possible to “exploit” this human function not only in a heterosexual couple. A certain number of homosexual couples and even families are appearing - with all the set of social functions inherent in a family. It’s another matter that in some states such families are not yet officially recognized, but I think it’s still only a matter of time. Precisely given the fact that human sexuality has moved quite far away from fertility, and objections like “they don’t reproduce anyway, why register them” are frankly untenable. In fact, a modern nuclear family is a kind of closed joint-stock company, cemented, in addition to the “mutually accepted Charter” and “movement of the general burden of life in one direction,” also by psychological attachment between partners; but again, what difference does it make to anyone between whom and with whom this attachment arose among specific capable adults? Moreover, I assume that the higher the level of social and intellectual development of a particular society, the less fundamental the heterosexuality of partners in the family becomes, not to mention the “clear delineation of socio-gender roles.”
And the “products of a family joint-stock company” may not necessarily be children. Moreover, speaking not only about same-sex couples, but about all couples, even heterosexual ones, who for one reason or another are not ready or simply do not want to have children - the increase in infant survival by several times compared to previous centuries formally frees people who do not strive for this from "duties of population reproduction." So childless families, regardless of their gender composition, can also very well bring enormous “benefit to society” (if this is precisely the problem) – “giving birth” to scientific discoveries, works of art “and other good deeds.” Not to mention the fact that such a thing as giving birth to children is hardly worth doing out of duty, duty or obligation.
To summarize, I will repeat again that the topic of “Homo sapiens sexuality” is complex and controversial. And that everything written about it may not directly explain the reasons for this or that problem in this area for a particular person, not to mention the ways to solve them. Yes, there is a great temptation to simplify everything by calling oneself an “animal,” or, going to the other extreme, to consider oneself “free from such dirt as sex.” However, it is no coincidence that sexologists quite often repeat that “man does not live by sex alone.”
And most likely, we will have to return to this topic more than once, unraveling this tangle gradually and still quite generally. However, as for each individual person who has some unresolved questions and problems in this area, it is much more effective to understand these problems (which, by the way, are not always related specifically to sexuality) when working directly with a specialist: a psychotherapist, a psychoanalyst, sexologist. If you like, this approach to solving one’s own problems is also an essential element of human culture: including sexual-erotic culture.
I want to know the reasons for hysterics
I want to know the reasons for the error
I want to know the causes of psychotrauma
I want to know my unconscious Themes: instincts, psychoanalysis, sexual problems, ethology.
© Naritsyn Nikolay Nikolaevich
psychotherapist, psychoanalyst
Moscow
